IV " - " ""‘N ' " ””"T'T‘ " " “” '7 A , ”7-”. 7. 7 “’1

..........

PATFFRNING OF FAMILY RESOURCES FOR EDUCABILITY‘ , ',
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT *
IN COSTA RICAN FAN‘ILIES

  
 

 

 

~~~~~

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
GEORGIANNE RUTH BAKER

‘,..

 

S

I NIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3129319 LIBRARY

,J MWS .Michigan State
‘ University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
      

This is to certify that the

 

thesis entitled

PATTERNING OF FAMILY RESOURCES FOR EDUCABILITY:
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT
IN_COSTA RICAN FAMILIES

presented by

13r'~'~',

Georgianne Ruth Baker

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. Family and Child

Sciences

/7 , p /7

Major professor

degree in

Date July 10. 1970

0-169

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

PATTERNING OF FAMILY RESOURCES FOR EDUCABILITY:
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT
IN COSTA RICAN FAMILIES
By

Georgianne Ruth Baker

The problem of the study was two-fold. First was
refinement of a conceptual framework and measurement
model for a managerial construct, family resource pat-
terns, related to a developmental construct, educability
of the preschool child. Family resource patterns were
operationalized by nine resource categories: space,
movement, care and appearance, play, task and work,
child's learning, family learning, child's social contacts
and family social contacts. Educability referred to the
goal of having the child prepared for successful partici-
pation in school. Second was investigation of hypo-
thesized relationships between family resource patterns
for educability and family status and structure charac-
teristics, using a sample of 89 intact families with pre-
school children in Costa Rica, Central America.

For data collection in homes, original instruments

were deve10ped including an Occupation and Income Survey,

Georgianne Ruth Baker

nine Resource Inventories, and nine sets of drawings of
resource-related activities (involving preschool children
and persons of their home environment) with focused ques-
tions (Picture Questions Instrument). Sources of items
for inventories and activities for drawings included
those used in a previously constructed instrument, obser-
vations in Costa Rican homes, consultation with inform-
ants and researchers, and the pertinent literature. The
Scoring system developed for the combined resource data
provided numerical scores on four dimensions for each re-
source category: Availability-Quantity, Availability-
Quality, Use-Quantity, and Use-Quality. Dimension scores
were transformed to comparable ratings, then summed to
resource ratings, and finally to total ratings for sta-
tistical and descriptive analyses.

Major findings were the following:

The managerial-developmental framework, originally
conceptualized for, and applied in, another culture,
demonstrated applicability in this cultural group of
families. For scoring reliability, an approximation of
89 per cent consistency was found for 36 resource mea-
sures, based on results of one-way analyses of variance
for different scoring treatments on two randomly assigned
groups.

Evidence for construct validity included differ-

ential meaningfulness for each of four resource

 

-'~ “Irv“!
J-.-enu)&4llu ’

re.aticns t
fat-6A

“fin
”'N‘V'v'l Shh».

* L
"2 1W" 4. .
“It .1", Ella. ,

21m coeffj

:M‘ Ma

\
a“! b“.‘I‘G

“v.

52$ ‘

“ IQr

Tr.‘¥

“Ayn“? A
-‘V q

‘t.

\"vrj’1 +-

3

Georgianne Ruth Baker

dimensions, ascertained by examination of significant par-
tial correlation coefficients with total resource ratings
(TRR). The fourth dimension (UQL) seemed unique in com-
parison with the other three because: first, its meaning
was derived from the mother's verbalized perception of
relations between current resource activities and future
school success, based solely on the Picture Question
Instrument; second, there was only one partial correla-
tion coefficient with TRR significant at the .01 level;
and third, the multiple correlation coefficient with TRR
was smaller than those for the other three dimensions.
The UQL dimension merits further study to decide whether
it was poorly conceptualized, or irrelevant, in terms of
the culture, or inadequately measured.

Validation for the interdependent—interrelated as-
pect of resource patterns was evident in the clustering
of 33 of 36 intercorrelation coefficients of the resource
measures, significant at the .01 level. Chi square
analysis and contingency coefficients showed: first,

a significant, substantial relationship existing between
TRR and range of individual resource ratings, inter-
preted as indicating that extent and consistency of re-
sources available were related in the child's environment;
second, that the level of family resources for educa-
bility was significantly related to family status char-

acteristics (education, income, residence), but not to

 

In an 9x121:

I
5"
(I)

H
LJ.
; 1
p.»
(‘4‘
(D

Georgianne Ruth Baker

family structure characteristics (nuclearity, size, age
and sex of preschool children).

There appeared to be potential for use of the
conceptual-measurement system in descriptive family analy-
sis, demonstrated by a profile of family resource ratings.
In an exploration of concurrent validity, the predictive
contribution of the construct family resource patterns
was limited; however, no conclusion was warranted due to
the empirical, exploratory nature of the problem.

The study offered implications for theory of
management in families, for cross-cultural research and

action programs with families.

 

PATH"

PATTERNING OF FAMILY RESOURCES FOR EDUCABILITY:
CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT

IN COSTA RICAN FAMILIES

By

Georgianne Ruth Baker

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Sciences

1970

/-. 9:1"? -- “7/

@DCopyright by
GEORG IANNE RUTH BAKER

1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Especial appreciation is expressed to the members of
my advisory committee: to Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, chairman,
for her unique insight in guiding the study and whole-
hearted support of its interdisciplinary and cross-cultural
aspects, to Dr. Francis M. Magrabi, for her assistance in
computer programming, and who, with Dr. Jean D. Schlater
and Dr. Armin Grams, offered many valuable criticisms.

Certain phases of the study were completed while
working at the Center for Teaching and Research, Inter-
american Institute of Agricultural Sciences (O.A.S.),
Turrialba, Costa Rica. Gratitude is extended for the
interest and support of the Institute. It is especially
expressed to Dr. Linda J. Nelson, colleague at the Insti-
tute, and to Mrs. Maria Eugenia D. Vargas of the Uni-
versity of Costa Rica, both of whom offered helpful
advice and encouragement. For technical help the efforts
of Mrs. Inés S. Santisteban and Mrs. Barbara B. Zfifiiga
are appreciated.

Gratitude is extended also to the Institute of
Nutrition of Central America and Panama, and to the Costa
Rican Ministry of Public Health for assistance in obtain-
ing the study sample. It was a privilege to collect data

11

in the homes of the participating families and I am grate-
ful for their contribution.

To Dr. Robert D. Hess and Dr. Virginia C. Shipman
are extended my appreciation for the opportunity to work
under their stimulating guidance at the University of
Chicago as part of my graduate study.

Gratitude is also expressed for financial assistance
during graduate study from the General Foods Corporation,
the American Home Economics Association, and at Michigan
State University--alumni of the College of Human Ecology,
the Graduate School, and Office of International Programs.

Finally, I am thankful to family and friends for

their generous interest in the research reported here.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . .

LIST OF
LIST OF
LIST OF
Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLES . . . . .
FIGURES O O O O C
APPENDICES. . .

INTRODUCTION . .

Objectives . .
Assumptions. .
Hypotheses . .
Definitions. .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Management in the Family

Resources:
Management . .

Family as Environment

PROCEDURE . . . .

Fundamental Concept

Selection and Description of Sample.

”Selection and Description of Instruments

Data Collection .
Data Analysis .

FINDINGS . . . .

Method of Measurement
Dimensions of Resourcefulness.

Interrelated Patterning of Resources

Hypothesis 1 . .
Hypothesis 2 . .
Hypothesis 3 . .

Relations of Individual Resources to
Status and Structure

Descriptive Use of Family Resource

Patterns . . .

iv

Page

ii
vi
viii

ix

«cunt» l—'

12
12

2L:
1‘7

60

6O
75
92
98

102

102 ,
lOA//’
107
107
110
112

112
127

 

Chapter

LITERATUR

APPENDICES

Chapter Page

V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . 13H
Discussion of Findings. . . . . . . 134
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 146
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 1A7
Implications . . . . . . . . . . 150

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I6“

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary definitions of dimensions by
resource categories . . . . . . .

Correlation of home resources factor with
mother's behaviors and child's performance
by working class group and sex of pre-
school child . . . . . . . . .

Status characteristics of sample (N = 89) .

Family characteristics of sample (N a 89) .

Characteristics of preschool children in
sample (N = 89) . . . . . . . . .

Content of pictures by order of presentation
and relevant resource category . . . .

Typology of structure of ratings: Resource
patterns for educability . . . . . .

Methods used in analysis of data . . .

Summary of significant differences between
resource scores in two scoring situations.

Partial and multiple correlations for scores
of each of four resource dimensions with
total resource rating . . . . . . .

Intercorrelation matrix for nine resource
ratings . . . . . . . . . . .

Relation between level of total resource
rating and range of individual resource
ratings . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relations between level of total resource
rating and selected family characteristics

Relations between space level and selected
family characteristics . . . . . . .

vi

Page

10

56
7O
73

76

86

93
100

103

105

108

109

111

114

Table Page

15. Relation between child's movement level and

father's educational status . . . . . 116
16. Relations between care and appearance level
and selected family characteristics. . . 118

17. Relations between child's play level and
selected family characteristics . . . . 119

18. Relation between child's task and work level
and mother's educational status . . . . 121

19. Relations between level of child's learning
opportunities and selected family
characteristics . . . . . . . . . 122

20. Relations between level of family learning
opportunities and selected family
characteristics . . . . . . . . . 12A

21. Relations between level of child's contacts

and selected family characteristics. . . 126
22. Relations between level of family contacts

and selected family characteristics. . . 128
23. Procedure for first transformation and

illustrations: from Resource scores to

ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
24. Procedure for second transformation and

illustration using scores from one family:
from Resource ratings to levels of

relation to educability. . . . . . . 251
25. Basic statistics for resource dimension
scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. COnceptual framework and measurement model
for study of family resource patterns for
educability of preschool child, and
relations to family characteristics. . . A

2. I.N.C.A.P. survey and study communities in
the Meseta Central of Costa Rica. . . . 68

3. A family profile: pattern of variability in
resources for education. . . . . . . 129

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
- A. Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . 165

B. Scoring Manual. . . . . . . . . . 217

C. Introductory Materials . . . . . . . 252

D. Table on Basic Statistics . . . . . . 256

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Organizing resources for goal achievement is a pro-
cess examined and discussed in home management as well as
in many social science areas concerned with education,
change and deveIOpment. This capacity for arranging
means to meet ends, when it operates within the family
where the "ends" sought affect individual growth and
potential, may play a significant intervening role in
societal change. Hagan suggests that, viewed over long
periods of time, families in their managerial-developmental
capacities may add impulse or impediment to national
social and economic goals (1). For this reason there is
need for increased scientific understanding, prediction,
and finally application of knowledge about resource
organization at the family level in both developing
countries and among subcultural groups in industrialized
countries.

Home management focuses on how families manage,
that is, organize or pattern, resources to mediate their
specific goals and values. In this study this focus is

oriented to an area of wide concern, that of family

environmental influences upon children's successful par-
ticipation in the educational system.

The study follows current emphases in home manage-
ment pointed out by Paolucci and others: concept defini-
tion, structural relationships and identification of
behavioral and environmental variables related to family
decision-making situations (2, 3, A, 5). The theoretic
orientation combines a managerial and a developmental
point of view in support of the philosophy that optimal
human development should be the criterion for family
management, and that individual members actively partic—
ipate in family managerial efforts (6, 7). When the
family environment is unsupportive of human development,
imaginative solutions may be required. However, in order
to suggest action, there is need for theoretic and analyti—
cal orientations that help structure family observations
and guide inter-family comparisons. This study explores
such an orientation.

Problems of conceptual and measurement equivalence,
as Straus has discussed them, are considered and a method
of measurement proposed as a procedure which may index
the construct "family resource patterns for educability"
in various cultural groups or societies, although phe-
nomenal identity (through use of the same questions and
items as well as method of quantification) may not be

completely possible (8).

Obiectives

 

First, the study attempts to construct a conceptual

framework and method of measurement and, second, explores

relationships between family resource measures and

selected family characteristics (see Figure l on the

following page). Families rating high on resource pat-

terns for educability are compared with those rating at

middle and low levels. Specifically, answers are sought

to the following questions:

1.

Beginning from a managerial-developmental
orientation, what generalized properties of
family environment indicative of high educative
capacity might one specify and attempt to
operationalize?

Can conceptual and measurement equivalence of
family resource patterns be approached byfirst
develOping operational definitions from data and
then comparable measures through a procedure of
transforming heterogeneous scores to standardized
ratings?

What evidence can be found for both distinctive
dimensions and interrelated patterning of re-
sources?

What relation is there between how a family
rates on a total resource measure and the

variability in ratings it exhibits?

 

EDUCABILITY

 

 

Capacities
of Child

 

Educative Capacities
of Environment

 

 

Objectives:

To construct conceptual
framework and measurement
model for relating family

resource patterns to
educability.

 

FAMILY RESOURCE PATTERNS

 

 

 

 

 

To relate family resource
patterns to family char-

j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family Contacts

 

 

acteristics.
Physical Constriction
Mental Stimulation Resourcefulness ‘1. _ FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
Social Interaction
RESOURCE RESOURCE QM no I
CATEGORIES DIMENSIONS “iATVQ STRUCTLRE
Space Nuclear-
Child's Movement Availability- Education Extended
Care-Appearance Quantity Occupation Family Size
Child's Play Definitions Income No. of Sib-
Child's Task-Work Availability- Residence lings
!Child's Learning Quality Preschool
Family Learning Child:
QChild's Contacts Use-Quantity Age & Sex
I
I
I

Use-Quality

 

 

 

V

 

Scores

 

 

l

 

 

RATINGS

Measures

 

‘7

 

 

 

‘P

 

 

17

GROUP FREQUENCIES

 

 

Figure 1.--Conceptual framework and measurement model for study of
family resource patterns for educability of preschool
child, and relations to family characteristics.

 

Do family resource patterns differ significantly
with respect to certain status characteristics?

Do family resource patterns differ significantly
with respect to certain structural characteris-

tics?

What possibilities are there for descriptive

and predictive use of the resource measures

developed in the study?

Answers to the first three questions are explored

through development of the conceptual framework and

measurement model. The next three questions are explored

by means of tests of hypotheses, and the last question by

two additional analyses: a family profile using the

framework of the study, and a regression problem using the

resource and status measures as predictors to a criterion

measure of family educational success.

Assumptions
Families in all cultures and at all status
levels may organize available resources in ways
that promote (or interfere with) the goal of
the deveIOpment of potential capacities of
their members.
These organizational activities and resources
present possibilities of observation and

measurement.

Among Costa Rican families, educability is a
relevant motivating goal for resource organi—
zation.

Mothers of preschool children are the persons
most familiar with activities involving the
children and can give accurate reports of such
activities by means of enumeration, description

and response to visual stimuli.

Hypotheses

 

Families at three resource levels (low, middle
and high with respect to educability) will
differ significantly in range of resource rat-
ings.

The proportion of families at three resource
levels (low, middle and high with respect to
educability) differs significantly by certain
status characteristics: education of parents,
occupation, income and residence.

The proportion of families at three resource
levels (low, middle and high with respect to
educability) differs significantly by certain
family structure characteristics: nuclearity,
size, number of siblings, sex and age of pre-

school child.

Definitions

1. Educability. The concept as explicated by Hess

 

and his research group (9, 10, ll) refers to preparation
of the preschool child to participate in later school
learning activities. Educability is a dynamic concept:
it may represent not only the young child's performance
and abilities, but also certain educative capacities of
his environment as inferred from family characteristics,
or from a combination of properties which seem to have
special developmental importance at the preschool age (12,
l3, 1“). Also, educability may be viewed as a value and
goal which depends upon the property of family resource-
fulness for attainment.

This study, then, focuses upon environmental as-
pects of educability, and considers it to be a family
goal mediated through family resource patterns.

2. Properties of special developmental importance
for theppreschool child. Physical-spatial constriction
.refers to crowding, movement levels and physical routines
which might interfere with either learning and attention
Or activity and manipulative experiences. Cognitive

stimulation refers to preparatory experiences and skills

 

for later learning, such as problem solving tasks,
dramatic play, culturally relevant knowledge, adult
guidance, and Opportunities for listening, remembering,

and copying. In the social-emotional or interpersonal

realm, interaction refers to general non-cognitive ex-

 

periences and exchanges which provide the child with
opportunities for attention, feedback and encouragement
from adults, older children and age-mates.

3. Resources. These are objects, events, activi-

 

ties or human beings within the child's environment that
are available and that might function to influence educa-
bility. Operationally, resources are those present in
the data for this sample of families, and which are sum-
marized by means of nine resource categories and the

above-mentioned properties of developmental importance:

 

 

Resource Categories Properties
Space, Child's Movement, Care and Constriction
Appearance

Child's Play, Child's Task and Work, Stimulation
Child's Learning, Family Learning

Child's Contacts, Family Contacts Interaction

A. Resourcefulness. This managerial property

 

.represents a combination of dimensions considered in
arriving at resource measures. The following typology

indicates how the dimensions are combined:

Resourcefulness Dimensions
Quantity Quality

Availability AQN AQL

 

Use UQN UQL

y 01‘

1‘.
.A-A“

1"

.rc
,2 IA

4..
L.

.3;

'1, even

I.'.

n4
Aid

.icted a

-§

3 nay

....
. H
Irv-AA Ce

v

01‘ P9

Q

_ ”VI?!
.1.“ 'J

-.-"

“H

...

orf~

HA
hrs.

D»
A\H

he

V

In.“

‘A

I'Wn
'4‘. Q
» cat

.
t“.
-
Vv

Pd

9»

5.:
.1
Kb.

Availability-Quantipy refers to resource amounts

 

actually or potentially accessible to the child and/or
family. "Potentially available" indicates that the
mother verbalizes (in response to questions about Picture
stimuli) an awareness that certain objects, activities, or
persons could be considered resources in a specific situa-
tion, even though she may not list them as presently
accessible to the child or family in her Inventory re-
sponses.

Availabilipy-Quality indicates particular, re-

 

stricted and pervasive variety by which available re-
sources may be described, categorized or delimited.

Use-Quantity refers to the amounts of actual, cus-

 

tomary or regular, or expected involvement activities of
child or family with resources.

Use-Quality indicates mother's verbalized perception

 

of relations (or non-relations) between each resource
category and the child's future participation (successful
or unsuccessful) in school activities (as indicated by
responses to Picture stimuli).

Definitions of the four dimensions as they relate to
resource categories in this study are summarized in Table
1, page 10.

5. Family resource patterns for educability. Ap-

plied to the family as environment, this analytical

 

 

77;:

 

 

 

. u . I 1 .I. ..- .l- 1.... .autlu a —;\.4:Iu...r\.- ‘(C—an
«2...: a...,»..<v «Znixv 2.2.1.... 7...
had—CZJIUSZ >..w 2:.23 .CIZ >.-~...Z,}I.....*~7...; ~1>< .A.._~ SCSINJIR...~H_-..-:>< 1.7:.3211
.11....(‘1 .3... .s...~...._...~.. >... ...:..cu..:...:u—. L... ~..:.._ euzrulf >,.-..

:2.:.....|| ~

.1. sv~ <L.

10

 

mmooozm
Hoocom magazm m.nHHno o»

 

 

 

onpH>Huom Hmfioom can mpomp mofiufi>fipom HmfiOOm cam aafiemm mmfiufi>auom muodpcoo
Icoo m.»afiemu mo cowumflom mpompcoo Hmsm: m.>HHEmm on» cfinufiz cogoucmo Hmfioom cam muoducoo AHHEmm
wmooosm Hoonom change
0» mofipfi>fiuom cam wuomp wmflufi>fiuom Hmwoom zHHEmu mmfipfi>fipom wuowpcoo
Icoo m.cflfino ho cofiumamm new wuompcoo Hmswz m.ofifizo on» Cacufiz cmpmpcoo HmfioOm can mucoucoo m.vHHco
mmmoozm
Hoocom onsusu m.p~fino mmwpfi>fiuom
on mmfiufi>fipom wcficpmoa mcfiCLmoH CH coaumq mcficsmoa SHHEmd wcficpmoa Lou wcficnmoq
m.>H«Emu no cofipmaom IHoHuLmd Hmzw: m.>HfiEmm do mmmcnoumHmnIHoocom onuH>Hpow cam muoonno SHHEmm
mmooosm Hoocom
manage ou mcfipfi>fipom mcficnmma CH mcficnmoa m.cHH:o wcficpmoa MCHcsmoq
Icnwofi m.uHHco co cofiumamm cofiumqfiofiusmq Hmsm: m.pafico CH mfifismm do ucwso>ao>cH Log mmfiufi>fipom new mpoonno m.cafico
. mmmoosw xnoz
Hoozow opsusa o» xnos cam xnoz use mxmmu CH cofiumo xcoz ecm meme» m.vfifico xpos new mxmmu cam mxmme
mxmmu m.nHHno no cofiumaom Ifiofipnmd Hmsm: m.naficu CH mawemd do pcceo>ao>cH HmCOmLoq Log mofipfiafinfimmOm m.cHH£o
mmooosm Hoocom onzuzu mofipfi>aoom swam
0» swag m.eHHco co :ofiumfimm swag Hana: m.eafico new massage co zsmfitm> mmHSH>fipom new muomwpo Amfii w.eHHso
mmooosm Hoonom mpzuzp o»
mofipa>fiuom cocmnmoqam new :ofiudssmcoo mood new mocmcmoaom new came mocmnmmqo<
opmo m.cafico uo cofiumaom tcficuoHo Hash: m.cHHLo :H ocfipson do maficmfizmmm mEmpH wcfizp0Ho cam ooom can undo
meUOSm Hoocom mpfi::EEoo Lo
change on ucoem>os mucmsoao Scoso>oe wcfi caocomzoc oh .coocconcmfioc .caonomzo: :H acmEo>oz
m.cafico no coauwamm I>Ho>CH mcofiuom m.nHH:o mucosmao do :oHSOfispwmm mpcmsoflo copmfimpupcmeo>oz m.uHHno
mmooosm Hoocom caoccmzo: cfi muoonno
opspzu o» mofipfi>fioom new moomom wcfi>ao>CH mucoEmHm mcomsmq Op cofipmHop
m.cH«£o do cowumflom mmfiufi>fiuom Hmzm: m.cHH:o mcfimzoc 2H mumfipm> :H moomom caocmmso: comqm
Agape Azeav Agg<v Azo<v stowoumo
msfifimzoumm: msascmsoumm: spfifimsauspfiafipmflfim>< asascmsouspfiflfipmafim>< moszommm

“INK. l .l I,

 

 

«mmfipowoumo oossommp an mcoflwcmefic no mcofipfichoc ancessmlu.a mqm<9

«we:

:‘icusly deff

i;eraticna1]
:5;3 ate res

:iiiarized i

11

construct summarizes resource organization based upon pre-
viously defined properties, resource categories and dimen-
sions, and variability in presumed relation to educability.
Operationally, family resource patterns are measured by
separate resource scores transformed into ratings, then
summarized into high, middle and low levels of relation

to educability.

The lit
general head
af'mdatental
rent. Both
~resented be:
instructs a ‘

on.n~
”:53 I

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature is reviewed under the following
general headings: management in the family, resources as
a fundamental concept in management, and family as envir—
onment. Both theory-oriented and research literature are
presented because both are pertinent to this study which
constructs a theory-related framework for research pur-

poses.

Management in the Family

 

A theoretical model of the managerial process, of
propositions more or less accepted within the field of
home management, and with some basis in empirical obser—
vation, has been summarized by Paolucci. This framework:

. . . assumes that management is a particular kind
of behavior (managerial) consisting of some basic
processes that relate to each other in discernable
patterns. The components of this framework in-
clude the following processes: (1) formulating
and selecting home—centered goals; (2) recogniz-
ing within the situation the presence of an op-
portunity or problem, and (3) achieving a goal

by specifying and analyzing feasible alternative
means, choosing the means to the goal, carrying
out these means, and guiding the action toward the
goal (2:339)-

12

13

One of several important ideas, discussed in rela-
tion to the framework, is that ". . . if a particular goal
is to be managed, it must be conscious" (2:3A0). This
idea of awareness, or of a perception which could be
verbalized, is found repeatedly in the work of others in
the management field. Another idea pertains to assessment
of management: its effectiveness can be measured by the
degree to which desired family activities and relationships
are attained. To provide the knowledge needed for esti-
mation of the consequences of particular activities for
specific ends, measurement of means and ends is required.
Lastly, Paolucci stresses the ". . . interplay and
significance of a single family's private management on
other families and social units such as schools, corpora-
tions, government" (2:3A2). This view of management
suggests that the framework is not solely oriented to the
family's internal life, but that at least equally signifi-
cant are the consequences of family managerial activities
for the larger society.

Liston has defined management similarly to Paolucci,
as a cognitive process involving perception, of making
resources productive to accomplish a family's discretely
selected goals. In a dynamic formulation, management is
viewed in the context of social process, originating in

change and resulting in change:

‘0"
("f
T
(D
.. b—q)
0)

*nt for
iruolve 5
Scarce Fe
to Paint
resources
. . . appl
vities in
may also 1

. . intI
(6: ESI

23.x gPOwtu
emhtnzents s
“1 states 5
is productivit
tie- productive
Listen has ct s

.... mana
e qualit

.en cha
JCCCUP not
relat
1
v‘ “.53
°~~AEty Tl
kt. ‘
‘~*enced b

lu

Perception of . . . internal or external change
by the family may bring awareness of a problematic
gap between the current situation and what is
deemed necessary or desirable--a gap which calls
for some form of adjustment. This gap may be per-
ceived mainly as one involving . . . goal priori-
ties or . . . kinds of resources considered rele-

. vant for the situation. The problematic gap may
involve special attention to . . . reallocation of
scarce resources among alternative uses in order
to maintain or to improve productivity of these
resources. It may be concerned primarily with
. . . appraisal and reorganization . . . of acti-
vities involved in resource use. Or, finally, it
may also be a problem of one or more forms of
. . . interaction among family members .
(6:65).

H

Taking a developmental stance, Liston and Paolucci
see management in the family as creating situations to
foster growth and maturation of its members, setting up
environments so that its members may move from less de-
sired states such as poverty to more desired states such
as productivity. Looking upon management as related to
the productive functioning of the family in society,
Liston has observed that:

. . . management by the family is much involved in
the quality of give and take between the family
and the other subsystems of its social environ-
ment--economic, political, community, cultural,
and physical (6:66).

When changes occur in the family's environment,
they occur not only within the family, but also in the
family's relationships to the needs of other subsystems

0f society. The family exerts influence upon, and is

influenced by, the larger society. Liston believes that:

Too litt
and pate
in the f

Liiited frat:
:anagezent.

tasic to her

as;
«Vn or in“
:4
sv‘vnzl
Uni:
Q
.I b 1
Odnaed
.r‘H

15

Too little attention has been given to the actual
and potential impact of the quality of management
in the family on various aspects of the general
welfare of our nation (6:61).

For research purposes, Deacon suggests a more
limited framework, emphasizing functional aspects of home
management. The rationale for home economics proposed as
basic to her conceptualization is:

. . . to study and interpret for families and for
the larger society the interrelatedness and al-
ternative possibilities for effective use of the
available human and material resources in meeting
needs (15:760).
Viewed within this context home management concentrates
upon ". . . the means by which the resources of indi-
viduals and families may be measured and managed purpose-
fully," while other areas in home economics deal with
nurture and personal development (15:760). In this
framework attention is given to understanding decision-
making processes by which resources are channelled to
reach goals, and to values and goals as the motivating
forces for effective management and bases for evaluation.

In a later conceptualization, Deacon and Maloch
utilize a systems approach to focus on regulation or con-
trol aspects of management, presenting an organized col-
lection of interrelated elements which have a boundary and
functional unity (16). The family is viewed as a social

system bounded by its membership, values and resources.

In this system, inputs are demands (the goals and events

rquiring ac
fineness of

afthe relat

‘I

a {at make
"“hzing he

~eies (su

l6

requiring action), and outputs are resource-use. Effec-
tiveness of management is to be indicated by examination
of the relation of output to input within the system.
Functional unity of the system is provided by
management (by which goals are responded to through use of
resources). Internal managerial components of the system
include planning, controlling, evaluation and decision-
making. Planning includes the ability to perceive, or to
foresee future needs or events, as well as objective ap-
praisal of related current situations.
Schlater has suggested reducing the managerial pro-
cess, or what may be viewed as Deacon's internal mana-
gerial components, to two major subprocesses: decision-
making (linking values, alternative perception and
selection) and decision-implementing (synonomous with
organizing, and requiring non-mental activity as well as
mental activity) (A). In viewing decision-implementing
as organizing, Bell's definition is helpful. Organiza-
tion is:
. . . the ordering of family life brought about by
balancing means, techniques, and activities that
are important to the family and to individuals
that make up the family (17:65).

Organizing means coordinating, integrating or arranging

strategies (such as planning, goal-setting, appraising,

adjusting) and resources into patterns appropriate to the

I 1
I

. _‘
.L-o-b

.rn‘
tI
and

“1
1”,"; Val;
circular

Upon it

choice 0
attrOpriI
an stra‘
gies ava:
chosen.

interdepe
and yet c

:ilprealcts

'I-n‘
\ \
y'vu

en and ti

:ganize its

.
'.r.

In rese

17

family's value system. Bell notes the interrelatedness
and circularity between family values and organization:

Upon it [value system of the family] rests the
choice of appropriate pattern of family life. The
appropriate pattern will help determine resources
and strategies to be used. Resources and strate-
gies available may help determine the pattern
chosen. . . . So, we have interrelationships and
interdependencies. . . . One part leading into,
and yet dependent upon, every other part (17:65).

Bell predicts that a family which is aware of its value
system and the resources and strategies at its command can
organize its life pattern effectively.

In research related to organizational patterns
Walker reports a pilot study of a proposed classification
for self-imposed standards for household tasks (18).
More than one component of a task was considered and a
scheme for relating standards to components was con-
structed. She says:

In the past, analysis of household work has

focused upon a certain aspect of the task, hold—
ing other aspects as constant. The concept of
self-imposed standards attempts to identify the
many components of a task that influence the
outcome and to study the way in which these com-
ponents are combined. . . .

. . . a study of standards may be a means of
helping . . . evaluate the manner in which they
[homemakers] allocate their resources to house-
hold work . . . [and] recognize possibilities
for change (l8zu60).

Here, "self-imposed" means that the person estab-

lishes the degree to which he will seek to incorporate
standards into his efforts. Standards are explicit cri-

teria which support evaluation of the extent of goal

:sievenent

flfiffi‘pp

w-wn aspe:

tynappears

.

N.‘ A

‘-:“H
' C

,.e to wk
In a f
321,151. V8111
flit-ems 0f
FfiiECtS a I.

.‘
r

“I; 1 ccrlnp,

.2 «a
‘ “an of

l8

achievement: they are considered with respect to either
the means of attainment (resources) or the accomplishment
itself. The number of possible standards can be reduced
by placing all tasks into three groups which differ in
their major contribution to goal achievement.

A pattern for a task, according to Walker, is a per-
son's individualistic approach. Underlying pattern is a
common thread, or similarities, in groups of tasks. These
common aspects or dimensions, when combined in some way,
lead to a standard for that group of tasks. "Individual—
ity" appears in how one orders these dimensions, and the
degree to which one strives to achieve each (18zu56).

In a factor-analytic study, Mumaw examined a par-
ticular value predisposition in relation to organizational
patterns of families (19). She assumed that organization
reflects a person's value of order (order need). Follow-
ing a conceptualization by Nichols (5), organization was
regarded in this study as a pattern, or structure of re-
lationships, which results from design and implementation
of plans for task completion at either the individual or
group level of effort. In order to identify organizational
patterns of each person, Mumaw factor-analyzed their
responses to an activities index, ending with four princi-
pal factors. Individuals were classified low, moderate or
high on each factor.' The researcher observed forty-six

different patterns of organizational components of task

These

.»r‘

_‘.u I

e

yr 8‘
OJ. a‘fla

.
:«t
.
.-wd

of
er than t

v
5- ‘

~v-
war».

tezperscns

»
.a vurxv“

:‘nc' ‘l' P

u

“
.egulariz

I
.
‘V‘V
‘¢

ion t

TIA-u!
‘V
PV~4t

L

.

In“

‘ I In
is!

V

'68 par

CDC

1

A‘Dro

\ I

h;

“Cpk, a1

V

l9

standardization, assignment, regularization and arrange-
ment. These patterns were then examined by situational
characteristics and order need (as measured by a check
list of adjectives designed to serve as an index of the
strength of the value).

Differences in organizational patterns were ex-
plained by a difference in value orientation. Low order
need persons tended to be oriented to creativity in task
organization, to be less conservative and more urbanized;
high order need persons tended to be more conservative and
rural. The high order need people scored significantly
higher than the other group on the task standardization
and regularization factors, both of which involved the
person in his own activities, not with other persons.
Mumaw suggests that this finding indicates that the pre-
disposition towards order may be impeded when organizing
involves participation of others in completion of tasks
(19:3).

Likert has presented what he terms a newer theory of
management based upon industrial research and which has
isolated characteristics and organizational patterns of
"high-producing" managers (20). Productivity, or perform—
ance, was measured in various ways including time stand-
ards met, job satisfactions, turn-over, costs and losses.

His work, along with some thoughts of Fromm's which

. ~ in

:acer‘JAQe a
—nb:‘v'~+.r\ P
.mvl I‘dvllund

5' f
73 me fun:

tr A ..
.He-ry. tI]
Pecole wor .

‘fi EPOUp
4_t:V-lt

20

follow, summarize some central concerns apparent in the
thinking and research interests of home management.

One of Likert's findings is that high producers
supervise according to a different philosophy and set of
motivational assumptions. They avoid what he describes
as the fundamental deficiency of traditional management
theory: the inadequate motivational assumption that
people work only for economic goals, and that a manager
controls those under him who in turn have the duty to
obey (20:59-60).

The role of the work group is found to be of central
importance. This is the group in which a person spends
much time, the one in which the individual is most eager
to achieve and maintain a sense of personal worth. The
greater the skill of the person in the manager role in
using group methods of supervision, the greater are pro-
ductivity and satisfactions of the group. For example,
findings indicate that freedom or independence in doing
one's work or in making decisions leads to high perform-
ance only when there is much interaction between the
individual, his peers, and superior (20:2A).

In addition, the power of group goals is revealed in
that they can push production down or up, depending upon
the level of goals set by the group. Evidence of the in-
fluence of the group is further shown by the small devia-

tions by members from goals set by the group Q’O:A3).

gerforxance
gressures (2

Favors}
7:313 must he

Gary/2..“

r..-uu.t1't'1t:}' .

t‘ha
.. l‘
I: iOI‘CQ a
C s
'cvl’u'ES
Ii}!
“ .EI‘t E
‘HALs

21

Quantity and quality of productivity correspond to the re-
sponsibility felt by the group. Thus, the high-producing
managers make widespread use of participation, whereas
traditional managers get compliance with their established
performance goals by use of hierarchical and economic
pressures (20:100).

Favorable attitudes as well as high performance
goals must be present if organization is to achieve high
productivity. Those managers whose pattern of leadership
yields favorable attitudes think of those they supervise
as human beings rather than just as workers. Characteris-
tic of their management is a highly coordinated, highly
motivated, COOperative social system. The different
motivational forces in each person have coalesced into a
strong force aimed at accomplishing mutually established
objectives.

Likert summarizes many findings by stating an inte—
grative principle of supportive relationships in which the
individual is central:

The leadership and other processes of the organi-
zation must be such as to ensure a maximum prob-
ability that in all interactions and all rela-
tionships with the organization each member will,
in the light of his background, values, and expec-
tations, view the experience as supportive and

one which builds and maintains his sense of per-

sonal worth and importance (20:103).

Fromm has formulated a basic principle of humanistic

management, a principle which is recognized in the views

:f‘ Likert a1

:elieves tit;

negate the I

to cons‘

Hal It: r,‘
r. Viuc

group w:
.e

ECIFW
m. 29
fr: 2.“
-““ .
vu CE»
‘3’»,
'~..lfl

.3 t,‘
vSt iftpr
. -I~
“file re
f1?

22

of Likert and the preceding writers, although with varying
emphases: that the individual asserts himself and takes
an active part in the managerial process (7:105). He
believes that the principles of the technological society
negate the humanist tradition; for example:
Another general practice in organizing work is

to constantly remove elements of creativity (in—

volving an element of risk or uncertainty) and

group work by dividing and subdividing tasks to

the point where no judgment or inter—personal

contact remains or is required (7:36).
He considers the present system (what Likert has called
the traditional management orientation would be part of
this) to be pathogenic and believes that the principle of
maximum efficiency can be given up, if only for a time:
"That is to say, man, not technique, must become the ul-
timate source of values; optimal human development and
not maximal production the criterion for all planning"
(7:100). It would not be necessary to polarize or
dichotomize management and participation; optimal cen-
tralized decision—making and decision-implementing, gag

optimal participation could be done. This is the pro-

cedure of humanistic management.

Summary

In a family, managing is a process of deciding what
is most important to the family and using selectively
available means to achieve this. It is a control system

for goal attainment. Such concepts as decision-making,

‘
\

n p“:
In de:
ves

3
.L

7v. IshV‘

‘anrs‘i

0397‘,
.‘ul‘,

W CO‘JI‘SE

0..
In

CC

iout.

an,
i ‘h
'I".
L

..&PS to fol

23

organization, values and goals, and resources, apply to
families at all status levels. However, management is
likely to differ in control styles, in resource organiza-
tion, in participation, and in outcome.

In decision-making, a family may either order al-
ternatives to best maximize a goal and then select be-
tween alternative ways to do this, or mediate or create
a new course of action out of conflicting or uncertain
alternatives. The latter course of action may be the
more realistic situation for many families at lower
status levels. Decision processes may then be more of
an ordering and directioning of change than a selecting
and rejecting process. Because resources are the means
for making change, they are also ordered and directed
toward outcome. This balancing, adjusting feature ap-
pears to follow from actual decision situations families
face.

The home environment is the setting for managerial
activities, and within the families the parents (some-
times one parent only, or another person altogether) are
the principal managers in that they organize resources
and control situations and participation so certain out—
comes result. From this framework, we turn to a more
detailed explication of the concept of resource (5, 17,

21, 22, 23).

k

0“
inn

Vn:““

..v..\‘r“
Q

J‘U

.s4.i

’.
,A'-
.AV“

.4¢¢“"

.10

0 ‘Q
>A..aa""‘
to
.-
‘ Q“,
a
.r,‘
.H‘
1.4

r“r

...

Ck

FA!
Pvlnt

G

2A

Resources: Fundamental Concept
in Management

 

 

This section surveys varying definitions of the con—
cept of resources, economic and social psychological
points of view about resources, and finally the concep-

tualization of resourcefulness.

Meaning of Resources

 

Dealing with concepts of family finance, Magrabi
and McHugh discuss resources as a class concept which in-
cludes different properties held in common by a group of
objects (3). In this view, resources may be identified
in varying degrees of specificity: for example, resources
Icould be defined to include all various forms of income
and wealth available to the family.

Discussing family resources, Nickell and Dorsey say
that they consist of tools, assets, capabilities, and
ways and means possessed (24:82—85). With Gross and
Crandall (25:12A), they have suggested the division into
nonhuman and human resources. Nonhuman resources would be
tangible goods and facilities, while human resources
would include time, energy, skills, knowledge, attitudes.
The point is stressed that there may be potential human
resources (potentially increased capability in a skill
for example) which may not be presently available to the

family.

Deacon an
Ing hone manage

. .. means
their poten
represented
satisfying ;
reaching of

A resource

ties and sk;
which has of
derands. Re
of the soluI

p.

re; point out 1
.ation: ". . .
':e instrumental
the self-suffici
feats function a
in is self-suf
investigat
f3e€pindlers de
Deeeon and IIaloc
Trials (26). I
communities ‘
finned

"instrurr.

3: Individual en‘

It.
; In
.md‘VICe

or a lit.
CSAME?! he is a
IDStrunem

~33? III
em Certain

25

Deacon and Maloch, in a systems approach to research-
ing home management, define resources of the family as:
means which are available and recognized for
their potential in meeting demands. Means are
represented by those things which have "want-
satisfying power" and are instrumental in the
reaching of desired ends.
A resource . . . [is] anything - knowledge, abili-
ties and skills, objects — which can be used or
which has direct application in the meeting of
demands. Resources are, therefore, the content
of the solution (16:32). F
They point out that the resources are specific to the sit-
uation: ". . . In one managerial situation an object may
be instrumental [a resource] while in another it may be
the self-sufficient end desired" (16:32). That is, ob—
jects function as values if the nature of the satisfac-
tion is self-sufficient instead of instrumental.
Investigating perception of cultural alternatives,
the Spindlers developed a conceptualization related to
Deacon and Maloch's distinction of resources as instru-
mentals (26). In their anthropological study of acculurat-
ing communities‘among the Blood Indians, the Spindlers
defined "instrumental" activities as those ". . . that
an individual engages in for the achievement and main-
tenance of a life style and status in the social groups
of which he is a member or aspires to be a member" (26:

312). Instrumental roles of the Indians have prescribed

for them certain activities related to fulfillment of

specific and V5
roles Could be
In BlOOd
occupations 83
contribute ’60 '5
self-respect °
activities mOSt
tetaves as he 8
environment. T
title Operation
nonnatively in I
In their I
sitiations, WhiI
aresource simpl
I27, 28). In ec
EaKing that a re
:etisfying power
resources within

NI
“Er, sex
I

, temp
reedom from res
:Ich as love and
limited resource

ifitors and

:HA
~P~Dersonal fc
£05

PCES
HOt DPE

26

specific and valued social goals. Thus, activities and
roles could be added to the list of family resources.

In Blood society, instrumental activities are not
occupations as usually thought of, but activities which
contribute to earning specific rewards, subsistence and
self-respect. The Spindlers develOped an inventory of
activities most relevant to the way in which a Blood
behaves as he attempts to cope with everyday life in his
environment. The instrument is intended to elicit spe-
cific Operational perceptions of social reality organized
normatively in means-end relationships.

In their work on resource mediation in interaction
situations, Whiting and Longabaugh have chosen to define
a resource simply as ". . . anything that a person wants"
(27, 28). In economic terms this would be analogous to
saying that a resource is anything that has want-
satisfying power. In their conceptualization, common
resources within the family and home would include food,
water, sex, temperature, rest, privilege, information,
freedom from restriction and pain, and derived resources
such as love and praise. Operationally, Longabaugh
limited resources ". . . to things of value to the
actors and . . . likely to be salient (brought into
inter—personal focus by one or another of the inter—
actors) in the interaction" (28:322). In this view,

resources not presently possessed by a particular

' ‘-
:Eties and L
-'r~"I£L

AL-“_-':] and V"

I“...- “ A.

n . ,1
v AIJfl' Concl A
'\”"‘F"I
.L‘ -.'

V“ESCY econ
*
~‘ A c.
y'p's rega
’:

J, J)' The.
Jnu Pes‘l‘l‘
:1:an P9“:
4» 3— -
tLOn .

.7 Ce Paw
‘~«
0
.‘ r1
ease neasu
.3“ch
-V’ and
.5;

27

individual (a child, for instance) are desired and thus
acquire motivational force.

In general we might say that a comprehensive descrip-
tion of resources in the family includes such factors as:
the means-end relationship or instrumentality for goal
achievement; consideration of possession, availability
and potentiality; specificity with regard to common pro-
perties and the managerial situation; awareness, desir-
ability and value; and both human and nonhuman elements.

We now consider more specifically the economic and social

psychological orientations toward resources.

Economic Point of View

 

This orientation emphasizes the processes of con-
tinuous adjustment, substitution and combination of re—
sources. In addition, Deacon and Maloch have cited
scarcity, measurability and alternative uses as attri—
butes of economic resources, and Magrabi and McHugh have
discussed value, efficiency and control as relational
concepts regarding resources in the economic context
(16, 3). The latter authors point out that:

One result of establishing value relationships
among resources is that less-valued resources

tend to be substituted into the use process for
those having higher values (3:108).

A value measure imposes an ordering among goals or re-
sources, and it is partly determined by the decision—maker

and partly by environmental factors.

Efficienc
res:urces and E

If two r683
source is 37
obtains a I.
be evidence
is achieved
sources. .
[A coriiini
the more e1

And conce

3'03“
....;.ences his

then r t ‘
“lientione:

” D. in

hang of res-

:11i3ally, con
' o o the '
able and w

goals or t
accordance

28

Efficiency is the essential relationship between
resources and goals:

If two resources are equally valued, the one re-
source is more efficient than the other if it
obtains a higher goal. Or greater efficiency may
be evidenced when one of two equally valued goals
is achieved through the use of lesser valued re-
sources.

[A] combination of resources would be said to be
the more efficient (3:108-109).

And concerning control, Magrabi and McHugh indicate
that it implies a two-way relationship: a decision maker
controls resources but in turn is likely to be controlled
by them due to the fact that possession or nonpossession
influences his attitudes towards them. (This point has
been mentioned before under Whiting's and Longabaugh's
meaning of resources, and will be discussed again.) Spe-
cifically, control is:

. the degree to which the decision—maker is

able and willing to expend resources to attain

goals or to adjust his valuation of goals in

accordance with his resources (3:109).
A decision in the economic area involves choice of re-
sources and goals having the best balance in value rela-
tionships as measured by efficiency, and this may change
over time and space.

The utility function in terms of combinations of
resources has been discussed by Clarkson, who indicates
that any particular level of utility is derived by com-

bining different amounts of goods, and that a large

Faiety of <
greater uti]
criinations
theory).
Hicks
teeen corple
sauces (30:
nation where
ialattainre
“Mort
..l.,,,,,s of a
thepresence
31°15 EXplair
. . . the
for X, X
for corp;
”Oticed t
than this
FOP Sub-st
and COULII

it is Suf.

be the s a:

29

variety of combinations is possible (29). It is this
greater utility which is of interest, not the different
combinations of goods which yield it (indifference
theory).

Hicks has stated the distinction and relation be-
tween complementarity and substitution applied to re-
sources (30:AA-A6). Substitution is operative in a sit-
uation where one or more resources may replace another in
goal attainment. Complementarity is operative when the
effects of a resource are reinforced or supplemented by
the presence of other resources. Concerning reciprocity

Hicks explains that:

. . . the relation of substitution (and comple-
mentarity) is reciprocal. If Y is a substitute
for X, X is a substitute for Y; and similarly
for complements. Nevertheless it should be
noticed that the theorem says something more
than this mere reciprocity by classification.
For substitutes to be substitutes both ways,
and complements to be complements both ways,

it is sufficient that the cross-effect should
be the same in sign; they do not have to be
equal, as the reciprocity theorem tells us that
they are. The conditions for reciprocity by
classification will clearly be less stringent
than those for the equality of the cross—
effects. So long as the degree of substitution
(or complementarity) is considerable, we can
relax the linearity condition quite consider-
ably, and the reciprocity by classification
will still hold. . . . (31:128)

 

Underlying individual economic conduct in handling

resources is an assumed stability, according to

er'S
low

b

. .
nr‘"""
~I-H““I'e
.F
I‘"
...::I‘ f

CL “rs t hi can.
no a E
“a f f nu
.J S C 0 to
0 e .1
s C t VJ mu.
9 n. Y“ .T.
n. U at .. .

no 5 . 1 .
.nu T.» r“ a:
r“ a». a . .4
IA. ‘ A A. v ~ l.

C

“I
U

1‘ “y 01" I."

.I
"«

n prod‘
nsions 0:

Jet“?

‘;I
S»

i...‘3

&

3O

Schumpeter's explanation of the theory of circularity and
equilibrium (32). Based on the conditions surrounding

the individual, there is an equilibrium between means on
hand and wants to be satisfied. Economic life is a cir-
cular flow: there is continuity and constancy of values
and resource-exchange processes. Individual valuations of
resources are interdependent and interrelated. In the
context of this theory, availability and use, quantity and
quality of resources may be examined.

Fitzsimmons and Lancaster refer to the relation be-
tween production and consumption, as apparent in resource
dimensions of availability and use (33, 3A). Fitzsimmons
says that production is the making of goods available
(the creating of utilities at the time, in the place, and
form desired) for consumption (which is the utilization
of goods directly for satisfaction of human wants) (33:
l6A-l72). In Lancaster's View of consumption, "Goods, as
such, are not the immediate objects of preference or
utility or welfare, but have associated with them char-
acteristics which are directly relevant to the consumer"
(3A:18). He uses the more neutral term "characteristics"
instead of "satisfactions." The consumer wishes to attain
the most desired bundle of characteristics subject to
situational constraints, and goods are needed to obtain
these characteristics.) He points out the analogy to

production theory: goods or resources are viewed as

imuts into
:utplts. Til
Ranch framei

sated earlie

In cons
ons for
re igncr
.cnsuxer .
pessesses
EGOds may
Eive a Sp.

3 0’ (n

ffinain refe;

31

inputs into a process in which the characteristics are
outputs. This is an analogy similar to the Deacon—
Maloch framework for researching home management pre-
sented earlier.

Regarding efficient use of resources, Lancaster

believes that:

In consumption, as in production, the prime rea—
sons for inefficient use of the existing technology
are ignorance and lack of managerial skill. The
consumer may not be aware that a certain good
possesses certain characteristics or that certain

goods may be used in a particular combination to
give a specified bundle of characteristics (34:18).

Then, in reference to efficiency and the state of tech-
nological development of the society, he comments:

A relatively static technology, in consumption

as in production, will . . . probably lead to a
situation in which the efficient activities be-
come generally known and traditional. Traditional
consumption patterns will be efficient only within
a relatively unchanging choice situation and only
optimal for consumers whose preferences on char-
acteristics approximate the society mode. Tradi-
tion will be less useful when the technology is
changing rapidly . . . or when the consumer's
preferences diverge from the mode (3A219).

In the economic view of resources, the power of
wealth and services to satisfy wants depends upon two
things, according to Fitzsimmons (33). The productiv-
ity of goods and wealth depends upon their availability
and possession, and the qualities they have or that are
attributed to them. Burk has defined quality in rela—
tion to food as ". . . the combination of attributes

Of a product that have significance in determining the

:Iesree of a c a:

19's .
"semence arr
4\

e.

"‘5 Pesch‘r‘cef‘t

 

It'll-Or
‘si.l VPni
“E an
O
IF:
K 'Venifin

32

degree of acceptability of the product to the user"
(35:117). Such quality is either composed of inherent
attributes or may be developed in a commodity. Burk
suggests that changes in quality may occur in one of
three ways: more of a particular attribute, more con-
sistency of an attribute (more standardization), or more
availability over time. Concerning quality and quantity,
Nichell and Dorsey have said that:

The quality and amounts of the resources that

every individual or family has at its disposal

are different from those of every individual or

family. Each is constantly forced to work with

different amounts and combinations of resources
(2A:8U).

Certain factors related to the economic view of re-
sources--usefu1ness, limitation, alternativeness, inter—
dependence and assessment--will be mentioned again under
the resourcefulness concept.

Social Psychological View
of Resources

 

 

Those who view resources in the family from a social
psychological stance are interested in such factors as:
competence, perception and empathy as human resources;
resource mediation and exchange as determinants of role
learning and growth in children; and the motivational,
reinforcing and qualitative properties of human resources.

Several investigators have been concerned with com-

petence in the family setting, especially with regard to

33

optimal functioning of family members in large, urbanized,
industrial or industrializing societies (36, 37, 38, 39).

Competence includes the dimensions of problem—solving and

of skill in mediating activities, as well as awareness and
understanding of available alternatives and how to attain

them.

Bronfenbrenner has commented that in order for
children to function as productive, cooperative members of
the community they need competence not only in cognitive
functioning but also in the areas of a sense of control
over the environment, capacity to defer immediate gratifi—
cation, skills in working c00peratively with others,
socially responsible patterns of behavior, and techniques
for non-destructive resolution of personal and inter-
personal problems (36:l-2). Scheinfeld has called for a
shift in family culture from a primary emphasis on con-
trol in child-rearing to development of competence and
emphasis on internal experiences in order to help child-
ren grow in it (37).

There is complexity and circularity in viewing
competence as a resource: Scheinfeld sees it as a
needed resource input in optimal family functioning,
while Sussman stresses it as output:

The degree of competence exhibited by any indi-
vidual or by a closely interacting primary group
such as the family is an outcome of the totality

of formal and informal socializing experiences
to which he (or it) has been exposed (38:5).

_Iparentlyr cor
itensional re
exponents, ar
:acurce for E
that the:

“hp

.. . opp.
cakes avai
Options in
individual
tence to r

Percepti
angnificant I
rehrence. Ho;

Perception
(or lack oi

“aerial af’
him. It 12'

3A

Apparently competence may be regarded as a multi-
dimensional resource with both managerial and perceptual
components, and in Sussman's view, its importance as a
resource for goal attainment would be due to the fact

that the:

. opportunities which a modernizing society

makes available to its members become viable

options for a given individual only when that

individual demonstrates the requisite compe-

tence to recognize and pursue them (38:3).

Perception, as a component of competence, becomes

a significant human resource in the managerial frame of
reference. Hoyt offers the following definition:

Perception is the recognition of the significance

(or lack of significance) to man of what his

material and his non-material environment offer

him. It includes not only his perception of

separate things and ideas but of their relation-

ships. . . . So for a man to perceive the

significance of the various parts of his environ-

ment in relation to himself is the first step

not only toward the solution of his problems

but toward knowing what his problems are (“0:76).
There are two aspects of perception: the mental-emotional
set for something or against something which supports
"insensitivity." Examples are wishful thinking, pre-
judices, and fears, as apparent in attitudes and expecta—
tions. The other less recognized but more important
aspect is sensitivity: when a person fails to perceive
he is not attending and listening. "Because of insensi-
tivity, man simply does not notice at one period what, at
a later period, is as obvious as the sun in the heavens"

(“0:77). Hoyt illustrates failure to perceive or

insensitivit
oijects of n
environment
3;;when ide
are either I".
scious level

are not seen

urns
but en

heart 01“ the
.0

1* Percentiox
E'KaI‘eI‘IESS th:

2? "
, Fr
*1 JpERneSS

Risa;
repeated]

SCIIEIja Or
in:

BPSst
be} a:

‘093 a:
or diSC0~J

35

insensitivity in three choice situations: when natural
objects of major potential usefulness are present in the
environment but not recognized as useful and not taken

up; when ideas of major potential value in conducting life
are either not consciously recognized or are at the con-
scious level but not used; or when consequences of actions
are not seen (“0:80).

Hagen has observed that one's value system may limit
one's perception of alternatives--because of it one may
just not be aware of any (1:117). He suggests that the
heart of the human resource he calls creativity is a set
of perceptions in a person which includes not only an
awareness that the world one knows is understandable, but
an "openness to experience" or a "capacity to be sur~
prised." He says:

It is a perception that as life proceeds one will
repeatedly meet phenomena that do not fit in the
schema one knows to that point, and that if they
interest one, one can count dependably on being
able both to deduce the system in which they do
belong and on finding satisfaction in the process
of discovering and exploring it (1:138).

Hagen refers also to empathy as another index of
creativity in discussing Lerner's research on modern,
transitional and traditional types of individuals (1:
253). Empathy is described as one's ability to project
himself into another's position and express a judgment

concerning what he would do or feel if he were the other

person. It is a personality trait which includes need

:;Mrny, the I
“:‘ferently I‘I‘I
’erner asked 9'
" wha‘
:T.. . ,

Another I

hciern, on!

"mart

.w and re:

first”? by Me
F~rte :a‘

36

autonomy, the perception that others may act alone and
differently from oneself. To Operationalize empathy,
Lerner asked questions in the mode: "If you were head
of . . . , what would you do?"

Another example of research into the perception
component of competence is the Spindler instrumental acti-
vities inventory described on page 25 (26). It was ap-
plied to situations where two different social systems,
one modern, one traditional, converged, and both were
present and perceived by the Blood Indians. The IAI is
a way of cataloguing perceptual and cognitive dimensions
of behavior as the Indians move into an industrialized,
urbanized world by asking them to make value-oriented
choices between pairs of instrumental activities (26:321).

There is another social psychological view of re-
sources also related to perception, although this com-
ponent of competence is not treated specifically as a
resource.

Whiting has proposed a framework utilizing value,
control and administration of resources as a set of con-
cepts by which social interaction may be described (27).
These concepts, suggested as crucial determinants of
learning by identification in parent-child interactions,
were later operationalized by Longabaugh (28). Whiting's

assumptions about resource value are stated in this way:

37

First, a resource is valued to the degree that its
absence increases motivation and consumption pro—
vides satisfaction. Second, the value of any re-
source may be increased or enhanced by insecurity -
threats that a resource already available may be
taken away or that desired resources may be with-
held. . . . A resource that is available whenever
one wants it is perceived to be of little value
compared to one that is sometimes available and
sometimes not (27:11A-115).
He cites the economic principle of the value of scarce
goods (scarcity increases value) as an example of value
enhanced by insecurity with respect to availability.
Persons and resources are related by control. Al-
though one may have direct access and control over some
resources there are many, especially for young children,
that one can get only through others by such actions as
begging, bargaining, attacking, obeying. Parents have
direct control over many resources which children control
only indirectly through them.
Socializers are resource mediators or administrators.
In mediating activities, a socializer (a parent) gives,
withholds, or deprives a person (a child) of a resource,
for example: provides food, restricts freedom, withholds
love, takes away a privilege. He may also threaten such
actions, thus enhancing resource value by arousing in-
security, or he may promise a resource, thus creating
reinforcement by reducing insecurity.

In Whiting's framework, the process of identifica-

tion begins with socialization when the mother trains and

::n:rols her c
rediate so
73;: specify th
interction, 0
resources. A

between social
ing by identif‘
status with re.

core will he p;

38

controls her child by withholding resources. The mother
may mediate some resources, the father others; the culture
may specify the differences. Then, in adulthood social
interaction, one both mediates, and accepts mediation, of
resources. A major postulate is offered about the relation
between social interaction as resource—mediation and learn-
ing by identification: the more a child envies another's
status with respect to control of a given resource, the
more will he practice that role, fantasizing himself as

the person he envies controlling and consuming the valued
resource of which he feels deprived.

In a pilot study of mother-child dyads, Longabaugh
coded face-to-face interpersonal behavior, calling his
category system "resource-process coding" (28). Acts
were coded on two dimensions: the resource salient (of
value to the interactors and prominent in their inter-
action), and the modes or modalities (ways in which re-
sources become salient and are dealt with by the inter-
actors: seeking, offering, depriving, accepting, not
accepting). He assumed that all interpersonal behavior
could thus be categorized.

Three resources, information, support, and control,
were examined in terms of the extent of resource exchange
occurring and the comparative control of the recipients
over the resources. "Resource exchange" referred to the

quantity of value passing between two interactors.

39

"Resource distribution" referred to the relative posses-
sion of salient resources by the two persons. Inter-
correlations of these two factors revealed differential
cluster patterns, suggesting two separate dimensions of
interaction.

Concerning methodology in a study of this type,
Longabaugh comments that resources may be narrowly and
specifically defined (mother's smile) or broadly defined
(information). However, there are minimal criteria for
including resources: that they correspond to some ex-
tent to resources actually valued and exchanged by per-
sons, and that the transmission of these resources be
capable of being measured in observed situations. Con-
ceptualization of resources is inadequate if either cri-
teria is not met: empirical validity and reliable
measurement. Inferential ability of the investigator
plays an important role: he decides the salient re-
sources after preliminary observations. Longabaugh sug-
gests that it would be inefficient to rely solely on
empirical measures when dealing with human subjects and
to ignore purpose or meaning, perhaps the most signifi—
cant variable in behavior. In his view, reliable in-
ferences about interpersonal meanings based upon knowledge
Of the situation and the people make use of the experience
and knowledge of the investigator about what he is study-

ing: resource mediation actions in families.

NO

Other researchers have defined factors which operate
within the family as means to optimal growth and develop-
ment. Baldwin, Kalhorn and Breese devised rating scales
to appraise parental warmth, intellectual objectivity in
attitudes towards children, and control (Al). These were
the three variables which formed a framework for describ-
ing and summarizing parent-child interaction.

In research fundamental to this study, Hess and
Shipman studied urban black families in order to specify
linkages between social structure and individual behavior.
They investigated a particular cluster of human resources,
a characteristic developing in the preschool years and
of instrumental importance in attainment of the goal of
successful school participation of the child (9, 10, 11).
This concept, educability, referred to the child's
". readiness to use the teaching and learning re-
sources of a formal school situation" (11:4), and to:

. . a cluster of cognitive skills (e.g., langu—
age, concept formation, visual and auditory dis-
crimination), to the child's motivation to
learn in a classroom setting (curiosity, need for
achievement, etc.), and to his acceptance of the
role of pupil (11:171). '

Gordon recently discussed demographic factors in-

strumental in children's development which have been
isolated by various investigators, such as the degree of

Crowding in the home, quality of housing, ethnic member-

ship, father absence, level of income, social class (A2zl).

Al

He also described parental cognitive factors which, when
consistently available and utilized, have given evidence
of functioning in achievement of goals related to intel—
lectual and personality develOpment of children. Many of
these factors are included in the studies by Dave and Wolf,
described under the section of this review on family as
environment (page 52). Lastly he mentioned a set of emo—
tional resources: consistency of behavior control, order
in work habits, and perception of another as a separate
person.

Bronfenbrenner has pointed out examples of social
psychological resources which have specific quantity—
quality limitations (36). The problems which a child may
have when he begins school may be traced back to lack of
stimulation, both cognitive and motivational, in his home.
It is not necessarily true that the child has not had
sufficient attention from the family; however, it has been
so generalized and diffused, instead of appropriately
discriminating, in quality, that it has not had an impact
in selective reinforcement of school-related behaviors.

He questions whether the parents lack ability, or motiva—
tion, to deal with children appropriately to their needs.

In addition, he also points out that there is re-
search evidence that it is the quality of a child's school
peers and/or older children with whom he interacts, and

not the quality of the school itself, which may be more

iicsrtant to
n 4»

'ana "8.6)?5 LI‘

:tnstructive I

:s“:"nnn“nlhpc
":c '
V‘Il mllrl I

“‘"nqq P

.eiulness"

TC say the
35. that h
It I188 to

"iiple. '1':
things W

”Th other
fiche .

~17-llar 1.,
‘t-r‘ 4
“melons f.
t-al‘e~ v-

. “ 0 an
EC} F.

A2

important to academic gains or losses (36:2). "Quality"
here refers to social class standing of peers, and the
constructive or destructive behaviors of older neighbor-

hood children who serve as models for young children.

Resourcefulness

 

Within the framework of this study, people, objects,
events and activities may possess the property of "re-
sourcefulness" if they function as contributors or as
means to obtaining some desired outcome. At a conference
on values and decision making, Liston described this
property:

To say that a person is resourceful is simply to
say that he has a wide horizon as to--the things
he has to work with. Take recreation, for ex-
ample. You can get your recreation by doing
things by yourself, by doing things in the home
with other people with things you have in the
home . . . or you can get recreation by going

to a free movie or to an expensive concert.
Similar interpretations could be given of various
horizons for a long list of resources.

[Values are] . . . the original horizons from
which stem our peculiar patterns of goals and
standards and through which we view the potential-
ities of our resources . . . (A3z6A-65).

'With especial recognition to discussions of family re-
sources by Gross and Crandall and Paolucci and O'Brien,
resourcefulness includes the following characteristics
(25:126-lu7, 21).

Usefulness.--Utility is capacity to satisfy human

 

wants. Without usefulness, or utility in action, pos-

session of resources is insufficient for goal mediation.

“3

That is, only when used, are so-called resources com-
pletely "resourceful." Usefulness seems to require a kind
of balancing between conserving things and meeting demands
people place upon them. Usefulness is a creative charac-
teristic, a unique combination of perceiving demand and
using means to meet demand (A, 23). In this connection,
Deacon suggests that resources can be discovered, that
uses for them can be expanded, and Schlater that resources
can be created (15, A).

Limitation.-—Restrictions within a given time and
space may cause some resources to become more important.
There are always some limits on availability and use.
Absence, or too little, of any single resource may be
crucial in determining success or failure in goal attain-
ment, even when there are other means available. In an
affluent society, limitation is a changeable characteris-
tic, and some resources appear endlessly plentiful. In
a traditional or a modernizing society, however, resources
may appear endlessly restricted. In either society, the
actual situation is likely to be that there is both
scarcity and abundance of resources. As limits upon some
resources become less, they become more apparent on
others. Amounts of some (income, capacity to work) vary
greatly from family to family, from time to time, and are

restricted by inherent capacity, by training, by status.

new“?
3.“ sore “the
sfiict work
“the? Pestri

A'- 11
excellence’ ‘

o
n 7,’ “n 4".“
nEUn/Lll lye 1 Di).

witty of P
ajilele qua

”L‘P.l
“sources 5‘49

txns:
It is a I“
co." 8 MC?
greater t
rocels hp
.avoratle
(‘u :t‘”
.Iacgeatle an
a." n
I. er OI‘ Cfi
aers are co'
«to re”
.-nlngs f
:‘I

AU

Resources may he further limited by unavailability
of some others (lack of education, for instance, may re-
strict work opportunities which in turn restrict income).
Other restrictions are imposed by limits of quality, of
excellence, of meeting standards in the makeup of the
resource itself.

Hagen has given an example of how increase in
quantity of personal resourcefulness may be related to
available quantity and quality in other contributing
resources such as social contacts and supportive situa-
tions:

It is a reasonable speculation that the child be-
comes more resourceful and more creative the
greater the number of differing understandable
models he comes in contact with in emotionally
favorable contexts (1:139).

Substitution, complementarity.—-Resources are inter-
changeable and transferable: one may serve in place of
another or offer possibility of a course of action when
others are committed elsewhere or nonexistent. There are
two meanings for alternativeness: alternative uses of a
given resource (it may be used for different ends), and use
of alternate resources to reach a goal (if some means is
missing, one finds or creates out of the possibilities at
hand a substitute that will do in its place). Also,

resources can reinforce or supplement one another in goal

attainment.

us ‘

Interrelatedness and interdependence.--According to

Cross and Crandall:

A philosophy which appears suitable for today is

one which highlights the interrelatedness of

resources . . . maintains that materials should

be subordinate to people in importance. . . .

Conservation of things should be balanced against

the demands such conservation makes upon other

resources, particularly the human resources (25:

132).
This element is suggested as a kind of summary with all
preceding characteristics seeming to point to this aspect
of resourcefulness. If availability and utilization can
be categorized as two dimensions of resources, they appear
to function in an interrelated manner, although concep-
tually distinct. Interrelatedness implies a reciproc—
ity among means relevant to a specific outcome. Inter—
dependence implies a mutual dependence: one resource does
not function without another or others. The sum of re-
sources available for a goal usually determines whether
or not it will be mediated. Yet mediation is also de-
pendent upon total interrelated use of resources. This
combined pattern may be so complex that it is not easy
to conceptualize and to operationalize problems from the
point of view of resource-interrelatedness and -inter-
dependence. Yet as separate resources are examined for
their influence on a particular goal, this patterning

aSpect is likely to become apparent both to the families

involved and to researchers.

A6

Measurability.—-Gross and Crandall have indicated

 

that:

Resources are similar in that they are all useful;

they are all limited; their use is interrelated;

the managerial process is applicable to all re-

sources; and finally, most important, the quality

of life an individual achieves is dependent upon

his use of them (25:125).
If the course of a person's or of a family's life may be
determined by resource—availability and utilization, then
both dimensions €puld be carefully determined, and assess-
ment based upon observed indicants. Limits, like uses,
would need to be assessed in relation to specific goals,
with recognition that resources vary in how they are
limited and in the accuracy with which such differences
can be measured.

The nearest to objective evaluation of use of spe-
cific material resources may be through inventories to
determine length of life, but this is only part of
effective utilization. Qualitative differences are par-
ticularly difficult to measure and require inferences by
an experienced observer. Checks on use requiring infer-
ences include: quality and quantity of imagination em-
ployed in using resources, continuing satisfactions
people express from use, effect upon persons involved in
resource exchange.

Some measurements (such as time used, total income,

income allocation) are objective measures and common

Sandards a.

lease leave

-* *et at. t}

.g {V

5;;rces: ti

Other he
. . . cc
are to Fl
relaticri
compare

7.8 SUPG

a: _
r ‘H
.m

3 n

r ”es 5
g V
i“90€nit1
.i1ldiffellc
35:111th
..:1 , ~-
tI...l°e kn
tgelar

‘1‘, 130.3”;

“7

standards against which resource use has been compared.
These leave much to be desired, perhaps because they fail
to get at the interrelated-interdependent aspects of re-
sources: their patterning for goal achievement. In this
regard, Deacon has commented:

Other measures yet to be developed should have

. . . comparative and additive attributes if they

are to have significance for clarifying inter—

relationships. . . . In addition to being able to

compare and add resource potential within the

measure under consideration is the need to be

able to do so between and among the available

measures (15:761).
Some studies already mentioned have attempted to develop
measures of resources within the family environment and
to assess resource patterning for goal achievement in

different ways. In the last section we examine family as

environment.

Family as Environment

 

This section presents several views of family as en—
vironment, and relates them to management and development
within the family. In this regard, Paolucci has said:

Home management today deals with husbanding re-
sources so that the more intangible as well as

the tangible goals of the family are reached.
Recognition that child rearing practices result

in different personality types and that the pos-
sibilities for growth are enhanced if one acquires
skills, knowledge and attitudes valued by a par-
ticular culture, obligates adults to so arrange
the home environment for children so that it

offers the best chances for optimum growth (an:
5-6).

“8

To which Liston adds:
The degree to which the needs of family members
are met will determine the character of the human

resources on which the family may capitalize in

its next round along the process of its develop-
ment (6:66).

Sussman appears to be in agreement with the above premise
when he discusses reciprocity, or some form of coopera-
tion, in relation to superordinate goals in the family
(U5). The family can be viewed as an environment for both
emotional exchange and socialization in the area of mental
functioning, with the goal of developing ability to handle
frustrations and competition in its members:

The family provides the psychological and physical

territory in which one can be emotional, express

one's feelings and both give and receive affective

response unabashedly (US:7).

However, family needs and objectives also create
linkages with bureaucratic organizations external to the
family, and cooperation or reciprocity is again suggested
as a guiding principle (instead of conflict) for these
relationships. Thus, the family serves as an environment
supporting linkages between its members and society.
Societal conditions in turn influence the family environ-
ment and individual members' development.

An example of this process may be the research of

Barry, Child, and Bacon into relations between occupation

and child training (H6). They compared societies, using

Ethnographic data, with different types of economies and

I19

with differences in child rearing practices in the areas
of obedience, achievement, and self-reliance pressures.
Resulting associations led them to infer that how a family
trains its children tends to be a suitable adaptation to
the economy. Families in subsistence societies tended to
insure their survival by arranging their child-rearing
practices around the objectives of developing independent,
venturesome adults, while in high accumulation economies
(which stress animal husbandry and commercial agriculture)
the families socialized children into responsibility and
obedience because their goal was that of ensuring the
continuity and protection of an assured food supply.

These findings seem supportive of Liston's View that:

". management in the family is much involved in the
quality of give and take between the family and the other
subsystems of its social environment--economic, political,
community, cultural, and physical" (6:66).

The family as a specific environment mediating be-
tween individuals and the larger society, as suggested
above, has not been widely studied in the past. Pre-
liminary to offering his framework for viewing the family
as a mediating environment, Hagen discusses this point:
"The analysis of effects of conditions in the society at
large on personality formation has been a no man's land

of the social sciences" (1:200). In his attempt to syn-

thesize knowledge from several disciplines into a theory

50

of social change, Hagen developed a model of the impact of
the home environment on personality (1:200-217). He indi—
cated specific causal sequences by which it seems possible
that social pressures upon parents would lead them to
create an environment conducive to personality change in
their children, and that this would continue over suc—
cessive generations. The historical sequence in the
family, of progressive changes in personality over the
generations, appears to be loss of status respect by
authoritarian parents leading to retreatism and finally to
creativity. As retreatism deepens over the generations,
it creates circumstances of family life leading to develop-
ment of innovational and creative personalities.
Family as environment for human development may be

viewed also in the context of Bloom's proposition that:

Variations in the environment have greatest

quantitative effect on a characteristic at its

most rapid period of change and least effect

on the characteristic during the least rapid

period of change (u7zvii).
Following this thesis, the family might be considered as
an environment which represents a set of powerful persist-
ing forces affecting human characteristics, such as the
child's educability, which are undergoing rapid develop—
ment at a particular period, in this case, at the pre-
school age. Then, located within the home, the neighbor-

hood and the community in which the young child carries

51

out his activities, would be found the resources or means
for helping him to learn new concepts or discriminations
preparatory to school experience. Operationally the
environment would be bounded by the child's direct and
indirect involvement with these resources, whether they
be persons, activities or objects. The studies to be
mentioned have taken this point of view.

Constancy, consistency, powerfulness and pervasive—
ness are suggested by Bloom as the principal environ-
mental factors which converge to influence human char—
acteristics (u7:19u—212). Constancy refers to the idea
that the environment's effect becomes stabilized and rein—
forced only when it is relatively constant over a period
of time. Consistency suggests that various contemporary
aspects of the environment are similar and mutually rein-
forcing. Consistency is the element which distinguishes
a powerful environment from one only moderately so, or
one ineffectual in its consequences. Bloom specifies
the relation between powerful environments and develop-
ment thus:

. powerful environments represent rather ex-
treme instances of abundance or deprivation and
apparently involve most individuals in them in
very similar ways. That is, they are relatively
uniform in preventing individuals from securing
the necessary nutriments, learning experiences,
or stimulation necessary for growth, or they are
so powerful in reaching all with the appropriate
nutriments, experiences, and stimulation that all

(or almost all) individuals are affected in
similar ways and to a similar extent (“7:212).

52

A major characteristic of such environments is their
pervasiveness: an individual is engulfed in the situation
which presses him from every side toward a particular
development or outcome. Young children are especially
affected by such extreme, sustained environments, while
older, more experienced persons, dissatisfied with such
surroundings, may produce apprOpriate modifications in

the environment.

Wolf and Dave, students of Bloom's, were concerned with
characteristics within homes which indicate educational
environments related to general intelligence on the one
hand and to educational achievement on the other, of fifth
grade children (U8, “9).

Wolf identified three environmental process variables
contributing to intelligence develOpment: Press for
Achievement Motivation, Language DevelOpment and Provision
for General Learning (U8). His measurement scales appeared
to represent particular patternings of resources within
homes for the specific goal. He predicted positive and
significant correlations between environmental measures
and children's I.Q. scores, and found correlations between
them of .69 to .76. Multiple correlations and a factor
analysis showed even higher commonality among the three
variables than predicted, perhaps indicating interdependence
Of the measured resources as well as an environment operat-

ing to develop intelligence.

53

Other findings included support for a prediction of a
greater relationship between environmental variables and
I.Q. than between social class and I.Q. He found that his
scaling instrument appeared to be more sensitive in upper
class homes than in lower class homes. Following Bloom,
Wolf suggested the idea of a pervasive environment affect-
ing all persons within it, as well as a specific one affect—
ing a particular individual, indicating that perhaps some
resources influence the goal (general intelligence develop—
ment) directly for some family members, and indirectly for
others.

Dave constructed an Educational Environment Index
composed of six variables: Achievement Press, Language
Model, Academic Guidance, Activeness of Family, Intel—
lectuality in Home, and Work Habits in Family (“9). As
indicants of the variables, his rating scales assessed
such aspects as parental aspiration for the child's educa-
tion as reflected in goals and activities, materials in the
home related to school learning, family activities and
possessions which expose the child to a variety of
experiences, thought-provoking situations related to toys
and daily activities, habits of punctuality and perseverence
as shown by family routines.

Dave predicted that he would find a greater relation-
ship between his Educational Environment Index and a measure

Of the children's educational achievement than he would

5“

between class status and the achievement measure. He
reported correlations of .79 between the Index and
achievement, and -.02 to .27 between four class measures
and achievement. He predicted a positive but moderate
relationship among the environment measures and showed
that eleven of the fifteen values were interrelated at
levels higher than .50 at the .05 level of significance.
This finding suggests that there is an interdependence
of these environmental dimensions.

Hess has commented that one of the most familiar
findings in research related to education and develOpment
has been the association between learning and environment,
conceptualized as social class and culture (50). Social
class of itself is a probability statement of the likeli—
hood that certain experiences will occur, and that they
will have predictable effects upon behavior; however,
this concept and that of ethnic culture and related
behavior needs to be further refined and examined in detail.
The involvement of family and community reference groups
in the successful socialization and education of dis-
advantaged children is an issue under current investigation.
He suggests that at early age levels the effects of both
cognitive and noncognitive experiences of young children
are likely to be diffuse and general, and that "the concept

of the family as a socializer of cognitive behavior seems

55

likely to become one of the most thoroughly explored areas
of early education in the next few years" (12:1—2).

Approaches to these questions have taken varied focus,
such as the developmental—cognitive approach, the focus on
social structure and socialization, the focus on deficits
and lack of specific skills in children from disadvantaged
families, or an approach centered on restructuring the
environment of the child. In the "underdeveIOped re-
sources" model, the environment of the child is considered
relatively restricted and his behavior lacks the qualities
of complexity needed to allow him to participate fully in
other parts of society, although his family culture may
equip him to function within sub-cultural limits (50:35).
A question for investigation would be: what are the
mechanisms of exchange that mediate environmental pres-
sures into cognitive behavior? Concerning mediated con-
tacts, Hess says that:

. . . it does seem we have underestimated the ex-

tent to which direct (though diffuse) experience

with the environment (interaction with peers, TV,

newspapers, music, observation of community life,

etc.) directly shapes the child's cognitive and

behavioral strategies and resources (50:2“).

The following table represents the influence of what

may be called a measure of family as environment from the
investigations of Hess, Shipman and their research group

at Chicago (11:32). In the table are correlations be—

tween this variable and some measures of mothers'

56

TABLE 2.--Corre1ation of home resources factor with mother's behaviors
and child's performance, by working class group and sex of
preschool child.l

 

Working Class Group

 

 

Correlation of Home Resource Total Group by Sex of
Factor with: Group Preschool Child
(H 1A3)
Boys Girls

 

Mother's Behaviors

 

Expresses attitude of personal optimism to— .33 .10 .5u
wards the future (low score=high optimism).

Expresses attitude of powerlessness in rela- -.39 —.27 -.51
tion to the school (low score=low feeling of
powerlessness).

Exerts pressure for achievement upon her .38 .23 .52
child (low score=high pressure).

Controls her child through giving him impera- .23 .13 .3u
tive commands and asserting authority.

 

Controls her child through encouraging his -.27 - 23 -.3U
subjective consideration of his own or
others' feelings.

Child's Performance
Sorts blocks correctly into groups Ly color, -.23 -.lU -.30
shape, height and mark.
Shows behavior problems during mother's teach- .18 .02 .32
ing of block sorting (resistance, non—
response).
Explains his reason for sorting pictures -.25 -.38 —.IU
in a scoreable manner.
Unable to verbalize a reason for his picture- .29 .31 26
sorting choice.
Performance on Stanford—Binet IQ. -.31 —.06 —.53

 

 

1Table adapted from Table III-6, page 32, in: Robert D. Hess, et a1”
The Cognitive Environments of Urban Preschool Children (Chicago: The
Graduate School of Education, University.of Chicago, 1968). For Home Re-
sources Factor, a low score indicates high availability and use of re—
sources for educability of the child. Levels of significance are: for
totad.group: ri.l9: p=.05, ri.2U: p=.01; for boys: ri.27: p=.05, ri.32:
D=.Ol; for girls: rt.26: p=.05, rt.3U: p=.Ol.

 

 

57

behaviors and preschool children's performance relative to
educability. The Home Resources Factor is a score de-
rived from a principal factor analysis of nine ratings of
(availability and use of family and child resources: space,
physical movement, care and appearance, play, task and
work, learning and social contacts. Basic methodology was
developed and the scoring carried out by Baker, using

data from the Chicago study (23; 11:229-2U6; 51:131—147).

There are significant relationships apparent between
this family environment measure and mother-child measures
for the total group and by sex groups of children (11:
3343“). Families which scored high on resource avail-
ability and use (the Home Resources Factor) were those in
which mothers were optimistically oriented towards the
future, expected achievement from their children, and did
not feel powerless towards the school. These mothers also
showed a significant tendency towards controlling their
children's behavior by appeals to their feelings and in-
ternal states instead of by emphasis on their own author-
ity and status, which would tend to cut off reflection
over alternatives by children.

In addition, there are differential relationships
for boys and girls. For girls, there are more significant
relationships in total, suggesting that the Home Resource
.Factor may indicate a more pervasive, supportive family

<environment for them in the preschool years with

58

reference to helping them prepare for future school acti-
vities. For boys, the pattern of correlations in the
table suggests more limited, specific influences of the
family environment as indicated by the Home Resources
Factor. For them,high scores on the resource factor are
related only to two factors: having mothers who do not
feel powerless in relation to the school, and being per-
sonally able to verbalize and explain their own sorting
behaviors.

Analysis carried out after these children had been
in school a year or two showed significant and fairly high
correlations (.33 to .50) between the Home Resources
Factor scores and selected school performance of the
children. For boys there was also a consistently signifi-
cant relation to their conduct grades at school (52:13—15).
These results are suggestive that the Home Resources
Factor is measuring what Bloom and others have called a
powerful environment, or pattern of family resource manage-
ment in the context of this study, affecting human re;
source development at a critical stage, in this instance,

early childhood.

'Summary

The search of the literature has revealed several
varying but related views of management in the family;

extensive conceptualizations of resources as a basic

tarponent of FIG
;:;.'chological p
:3" an integrati

saipcnents in t

 

component of management from both the economic and social
psychological points of view; and some research supportive
of an integrative view of managerial and developmental

components in the family as environment.

S€;e<

1‘“.
__,u 4U!

pr:

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE

The discussion of procedures is divided into four
parts: selection and description of the sample; selec—
tion and description of instruments; data collection; and

data analysis.

Selection and Description
of Sample

 

Selection of Sample

 

The sample is a non-probability, purposive one
selected to conform to established criteria. Selection
criteria were: families living in a Latin American
country experiencing intensive social and economic develOp-
ment, within an identifiable region where they would have
access to public services such as schools, transportation
and communications, and where they could be reached for
home interviews and observation; intact families; hetero-
geneous status and structure characteristics among fami—
lies; presence of a preschool child between three and six
years of age in the home; and agreement of families to

participate in the study.

60

61

Costa Rica was selected as a country which met the
first criterion. It is the fourth smallest of the Latin
American nations with 19,650 square miles of territory;
only one other country has fewer people: Costa Rica had
1,651,000 in 1968 (53:19). Rate of population growth has
been among the highest in the world; it was increasing
at an annual rate of 3.6 per cent in 1968. The death
rate is relatively low and life expectancy high. Eth—
nically, the population is more than 97 per cent white or
mixed, about 2 per cent Negro and less than 1 per cent
Indian. These ratios are quite different from other Latin
American countries.

Urban centers of Costa Rica (defined as communities
of 2,000 persons or more) account for one-third of the
population, less than in other Latin American countries
(5U:51). These communities grow at a rate more than
twice that of rural areas; however, this growth in Costa
Rica is not as marked as in the rest of Latin America.

As early as 1950, twenty—two per cent of the population
was estimated as middle class, with only two other coun-
tries in Latin America having a higher percentage (55:
108). Income per capita has been higher than in the rest
of the Central American region (Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras and Nicaragua); in 1960 it was $3Ul per capita,

increasing to $385 per capita by 1968 (56:19; 57:92).

62

Agriculture is the most important part of the
economy; however, industrial develOpment is being en-
couraged by favorable prospects for exports both within
the Central American Common Market and to markets outside
the area (58:126-136). Agriculture alone employs almost
half of the economically active population, but this is
proportionately less than in any other country of Central
America. It provides about 65 per cent of total exports.
Half of the total production is in coffee and bananas.
With a government traditionally sensitive to farm prob—
lems, Costa Rica has undertaken legislation and a number
of programs to develop this sector. However, until very
recently the majority of farm land was devoted to sub-
sistence needs, as in the other countries of the region
(52:20).

Results of a 1965 study based on a national prob-
ability sample indicated that mass—media use is firmly
established in Costa Rica, and that there is high confi-
dence among the people in formal education and health
institutions. The people's perceptions of the future are
favorable and relevant to modernity in that they have
high educational aspirations for their children (47 per
cent wanted university-level education) and they are
Optimistic about attaining these aspirations (59). Yet
many families live in deprivation; they are basically more

rural and thus more distant from new industries,

63

transportation, and advanced educational and medical
facilities.

Costa Rica is eighth on a continuum of average de-
velopment rank for ten selected nations, based on per
capita income, per cent literary, per cent national in-
come spent on education, and consumption of newsprint per
inhabitant (60:6A). Ranking above are various EurOpean
countries, Japan and the United States, and below are
Colombia and Peru in South America. In material develop-
ment, Latin America as a whole may be closer to Asia and
Africa. However, in ideas on education and culture it is
viewed as closer to Europe and the United States. Al-
though there are great differences from country to
country, in Latin America:

From the social point of view education is held
today, at least in theory, as one of the main
elements of economic and social development and
for nation—building. From the point of view of
the individual, it is thought of and sought after
as the surest means of personal advancement
(61:U3).

That education is valued in Costa Rica is evident
from the basic education law of 1957-58 (62:313—336).
Among its provisions is that all persons of the country
have the right to education and that the state has the
obligation to offer it in an adequate manner. Among the
goals of primary education are: to stimulate and guide

harmonious personality development of children; to pro—

Vide basic knowledge and activities which favor

6A

intellectual development, and the habits needed to act
efficiently in society; and to instill abilities to live
healthfully, to take a rational view of the universe, to
prepare for work, to appreciate and create beauty, and
to cultivate Christian customs. By law, parents have an
obligation to cooperate with the schools, which in turn
must provide for parents the opportunity to link them—
selves with the education process. Among other responsi-
bilities, parents must be concerned about children's
conduct in and out of school, and try to create adequate
conditions at home for their development.

In Latin America, there are four countries in which
illiteracy is less than 20 per cent; Costa Rica is one of
them (53:20). Although the rate has been fluctuating in
more recent years, the 1963 census reported that illiter-
acy in Costa Rica involved 15.6 per cent of the people
over 10 years of age; this is 5.6 per cent of those living
in urban areas and 21.8 per cent in rural areas. Average
schooling of the total population was 3.5 years. Rate of
student loss in primary school has been less than in
other Central American countries but is a continuing prob-
lem. For example, the number of children (including
those who repeat a grade) who remain in school of an
initial group of 100 students who start the first grade
(1957—1959 data) is the following: first grade, 100 per

cent; second grade, 77 per cent; third grade, 61 per cent;

65

fourth grade, A9 per cent; fifth grade, 38 per cent; and
sixth grade, 32 per cent (5A:59). In 1968 eighty per cent
of children five to 1“ years of age, or 20 per cent of

the population, were in school. The government gives high
financial priority to public education, which in 1968
accounted for 30 per cent of total national expenditures
(58:135)-

Location of the sample families within an identi-
fiable area of Costa Rica, as well as other control cri—
teria of the study were met through assistance from the
Institute of Nutrition for Central American and Panama
(INCAP) in Guatemala City. The Institute provided a list
of Costa Rican families who had participated in a 1966
nutrition survey conducted in Panama and the five coun-
tries of Central America (63, 6A).1 For that survey,
communities of over 25,000 inhabitants were eliminated;
then fifteen administrative subdivisions called cantons in
Costa Rica were chosen at random. The seat of local
government in each canton then became one of the survey
communities, and one other community in each cant6n was
randomly selected, giving a total of-thirty communities.

A systematic random sample of twenty families was drawn

 

1This research was supported by the Advanced Re-
search Projects Agency (Project AGILE) and was monitored
by the Nutrition Section, Office of International Re-
search, National Institutes of Health, under ARPA Order
No. 580, Program Plan No. 298.

66

in each community, resulting in a sample of some 600 fami—
lies residing in both rural and urbanized areas of the
country.

All communities located at altitudes of 3,000 feet
or more above sea level, within the boundaries of the
Meseta Central, were selected for the present study.
There were 12 of these communities, representing 2A0
families or 40 per cent of the INCAP master sample in
Costa Rica. The Meseta Central, a valley 60 miles long
and 30 miles wide, is the most important and developed
region of the country, although it accounts for only one-
tenth of the land area. Heights above sea level range
from 1,900 to 6,500 feet, and the valley is ringed by«
mountains and volcanic peaks (56:15). It is a productive
agricultural zone, with large and small farms cultivating
principally coffee and sugar cane, but also producing
milk, beans, corn, vegetables and fruit.

It is also the most densely populated region of the
country, containing seven-tenths of the total pOpulation.
The city of San José, the capital, alone contains 71 per
cent of the urban population (58:125). A 1962 report of
a study of social class in San José estimated that prob—
ably not more than A0 per cent of that city was middle
class, and that probably the rural middle class would be
from one to three per cent (65:196). There are relatively

few isolated communities; however, in the rural areas

67

roads are dirt and difficult to traverse by ordinary means
of transportation (56:18).

Among the study communities, Cartago (Parte Orien—
tal), Curridabat, Aserri, Palmares, Santa Barbara, and San
Juan de Tibas are the seats of municipal government for
the cant6ns; as such they are also the most popular cen—
ters for commercial, recreational, educational and relig-
ious activities for surrounding areas. The other Six
communities (Quircot, Fincas de Sanchez, Vuelta de Jorco,
Santiago, Santo Domingo El Roble, and Cinco Esquinas) are
relatively more rural or rural—oriented than the adminis-
trative communities. The map which follows indicates the
location of the Meseta Central and distribution of the
twelve study communities, as well as others of the nutri-
tion survey in Costa Rica.

INCAP data on the 2U0 families of the 12 communities
were examined to locate families in which both parents
were living at home at the time of the INCAP survey, and
families with at least one child for whom it could be
estimated that he would be in the three-to-six years of
age (preschool) group at the time of field work. This
selection process produced a projected possible sample of
123 families which met the study criteria. Attempts were
made to contact all these families personally to verify
their eligibility, and secure their agreement to partici-

pate in the study by allowing the investigator to

68

 

 

    
   

/
r/ .moam mpmoo mo Hmnpcoo mummmz
.\w on» 2H mmfipficssfioo mozpm paw mm>pSm .m.¢.o.z.Hnu.m madman
d m\k
v m . >m>mam .a.<.o.z._ zomu
/ omEUMJmm >oahm mo mmuhnznzzou O
N V 68-... 0.0 can can To
-M. »m>m:m .m.<.u.z.~ 2—
v A\\ . o.U $3.65 oz< mzoaumm 5.2m:
.r . x 2 8:63.58 3:23:28 0
// m «z u¢,«a.z=.a ,x\
J
w 7/. ,J s v .2523 <53: 9:. mo mEzSIII
/_/ J x..\.\ s./ 0‘
v /./- l ./. o 323 32935 I .I
.l/ \) .\ /./
.1... /.L ././ é
) \ I. ./. v .... mix: $2225.55 1...!
A}. \.a If... /./ / I / /.I..!I ...u
.IL \ (f m m o a z < ././ 0
\oo<Ȣ<or me is
\, 349:3 0v .3... /A|‘UVIH” '|\\’/ x. n
\ ”Mum/mun... S V.
. 2.9.2.: o \koug. .oo umol, 2: Etc?) C0 .
. .3.»\8e\o.2.,¢9 c.33u.o.mc.u\.': 0 0rd». /
6v ./ x /.l., .....x... asses; 39.3% I. J . .
0 (\. /./. ./’1_ 28.33.50 8.3.0.8 \./.\
/./. / \./ _ \ .\ ....../ \MK.
v)...\. llkl\lll.u.\\ [.1 \.c ./.\ .
..\ _ ,/ o
q _ o ./. \._ H 0 O
x _ /.\
x. _ V
\\_ M N . u.»m <0 <2 «am
i <_ou¢u:_ r/
._ . ././
x __ <4u3344< ./
\I.\l.. _ ./
r.\u\ /./\x\l../.J ././ I
.1), 2 v
~..\ //./.) \..\../ I..I../.. \\ ...

69

interview in the home in the succeeding months. 0f the
123 families, 10A (85 per cent) were verified as eligible.
Ninety—five families (91 per cent) of the group of 10“
families agreed to participate. At the close of the field
work, 89 families had provided complete data, representing
86 per cent of the group originally verified as eligible

(or 9“ per cent of those who agreed to cooperate).

Description of Sample

 

Residence and occupation.--Table 3 contains informa—

 

tion on family status characteristics. Somewhat more than
a third of the families (38 per cent) lived in urban
centers and slightly less than two—thirds (62 per cent)
lived in the more rural communities, a ratio similar to
the national average. On a continuum suggestive of occu-
pational movement, the families were divided between agri-
cultural (36 per cent), mixed (3“ per cent), and non-
agricultural groups (30 per cent). Work of all family
members in a year's time was considered in assigning
families to the occupational groups. The agricultural
families include small farm owners and renters, and fami-
lies of farm day laborers, some of whom lived and worked
on large farms and others with only irregular farm work
and no other employment during the year. In many fami—
lies other members worked for several months at the time

of the coffee harvest.

TABLE 3.--Status characteristics of sample (N

89).

 

Per cent

Total Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristics Number of Total
Sample Mean Range
Residence
Urban 3U 38
Rural 55 62
Household
Occupation
Agriculture 32 36
Mixed 30 3U
Non—Agriculture 27 30
Yearly Household
Income per Capita Z9U7 Zl37—E5680
Less than $700 U7 53
More than £700 U2 U7
Educational Status
of Parents of
Preschool Child
Father U years 0—1U years
U years or less 53 60
More than
U years 36 U0
Mother U years 0—1U years
3 years or less 36 U0
More than
3 years 53 60

 

71

In the mixed occupational group is the family in
which parents were teachers and also grew coffee; the
family which owned and farmed coffee and tobacco lands
while at the same time the household head worked as agent
for a savings and credit cooperative; and the family in
which the head was an unskilled farm laborer, his mother—
in-law a school teacher, his son employed in a mattress
factory, and others worked at harvest picking coffee. The
non—agricultural category includes a family in which both
parents were employed, the father as department head in a
bank and his wife as a school teacher; and the family in
which the father had a sales route and drove a truck while
his wife worked in a clothing factory.

Income.—-Yearly household income per capita is a
summary of income available to the household from contri-
butions of all who had earnings in 1967, divided by the
number of family members. For the purposes of this study,
seven Costa Rican colonies are considered equal to one U.S.
dollar. (At the time of the study, the official value was
$6.625 to the dollar; however, actual values were fluc-
tuating between seven and eight colonies or more to the
dollar.) In dollar terms, the lowest income (per capita
per year) was $19.57 ($137) and the highest was $811
($5680). More than half (53 per cent) the families
actually had less than $100 ($700) per capita per year

in income.

72

Education.——ln considering educational attainment of

 

the parents of the preschool children in the study, 60

per cent of the fathers had U years of schooling or less
and U0 per cent of the mothers 3 years or less. The mean
number of years of education for both parents was U years,
similar to recent national averages for the pOpulation as
a whole. The range for years of schooling completed, from
none to 1U years, was identical for both parents. Those
with the highest educational attainment had completed

several years at the university.

Structure.--Table U presents additional family char-

 

acteristics. In relation to family structure, 39 per cent
of the 89 families were simple nuclear types: parents
living with their own children. Seventeen per cent were
three-generation-shared households. Another group, simi-
lar in percentage of the total sample to the nuclear
families, is described as "modified extended." This
structure is a modified form of extended familism in that
it represents conjugal units with separate residences but
strongly maintained relationships with kin networks (66:
U), Such families are often concentrated in certain
neighborhoods or apartment houses. They perform politi-
cal, economic, and status—ascribing functions for the
conjugal units.

In the study, modified extended families were all

Ifln“ent-children units who maintained daily to weekly

TABLE U.—-Family characteristics of sample (N = 89).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per cent Total Sample
Characteristics Number of Total
Sample Mean Range
Family Structure
Nuclear 35 39
Extended l5 17
Modified Extended 3U 38
Mixed 5 6
Family Size 9 persons 3-22
8 persons or less 50 56
More than 8 persons 39 UU
Number of Siblings of
Preschool Child 5 siblings 0—12
U siblings or less UU U9
More than U siblings U5 51
Sibling Educational
Success
One sibling (or
more) has reached
6th grade or above 37 U2
At least one
sibling old enough
for 6th grade but
not in school 7 8

No sibling old
enough for 6th
grade UU 50

I;

7U

contacts with relatives who usually lived nearby. For
example, children played with cousins each day, the head
of the household worked for his father, or the grandmother
living next door was in and out of the home helping the
mother. Five sample families could not be classified by
any of the above three categories.

Family size and number of sibling§.--Families ranged
in number of members from 3 to 22 persons. Families of 8
persons or less made up 56 per cent of the sample, and
families with more than 8 accounted for UU per cent.

Also included as members in computing size were servants

or roomers who slept and ate in the home, as well as
adolescent children who lived with relatives during the
week while attending high school in a distant town. The
preschool child, around whom the study focuses, was an

only child in one family and had 12 siblings in two others,
indicating the range of siblings observed. For the total
sample, half the preschool children had U siblings or

less and half had more than U.

Sibling educational success.--Having at least one
sibling of these preschool children attain the sixth
grade of primary school indicates a minimal level of
family educational success. Most families with one or
more children old enough to be in this highest grade of
primary school (U2 per cent of the sample) reported that

at least one of them had reached this level or beyond.

75

Only a few preschool children in the sample (8 per cent)
had at least one sibling old enough for the sixth grade
(12 years of age or older) who was not either presently
enrolled in this grade or had already completed it. In
the total sample, half the preschool children did not
have a sibling old enough to be in the sixth grade.

Sex and age of preschool children.--Table 5 indi—

 

cates that the 89 preschool children of the sample were
fairly evenly divided by sex and age characteristics.
Mean age for the total group was 5U months with a range
of 36 to 70 months. There was about the same percentage
of younger children (36 to 5U months) of both sexes, but
a slightly larger percentage of boys in the older pre-
school age category (55 to 70 months) than of girls (28
per cent to 22 per cent).

Selection and Description
of Instruments

 

 

Prior to instrument selection and development,
researchers were consulted about indicants in Costa Rican
families which might be comparable to, or different from,
those used by Baker to operationalize the resource con-
struct in the Chicago study (11). They were also con-
sulted about family status and structure characteristics.
Educators and public health officials arranged for the
investigator to make observations of varied conditions of

life of children and families in order to guide the

(0

TABLE 5.--Characteristics of preschool children in sample

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 89).
Per cent Total Sample
Characteristics Number of Total
Sample Mean Range
Sex
Boys U6 52
Girls U3 U8
Age 5U months 36-70 months
36—5U months UU U9
55-70 months U5 51
Age and Sex
Boys 5U months 36—70 months
36—5U months 21 2U
55—70 months 25 28
Girls 5U months 38-69 months
36-5U months 23 26

55-70 months 20 22

 

77

selection and develOpment of instruments for measuring
constructs of the conceptual framework and assessing the
hypothesized relations of the study.

Visits to 16 homes were made by the researcher with
a teacher, social worker, extensionist or nutritionist
known to the families. Observations made by the re-
searcher covered the nine resource categories developed
at Chicago by Baker and used in this study. Also noted
were frequently used vernacular expressions pertaining
to activities and household objects, and patterns of
questions and answers exchanged. These observations were
informally discussed with the community worker or teacher
who participated in the visit and who then acted as an
informant about family interaction and communications pat-
terns, socialization practices, use of household space, or
community-related activities.

Families were visited who lived in "barrios" of
San José of differing status levels, in other poor but
upwardly mobile neighborhoods some distance from the
center of the city, in a public housing project in a
more remote area, or in farming communities. In addi-
tion, several health centers were visited to observe
mothers and young children and to discuss family physical
care routines with the staff. Also, observations were
made of children and activities in first grade class

rooms and kindergartens of four schools distributed

78

differentially by socio-economic and urban—rural char-
acteristics. On the basis of the preliminary observa-
tions the conceptual framework was refined and selected
instruments were developed: a Preliminary Questionnaire,
an Occupation and Income Survey, Resource Inventories,
and a set of Picture Questions. The instruments are in

Appendix A, pages 165 to 216.

Preliminary Questionnaire

 

This instrument was employed to verify family eli-
gibility for participation in the study. Using INCAP
demographic data, some sections were filled out before
contacting each family. The information was then revised
with the family's help in relation to control variables,
specifically that of intact family and the presence of a
child between 3 and 6 years of age. If it was ascertained
that the family did not meet the controls the question—
naire was not completed. The instrument provided data on
characteristics relevant to the hypotheses such as occu—
pation, education and residence, as well as number, sex
and age of all persons living in the household and their
relationship to the head of the family. It was used
throughout the field work phase as a log because the
first page contained family code information and address,
a drawing of how to reach the house, a list of all con-
tacts and appointments, and comments on the work to be

done or revised.

79

Occupation and Income Survey

 

The survey was completed with the principal assist-
ance of the head of the household. Questions were chosen
after examination of schedules from several household
and farm income surveys conducted in the Central American
region (67, 68), and from the last national census of
Costa Rica, and consultation with agricultural economists
at the Interamerican Institute of Agricultural Sciences
(IICA) and Michigan State University. The instrument
consisted of questions about who in the family had worked
during 1967, a description of all work, amount of time
worked, remuneration received, plus income from rental
prOperty, bonuses, household industries or business in-
vestments. Farm operators were asked about crops grown
in the preceding year, amounts sold, value received and
percentage of that value contributed to family income,
as well as any crops left for family consumption. Value
of the sale of animals and animal products was similarly
handled. If the respondent could not provide an esti-
mated value, current market value and wage rates were
used to estimate value of products used by the family and
unpaid family labor, and these estimates were included
in income.

A yearly household income per capita figure was com-
puted by summing all sources of income and dividing this

figure by the number of persons living in the household

80

in 1967. Occupation information was compared with earlier
data on the Preliminary Questionnaire as a check. Income
information of families with similar employment records
were compared for inconsistencies which were then checked
on the next visit, thus providing another source of in-
ternal control. In some cases it was also possible to
verify reported income by comparison with family records

maintained at community health centers.

Resources Inventories

 

The basic structure of this instrument was adapted
with modifications from an experimental one developed by
Baker (11, 23). That instrument, called Home Resource
Patterns, was designed for assessing the degree to which
the home provides and uses a variety of objects and ex-
periences relevant to the educability of the preschool
child. It consisted of scales with ratings from low to
high on availability and use of resources for educabil-
ity, converted to scores from one to five. Each scale
and its rating points were described in terms of one of
nine resource categories: physical space, physical move—
ment, physical care and appearance, play, task and work,
direct learning, indirect learning, direct social con-
tacts and indirect social contacts.

Content to be rated was derived by examination of

available data from home interviews and written

81

observations of the 160 mothers and children who par~
ticipated in the study of the cognitive environments of
urban preschool children (9, 10, 11). The lengthy lists
of items were clustered to describe each of the resource
categories. These data were rated on four dimensions:
resources available in both their quantity and quality
aspects, and quantity and quality of use of resources,
always in relation to the child's educability and in com-
parison with other families of the sample. The four
ratings (simple plus or minus ratings to indicate more
or less of a relation to educability) were grouped to-
gether to form a pattern and converted to a numerical
score thus: a pattern of U pluses was a score of five;
3 pluses and a minus was a score of four, and so on, to
a pattern of U minuses which was a score of one.

Reported for this procedure are reliability coeffi—
cients for nine scales varying from .79U to .963 on
cases rated twice by the same rater and by two raters
(11:236). Content validation for the instrument is indi-
cated by a principal component factor analysis in which
each of the nine scales loaded very highly on the first
of the nine unrotated factors, with loadings ranging from
.558 to .821 (11:2U6). Construct validation is suggested
by correlations between the resource measure and a socio—
economic status measure. For the nine resource variables,

the correlation coefficients with status for the sample

82

of 163 families ranged from .375 to .621, and for a sum—
mary score (derived from the nine scores) the correlation
coefficient with status was .658. Using the Home Re-
sources Factor Score from the factor analysis, correla-
tions with status for the total sample was .7UU and for
the working class families only was .U57. These correla-
tions are substantial and significant beyond the .01
level. They are suggested as validation for the concep-
tion that the resource measure might be substituted for

a status measure when more precise information is sought
about influences of the family environment relative to
educability than that provided by the general status
measure. Correlations reported for the working class
mothers and children, Table 2, page 56, have shown that
the instrument has the capability to discriminate be-
tween individuals, another indicant of validity.

For the present study, two instruments were de—
velOped for gathering data about both quantity and
quality aspects of availability and use of the nine re—
sources. The first was the set of Resources Inventories,
divided into three parts for presentation to the mother
of the preschool child. Final content and order of
presentation was modified after pre-testing.

In Part I were five inventories pertaining to the
preschool child. The first was Care and Personal Ap-

pearance which consisted of 15 items about eating,

83

bathing, sleeping and clothing. The second, Task and
Work, consisted of 7 items pertaining to personal tasks
and simple work the child does or tries to do, and'prob-
lems and help he encounters. Direct Learning was the
third inventory and included 11 items about objects at
home which the child uses: pencils, paper, books, radio
and television, and also whether he is read to and what
happens if he has accidents with materials. The next
inventory, Play, has 7 items about building, role—
playing, creative and substitute play objects provided
for the child, as well as indoor and outdoor play acti-
vities. The last inventory pertaining to the child was
Direct Social Contacts, consisting of 5 items about
family activities in which he participated, and contacts
with small children, peers and non-family adults: the
kind and amount of contacts with them.

Part II consisted of inventories which referred to
family members other than the preschool child. The
first was Indirect Learning, containing 7 questions
about who in the family liked to do and did certain
activities such as reading, listening to the radio,
looking at television, visiting museums, parks, other
communities, using the bank or studying in an informal
education program, and with what frequency such activi-
ties were done. The other inventory, Indirect Social

Contacts, consisted of U items about family participation

8U

in activities in and out of the community, and contacts
with friends and family members.

Part III covered the Space and Movement Inventories.
Nineteen items made up Space, including a drawing of
space distribution of the house, and descriptions of play
space and sleeping arrangements for the child, utilities
and sanitary facilities, equipment, furnishings, decora-
tion, storage, windows and walls, presence of insects,
waste or animals in the home. Physical Movement covered
8 items such as number and use of entrances, stairs,
gates, outdoor play spaces near the house and in the
neighborhood, amount and effect of traffic on child's
activities, how far and how often he is allowed to go
away from home and the immediately surrounding area,
and what kinds of transportation he has used.

The scoring procedure of the Home Resources Pat-
terns Instrument was modified for use in this study.
Scoring is discussed after explanation of the Picture
Questions, the second instrument developed for collecting
data on resources. The supplementary data from that in-
strument was grouped with the Resources Inventories for

scoring.

Picture Questions

 

This instrument was constructed to provide a means

of gathering information about the mother's perception

85

of resources for the goal of educability, and the organi—
zation and control of the resources available to, and
used by, the preschool child. It was used to supplement
the Inventories to insure a maximum likelihood of secur-
ing valid information about resources. The assumption
was that covert aspects tapped by the Picture Questions
would prove valuable because what the mother says in
response to visual stimuli bears some significant rela—
tionship to behavior with regard to resource control in
promoting educability. The instrument provided addi—
tional qualitative data as well as a useful check on
the researcher's use of the language and comprehension
of responses.

The instrument consists of 21 drawings arranged in
9 sets to correspond with the Resource Inventories, with
introductions and questions presented to the mother (see
Appendix A, page 198). Table 6 is a list of the pic-
tures grouped by order of presentation and resource
category. In the design of the pictures and technique
for their use, advice from researchers at Michigan State
University, Merrill-Palmer Institute, and the University
of Costa Rica was sought, and a search of the literature
made for relevant studies and recommendations about

development and use of picture-type instruments (26,

69-75).

86

TABLE 6.-—Content of pictures by order of presentation and
relevant resource category.

 

 

Order of Resource
Presentation Category Contents of Pictures
1. Care and Child going to bed, eating
Appearance
2. Child's Task Child taking care of little
and Work sister, buying bread at
store, feeding himself.

3. Child's Child playing vigorously with

Movement football, sitting quietly in
the house, going out into the
neighborhood.

U. Space Child "arranging" a radio in
the living room, putting
something into a refrigera-
tor in the kitchen.

5. Child's Child trying to "write,"

Learning asking mother a question,
trying to paint.

6. Child's Children playing house,

Play mother giving child something
to use for play.

7. Child's Child walking with father,

Contacts talking with older family
members, greeting a stranger

8. Family Family members visiting a

Learning strange building, reading
and writing.

9. Family Older brothers and sisters

Contacts talking to a friend, family

members listening to a talk
at a meeting.

 

87

The drawings were planned to suggest activities
instrumental in attaining educability. They include
some traditional, contemporary, and Western—oriented
activities, objects and events referred to in the liter-
ature reviewed in relation to the conceptual framework
of the study or seen repeatedly during preliminary ob-
servations of Costa Rican children and families. Final
selection for themes of the drawings was made from a
list of some 50 resource—use actions indicative of the
properties of constriction, stimulation, interaction and
resourcefulness of the conceptual framework. Sets 1, 3
and U are intended to suggest constriction; sets 2, 5,
6, and 8 stimulation; and sets 7 and 9 interaction. All
were selected to aid in operationalizing the resource-
fulness aspect of family environment.

The researcher made preliminary drawings for a
local artist to follow. Criteria for drawings were
that they should be unambiguous, realistic, and present
only essential aspects of activities and objects. For
pictures in which a preschool child appeared, sex was
randomly assigned, as well as the wearing of shoes by the
child. The age of this child was stipulated to be about
U-5 years to guide the artist's renderings. Clothing was
to be simple and similar to that worn in daily activi-

ties.

88

Introductions and questions were structured to
attempt to insure that the respondents would see the same
things in the drawings, but be encouraged to give varied
interpretations. Based upon experiences in pre-tests,
the pictures were revised and ordered in a sequence
thought to be most natural and least confusing to the
mother, and introductions and questions were further
simplified and focused. Use of the tape-recorder was
judged to be feasible with the respondents.

The introduction finally used in the field work
explained to the mother that she is going to see some
pictures of children like her child (name given) in which
they are engaged in various activities, sometimes by
themselves and sometimes with other people. She is asked
to give her own reactions and opinions to some questions
about the pictures and her responses will be tape-
recorded. The purpose of the latter procedure is ex—
plained as being necessary because the investigator can—
not remember the responses and wishes to check his own
comprehension of language. The same pattern of presenta-
tion was maintained: each set of pictures was briefly
explained, and then the mother was asked, first a question
about actions of children involving the particular cate—
gory of resources; second, a question about her reaction
to these actions; and the last, a question about what

relation, if any, she sees between such actions and the

89

child's future success when he begins to go to school.
The last two sets of pictures were of family members and
persons other than the preschool child; therefore, the
questions were rephrased appropriately, with the last
one inquiring about what the mother might think of the
relation between these activities of the family and future
school success of a preschool child from such a family.
Probes used were limited to asking "Why?" and "What else?"
or repeating the explanation or question already given.
These tape-recorded exchanges were later trans-
cribed, but not translated, for scoring. The person who
performed this task was a university-trained, bilingual
North American secretary who had lived most of her life
in Costa Rica in close interaction with families similar
to those of the study. She transcribed the Picture Ques—
tions recordings verbatim and added written comments on
content where necessary to explain local language idioms
and apparent or possible misunderstandings between re-
searcher and respondee. This procedure was viewed as an

aid in assuring content validity.

Scoring

In Appendix B, pages 217 to 251, is the Scoring
Manual develOped for the data generated by the Resources
Inventories and Picture Questions. Here are presented

some clarifying and summary comments.

90

All scoring categories and procedures were developed
by examination of the data and by comparison of families
with one another. In some cases, the same items were used
in developing scoring categories, but this procedure was
avoided as much as possible. Reliability measures taken
included masking identification of respondents; syste-
matically scoring all protocols on one resource category,
then the next and so on; comparison of protocols scored
first with later ones; and discussion of two complete sets
of protocols for 10 randomly selected families with a
professor of home management in order to resolve ambi-
guities in definition and scoring.

For the Quality of Use (UQL) dimension, a standard—
ized scoring system was developed and used basically with
all resource categories (page 225, Scoring Manual). For
each category, five protocols were scored twice, results
compared, and differences resolved. In addition, protocols
of this dimension scored at the end of the scoring period
were compared with some scored early in order to check
consistency of interpretation.

Reliability was further explored by randomly assign-
ing all families to two groups; then scoring one group on
the resource categories starting with the first one des-
cribed in the Scoring Manual, Space, and proceeding to
the last one; and then reversing this order for scoring

the second group of families. These two groups were then

91

compared for significant variations in mean scores; this
process is reported in the next chapter.

Among the 3,200 scores to be derived from the data
were 15 cases in which data were missing. The cause was
faulty operation of the machine used to tape-record re-
sponses to Picture Questions in several families and
inadvertent recording over a completed tape in several
others. In five families it was not possible to remake
the tapes, although done in several others. In order to
avoid complete loss of five families for analysis, scores
were estimated where possible from other information.

If a reasonable estimate could not be made, an arbitrary
score was assigned: the group mean of that particular
item. The effects of this procedure on subsequent
analysis were judged to be negligible.

The completed scoring procedure yielded 36 scores
for each family, divided into nine groups of four each,
pertaining to four dimensions for each resource; these
correspond to the definitions in Table 1, page 10. For
three scores (the Availability-Quality dimensions (AQL)
of Child's Movement and Contacts, and Family Contacts)

a positive score is indicative of a low quality score,

 

due to the way in which the scores are defined and
measured, as explained in the Scoring Manual. A two-
step procedure was employed to transform these scores

into comparable numerical ratings which were summed

92

for analysis purposes. The procedure is outlined in the

Scoring Manual on pages 2U9 to 251.

Summary of Method of
Measurement

 

 

Measurement procedures were intended to answer ques-
tions posed under objectives one and two of the study
(page 3 ). Summarizing the method used, stimuli pre—
sented were questions about inventory items and drawings
related to nine resource categories. Content of stimuli
was refined and expanded from that used in an earlier
study by Baker, and made specific to the particular cul—
ture. Scoring instead of rating was the basic mode of
quantification. In attempting conceptual equivalence,
four scores for each resource category were derived,
corresponding to four dimensions rated in the previous
study. Scores were transformed to standardized ratings
for analysis of variations among families. The basic
structure of these ratings is illustrated in the follow-
ing typology (Table 7). The type of measurement achieved
relates to both culturally modified and culturally

ipsatized measurement types described by Straus (8).

Data Collection

 

The assistance of the Ministry of Public Health in
Costa Rica was sought to locate families selected for

the study. With approval of the director of the

93

 

Hm . oc
coauomsflo new afigmcofipmaom 30A

Hm I mv
coapoosfip paw
coaumfios cfl opmwpoesoucH

Hm I so
eesoesHe eee eeseHet sHemHm

o o o o o
H o o o H
m o o o m .o o H H
m o o H m .o H H H
e H H H H .o H H m .o o m m
m o H m m .H H H m
e o m m m .H H m m
s H m m m
m m m m m

 

spHHHeeosem m.eHHeo
on soapmfimm so cofipomsfim mo

mwcfipwm omeezm

mcofimzosfio mmmcHsmoossommm
psom co momoom Eosm po>asmo

mao>mq oucfi ooasosu mwsfipmm mo oflmom pcprSmom mwcfipmm mo mcmopumm manfimmom

 

.zpfiafinmospo pom mesmppwd oopsomom

”mmcfipwm mo mHSHosspm no awoaoamenl.w mqmde

9U

Department of Nutrition, a supervisor introduced the re—
searcher by letter to staff of the health clinics in the
12 study communities and requested that they help in
making initial contacts in their areas. The supervisor
also made similar arrangements in the community where pre—
testing of the instruments was done.

At the initial visit, the researcher was introduced
by the community nurse, the study was explained, as well
as the COOperation desired. If the family agreed to
participate and met eligibility criteria, a letter, signed
by the researcher, was left with them as a reminder. It
contained a statement of the purpose of the study and some
information about the investigator (see Appendix C, page
253). Sections of the Preliminary Questionnaire were re-
vised or completed at the time of this initial contact
with the family. Before leaving, the family was informed
about when to expect a second visit from the investigator.

The second visit, a few weeks to several months
later, was a time when some more refusals were encountered,
and some cautiousness and reluctance to participate began
to appear. In one family, the researcher finally secured
complete cooperation after several discussions with the
head of the household. He agreed to let his family par-
ticipate but only when he was present. In other families,
too, cooperation was allowed only when the head of the

household had been contacted personally, and only when

others were present to hear what the mother and researcher
were discussing.

It is difficult to know what differentiated eligible
families who dropped out of the study from those who
finished. There are several possible explanations. That
some had negative feelings or misunderstandings about re—
search could be deduced from comments made about participa-
tion in the earlier nutrition survey. Other families ex-
pressed fears related to tax collection, loss of children,
or recent law enforcement activities in the area. Several
women mentioned an alcoholic husband as the reason for not
participating; others would only say their husband refused
them permission.

In succeeding visits, a set order was usually fol—
lowed in presenting the instruments. First, Part I and II
of the Resources Inventories were completed. Then followed
Part III of the Resources Inventories and the Occupation
and Income Survey, the latter filled out with the father
if it could be arranged. At the last visit the Picture
Questions were presented to the mothers, under the assump-
tion that by this time the maximum level of rapport had
been established. When data collection was terminated,
the researcher presented the preschool child in the study
a picture story book as a remembrance of his family's

participation.

96

Presentation of the Picture Questions was sometimes
made difficult because of the good rapport with the family.
When the picture stimuli were shown to the mother, others
present sometimes responded to the questions. It was
usually possible to control this interruption unless it
was caused by the woman's husband. She was often reluctant
to express herself with him present, or looked to him to
tell her what to say. In this case the researcher some-
times asked him to leave the room. Although use of a tape
recorder was a novel experience for the women, most ap-
peared to enjoy it.

Visits were made at the family's convenience on
all seven days of the week, as early as 7 a.m., and as
late as 7 p.m. Field work began in April and finished at
the end of August, 1968, covering almost 5 months' time.
This was about double the time estimated on the basis of
pre—testing the instruments. That procedure, with four
families, required about three visits and three hours per
family. For the 89 families for whom the instruments were
completed, there were U66 visits, averaging 5.2U visits
and 3.73 hours per family. In addition, for the 15 fami—
lies who either proved to be ineligible or did not com-
plete the interviews, there were 37 visits made, averaging
2.U6 visits and half an hour per family.

There were other factors contributing to the length

of time required for the field work. One was travel time

97

in and between communities and the researcher's place of
residence. For work in two of the more distant communi-
ties, the researcher lived with a family. It was the
rainy season of the year, complicating travel on good
roads, and making it difficult on the more rural roads,
paths, and in the mountains because of mud and fog. How-
ever, there was another unforeseen and important addition
to the field work which increased the time, but which was
of great assistance in its successful completion.

The first woman visited alone by the researcher,
after initial contacts were completed, refused to co—
Operate in the study, although she had expressed no hesi-
tation previously. This situation was discussed with an
Institute sociologist, available for consultation through—
out this phase. He recommended that letters be requested
from the director of the Institute and the parish priest
in a community near the Institute introducing the re-
searcher and attesting to her character. Copies of these
letters are in Appendix C, page 25U and 255. Thereafter,
the director's letter was presented in each community to
the director of the primary school while explaining to
him the nature of the study, the data sought from each
family, and which families were to be visited. His help
was asked in dealing with any problems which might arise
in the course of work in the community. In a similar

fashion, the letter from the parish priest was presented

98

during a visit to the priest in each community, at which
time his support was requested.

That this step was beneficial is shown in the
following illustrations. A school director personally
visited and arranged for the investigator to interview a
family which could not be located on first coming into the
community. A family which met the investigator with
polite evasiveness in repeated visits proved to be very
cooperative after talking with the priest of the com-
munity. In a rural community, the first visit made was
to the most isolated family who expressed suspicion of
the study. A letter brought from the local priest con-
vinced them that this was a worthwhile project and there
was nothing to fear. Word of the letter spread to other
families not yet visited and possibly accounted for their
receptiveness. In another example, the priest was able
to secure needed income data when a wife expressed con-

cern about having her husband questioned.

Data Analysis

 

After scoring, data from collection instruments were
transferred to data processing cards. The Control Data
Corporation 3600 model computer was used to perform mul—
tiple correlation and regression problems, and the 6500
model computer for the remaining computations. Table 8

shows the complete analysis of the data including

99

statistical procedures used and the instrument associated

with each of them.

100

a

meo

H

»x uofim

mmucmHonumov co mmmmmmm
Hucofiofiuuooo

mocmwcfiucoo .osmscw H20

mucofiofiupooo
coaumHmLLOo oHQEHm

-mucoHoneooo :oHpmHosmoo
m oHdeHze paw Hmflpcms

:mo.
m :

pcsx .mmoczmxm .COHpmH>op
psmpcmuw .owcms .cmmz

MOHpmHseew e

momcms .cmoE
pcoo Lou .pcsoo accosoopm

Empwomm Lopzqeoo
paw oaumfipmpw

wcfipms mossomos Hmpoe

mxmn I an + m u a
coapwsco :onmopme ofipmspmso

mcfiomn mopzomoc
Hmpo» no Ho>oH .owcmL momsommm
mwcfipmp monsommh pr0p
.mmcfiumh mossommh opmhwqom

mcoHu

nemeHo an soasosw nomOom monsonoi
cocoom oohzomox

wmsoom monsomom

a new

< mqsosm CH mmsoom momzomom

necessc Eoocms mo oHome
.mmfiaficmu mfiqfimw mo LooEJC osoo

mcofiumwso mpzuofim op

msozmcm .mwfipoucm>cH oomsomom

mo>ssw
osoocH pom cofiomQSooo .zmH>hoch
zsmcfisfiaopm ”some 0HcomnuoEoQ

mama

.zpfiHHnmosoo
o» cofiumaop mo mam>ma one“ madame
moLSOmmn Hmuou mo coHmeHOMmcmme

.wCHpmp oopzomop
Hmsop ocm omcmp mossommp cmozpmn
coHpmHos nmmcfiHH>sso mo wcfiupOHm

uhhmcfiefiammm

H meoLuoomn mo umoe

.mwcfiump momSOmoc mo coHumHmLLoch

.mcwpmp ooL30mos

Hess» OH anHmcoEHo whoom oomzomop mo cofipmamm

.mmcfipmp

wULJOmOL Cu DQLOOU GOLZOWQL MO COfiQMELOMmCGLB

.m®LOUm wohjomwh “O COHUQHLOWQD

.wssoooopa wcfihoom On one mooco
Isomewv mo mocopmfixo mumefiumm o» mosopm go wfiwzawc<

.wCHLOom Log m new
< nozosw 0p moHHfiEmm oflqfiMm no ucoEcmHmwm Eopcmm

.osspooosq wcfimoom cwHHnmumo on mfimzamcm ucmucoo

.oHoEwm mo mofipmfipouommmco zfifiEmm mo coapqfipomwo

mfiwmflwc< so mmoahsm

 

.cump mo mfimmHmcm :H pom: mpocumen|.w mqmee

Jill

.Hmme .spHmtm>H:: mpesm cemHeOHz

.Aomma .hpampm>fic: mumpm cmeonz "cmmficofiz .mcfimcmq umwmv coHpmpm pcoEHpoqu HmLSpHSOHLm< .wa .oz .cofipmfimomoo
wmfipmm B<em .Amcfiusom wxeoqmv noppon oEoono on» no mewzmpa o>pso new wcfiupoam mama .ccfizzom .2 hmummm

.ofiumfipmpm pmuwfisoamolpcmmm

.HmmmH .HpHmem>Hco msesm

cmwficofiz “cmwficofiz .wcfimcmq pmmmv cofipmHm ucoefisooxm HmLSpHSofiLw< .m .02 .cofiumasomoo mmfipom B<Bm .mcfipzom

eaemam we» so mOHpmHempm eHmem co cOHpeHeeHmo .Hme .s eHecoo use .them .H seHHHHs .HHmm .e ereeeesm

z

 

”:meLon .wcfimcmq ummmv cowpmpm pcoefipmaxm Hasspfisofipw< .MH .0: COfiAmHLome B<em

«Amcfiusom qomzzv noupHEme mcoHHMQHHQom mo Lopes: Hmsvwcs spa: mocmfism> go mfimhamc< mmzlmco .Hmfix .m camcoam

.HmomH .HSHmtm>H:: spasm cewHeeHz

”:mwfinofiz .mcfimcmq umwmv coaumpm ucmsfipmaxm Hasspazofipw< .s .02 .coHuchome mofipmm B<em .mcfiuzom mg ozu co

mEoHnomm Acofimmmpmmmv mmpmsom ammoq ho cofipmHsono .smpmmm .m hemz pcm .Hofix.pamcoo .oansm .A Emaaafiz

N

wwmmeH .sSHmte>Hc: esesm cecheHz "cecheHz .wchcmH seems :H .02

 

.upomom HmOHccome mocofiom Hmfloom sou mpsufipncH Lousmeou .moHome mocowcfiucoo go mamaHmc< .oaowmmq .E cmH<

H

 

mkwpvmmfi mwmo

mucoHonmmOo cofiumaonpoo loam Hmcofipmosom mHHEmm .wcfipms

m oHaHuHSE pcm Hmfiusmm mopsowop HmuOH .mump OHQQmeoEoQ
mmcfipms
mossomoc mpwsmomm .mcHums
oopsommc Hmpou .mpmp ofizqmcmoEmQ
mwcfipmp mopsomop mumsmaom
wx ppHm
mmucmHOHmmooo co mmoemom mCOHpmzdo COHmmomes ofipmppmza

mmcflumn mopsomos
Hucofiofimgooo mumpmoom mo new madcap monsOmmc
mocowCHpcoo .ommsum “no kuou mo maw>oH .wump cacawpmoEoQ

.cofipmscm COHpOHpoLQ
m CH mchmp oomsomop HmHOp mo :oHumLOHaxm

.mHmmHmcw Apsum
wmmo cumspmsHHH ou zHHEmu m mo soapoHsome

.seHHHneesee
0p cofipmamn go wHw>mH oucfi mmcfipmp
moszomop mumpwowm do cofippromwche

pHfico Hoocomopa go

xom new omm .wmcfianfim mo ponezc .mNHm
zfifiemm .cofiumosco .mEoocH “moanmfinm>
msoscHucoo pcm wcfiuwp Hapou Coma»

non wcofipmHms smoCaHH>pso go wcfiupoam

"hmmcfiEHHmhm

m new m monocuoazc mo munch

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Results are presented in relation to stated objec—
tives and specific questions under the following headings:
method of measurement, dimensions of resourcefulness,
interrelated patterning of resources, tests of hypotheses,
relation of individual resources to status and structure,
descriptive use of family resource patterns, and explora-

tion of the prediction potential of the construct.

Method of Measurement

 

Significant differences between resource scores en-
countered in two scoring treatments, computed by one—way
analyses of variance, are summarized in Table 9 (76; 77:
200). A non—directional hypothesis of no difference was
specified and a probability level of .05 selected for
support of the hypothesis. For 32 of the analyses, no
significant differences were found. There were four in-
stances in which the hypothesis could not be supported.
Findings indicate that for scoring two groups, a maximum
of 89 per cent consistency could be claimed.

Significant differences were encountered in three
resource categories: Child's Movement, Care and

102

103

TABLE 9.--Summary of significant differences between re—
source scores in two scoring situations.

 

 

 

Resource Variance Level of

Category Dimension Ratio (F) Significance
Child's AQN .29 N.S.
Movement

AQL .30 N.S.

UQN 7.79 <.O2

UQL 3.73 N.S.
Care— AQN 7.0U <.02
Appearance

AQL .09 N.S.

UQN U.9l <.10

UQL 1.25 N.S.
Child's AQN 9.30 <.01
Learning

AQL .58 N.S.

UQN 2.16 N.S.

UQL 7.18 <.02

l

Two—tailed non—directional test, df = 1/87, N.S.
not significant.

10U

Appearance, and Child's Learning. In 2 of the U cases,

the inconsistency in scoring was observed for the dimension
of Availability-Quantity (AQN). Availability—Quality (AQL)
did not present any scoring inconsistencies. Each of the
other dimensions, Use—Quantity and Use-Quality (UQN and
UQL), had one significant difference. In the following
presentation of findings these abbreviations for the

dimensions will be used.

Dimensions of Resourcefulness

Table 10 presents information relevant to the dimen—
sionality of the resourcefulness property of family en-
vironment. It shows partial correlation coefficients for
each set of nine resource category scores relating to
each dimension (78; 79:165). Each coefficient is that be-
tween a resource score of a particular dimension and a
measure called Total Resource Rating, with the influence
of the other eight scores held constant or partialed out.
Total Resource Rating is used here as an internal cri—
terion. An index of validity is suggested by how well
individual scores correlated with this criterion, abbre—
viated TRR (80:Ul7). Also in the table are multiple
correlation coefficients computed between TRR and the

combined effects of the nine scores of each dimension

(79:131).

105

TABLE 10.——Partial and multiple correlations for scores of
each of four resource dimensions with
total resource rating.

 

Category of Resource Dimensions

 

 

 

Resource AQN AQL UQN UQL
Partial Correlations
Space .31 .52 .27 .08
Child's Movement .11 -.26 .28 .16
Care—Appearance .26 .2U .U5 .18
Child's Play .35 .U0 .35 -.09
Child's Task—Work .20 .38 .28 .29
Child's Learning .22 .UU .22 .23
Family Learning .U6 .27 .55 .1U
Child's Contacts .30 -.19 .25 .23
Family Contacts .23 -.23 .20 .08

 

Multiple Correlations

 

=.93 R =.90 R =.93 R =.66

R
R2=.87 R2=.80 R =.86 R =.UU

 

Levels of Significance

r i .22: p = .05 r .001

l+
U)
U“!
'0

ll

r i .29: p = .01 r

H-
l:-
O

*0
A

.0005

106

Twenty—six of the 36 partial correlations (72 per
cent) for the dimension scores were significant. By
individual dimension, there were 7 significant relations
for AQN, 8 for AQL, 8 for UQN, and 3 for the last, UQL.
Examined by type of resource category, Child's Learning
was the only one significantly related to TRR on all U
dimensions. Seven categories showed significant rela—
tions for 3 of U dimensions. Movement and Family Con-
tacts presented the fewest significant relations.

If .01 is selected as a conservative significance
level, each dimension may be examined for the resource
scores related to TRR with all others held constant. For
AQN dimension, the resources would be Space, Child's Play
and Contacts, and Family Learning; for AQL, Space, Child's
Play, Task and Work, and Child's Learning. For UQN, the
resources would be Care and Appearance, Child's Play, and
Family Learning; for the last dimension, UQL, only Task
and Work is significantly related to TRR. Child's Play
emerges as the only resource category with significant
relations on three dimensions.

Multiple correlation coefficients were highly
significant. Coefficients of the first three dimensions
were almost identical. The fourth dimension, UQL, ac-
counted for the least amount of variation in TRR. The

R2 coefficient of the later dimension indicates that the

107

prOportion of variation accounted for was only about one-

half that accounted for by any of the others.

Interrelated Patterning
of Resources

 

 

As evidence of the interdependent, interrelated
patterning aspect, the intercorrelations of the nine
individual resource ratings (IRR) are presented in Table
11 (78). There was found a significant clustering of 33
of the 36 coefficients. Ten of these intercorrelations
were values of .50 or higher. All IRR shared in the latter
cluster of values except Child's Movement. Child's Learn-
ing was the IRR most often associated with the others:
it was so interrelated with six measures at .50 or more.
Space and Child's Contacts each showed three significant
interrelations at this level or above.

Hypothesis 1

 

Families at three resource levels, low, middle,
and high with respect to educability, will differ
significantly in range of resource ratings.

For all three hypotheses, relationships were
determined by the chi square tests of independence with
.01 the chosen level of significance, and the degree of
association by the contingency coefficient (82, 83, 8U,
79).

Table 12 reports findings for hypothesis one. TRR

indicates the extent to which family resource patterns

were oriented to educability of the preschool child.

108

em. e s cH Ho. u a

 

 

oo.H whomucoo mafiewm
Hz. oo.H mpompcoo m.oHH£o
em. ms. oo.H wcHeHemH sHHsem
mm. mm. mm. oo.H weHetemH m.eHHeo
on. em. as. Hm. oo.H xtozuxmee m.eHHeo
em. me. me. om. em. oo.H seHm m.eHHee
em. mm. am. we. em. em. oo.H eeeeeeteeaumteo
em. we. mm. on. mm. mm. mm. oo.H setEe>oz m.eHHee
an. em. 0:. mm. Hm. em. mm. mm. oo.H eoeem
m m s e m s m m H

 

.wWCHpmcH mOeHSOmmeH mCfiC ..HOQ XHcHUUME COHQMHMLQOOL®UCHII.HH Mdmdfifi

109

Range of IRR suggests the consistency, as described by

 

Bloom, with which resources of the family environment
were oriented to educability (U5:212). TRR varied from
a low of 8 to a high of 71 among the families; the range

of IRR from 1 to 8.

TABLE l2.-—Relation between level of total resource rating
and range of individual resource ratings.

 

Range of Individual Resource Ratings

 

 

Total
Rgzggiée Low High Total

Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Low U6 l2 5U 1U 100 26
Average 10 U 90 38 100 U2
High 62 13 38 8 100 21

 

II
A

x2 20.57, p .001, C = .U3

Guided by visual inspection of the plotted relation
between TRR and range, sample families were divided into
three levels of association to educability: those with
TRR of 2U or less; those with TRR of 25 to U8; and those
with TRR of U9 and above (81). For range of IRR, there
were 2 groups of families: 1 with scores of U or less
(low) and the other with scores above U (high).

Results show that hypothesis one was supported:

within the family environment, the extent of

110

resourcefulness was significantly and substantially
associated with the consistency of this property.
Within-category differences show that families with
low TRR levels were associated with either low or high IRR
variation with about the same frequency. However, 90 per
cent of the families in the middle TRR level showed high
range scores. This group represented U3 per cent of the
sample of 89 families. For families at high TRR level,

almost two-thirds had low IRR range scores.

Hypothesis 2

 

The proportion of families at three resource levels,
low, middle, and high with respect to educability,
differs significantly by certain status character—
istics: education of parents, occupation, income,
and residence.

Table 13 shows that significant relationships were
found between TRR levels and U of 5 family status mea-
sures. Contingency coefficients indicated a high degree
of association. Only the relation with occupational sta—
tus was not significant. Therefore, hypothesis oneiwas
supported with this exception.

Of interest are the associations within the indi-
vidual contingency tables. The association with mother's
educational status was highest. Low TRR families were
most often those in which she had less education, and high

TRR families were those in which she had higher education.

For fathers, less education tended to be related with both

111

TABLE 13r—Relations between level of total resource rating
and selected family characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total
Resources Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Rating
Father's Educational Statusl
U Years More than
or Less U Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 77 20 23 6 100 26
Middle 69 29 31 13 100 U2
High 19 U 81 17 100 21
Mother's Educational Status2
3 Years More than
or Less 3 Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 69 18 31 8 100 26
Middle U3 18 57 2U 100 U2
High 0 0 100 21 100 21
Income per Capita3
Less than More than
$700 $700 Total
Low 77 20 23 6 100 26
Middle 60 25 U0 17 100 U2
High 10 2 90 19 100 21
Residence”
Urban Rural Total
Low 12 3 88 23 100 26
Middle 36 15 6U 27 100 U2
High 76 16 2U 5 100 21
1 - - 14
X2 - 19.13, p <.001, C - . 2
2x2 = 23.31, p <.001, c = .U6
3x2 = 22.62, p <.001, c = .U5
”x = 20.78, p <.001, c = .uu

112

low and middle TRR levels, and more education for him
again with high TRR levels.

For economic status, less than $100 ($700) per
capita per year of family income appeared related to
either low or middle levels of TRR (77 and 60 per cent,
respectively, of the cases). Income above $100 was re-
lated to high TRR (90 per cent of the cases at this
level). The contingency table for residence suggests a
relationship between urbanization and high TRR, and be—
tween rural residence and low to middle TRR.

Hypothesis 3

 

The proportion of families at three resource
levels, low, middle and high with respect to
educability, differs significantly by certain
family structure characteristics: nuclearity,
size, number of siblings, sex and age of pre-
school child.

No significant relationships were found between TRR
and any of the structure measures. Furthermore, there
were no trends to significance at probability levels
greater than .01. Therefore, the analyses offered no
support for an hypothesized association between total
family resource patterns for educability and family struc—
ture.

Relations of Individual Resources
to Status and Structure

 

 

Secondary analyses were undertaken in order to in-

vestigate relations between individual resource categories

113

and status and structure measures. These are summarized

in Tables 1U to 22.

21222

More significant relationships were encountered for
this resource category than for any other (Table 1U).
There were significant associations between space levels
and all five status measures, offering specific support
for hypothesis two.

Of interest are the occupational categories. Low
space families tended to be more agricultural (60 per
cent of families at this level); families at the middle
space level tended to be more mixed in occupations (U5
per cent of the families); and high space families to be
more non—agricultural in work orientation (UU per cent
of those at this level).

Children from families with low space levels had
parents with less educational attainment (90 per cent of
fathers, 80 per cent of mothers of such children). When
space levels were high, parental educational levels
tended to be high also, although more frequently so for
mothers than for fathers (91 to 62.5 per cent at this
level).

Low income and rural residence most frequently ac-
companied low space resources (87 per cent and 93 per

cent, respectively, of the cases at this level).

 

llU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm OOH 3H s: OH Hm O mm Ome
Om OOH O mm mH me O mm oHOOHz
om OOH : mH w Om OH OO 304
Hmpoe oLsOHSOHLw<Icoz omtz mpszonsw<
mCOHpmo3ooo pHocomsom
mm OOH Om HO m O anm
Om OOH OH mm m mm oprHz
Om OOH O om Om om 30H
mcHHoonom m
z oo 0 who
m H m .
cmcp who:
mmzpmpm HmcoHpmospm m.pmzpoz
mm OOH Om m.mO mH m.sm emHm
Om OOH mH m: :H mm oHOsz
Om OOH m OH Om OO 30H
wcHHoocom
Hmuoe .wmmow : mcwwommmw mwmq
2mg» who: . w :
Hmspmpm choHpmoscm m.smnpmm
2 pcmo Low 2 pcoo mom 2 pcoo pom z pcmo pom momom

 

.mOHpmHsopompch OHHEmO OopooHom Ocm Hm>mH woman cmmsuon mCOHpmHomII4H mqmqe

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.uO mm.uO .mOO.AHO.va .OH.OHume Om.uO .HOO.AmOO.va .em.mHumxm
m as.uO .HOO.va .OO.Hmumxm mm.uO .HOO.va .OO.mmumxm
.mOO.AHO.vO .sm.OHu He Oa.uO .HOO.va .OH.Omu x: ma.uO .HOO.va .sO.OHu xH
mm. OOH O mm mm ms emHm
em OOH OH Om HH Ha eHOOHz
Om OOH ON HO OH mm 30H
Hmpoe : cmnp who: wme so :
eOHHhO Hooeehpaa Op nmeHHnHm so appeaz
mm OOH H mm mm Os OmHm
em OOH 1H mm MH O: pHOOHz
om OOH OH OO NH O: 30H
Hmuoe w cmnp who: mmmq co m
omNHm zHHEmm
mm OOH NH m.sm Om m.mO anm
em OOH mH Om OH H: mHOOHz
Om OOH mm mm m s 30H
Hmpoe Hmssm amps:
moocmpHmmm
mm OOH mm ON H mm OmHm
em OOH mH OH aH mm mHOOHz
Om OOH a mH OH HO 30H
Hepoe OOHO can» the: OOHO seep mmeH

 

zepHQmO moo mEoOcH

116

Additionally, the space resource measure offered
some evidence concerning relations with family structure
characteristics. There were significant associations with
family size and number of siblings of the preschool child.
The relation was apparently a negative one: the lower

these families rated on space the larger they were.

Movement

 

The only significant relationship found was with
father's educational level (Table 15). When the preschool
child's movement was held to a low or middle level, he
apparently had a father with education of four years or
less, in some two-thirds of the cases. If the child ex—
perienced high movement, his father (about 76 per cent of

the cases at this level) had more than four years of edu—

cation.

TABLE 15.--Re1ation between child's movement level and
father's educational status.

 

Father's Educational Status

 

Child's U Years or Less More than U Years'

 

 

 

 

 

Movement Schooling Schooling Total

Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Low 69 20 31 9 100 29
Middle 67 29 33 1U 100 U3
High 2a A 76 13 100 17
x = 11.3u, p = <.005>.001, C = .3u

2

117

Care and Appearance

 

Table 16 shows that levels of this resource were
significantly associated with education, income and
residence. Some evidence related to hypothesis three is
the fact that number of siblings of the preschool child
showed significant association with care and appearance.
Low levels of the resource were in families with the
larger number of siblings of the preschool child (71 per
cent of the cases at this level); high levels were more
often maintained in families with the smaller number of
siblings (72 per cent frequency at this level).

Also in relation to hypothesis three was a trend,
non-significant at the .02 level, to an association be—
tween care and appearance and age of female preschool
children. Low ratings tended to be most frequently
associated with younger-age girls and high ratings with

older—age girls.

Child's Play

 

Family measures related to the child's level of play
are presented in Table 17. Percentages of children with
low to middle play levels and with fathers of lower edu—
cational attainment tended to be about three-quarters of
those at these two levels. For children accustomed to
high play levels, about two-thirds of their fathers had

higher educational attainment.

TAHLE Mi--Relations between care and appearance level and

’1 Q
Iamily

118

characteristics.

selected

 

Care and
Appearance

Per cent

Per cent

H

Per

cent H

 

Fatlmnc's r k1031113nal thatLusl

 

J .' . , .
U . e21 s
1' r‘ , \
LES" echo

 

«'3' . . .. L' r.
1'.(_/:)t: uzlilrl
" fly -1. ‘, V'
" lea. LI

(

Schooling

 

Total

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low 77 2U 23 7 100 31
Middle 65 17 35 E 100 26
High 37.5 12 '2.5 20 ‘00 32
V ' ‘£ 1
Mother 3 .JO.11 nal tatuSL
H u Here than
3 zears or 2 U j , m
.. < tears '..c
Less Schooling i , .- lCtdl
‘ chcelinr
Low 61 19 39 12 1C0 31
Middle U6 12 EU 1U 00 26
High 16 5 CU 27 100 32
lnccre per Capita3
Less than V700 Torr than V730 Total
Low 8U 26 l( 5 100 31
Middle 5U 1U fit 12 1:- 26
High 22 7 76 25 0- an
I n ': 1 ‘1
{Hus—L (Pri(“
'rk 'ur’l .Ctal
Low 23 7 77 AU 100 3-
Middle 19 5 81 21 100 2t
High 69 22 31 10 100 32
a . n\ o [—
1umter of a t11n*s (f Preschool czildJ

Low
Middle
High

 

 

mrH
Ujme

 

\
.1
N 0.)

HP‘

 

(\JCNH

LA.) 0.) LA}

 

x2 = 10.9u,
2x2 = 1u.13,
3x2 = 2U.30,
“x, = 19.82,
5x = 11.72,

<.005>.001,

<.001, C
<.001, C

<.001, 0

<.005>.001, c

= .38
: .116
= .143

.3U

TABLE 1L-—Relations

between child's

119

play level and selected family
characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cgiig's Per cent N Per cent H Per cent N Per cent N
Father's Educational Statusl
U Years More than
or Less U Years’ Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 71 20 29 8 100 23
Middle 7U 20 26 7 100 27
High 33 13 62 21 100 gm
Household Occupation2
Agriculture Fixed Agriddlture Total
Low 50 1U 39 11 ll 3 100 28
Riddle U1 ll 37 10 22 C 100 2'
High 21 7 LL 3 5 13 160 ‘4
Incone per Car1t13
Less than More than H ,q,
2700 2700 ‘8“t*
Low 71 20 29 8 100 PL
Middle 63 17 37 10 100 2?
High 29 10 71 SU 100 U
Residence“
Urban Rural Total
Low 18 5 82 23‘ 100 2
Middle 30 8 70 19 100 27
High 62 21 38 13 100 ~,U
l _ _
X2 - 10.U2, p <.01>.005, .32
2x2 = 1U.68, p <.01>.005, = .38
3X2 = 12.U8, p <.005>.001, C = .35
“X = 13.75, p <.005>.001, C = .37

120

Children at low to middle play levels appeared to
come more often from agricultural or mixed occupation
families, while those with high play levels apparently
came more often from non-agricultural families.

Seventy-one per cent of children at low, and 63 per
cent at middle play levels, came from families with lower
incomes; while at the upper level 71 per cent of the
children came from higher income homes.

Associations with residence tended to follow those
with income. Children with either low or middle play
levels appeared to live most frequently in rural areas
(82 and 70 per cent, respectively), and those observed
to have high play levels lived in urban communities (62

per cent of the children at this level).

Task and Work

 

Only mother's educational status was significantly
related to child's involvement in personal tasks and
small work efforts about the home (Table 18). Some two—
thirds of the children with low involvement had mothers
with low educational status; from two-thirds to almost
three-fourths of the children with middle to high task
and work participation had mothers with higher educa-
tional status.

It is also noted with reference to the hypothesized

relation to family structure that slight trends to

121

significance at the .10 level were found between this re-
source category and the nuclear — modified-extended family
characteristic, and with children's age, and age of male
preschool children. No consistent trends were suggested

by the data.

TABLE l8.--Relation between child's task and work level
and mother's educational status.

 

Mother's Educational Status

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ch' 's
Tagidand 3 Years or Less More than 3 Years'
Work Schooling Schooling Total

Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Low 67 16 33 8 100 2U
Middle 33 13 67 26 100 39
High 27 7 73 19 100 26
X2 = 9.6U, p = <.01>.005, C = .31

Child's Learning
Oppprtunities

 

 

Status categories of parental education, income, and
residence were significantly related to this resource
(Table 19). Children who had low to middle levels of
learning Opportunities apparently most often had fathers
with lower educational attainment (76 and 70 per cent of
the children at these two levels). Two-thirds of children

with high learning opportunities in their home

122

TABLEIM1--Relations between level of child's learning
opportunities and selected family characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child's
Learning Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Father's Educational Statusl
U Years More than
or Less U Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 76 22 2U 7 100 29
Middle 70 21 30 9 100 30
High 33 10 67 20 100 30
Mother's Educational Status2
3 Years More than
or Less 3 Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 59 17 U1 12 100 29
Middle 50 15 50 15 100 30
High 13 U 87 26 100 30
Income per Capita3
Less than More than
Z700 $700 Total
Low 66 19 3U 10 100 29
Middle 63 19 37 11 100 30
High 30 9 70 21 100 30
Residence“
Urban Rural Total
Low 21 6 79 23 100 29
Middle 27 8 73 22 100 30
High 67 20 33 10 100 30
1x2 = 13.12, p <.005>.001, c = .36
2x2 = 1u.27, p <.001, c = .37
3x2 = 9.UB, p <.01>.005, c = .31
“x = 15.75, p < 001, C = .39

123

environments had fathers with higher educational status,
and also mothers with similar status in 9 of 10 cases.

Within-category differences for income and residence
indicate that low to middle amounts of learning opportuni—
ties for children were related to less income and rural
residence, and higher opportunities associated with higher
income and urbanization.

A slight trend (at .10 significance level) was noted
for an association between this resource and age of the
girls among the preschool children. Low learning oppor—
tunities seemed related more frequently to younger age
among the girls and high opportunities to older age.

Family Learning
Opportunities

 

 

Contingency tables for this resource Show signifi-
cant relations between family learning and mother's edu—
cation, family income, and residence (Table 20). In 65
per cent of the families with low learning opportunities,
the mothers had less education. Evidence at the middle
level was mixed, but at the upper level, 90 per cent of
those in this category had mothers with more education.

Families with both low and middle levels of learn-
ing opportunities were in the lower income category with
67 per cent frequency, and those with higher levels were

in the upper income group with 71 per cent frequency.

12U

TABLE 20.—-Relations between level of family learning
opportunities and selected family characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nggiizg Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Mother's Educational Status1
3 Years More than
or Less 3 Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 65 22 35 12 100 3U
Middle U6 ll 5U 13 100 2U
High 10 3 90 28 100 31
Income per Capita2
Leégoghan Mog$oghan Total
Low 67 16 33 8 100 3U
Middle 67 16 33 8 100 2U
High 29 9 71 22 100 31
Residence3
Urban Rural Total
Low 15 5 85 29 100 3U
Middle U2 10 58 1U 100 2U
High 61 19 39 12 100 31
3x, = 20.78, p < 001, C = .uu
2x2 = 10.81, p <.005>.001, c = .33
3x = 15.07, p <.001, c = .38

125

Rural residence was apparently more often associated
with low family learning Opportunities (85 per cent of
families at this level) than was urban residence with high
family learning opportunities (61 per cent of those at

this higher level).

Child's Contacts

 

The extent of social contacts maintained by pre—
school children in the study was associated with family
status in the areas of parental education, per capita
income, and residence, as reported in Table 21. Eighty—
one per cent of children with low social contacts and 60
per cent of those with middle levels had fathers with low
educational status. Some 67 per cent of those who ex-
perienced high social interaction had fathers who had
achieved higher educational status.

Low contacts were frequently related to having a
mother of minimal education (for 62.5 per cent of child-
ren at the low level). Moving from middle to higher
levels was associated with increasing frequency to hav-
ing mothers with more education (from 53 per cent of the
middle level group of children to 93 per cent of child-
ren with high contacts).

Trends observed for relationships with income and
residence were similar: low to middle levels of social

contacts for preschool children were linked with less

126

TABLEEfls——Relations between level of child's contacts and
selected family characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
ggitgcis Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Father's Educational Statusl
U Years More than
or Less U Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 81 26 19 6- 100 32
Middle 60 18 U0 12 100 30
High 33 9 67 18 100 27
Mother's Educational Status2
3 Years More than
or Less 3 Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 62.5 20 37.5 12 100 32
Middle U7 1U 53 16 100 30
High 7 2 93 25 100 27
Income per Capita3
Less than More than
2700 2700 ’TOtal
Low ‘72 23 28 9 100 32
Middle 63 19 37 11 100 30
High 19 5 81 22 100 27
Residence“
Urban Rural Total
Low 19 6 81 26 100 32
Middle 33 10' 67 20 100 30
High 67 18 33 9 100 27
1x - 1 6 —
2 - 3.9 , p <.001, C - .37
2x2 = 19.18, p <.001, c = .A2
3x2 = 18.7U, p <.001, c = .U2
“X = 1U.70, p <.001, C = .38

127

income and rural living; high contacts with more family
income per capita and urban residence.

Additionally, social contacts of the child tended to
relate to his age (level of significance was .10). It
appeared that older children more frequently had high

levels of social interaction.

Family Contacts

 

This resource category was significantly associated
only with status measures of parental education (Table 22).
In comparison with the social contacts of the child, the
strength of the associations as expressed in the contin-
gency coefficients was not as pronounced. The degree of
relation was reversed: that is, level of family contacts
was more strongly related to the father's educational
status, and the child's contacts to the mother's educa-
tional status. Trends in percentages at the various
levels and within the two educational categories (of
father and mother) appeared to be somewhat similar for
both family and child's social contacts.

Descrlptive Use of Family
Resource Patterns

On page 129 is a profile of individual resource
ratings for one household in the study, fictitiously
named the Arias-Salazar family. It may be studied with

reference to Table 2U in the Scoring Manual, Appendix C,

128

TABLE 22.-—Relations between level of family contacts and
selected family characteristics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family -
Contacts Per cent N Per cent N Per cent N
Father's Educational Statusl
U Years More than
or Less U Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 88 23 12 3 100 26
Middle 51 20 U9 19 100 39
High U2 10 58 lU 100 2U
Mother's Educational Status2
3 Years More than
or Less 3 Years' Total
Schooling Schooling
Low 62 16 38 10 100 26
Middle U1 16 59 23 100 39
High 17 U 83 20 100 2U
1x2 = 13.32, p <.005>.001, c = .36
2x = 10.UU, p <.01>.005, c = .32

129

family
contacts

pom moonsomop CH mpHHHanpm> mo appease

child's

0

contacts

family

9

learning

child's

0

learning

moonsommm

k

P
SO 8
'w 0.
d — d
11k «iny
{is 513
hua hul
nut CnP

.COHpmospo

”oHHmonQ zHHEmm <t|.m onszm

care

appearance

child's

movement

 

(I

P

(D

e HOHHHoeoaOo op
m COHpmHms mo Ho>oq
w
.0 O

l. H

30H
11m
.1 m

.1 : pHOOHs

m cmHm

 

130

page 251. In that table are ratings which this family
received on each of four resource dimensions for all re—
source categories, then summed to the IRR in the profile.

Patterning of resources for educability in this
family is evidenced by graphing IRR achieved and then
connecting these ratings to illustrate the consistency,
or lack of consistency, among them. Considered separately,
3 IRR were in the area of low relation to educability, 5
in the middle level, and l, child's learning, at the high
level. The range of IRR varied from 0 for care and ap—
pearance, and task and work, to 6 for child's learning.
While IRR range for the family was 6, the TRR, Total Re—
source Rating, achieved was 28.

Two of 3 environmental properties related to edu—
cability (which guided selection of resource categories
for the study), constriction and cognitive stimulation,
were most affected by high inconsistency in range of IRR.
Only the property of social interaction, indicated by
social contacts, presented an appearance of consistency,
although only the middle level of relation to educa-
bility was reached.

This family, with a middle level TRR and a high
range of IRR, was representative of the group of fami-
lies mentioned under hypothesis one, that group which
made up U3 per cent of the total sample. This was a

rural family, living in an agricultural workers'

131

community on a large coffee farm. It was a mixed occupa-
tion family. José Alberto, father of the preschool child
around whom the study questions were focused, and head of
the household, worked as a "jornalero," or contracted day
worker on the farm. A son, Manuel, worked with him;
another, Rafael, worked in a factory. Other older child-
ren contributed to family income by working during coffee
harvest. Total family income for 1967 was 06936. With
1U members at the time, family income per capita amounted
to ¢U95 or $7U.72 per year.

The father had never attended school; his wife,
Clara Luz, completed one year. Theirs was a nuclear
family; although they had relatives on the same and nearby
farms, they did not see them often enough to be classified
as a modified-extended group. At the time of study, there
was a new baby in the family; therefore, Oscar, the pre-
school child, had 12 siblings at home. He was U years
and 5 months of age when family observation began. Two
siblings, Maria and Luisa, were also in the 3-to-6 pre-
school age group; another in this age category had died
recently. One older brother, Rafael, had completed six
years of primary education at the elementary school on

the "finca" grounds where the family lived.

132
Exploration of Prediction Potential
of Family Resource Construct
A tentative exploration was made of the use of TRR
as a general indicator of family resources for educa-
bility, and other measures, in a regression equation to
predict a criterion measure (78; 83:315). The latter

measure, called "family educational success,"

was opera-
tionalized by presence or absence in each family of at
least one sibling of the preschool child of the study who
was old enough for the sixth grade of primary school,

and who was presently in that grade (or who had already
completed it or gone beyond).

The exploratory hypothesis was that, given informa-
tion about TRR and some family characteristics, perhaps
one could predict family educational success with a fair
degree of accuracy. In addition to TRR, variables
selected were parental education, residence, income, and
occupation. Together, these were used as independent
variables in calculating coefficients for the linear re-
gression equation by the method of least squares, with
the educational success measure as dependent variable.

A special question was whether the TRR measure would
make a larger contribution to the equation than the
others.

Results were a multiple correlation coefficient of

.509, significant at the .01 level. The R2 coefficient

133

was .259, indicating that the equation accounted for about
26 per cent of the variability in family educational suc-
cess, leaving the rest due to other factors. Partial cor—
relation coefficients were very low, varying from -.308
for father's education to .001 for mixed occupation. That
for TRR was very small--.l67. Father's education, resi-
dence, and mother's education were the measures which con-
tributed most.

An idea of the success of prediction was obtained by
using the regression equation to estimate educational suc-
cess for families in the sample with at least one child
old enough to have reached the sixth grade. For the UU
families who met this criteria, predictions were made in-
correctly for seven, a 16 per cent error. On the basis
of the findings, the tentative hypothesis was considered
to have received some support; however, it was evident
that the TRR measure did not contribute more to the pre-
diction than the status measures under conditions of the

experiment.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

The chapter discusses the findings and presents

limitations, conclusions and implications of the re-

search.

Discussion of Findings

Reliability

 

In relation to scoring reliability an approximation
of 89 per cent consistency was claimed for 36 resource
measures, based on results of one-way analyses of vari-
ance for two scoring treatments. In addition, there were
also four resource scores for which significance of the
difference of means for the scoring groups was less than
the .10 level. One of these, UQN Care and Appearance,
appears in Table 9. The other three were UQN dimension
Child's Contacts, and AQN dimension scores for Child's
and Family Contacts.

If these trends are accepted as evidences of fur—
ther possible inconsistencies in scoring, then 8 of 36
measures were unstable in two scoring treatments (which

differed superficially). This indicates that a more

13U

135

conservative estimate of reliability of scoring would be
78 per cent. If more work is done with the conceptual

and measurement system developed here, the inconsistencies
for AQN and UQN dimensions should be examined closely.

The resource categories which appear to require refine—
ment are Child's Learning, Care and Appearance, and
Child's Contacts. The task would be aided by study of

the measures of central tendency and dispersion computed
for each score for evidences of non-normal or curtailed

distributions in Table 25, Appendix D (85).

Dimensionality

 

Given the caution needed with regard to interpreta—
tion of results, tentative ideas are offered. From exami-
nation of partial correlation coefficients of the four
sets of scores with TRR (Table 10, page 105), the dimen—
sionality of family resourcefulness for early educability
may be specified to a degree. There appeared to be some
evidence of differential composition of the dimensions,
that is, of differential meanings for availability and
utilization, and quantity and quality aspects of resource-
fulness. Thus, support appeared for this property as
described in the conceptual framework of the study (page
8, and U2 to U7).

For interpretive purposes, the convention might be

adopted to consider only the three highest partial

136

correlations in order of their magnitude of relation to
TRR. In this context, quantity of family resources avail—
able for educability might more rigorously be described

as composed of, first of all, amount of family learning
opportunities (excluding the preschool child); then

amount of objects and activities for the child's play;
then household space and the objects which are present
within it.

Quality of resources available within the home en-
vironment in relation to attainment of educability prob—
ably ought to include particular attention to variety of
household spaces and objects first, and then to variety
of the young child's learning and play opportunities.
For quantity of resource utilization for educability,
one would consider, first, aspects of the family's (not
the child's) actual involvement in learning activities;
then the child's usual clothing and food consumption;

and finally the child's usual play activities.

Quality of Resource Use

 

Some observations are offered specifically about the
fourth dimension of resourcefulness. Partial correla—
tions of these scores with TRR need interpretation keeping
in mind that the source of data was different from the
other three dimensions. It is based exclusively on picture

stimuli with focused questions. The resulting measure is

137

one of the mother's verbalized perceptions of means—end
relationships, inferred as indicating qualitative aspects
of resource utilization. Size of partial correlation
coefficients suggests that these mothers defined the
dimension in terms of task and work efforts of the child,
an emphasis indicating possibly a primary cultural stress
upon goals of early independence and responsible partici-
pation. They then defined the dimension in terms of the
child's learning and social contacts, indicating perhaps
secondary cultural goals of early cognitive and social-
emotional stimulation in the family.

The multiple correlation coefficients were smallest
for UQL, indicating that this perception—oriented dimen-
sion may contribute less to family resource patterns for
educability than any of the other three. However, it may
be a most unique and important dimension, but one either
inadequately conceptualized or measured, or one which had
less importance in the particular families investigated
than assumed. The data came exclusively from use of an
instrument which may have been subject to unknown sources
of non-validity or unreliability. It is pointed out that
another investigator's ability to reproduce the scores
was not ascertained. On the other hand, researchers
have offered evidence that perception of means-end rela—
tions is an established managerial concept (2, 6, U0),

and that it is, in turn, commonly viewed as a component

138

of competence, a human resource of particular value in
linking individuals and families to society (1, 26, 38).
In research and discussions about the goal of early
educability, this investigator noted a common reference
to "the" preschool child of the family. As mentioned in
the profile of the Arias-Salazar family, families may
have more than one child in the preschool stage (even
though only one is designated for research purposes).
While the study concept is of "the preschool child," the
family perception may be of "the children," with the
mother holding a generalized, diffuse orientation towards
‘them as a group. With the Picture Question data, it was
otaserved (but no significance attached to the fact at the
tcime) that, although the investigator carefully and con-
s:istently referred to the resource activities of the pic-
tllres in terms of a specific child, even naming him and

this age to his mother, she often spoke of "them" in her

ariswers, not of "him" or "her." The usual pronouns were

plural.
Therefore, it may be that the concept of relations
bei:ween the quality of a child's home activities and
fatnire school success was either poorly specified and
Opexrationalized in this study, or that it was not per—
CEixred as important to many Costa Rican families: that

13, educability was not a culturally relevant goal.

WltfljJfi larger family groups, parents may have diffuse,

139

non-specific orientations toward a child: he is only one
of a group, and this impedes perception of him as needing
access to certain amounts and qualities of resources at

critical periods of development.

Interdependent Functioning

 

While the partial correlation technique was explored
for evidence about the meaning of distinctive dimensions
of resourcefulness, another aspect was also examined by
correlational analysis. This was the interdependent
patterning, or interrelated functioning of resources,
discussed by many in the field of home management (15,

17, 18, 21, 25, 33). In this study, the patterning or
clustering nature of family resources related to educa-
bility was apparent from the matrix of resource ratings
in Table 11. This finding is in agreement with the high
commonality reported by Hess on similar resource measures,
where all nine resources clustered on one principal fac—
tor (11).

That this is a differential patterning, with some
resources contributing more strongly than others to the
overall cluster of means in the family environment for
the educability goal, is inferred from the sizes of the
coefficients, and the fact that Child's Learning, a most

specific resource category associated with future school

1U0

success for a child, was most often related to the other

resource categories at .50 or above.

Extent and Consistency

 

A particular way of looking at resource quantity and
quality is highlighted by findings relevant to hypothesis
one, which supported the belief that level of resourceful-
ness attained would relate to consistency in amounts of
resources present for educability. There appeared to be
several qualitatively distinct family environments when
both extent and consistency of resources were examined:
families in which the resource environment was very con-
sistent but either very low or high on total resources;
and families in which the resource environment was highly
inconsistent but not high in total resources. This inter—
pretation might be studied in light of the assumption of
the economic view of resources that there is continuity
and stability in handling resources and that there is an
equilibrium between means and wants to be satisfied (32,
3U).

This possible distinction about family environments
could be explored further in light of Bloom's hypothesis
about powerful environments being those which have a
pervasive stability (U7). The effects of the first two
environments may be more lasting than that of the third.

Measurements on goal attainment, in this case, of

1U1

educability—related behaviors of the child himself, would
be required both at the preschool age and after exposure
to school influences, before a prediction could be sup—
ported.

Developmental Properties
and Resources

 

 

Physical constriction, cognitive stimulation, and
social interaction, the three developmental properties
proposed in the conceptual framework of the study for
guiding selection of resource categories for educability
(page 7 ), might be examined with reference to the re-
sults of the chi square analyses. If resource categories
are eliminated which showed three or less significant
relations with family characteristics, then the five re—
maining ones may be organized according to these proper-
ties to judge whether, and how, each property was opera-
tionalized in the families studied. In this context, the
results provide evidence that constriction would refer to
household space, and physical care and appearance; stimu—
lation to child's play and learning, and interaction
would mean child's social contacts.

Resources, Status
and Structure

 

 

Chi square analysis supported the hypothesized rela—
tionship between family resource patterns, measured by

TRR, and status characteristics, measured by parental

1U2

education, income, and residence, but not occupation. The
analysis did not support the hypothesized relationship
with family structure measures, however. When the 9 re-
source categories were considered separately, there were
28 significant relationships with the various status
measures, and only 3 with structure measures. Categories
showing the greatest number of significant relations, and
therefore highest discriminating ability, with the family
characteristics measures were: Space with 7 significant
relations; Care and Appearance with 5; Child's Play,
Learning and Contacts, all with U. The least discriminat—
ing resource measures proved to be Child's Movement and
Task and Work, and Family Contacts and Learning.

Resource ratings in the contingency tables can be
examined for information about the concept of levels of
relation to educability. In addition, this would be
necessary for the significant chi square tables in order
‘to take the next analytical step which is to collapse the
tables to 2 by 2 size for determination of the source of
clifference in each. As a guide to making decisions about
know to combine the three resources levels, an inspection
of trends is revealing. For all resource categories the
evidence seemed to be that low and middle levels of re-
sources were associated with larger family size, rural
residence, less education for the father, and low income.

.At‘the high resources levels, the evidence suggested the

lU3

cluster of family characteristics of smaller family size,
urban residence, more education for both parents, and
higher income.

There are two family characteristics for which these
level trends apparently do not hold true. For mother's
education, divided slightly lower than for father's educa-
tion, there was some evidence of relation between the
middle resources level and higher education. This may be
a function of how the group was dichotomized for analysis.
For occupation, the low and middle levels of resources
seemed to be either agricultural or mixed occupation
groups; while high resources levels related to non-
agricultural occupations.

The findings suggest that the resource measures may
have use in specifying a more generalized concept such as
the influence of family environment, defined as social
status, upon human development. This specification is
zin urgent current need, according to other researchers

(1, 6, UU, U7, 50).

Egadly Characteristics

 

The chi square results could also be examined from
the point of view of the family characteristics. Parental
education measures were both related significantly at the
Chosen .01 level with resource measures 8 times; residence

and income had 7 such relationships. Occupation was

lUU

least important among the status measures with two cases
of being significantly related to resources. Among family
structure measures, only family size and number of sib—
lings, similar measures, showed any significant relations,
and the total was only three. It is of interest that
little evidence was found in this study of preschool child-
ren and the family environment of relations between age
and sex of the child and the resource measures. Either
the measures were too gross to detect differences or the
culture placed little emphasis on this developmental
stage, a speculation related to the previous discussion
about the UQN dimension. This question is of importance
in view of the emphasis in theory and research currently
being placed upon stage- and sex-related influences in
the fields of human development and education (9, ll, l2,
l3, 1U). Also, it may be possible that the prediction of
family educational success would be improved by addition.

of significant structure measures, if such could be found.

FamilylProfile

 

What might be said about the profile of resources
for the goal of educability in Oscar's environment?
That there was physical constriction present is evident
from the extreme rating (in comparison with other children
of the sample) on his usual food and clothing consumption

and routine physical care. Lack of stimulation was

1U5

suggested in the extreme rating (again compared to other
children of the sample) for doing things for himself and
helping with little tasks at home. Influencing factors
might be found in the pattern of family characteristics
(for example, very low family income and educational
attainments of parents, measures found to relate to low
levels of resources for educability). Others might be
such factors as family size or number of similar age
siblings, indicating competition for scarce resources
with Oscar.

In some ways, Oscar fared better compared to other
children of the sample. He experienced only moderate
physical constriction as far as level of household space
and his own movements were concerned. He also experienced
moderate amounts of stimulation through play, and social
interaction through contacts with others.

The ratings suggest that Oscar's environment for
educability varied from low to moderately pervasive. It
was neither highly supportive nor consistently negative
in relation to attainment of the goal of his educability.
Its effects upon the child might be controlled or mediated
either by improvement in status levels of the family, by
direct efforts in relation to the low and moderately
rated resource categories, or by efforts with the child
but totally outside the family, or a combination of

Inethods. The status characteristics of most influence

1U6

and possibly ammenable to societal alteration might be
parental education levels or family income. Perhaps some
resource ratings could be examined for improvement pos-
sibilities, fOr example, care and appearance for physical
constriction, and either task and work or family learning
for stimulation. These are especially suggested as all
others were moderate to high in level compared with other

families.

Limitations

 

The sample families were purposively selected. It
is not known to what extent results based on this sample
can be generalized to any pOpulation beyond it.

Level of measurement attained was ordinal; however,
analyses were carried out under the assumption of at least
equal—appearing intervals. It is not known to what ex—
tent the assumption was met. Other assumptions relevant
to statistical models used were recognized but no asser-
tion is made of rigorous compliance with them.

The process of combining items into scores and
transforming them into ratings meant loss of information
from the data; however, this may have been balanced by a
gain in comparability through development of ipsatized
ratings, that is, normalized ratings for intra-societal

use .

1&7

Size of multiple correlation coefficients must be
cautiously interpreted because they may be spurious due
to use of TRR as internal criterion. The items them-
selves contributed indirectly to TRR. Without’further
analysis sources of differences appearing in the con-
tingency tables could not be specified with confidence.

No attempt was made to directly measure and relate
to the resource variables the educability-linked be—
haviors of the children, which are output behavior vari—
ables necessary for further specification of the input
role of the resource categories as means for goal attain-
ment.

Although the conceptual framework and measurement
model appeared to be applicable cross-culturally, no
claim of this nature is made for all of the individual
resource scores because they represent culturally modi-
fied definitions which may be limited to the particular

group of families studied.

Conclusions
. Within the confines of this study utilizing a pur-
posive sample of 89 intact families with preschool
children, distributed heterogeneously by family status
and structure characteristics, and geographically
located within a recognized developing region of Costa

Rica, the following conclusions are warranted.

1148

The managerial—developmental framework for the con—
struct family resource patterns for educability, ori—
ginally conceptualized for, and applied in, one group of
families, demonstrated applicability in another cultural
group of families.

There was evidence for content validity. It was
provided by a process of establishing an adequate repre—
sentative sampling of items for the resource categories,
based upon practices observed in families, suggested by
cultural informants and researchers, or the developmental-
managerial literature reviewed.

Evidence for construct validity included differ-
ential meaningfulness for each of the four dimensions in
terms of the resource categories which showed significant
partial correlation coefficients. The evidence also indi-
cated that the fourth dimension, UQL, may be unique in
comparison with the others, AQN, AQL, UQN, because its
multiple correlation coefficient with the Total Resource
Rating was the smallest. It requires further study for
refinement of the definition in terms of the culture and
measurement.

Additional evidence for construct validity indi-
cated, by means of inspection of the intercorrelation
matrix of nine resource ratings, that there was a pattern-
ing or clustering of the measures, significant at the .01

level. When only substantial coefficients were

1&9

considered (over .50), all resource categories expect
movement contributed to the cluster.

Validation of the construct of family resource pat—
terns for educability was further investigated by means of
chi square analyses and the contingency coefficients for
study of significant and substantial associations. An
hypothesized relation between extent (Operationalized by
levels of TRR) and consistency (measured by the range of
IRR) of resource patterns was supported.

Analyses using the general resource measure (TRR)
and the individual resource measures revealed many signifi-
cant relations with family status but very few with family
structure characteristics. On the basis of the evidence
the hypothesized association with status was considered
supported; that with structure was not. An ordering of
importance of the resources was suggested by secondary
analyses: space, and care and appearance showed the most
significant relationships; play, child's learning and con-
tacts were intermediate; family learning and contacts were
low; movement and task and work were lowest.

There appeared to be potential for use of the
conceptual—measurement system in descriptive family analy-
sis, demonstrated by an illustrative profiling of a family
in order to be able to describe it in comparison with

other families.

150

In an investigation of concurrent validity, contribu-
tion of the construct in a prediction system was found to
be limited; however, due to the empirical and exploratory
nature of the problem, no conclusion is warranted about
the predictive potential of the construct without further

investigation.

Implications

 

Theory

Resource patterns for goal attainment appears to be
a fruitful construct for a theory of management in the
family, especially the aspects of dimensionality, inter-
dependent patterning directed to specific family goals,
and the qualities of extent and consistency of resources
at critical individual development periods experienced

within the family environment.

Research

The study tests a framework developed within one
culture and finds it meaningful in terms of another. It
suggests a possible approach to use in constructing a
system for comparison within, and perhaps, between, cul—
tural groups of families.

Reliability and validity have been major foci of
the study. The evidence for these criteria is supportive

of the conceptual and measurement models; however, on the

151

basis of the present findings, refinement would be needed
if the system is contemplated for other studies. The more
significant measures, perhaps, were those better defined
(space, learning, play) and not necessarily those most
important for educability. Measurements on the children
would be required for analysis in order to evaluate em—
pirically the significance of the resources for educa-
bility. Additionally, measurements of managerial be-
haviors and value orientations might add significantly

to predictability of goal achievement in the area of
educability.

Extension and/or refinement of the meaning of family
structure is needed in order to reexamine its associations
with TRR. It is suggested that birth order of the pre—
school child, or age of parents, might be measures worthy
of investigation. The results indicated that status over-
whelms structure as a significant variable in relation to
resources for educability; it may truly be most important,
or there may be an interaction between status and struc-

ture not uncovered in the study.

Action Programs

For possible application in programs carried out by
(fiiange agents, there are suggested in the study both a
cormeptual orientation, or way of looking at a problem,

and a system of data collection, which emphasize the

152

relation between the family system and a societal institu—
tion, the schools. Perhaps a simplified but more repre—
sentative study might uncover some guidelines for action
programs aimed at development of the parental resource as
instrumental in guiding or mediating a goal such as edu-
cability, within the family environment. An outcome of
this type would be of benefit to families and significant
to societal goals.

If educability is a viable and important societal
goal, then efforts in relation to it may need to be
focused more on rural, lower income and less educated
families, based on results of this study. It is a task
which might receive the attention of extension workers or
rural school teachers.

Some inputs to families may be needed from outside
institutions in order to raise overall TRR to moderate or
high levels, for categories of resources such as space
and family learning opportunities, for example. If the
direction of causality can be assumed to be from status
to family resource levels for educability, then limited
improvements only can be made by families without inputs

in the areas of parental education and family income.

LITERATURE CITED

153

LITERATURE CITED

Hagen Everett E. On the Theory of Social Change.
Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962.

 

Paolucci, Beatrice. "Contributions of a Framework of
Home Management to the Teaching of Family Re-
lationships." Journal of Marriage and the
Family, XXVIII (August, 1966), 338-3A2.

Magrabi, Frances M., and McHugh, Helen F. "Concepts
in Teaching Family Finance." Journal of Home
Economics, LV (February, 1963), 107-110.

 

 

Schlater, Jean D. "The Management Process and Its
Core Concepts." Journal of Home Economics,
LIX (February, 1967), 93-98.

 

Nichols, Addreen. "Person-Centered and Task-
Centered Styles of Organization." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,

 

196A.

Liston, Margaret I. "Management in the Family as
Social Process." Proceedings of Conference:
Conceptual Frameworks: Process of Home

 

Management. East Lansing: Michigan State'
University, 196“.

 

Fromm, Erich. The Revolution of Hope: Toward a
Humanized Technology. New York: Harper and
Row, 1968. ‘

 

Straus, Murray A. "Phenomenal Identity and Concep-
tual Equivalence of Measurement in Cross-
National Comparative Research." Journal of
Marriage and the Family, XXXI (May, 1969),
233-239.

Hess, Robert D.; Shipman, Virginia C.; and Jackson,
David. "Early Experience and the Socializa—
tion of Cognitive Modes in Children." Child
Development, XXXVI (December, 1965), 869-886.

 

 

 

15A

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

155

Hess, Robert D., and Shipman, Virginia C. "Maternal
Attitude Toward the School and the Role of
Pupil: Some Social Class Comparisons."
Teaching and Learning in Depressed Areas.
Edited by A. H. Passow. New York: Teacher's
College Press, 1967.

 

Hess, Robert D.; Shipman, Virginia C.; Brophy, Jere
E.; and Bear, Roberta Meyer. The Cognitive
Environments of Urban Preschool Children.
Chicago: Graduate School of Education, Uni—
versity of Chicago, 1968.

 

 

Hess, Robert D., and Bear, Roberta Meyer, eds. Early
Education: Current Theory, Research, and
Action. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company,
1968.

 

Grotberg, Edith, ed. Proceedings of Research Semi-
nars: Critical Issues in Research Related to
Disadvantaged Children. Office of Economic
Opportunity, Washington, D.C., 1968—1969.
Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service, 1969.

 

 

Schrimshaw, Nevin S., and Gordon, John E., eds. Pro—
ceedings of International Conference on Malnu-
trition, Learning, and Behavior. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.,

1967. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press,
1968.

Deacon, Ruth E. "Home Management: Focus and Func—
tion." Journal of Home Economics, LIV

 

(November, 1962), 760-762.

Deacon, Ruth E., and Maloch, Francille. "Proposed
Framework for Home Management." Journal of
Home Economics, LVIII (January, 1966), 31-35.

 

 

Bell, Helen. "One Home Management Concept - Organi-
zation." Proceedings of Conference on Teaching
Home Management. Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, 1962. Washington, D.C.: American
Home Economics Association, 1962.

 

Walker, Florence S. "A Proposal for Classifying
Self-Imposed Housekeeping Standards." Journal
of Home Economics, LX (June, 1968), 456-560.

 

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2A.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

156

Mumaw, Catherine R. "Researching Organizational
Patterns." Paper presented at Annual Meeting
of the American Home Economics Association,
Boston, Mass., June, 1969.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New
York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1961.

Paolucci, Beatrice, and O'Brien, Carol. "Resources:
the Tools of Management." Forecast for Home
Economists, LXXVI (March, 1960), 21—22.

 

Paolucci, Beatrice. "Plans for Strengthening Family
Life: Implications for Home Management Re:
Housing." Proceedings of Fifth Annual Land—
Grant HousinggConference. University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., 1962.

 

Baker, Georgianne R. "Patterning of Home Resources
for Children's Early Cognitive Growth." East
Lansing, Michigan, 1965. (Typewritten.)

Nickell, Paulena, and Dorsey, Jean M. Management
in Family Living. New York: John Wiley, 1968.

 

Gross, Irma, and Crandall, Elizabeth W. Management
for Modern Families. 2d ed. New York:
Appleton-Century Crofts, 1963.

 

Spindler, George, and Spindler, Louise. "Research—
ing the Perception of Cultural Alternatives:
the Instrumental Activities Inventory." Con—

text and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology.
Edited by M. S. Spiro. New York: Free Press,

1965.
Whiting, John W. M. "Resource Mediation and Learn-
ing by Identification." Personality Development

 

in Children. Edited by Ira Iscoe and Harold W.
Stevenson. Austin, Texas: University of
Texas Press, 1960.

 

Longabaugh, Richard. "A Category System for Coding
Interpersonal Behavior as Social Exchange."
Sociometry, XXVI (September, 1963), 319-3AA.

 

Clarkson, Geoffrey P. E. The Theory of Consumer
Demand: A Critical Appraisal. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

157

30. Hicks, J. R. Value and Capital. London: Oxford Uni—
versity Press, 1957.

 

31. . A Revision of Demand Theory. London:
Oxford University Press, 1956.

 

32. Schumpeter, Joseph A. The Theory of Economic Develop—
ment. Translated by Redvers Opie. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1961.

33. Fitzsimmons, Cleo. The Management of Family Re-

 

sources. San Francisco: W. R. Freeman and
Co., 1951.
3A. Lancaster, Kelvin. "Allocation and Distribution

Theory: Technological Innovation and Progress:
Change and Innovation in the Technology of
Consumption." American Economic Review, LVI
(May, 1966), lA-23.

35. Burk, Marguerite C. "Implications for Agriculture
of Qualitative Changes in Food Consumption:
U.S.A. Experience." Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc.
Journal Series. Paper No. 1233. St. Paul:
University of Minnesota, 1965.

 

36. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Motivational and Social Com-
ponents in Compensatory Education Programs:
Suggested Principles, Practices, and Research
Designs." Proceedings of Research Seminars:
Critical Issues in Research Related to Dis-
advantaged Children. Edited by Edith Grotberg.
Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington,
D.C., 1968-1969. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, 1969.

 

37. Scheinfeld, Daniel R. "On Developing Developmental
Families." Proceedings of Research Seminars:
Critical Issues in Research Related to Dis-
advantaged Children. Edited by Edith Grotberg.
Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington,
D.C., 1968-1969. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, 1969.

 

38. Sussman, Marvin B., and Brooks, Margaret W. "The
Competence Concept." Case Western Reserve
University, October, 1969. (Mimeographed.)

39.

A0.

A1.

A2.

A3.

AA.

“5.

A6.

A7.

158

Foote, Nelson N., and Cottrell, Leonard S. Identity
and Interpersonal Competence: a New Direction
in Family Research. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1955.

 

 

Hoyt, Elizabeth E. Choice and the Destiny of Nations.
New York: Philos0phical Library, 1969.

Baldwin, Alfred L.; Kalhorn, Joan; and Breese, Fay H.
"The Appraisal of Parent Behavior." Psy—
chological Monogpaphs, No. 299. LXIII, 1949.

 

Gordon, Ira J. "Developing Parent Power." Proceed-
ings of Research Seminars: Critical Issues in
Research Related to Disadvantaged Children.
Editied by Edith Grotberg. Office of Economic
Opportunity, Washington, D.C., 1968-1969.
Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing
Service, 1969.

Liston, Margaret I. "Interrelationship of Values
and Decision-Making in Home Management."
Proceedings of Conference on Values and
Decision-Making in Home Management. Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955.

Paolucci, Beatrice. "Home Management Education."
Paper presented at XIV Conferencia Internacional
Da Familia, International Union of Family
Organizations, Rio De Janiero, Brazil, July,
1963. (Mimeographed.)

Sussman, Marvin B. "Cross-National Family Studies:
Some Conceptual Issues in Family-Organizational
Linkages." Paper presented at Family Bureau—
cracy session, 64th meeting of the American
Sociological Association, San Francisco,
Calif., November, 1969.

Barry, Herbert, III; Child, Irvin L.; and Bacon,
Margaret K. "Relation of Child Training to
Subsistance Economy." American Anthrppolo-
gist, LXI (February, 1959), 51—63.

Bloom, Benjamin S. Stability and Change in Human
Characteristics. New York: Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 196A.

 

H8.

“9.

50.

51.

52.

53.

5A.

159

Wolf, Richard M. "The Identification and Measurement
of Environmental Process Variables Related to
Intelligence." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Chicago, 1964.

Dave, Ravindrakumar H. "The Identification and
Measurement of Environmental Process Variables
that are Related to Educational Achievement."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1963.

Hess, Robert D. "Parental Behavior and Children's
School Achievement: Implications for Head
Start." Proceedings of Research Seminars:
Critical Issues in Research Related to Dis-
advantaged Children. Edited by Edith Grotberg.
Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington,
D.C., 1968-1969. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, 1969.

 

 

 

Hess, Robert D.; Shipman, Virginia C.; Brophy,
Jere E.; and Bear, Roberta Meyer. Egg
Cognitive Environments of Urban Preschool
Children: Follow-Up Phase. Chicago: Graduate
School of Education, University of Chicago,

1969.

 

Baker, Georgianne, and Paolucci, Beatrice. "Family
Resource Patterns for Early Educability: a
Measurement Model Proposed for Cross-Cultural
Applications." Proceedings of Conference on
Imppoving Our Competencies in International-
Intercultural Home Economics. Cornell Uni—
versity, Ithaca, New York, 1969.

 

Roy, Prodipto; Waisanen, Frederick E.; and Rogers,
Everett M. The Impact of Communication on
Rural Development. Paris: UNESCO, and India:
National Institute of Community Development,
1969.

 

Secretaria General de la OEA. Comité Interamericano
de Desarrollo Agricola. Inventario de la
Informacion Basica para la Programaci6n del
Desarrolo Agricola en la América Latina:
Centroamérica. Washington, D.C.: Uni6n
Panamericana, 1965.

 

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

160

United Nations, Economic Commission for Latin
America. Education, Human Resources and De—
velopment in Latin America. New York: United
Nations (E/CN.12/800), 1968.

 

Lombardo, Heraclio A. Analisis de una Economia
Agricola Dentro de la Meseta Central de Costa
Rica. Serie Planeamiento No. A. San José,
Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericano de
Ciencias Agricolas de la O.E.A., 1965.

 

International Monetary Fund. Statistics Bureau.
International Financial Statistics, XXIII (May,

1970), 92.

Inter—American Development Bank. Social Progress
Trust Fund Eighth Annual Report. Socio—

Economic Progress in Latin America. Washington,
D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank, 1968.

Waisanen, Frederick B., and Durlak, Jerome A.
Estudio Sobre Actitudes Hacia 1a Dinamica de
Poblacion. Programa Inter-Americano de In—
formaci6n Popular. San José, Costa Rica:
American International Association for Economic
and Social Development, 1966.

 

Jordan, John W. Attitudes Toward Education and Phy-
sicallnyisabled Persons in Eleven Nations.
Research Report No. 1. East Lansing, Michi—
gan: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan
State University, 1968.

Céspedes, Francisco S. "The Contemporary Educa-
tional Scene in Latin America." Report of
Eastern Regional Conference of Comparative
Education Society: Challenges and Achieve-
ments of Education in Latin America. Pan
American Union, Washington, D.C., 196A.

 

Chacon Jinesta, Oscar. Codigo de Educacion. San
José, Costa Rica: Imprenta Trejos Hermanos,

1965.

63.

6A.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

161

Arroyave, Guillermo; Ascoli, Werner; and Schaefer,
Arnold E. "The Nutrition Survey of Central
America and Panama." Institute of Nutrition
of Central America and Panama, Guatemala City,
Guatemala, and Nutrition Section, Office of
International Research, National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, Md., 1967. (Mimeographed.)

"Informe Preliminar Sobre 1a Encuesta Nutritional de
Costa Rica." Institute of Nutrition of Central
America and Panama, Guatemala City, Guatemala,
1967. (Mimeographed.)

Williamson, Robert C. "Some Variables of Middle and
Lower Class in Two Central American Cities."
Social Forces, XLI (December, 1962), 195-207.

 

Bock, E. Wilbur, and Iutaka, Sugiyama. "Maintenance
of the Extended Family in Urban Areas: A Com—
parative Study of Argentina, Brazil, and
Chile." Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Council on Family Relations,
Washington, D.C., October, 1969.

Survey of Family Income and Expenditures, 1961.
San José, Costa Rica: General Office of
Statistics and Census, 1965.

Household Income and Expenditure Statistics, 1950—
196A, No. 1. Geneva, Switzerland: Inter-
national Labour Office, 1967.

 

Fried, Jacob. "Picture Testing: An Aid to Ethno—
logical Field Work." American Anthropologist,
LVI (February, 195A), 95-99.

Goldschmidt, Walter, and Edgerton, Robert B. "A
Picture Technique for the Study of Values."
American Anthropologist, LXIII (February,
1961), 26-A7.

 

Hunt, Raymond G., and Smith, M. Estellie. "Cultural
Symbols and Response to Thematic Test Mate-

 

 

rials." Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, XXX (December, 1966),
587—590.

Kaplan, Bert. Studying Personality Cross—Culturally.
New York: Harper and Row, 1961.

73.

7A.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

162

Lindzey, Gardner. Projective Techniques and Cross-
Cultural Research. New York: Appleton—
Century-Crofts, 1961.

 

 

Murstein, Bernard 1. "New Thoughts About Ambiguity
and the TAT." Journal of Projective Techni—
ques and Personality Assessment, XXIX (June,
19657. 219—225.

 

 

Parker, Seymour. "Ethnic Identity and Accultura—
tion in Two Eskimo Villages." American
Anthrppologist, va1 (April, 196M), 325—3u0.

 

Kiel, Donald F. "One—Way Analysis of Variance with
Unequal Number of Replications Permitted
(UNEQl Routine)." STAT Series Description,
No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station. East
Lagsing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
19 7.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Re-
search. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1965.

Ruble, William L.; Kiel, Donald; and Rafter, Mary E.
"Calculation of Least Squares (Regression)
Problems on the LS Routine." STAT Series
Description, No. 7, Agricultural Experiment
Station. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, 1969.

 

 

McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. 3rd ed.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. 2d ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 195“.

 

Schwinn, Peter M. "Data Plotting and Curve Drawing
on the Calcomp Plotter (PLOTXY Routine)."
STAT Series Description, No. 16, Agricultural
Experiment Station. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1966.

 

Lesgold, Alan M. "Analysis of Contingency Tables."
Computer Institute for Social Science, Techni-
cal Report No. IA. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1968.

Walker, Helen M., and Lev, Joseph. Statistical In-
ference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1953.

 

8A.

85.

163

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics. New York:

Ball,

 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956.

Frederick J.; Ruble, William L.; and Kiel,
Donald F. "Calculation of Basic Statistics
on the BASTAT Routine." STAT Series Descrip—
tion, No. 5, Agricultural Experiment Station.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1969.

 

 

APPENDICES

16A

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENTS

Preliminary Questionnaire
Occupation and Income Survey
Resources Inventories

Picture Questions

165

Codigo de la Familia

Nifio

 

Sexo

 

Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la O.E.A.
Centro de Ensefianza e Investigacién
Turrialba, Costa Rica

INVESTIGACION SOBRE RECURSOS FAMILIARES Y ACTITUDBS EDUCATIVAS

 

-0-

Cédigo del INCAP

Provincia

 

 

Canton

 

Comunidad

Direccién

 

 

VISITAS A LA FAMILIA

Fecha Hora Tiempo Notas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREGUNTAS PRELIMINARES: (A algfin adulto, miembro de la familia. Llene
las preguntas con asterisco (t) antes de la
primera entrevista).

t1. Estoy buscando a

 

(Padres del nifio prescoiar)
Usted es

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

         

   

 

 

       

... .--... .........-.._.....
'.—--I—— -... ~ . .. . .. . .. . -..
o- - . .-
.~ . — . -~ av. ... - .- ....... VA . . . . . -... ls- .. .. . .. . . - . . . . . . . ... . . . .
. . . ... .. - .. . . . .
.. . .. .. ...-.. - .- - .—...... 1 . .
.-. .. . . . --..--- .... . _.- —-. ... ..-. - . ... a» -
..." . .. . -..-. .... . ..--- -» . .... .- .... .. - .».
— -- . ,-. . .. -.. . v ... . u ... -
.q.. -. .... -. -.-» - ...... ...- .. .... . . .. - . ..e. —- I
. ., -... . . - v . ... ..... . . .... . ..-». — - -— ‘
. . .. . . ‘
.a- . ... .- . . H -v . -..
A
. ..- - _ ~ 7-- ...-.... .. .. . ..-.-. -..a- -.-... . .....- . --.. .. .... - ... ,.... . . .- .. . ur— . .__. . ,. .‘ ..- . ~ . . .. ,. . ... .. - _ »
.. .. .— , . 1 .. . . .
.... . , . . . . .. . H. . -.. . - --- . ...... ... . .. . V- . . 4 .. ... .. w "
.. , . . . . .. , . . . . . . . _ ..... .. _ .....- . .. . . .... . . . ‘
u ' _
h. .. , .... .. , . . ...- . .. .. - ... .. .. .. . . .
.
... . . .. . . . . .. .,, . .- .. . - .. . ‘
A
_ , .-
.. . . , . .. .... . .. -. . . . .
. . w... . .. ., . . 7 . .. .. . . . . .. ... . . .. . -
.... .. . . . -.. . . . . . .. . - .-.-.. .A . . . . . . . . .— . -_ . ... . ‘
I.
~-- . ... . . .. . .. . - .. .-. . .. . . .- .. ... .1 . . .. . _ . - . .... _. ..4
..-... . . — .....-u- .-..l- ...... .. ... .. —. .. u ., , .. .. ._ _. .. ..- ‘ .— . ..--s .- ..“... .. ~5...-—~<~. 1- .. --&- - . -~ - - -- - ~» . ... -- - “
. , . I , ~
.. . . . . .~ 4
. 7. - l' ‘ . .
‘ . . r , ,: , ‘ ’ . . . . ... . .
. .....-‘...- . . ... .... . -- ‘
. ' .. . ' ~ . .
I . ‘7 . .
. J . ‘_. .1 J
\ x .
\ .
.. ..-...... ., . - , . . .. .... . .... .... .... .. .. ... .... . _ .. .. . ....-. - a ~w‘-‘.-.‘ ...~---
' “

- . ¢ — ._.- .. ... ....-. - . -... ...

 

- ‘ ...--. - .-. .... -. . v.‘ - u— .. . ~ —- -. o . ... - - . ~

Vive en esta casa e1 nifio (o nifios):

 

 

 

 

Si No
Si No
Si No

(De el nombre (o nombres) del nifio (nifios)

que tiene entre tres y seis afios de edad,

segun e1 INCAP).

Si dice que NO, pregfintele: Dénde vive e1 nifio?

 

 

Ahora, continue con las preguntas hasta el punto que se pueda y después
busque a1 nifio en la otra direccién.

Ahora este nifio tiene afios? Si No

 

 

 

(De la edad segfin e1 INCAP, pero para este afio).

Si dice NO, preguntele: Cuéntos afios tiene e1 nifio?

 

(Si no tiene entre 3-6 afios, tormine 1a entrevista).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cuél es la fecha de nacimiento de ?

Los padres de son:
? Si No
? Si No
9 Si No

 

 

(De los nombres de los padres segun 1a lista del INCAP).

Si responde NO, preguntele: Quiénes son los padres?

 

 

Viven ambos padres toda la semana, en esta casa, con

 

Si No

 

'0

 

 

. a

u..--

" -.. ...—p
.. . _.. .
0 . .. ..

 

 

 

 

\ -». .

. -. ...

--. . .-
...

.. ,

... ...--

--.—.....—..

 

 

h...

«s

...-..--

.u
.-
-.

......

4......“ --
. . . 1 -

 

 

 

 

. v...- s .
. 1 .
‘ ,
u
. . -‘ .
. 4
onw‘..- —
..- ,
. , . . . .-
.. m. _
. -. . .1. . a
. . .. -.-

~§M
_ ...
0.» -~

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.
l6.

17.

18.

19.

(NOTA: Si responde NO, pregunte si ellos viven parte de la semana
en la casa. Si responde que uno u otro, o ambos de los padres no
viven ni un dia en la casa, termine la entrevista.)

Ya empezé a ir a1 kinder? Si No

A la escuela? Si No

 

(NOTA: Si responde SI a la escuela, termine 1a ontrevista).

Ahora, si queda mas de un sujeto para el estudio, seleccione el que
tenga la edad mas aproximada de 4 a 5 afios para enfocar e1 estudio
y 1as preguntas siguientes. CONTINUAR LA ENTREVISTA CON LA MADRE 0
EL PADRE DE ESTE NINO Y PRESENTE LA CARTA QUE EXPLICA EL ESTUDIO.

 

 

 

Cual es el lugar de nacimiento de ustedes, los padres de ?
Padre Madre
Durante cuénto tiempo han vivido ustedes y en esta casa?

 

 

Dénde Vivian ustedes antes de vivir en esta casa?

 

Por cuénto tiempo?

Para e1 padre de , cuél fue el primer trabajo que tuvo?

 

Cuél es la ocupacién actual de él?

 

Desde cuéndo?

 

Cuél fue 1a ocupacién anterior a la presents?

 

Se considera que el padre de es el jefe de esta familia?

 

Si No

 

Si dice NO, preguntele: Quién es el jefe?

 

Qué ocupacién tuvieron los abuelos de ?
(NOTA: Abuelo, no abuela).

De parte del padre De parte de la madre

 

Los abuelos, saben (sabian) leer y escribir?

De parte del padre: Si No De parte de la madre: Si No

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

- r-
. - o,
‘
.
, 1
.. I" ...»-.. . . . - .- . . .... . ....
~ ‘ . .
.
. . 7 . x ,
. . ‘
.. . . "
' .
. .... .... . . - »—. .... - . . .-.. .. . . .... . .. ..- . -.. "....-. ~ "- -..... -........-_.» 0’ .--. . ... “...... .. -..
_ ._ .
' .
..... _ ... .. ..... .. ...
o-«--........_.~-~.¢ ...-. ....--. . ._ ... .. . - - .—~ . . - .... - - - . . - -- .-
. . \ .
. ~ ‘ ‘
. , ’ '
. ...--.‘-- ..- ... ... -.—-.....--...- _ q¢Vv-'~-.>
y 1
-.~- ...... ... .- ...- >- -..... ...-...- .,. - A . 4r .-- . -... . .
‘ . ‘ ' ' . 1 .
‘ . l 7 a . ‘ D -
.
. . ...... . . .. .. -.-..u ....
.-.. -. - a. . ., - -.. ... . - -. . - .- . . .. .. . .. , .. . . . .. ...-.. ... ..-—- ..-... .. - .-- . m. ......
\
l ,
, , .
.. .
..- --- . ~ , -.~'- . .-.“-..rv. .... ..-._ .... ... ,_ ..__.. -
.. ' . -
...-- .. ..-... ~ - . .~. - ... .a.-. .... . - - . . . ...... - . . .--.A-.——.. . -.-.. -
. 3 . ‘
. .. - ~ '. . '
n .
‘ - .. . ) . . ~- ‘
. ”cu .‘.--.-m ..y 4 . - .. u - . . .. .o .- .. .
. ’ ‘. . - ' '
u.-. .-- . -.. ...-..-..71. .,
.. ...-- -- ..- ,- .. -..--
. , ~ _ . . n . . , ,
-..n... .---....-. ..—.....7. .-..... ' '
. s ’
' . ‘ . . . t
V. ~ -- ...— .-~...a—.. . .
. . .
.1 . ‘ . ' .
. .. ,.
-- -. . ..--.. . .. - -... ..k‘.-. _.___,__, .. . . «...—.- .-.... u.“
. \ I
v ' ‘ . ' ‘ / '
l . ‘ P
.
.. . I
- _,, . . . _
.. . . ' .

' " ""‘ " ' " -.-... a . .-‘ .V.»

20.

21.

22.

23.

Qué afio o grado escolar mas alto terminaron los abuelos?

De parte del padre De parte de la madre

 

Piensa enviar a a la escuela primaria? Si No
Si dice SI:

Qué distancia hay entre la escuela y la casa?

 

Como esta la carretera 0 via (material y condicién) entre la escuela y
la casa?

 

 

 

.n._.-~.-- - . U
o....- .
. ”.... ...-~~¢-*- y»

. .-.-.o ......

 

s»-‘

.... ...,

.-.-

mr. firm» Hem szzwwom bm H» fisSHbe K oewom saw <H<w2 m2 H» o>m>u

 

zosuwm mm vs wmsmonm

mmwmowmb
con mH
ammo

mmxo

mama

pcmnm
mmonm
UHHQ

psmam
Poona

cameo o mmo mmOOHmH

5mm mpwo

mbuoammow

 

wHHBmHHm

mmozuamHHm

dcwamowmu
mm vs
omosmHm

mmcomowmb
mawowoumw

 

L

 

 

 

 

I u ,l 11...; 11" .l .I. 1.700 "I ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HP.

 

Hm.

 

PM“

 

Hr.

 

Hm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gowgmfl\uvmmo|

figmmupmm
q amuse Hmmm

Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la O.E.A.
Centro de Ensefianza e Investigacién
Turrialba, Costa Rica

INVESTIGACION SOBRE RECURSOS FAMILIARES Y ACTITUDES EDUCATIVAS

OCUPACION E INGRESOS FAMILIARES

Georgianne Baker
Educadora para el Hogar
Economia y Ciencias Sociales

FAMILIA
INSTRUCCIONES

Si es posible, hable con el jefe de la familia sobre 1as siguientes
preguntas. Tenga cuidado de obtener la informacién no solamente de la
ocupacién e ingresos de él, sino de todas 1as demés personas que contri-
buyeron trabajo, pagado o no, durante e1 afio pasado; es decir, 1a esposa,
los hijos, y cualesquiera otras personas que vivan en la casa. El periodo
que cubren 1as preguntas es entre enero y fines de diciembre de 1967.

No olvide averiguar si e1 trabajo actual de ellos es igual o diferente
31 del afio pasado. Lea 1a siguiente introduccién a la persona que con—
testaré 1as preguntas:
QUIERO CONVERSAR CON USTED SOBRE LAS PERSONAS DE LA FAMILIA
QUE TRABAJARON DURANTE EL ANO PASADO Y LAS ENTRADAS (INGRESOS)
QUE DIERON A LA FAMILIA. LE AGRADECERE MUCHO QUE ME CONTESTE
ALGUNAS PREGUNTAS PARA QUE YO PUEDA ENFOCAR MEJOR LOS RECURSOS
DE SU FAMILIA, QUE PROBABLEMENTE CONTRIBUYERON A HACER POSIBLES
LAS ACTIVIDADES DE SU NINO, . TENGO INTERES PRINCI-
PALMENTE EN LOS TRABAJOS DEL AND 1967, DE USTED Y DE CUALES-
QUIERA OTRAS PERSONAS QUE TRABAJARON. NADIE QUE USTED CONOZCA

VERA SUS CONTESTACIONES.-

Ewes H $3931

 

ewbwbmo anbzem H0©N ponObmm no Hm waHHHm

ammo

 

H. mo Hm HWBHHHm. cam vcumobmm
«HmdmumHOb mecbm <mu wH
mmo wmmmnow

 

 

 

 

m. ocmuwwm oocwmowoummonumdwu H.llllllll|lllll|lirllll
uom mHmmHmawmm «=13 cmwmm lllllllllllll
S. 3 PI: IIIII 1|..IIIIII.-..IIII..IIrIIIIIIII
u:l_l I_I_I.I_I I I I:I.I.I I_I |.%_|.I_I_I.I I I_I I_I_I_I.I.I.I.I_I
w. bncmmm nonwomdmmwmmnmu H.|lllll|l|llll|ll..llll
. swooHBHmuwonmv 90590 3.35... _ i IIIITIIIIIIII
umfimfimma% Va N4 IIIII .lIJI-luil'Ill-F'lllllllllllllll'
w.

 

:. Osww duwdmuo mam Hm mamudm
no aHbmHo o Hm mbasmnm 5mm
Mswouwmudm wmwm Hm mmsHHHmw

 

 

 

 

m. Um Pom asmvmuom Bouowosmaom. H.
ocmw ”do assumed 22.6.1. IllllllllllllllltllllllllnwlllllIll
aumdmuo wmswoumw auwcodmmvw m. L
II'I'II'||I|'|I|fl-‘l'l"-v'l|ll|"
WOIIIIU'|III'8-I---ILrII|"II'I-|'1IIIIIII"I'
m. was amamm Ac V
wmwumb o «Hmcmummow won as
osmsaww
q. mam enema Ao v

 

 

 

 

 

mBUHomao % HmoHde QHDmHo o a fi
.1 r

.. ....

at...

.v 13....

 

.
..
.. .-
.
.
.
. I
m
.
_
n
. .
.
u
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
o
.
w
n). x ... 0..

u“...-

_ _...

....

~......_. ..

.. . . .3 . r. . ......o -01- - .....a .1531-.. . -....I.
m 1
~ .
— V q u I u I I . l :7: . III I I .0. .Q o
n I“ v
I ..
. a
. . . a. . *1 . . .u _
. w _
w
. n
i . . ..
a
w
.. . u
. .. . . . -61.. . . . . . .. z . . 25.91.143.11.
1
_ . .
. .
., .
._ . _
. m
. .. w
. . .
~
1.9 . . .. . ., ..lwa . . , . . . ...s . . . 0
a .
.H u
. a
L . . . W. .. . . r. .. .
c .
. . r, -. a.
W m H
. _ .
._ s
M P
. - , . . . , . . .
. l
m w .. .
\.i , . . . . . - .- a. A .. I. .. .- .11} 4. ...v
_
l. w
. . . n. . .1, ..
. o
._ n
_ u .
__ .
. . - “a . . . i . . ..
w . n
w . a
. . a . ... .. . . 3.... .. ..(l . u. . --.: n.
. 1
.
u n .
a
—
i i
. . .
.. a
_. . . x. -. .. . z? . ..
a. . .

I! 0!! .0,

ammo

 

mam :mcmm ho v
nu medmummou mmsHHHme

mu aHom MH. wummmbemwo”

wmowdwm nwboao o Hmacbmumu
owmb boa mH wnmdmuow o
ooswuwcngm mH «Hmdmuo

me ammow

 

ochaom Emmom wumcmmm cmemn
Aw V acumswm 0H
mmo bmmmmos

 

HO.

osmbdmm wouwm «Hmcmum cmdma
A2 v wow mmsmsm
mH mmo wmmmmow

 

HP.

acmH mcm mH mmHmHHo o mcoHao.
o Hm obwwmmw Amoamumw 0 Bob:
mcmpv paw Hoowdwm acumsdm mH
mmo bmmmaow

 

 

 

 

 

wbmam HH

 

Hm. ec<o cmwmn o mpmcwmu mm vs meHHHm as «manmuo 0 sum mwuom nouns Hmmwwum mHmmu ocH¢H<o

o oumm no mbHBmHmmw mm 20 .

 

 

me aHom mH. waommbdmwo"

oswudmm ambumnmm o Umoawummmw Mm cmwmn wHowHoamHHo o muaounmemwwow

 

m» Hm Hmmmsomwm mH % Hm mm mH. oouwwbma con omwm wmwdm HH.

GGHHH<Om bwb >20 Hmmn

 

Hw. onmwmm Hcmwos Hom Hr. ocmuwo <mbawm Hw. onH mom Hm. osmuno HQ. UmH deou Hm. vmum AnommHmv

ocwww<om amp mmo Amp nswbempwm. wH <mHou Hmowdwm mu doamw. mHmo no How
wmmmaow mHmBom. kunmm. won on . ocmnwo ocHnH<om hm:
mmoom. mmbmmmm sswmmmw dadmwm ooswuwucwm Hm Hm ommme
do omwm. omumum mH Hsmummo osmuwow
o wmsmmswbovw _ o mbwummm
mmsHHHme

Awesomuw.v Zn cnwamn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .II. . . I I . ..l . ..l... ... in CI. ..... .I I. ... . Iv.... . I . I ..v. . I, .. I1... I .I....l. l. .I.. s .a I0... ..I'. \.V

.--.. ..

 

 

 

 

. .
a -
i _
. .
. I . . . .0. ,V . .. .. . I... ... .I.I..II. .. I. .. l .I It ..... 3... . I . , ... . . . . .. . I.....I .. .II. . ... I .I.|(
V _
. . m .
— . . .
. . n
a . .
. . . m .. .
. . . . . . y . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . II- . .I. I. . ... i . ......I..II.. .II. .I I ... . . .
~ I < fl
.. . .
, ._ .
. .
. n
. ‘ . , . . . I. . . . . I . . . . \u, .. ... . .... . . . . . .. . . . .II. . I .-.: ... .... III. In, . .1.
, e —
1 . I
~ I . .
h . .
. . .
. . .
. . . .. ...I.-.. I ,. .. I .. - . ..Ir . ....I...f.. , 1...-I ..
. . . —
. ..
. .
. a . .
. _ a
I II I II I I D I n‘ I y I! . .. I'V- - . I I I . | I. I
.
. u
.
. .. . .I . . .. . . ... I ... , ..I. I. . ., z... .. _ . I. II.I.. . . .. .. ... .c. . .. .... .
. . . a
. . . .
. . . .
. r .
u . .o _
. . . .
. .. . N . .
w
. .
I v I a . I _ \
.. .. W . . _ ..
a ,
. L . .
. . . .
u . I . I o
. I . O .
. . . . . . . . . . I
. .II . ...I . .C . . x . .. . . a. . ... . -... ... .. . .l . . . . . .I ..II .. .. . .7. III..
.
I, .. III..- I... l... .. III ... .021. ...»... ... I}! ....I... .
. . H.
.
.
c . .. .

 

 

<m28> Um >ZHZ>HMm cdwbzam mew

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hw. mo. NH. mm. mw. NA. mm.
<muaHm mwmms osmudwm Osmano ocww mum ocwswo bmH <mHou comm Anomemv
mbHBmH mo Hm <momm was <mbawmw mH <mHon HmoHde smowwwmo. wwmcuom wows
Hwbom DH wmo mmo <obl woa mu Jadew ocmbno oobI Hm ommmm
wmmeCN nHm mcm savanna awwdcwm mH
mbHBmHmmw Hsmummo oswuaow
Amadwmmmv
wmsHHHme
20 abHamn Awesomsw.v 20 dbwamm
<mza> om mw0bcoaom szzshmm
mm. mo. ma. mo. mo. wH. mm.
<msmwm mwmms assuamm ocwsao ocww wee ocmnao cow <mwow Umum Awmmmpmv
owedsoao use- <momm pow <msaem ow <mHos Hmoedem smowwvao. mwmcsom swam
smH Aooso mmo <m3I ow mmo wow on aoamwo Osmono oosl Ho ommmw
Hoosm. ocmmo. 9H0 mum bmmmmow csHQmaw awwccwm mH
SCo<om. oeo.vm wwochaom Hbmummo ocmndow
Ambasmamv
mwBHHHmHm

20 dbwamm

AmOHomsw.v

20 dswmma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

pbwam HHH

oawom Hzmemom O UHzmwo wMOHwHUO mow b> M>2HEH> m2 Mb >20 Homq

 

Us osmH cwaHBo won osmuawm eoamH
awwo wonmoumw ammo pus «comm won
Hmowuwnow Wouwoaow won mmow mmo

 

ww. bppswwmu

ur. pHpcwme

mm. bpnswpms

wm. bwncwwmw

wu. wousHomoHObmm Abo Huowcwamm oh wow
memHmomv M mmcHumHaom Amwmawwwomowowomv

wm. mmsmbowmm no somoowom Awwmmwmsom.

mm muHBmHmm
am Bmpcwbmawm
mm «Mmuawm «\o maHHHoHom

Hmowuwao was How ocmsaom
mecwwwaom no Hm <H<Hmbam

mH<Hambaom. Hmmmwomv

ww. mmbmbOHmm wwo<obwmbdmm mm Housmauwmm

ommmfimm

to. mmHmHHom o mcmHmom was 508mm oxdumm

kw. Odumm mcmbdmm Aooso uccHHmoHOSmm. doom:
wwowom moowwwmm. mucosa meHHHmHmmv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wbwam H<

 

rm. m: «Hmdmuo madcmw mm mH BHmBo. 0 mm nwwmuobdo pco op amp mmo wmmmmo»
mu nsm Hosanna

m.meon\Wmm

bHU\maurmm\mm

Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la O.E.A.
Centro de Ensefianza e Investigacién
Turrialba, Costa Rica

INVESTIGACION SOBRE RECURSOS FAMILIARES Y ACTITUDES EDUCATIVAS

INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS

Georgianne Baker
Educadora para el Hogar
Economia y Ciencias Sociales

Familia

INSTRUCCIONES

1. En la investigacion, se cree que el Inventario es muy extenso para
ser presentado en su totalidad en una sola visita, debido a otros formula—
rios que se usan a1 mismo tiempo en la entrevista. También hay la posibili-
dad de confusién por parte de la madre cuando se cambia e1 énfasis del
Inventario, del nifio a la familia y después a la casa. Por consiguiente,
e1 Inventario se presenta en tres partes, en dos visitas.

2. Para evitar escritura adicional, cuando sea posible subraye 1as
;palabras contenidas en cada pregunta que indiquen 1a respuesta de la madre.
Escriba los detalles que ella le de, usando 1as mismas palabras de ella si
gpuede hacerlo. Agregue los detalles de su propia observacién, e indique
<1ue son observaciones de usted.

PARTE I: EL NINO

1. Se incluyen los patrones de recursos que pertenecen a1 nifio:
3, 5, 6, 4 y 8 en el mismo orden.

2. Haga 1a Parte I durante la primera visita con la madre, tal vez
después de las Preguntas Preliminares y la presentacién de los Dibujos de
Actividades.

3. En 1as visitas siguientes, revise cualquier duda que haya.
4. INTRODUCCION: Explique a la madre:

AHORA, SENORA , COMO MADRE DE ,_ USTED L0
CONOCE MUY BIEN Y ME GUSTARIA MUCHO QUE ME AYUDARA A CONOCER A
UN POGO, DICIENDOME ALGO SOBRE LAS COSAS QUE EL HACE DURANTE EL DIA, AQUI,
CON USTED Y LA FAMILIA. TENGO INTERES ESPECIAL EN CONOCER SUS ACTIVIDADES
REGULARES, SUS JUEGOS, Y LAS COSAS QUE ESTA EMPEZANDO A APRENDER EN CASA.

PARTE II: LA FAMILIA

1. En la segunda visita se presentan 1as preguntas que pertenecen a
la familia: los patrones de recursos 7 y 9.

2. INTRODUCCION: ExPlique a la madre:

SENORA , SIENTO QUE AHORA CONOZCO A MUY BIEN.
PERO SERIA MUY BUENO CONOCER MEJOR AL RESTO DE LA FAMILIA. POR CONSI-
GUIENTE, TENGO ALGUNAS PREGUNTAS QUE SE REFIEREN A USTEDES Y NO AL NINO
. SERIA MUY AMABLE SI ME CONTESTARA ESTAS PREGUNTAS, DE ACUERDO
CON EL CONOCIMIENTO QUE USTED TIENE DE LA FAMILIA.

PARTE III: LA CASA Y EL VECINDARIO

1. En la filtima visita se presentan a la madre 1as preguntas que
pertenecen a los patrones de recursos 1 y 2.

2. INTRODUCCION: Explique a la madre:

LE AGRADEZCO MUCHO LA OPORTUNIDAD DE CONOCER UN POCO DE LAS
ACTIVIDADES DE Y DE SU FAMILIA. AHORA, PODRIA USTED DECIRME
ALGUNAS COSAS SOBRE LA CASA Y EL VECINDARIO? HAY COSAS EN LAS CASAS
DE COSTA RICA QUE SON EXTRANAS PARA MI, 0 QUE TIENEN NOMBRES QUE NO
ENTIENDO. ASI QUE ALGUNAS VECES PEDIRE QUE SE ME MUESTREN, PARA NO
EQUIVOCARME.

 

 

FAMILIA
INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS: Parte I: EL NINO CLASIFICACION‘ 1 2 3 4 5
3. PATRON DE CUIDADO Y APARIENCIA PERSONAL
RESUMEN: Disponbilidad: Cantidad Calidad
Utilizacién: Cantidad Calidad
Pregunta

 

l. Cuéntas veces come e1 nifio por
dia? Come e1 nifio a distintas
horas cada dia, o a la misma
hora cada dia? Por qué?

 

2. Come e1 nifio algunos de estos
alimentos: leche, carne o pes-
cado, frutas, legumbres?

 

3. Cuéntas veces por die 0 semana?
Qué cantidades?

 

1+. Qué alimentos de todos los que
ustedes comen 1e gustan més a1
nifio? Por qué 1e gustan mas?

 

5. Cuéndo se bafia e1 nifio? Dénde?
Cuéntas veces por semana? Le
agrada o no? Por qué?

 

6. Cuéndo se lava 1as manos y la
cara e1 nifio? E1 pelo? Los
dientes?

 

 

Cémo duerme e1 nifio? Bien 0
mal? Por qué?

 

Cuando se acuesta cl nifio en la
noche? Cuéndo se levanta en la
mafiana? Esto es regular 0 dife-
rente toda la semana?

 

El nifio toma siestas durante el
dia? Cuéndo y cuéntas veces?
Le gusta la siesta o no?

 

lO.

Qué ropa usa e1 nifio regularmen-
te durante un dia como éste?
Durante la noche?

 

ll.

Ademés de la ropa del dia, qué
otros tipos de ropa tiene e1
nifio? Qué cantidad? El nifio
usa actualmente esta ropa?

 

12.

Tiene e1 nifio algunos problemas
en vestirse? Como cantidades,
reparaciones, compras?

 

.PARA OBSERVACION SOLAMENTE:

13.

La clase y cantidad relacionada
con el clima; condicién; repara-
cién; zapatos, medias, etc.

 

 

 

 

_,.. .....-

 

. .--....-—.—o.-
..- ......“ u... .— - ... .... ..., .
-..—g ...-t». ‘~-O.‘OQ-. .—....

 

.-.-...

....-.

u-o. -

 

 

a...

t—qw

 

..v—o..,..

 

-.I \

 

-...

.. l
.-M— ...“.

 

 

 

 

...”

..- .-.

 

 

~—g-~

 

14. Suciedad del cuerpo; presencia
de piojos o no.

 

15. La apariencia de la madre.

 

INVERITaRIO 13.3 RECURSOS: Parte 1: EL NINO

5.

PATRON DE TAREA Y TRABAJO

RESUHEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad

Utilizacién: Cantidad

FAMILIE.

CLASIF CACION:

Calidad
Calidad

1 2 3 4 5

 

 

Pregunta

 

Puede e1 nifio hacer por si mismo
estas tareas personales: nifio
vistiéndose, lavéndose, tomando
agua, comiendo?

 

Tiene e1 nifio algunos problemae
para hacerlas? Cuales son?

 

Qué ayuda debe él tener para
cumplirlas?

 

Hace el nifio algfin tipo de tra-
bajo en la casa o fuera de la
casa, como: nifio barriendo, la-
Vando ropa, cuidando a un bebé,
comprando pan, etc.?

 

Tiene e1 nifio algfin problems.
para hacerlo? Cuéles?

 

Qué ayuda debe él tener para
cumplirlas?

 

 

Qué otros trabajos son realiza-
dos o intentados por el nifio,
como ayudar a1 padre, o acarrear
lefia, o coscchar café, etc.

 

c g...‘ .

nu“...

.-.---

.- o...-

-..“

.. —.-

 

INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS: Parte I: EL NINO

6. PATRON DE APRENDIZAJE DIRECTO

RESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad

Utilizacién: Cantidad

FANILIA -
CLASIFICACION: 1 2 3 4 5

Calidad
Calidad

 

Pregunta

 

Hay en la casa cosas que el nifio
puede usar, como: papel, 1Apices,
pizarra, tiza, libro alfabético
para colorear, nfimeros, letras?
Cuéles?

 

Entre éstas, qué prefiere near
I ~ ' ’

el nino? Que hace e1 con esa

cosa?

 

Guantas veces por semana lo hace
el nifio?

 

Hay en la casa algunos libros,
revistas, periédicos u otros ma-
teriales escritos que el nifio
trata de "leer” 0 1e gusta
mirar? Cuéles son?

 

5.

Entre estas cosas, hay algo que
el nifio prefiere?

 

Cuéntas veces por semana 10 usa
e1 nifio?

 

 

 

 

... p . - 'N u...

. .-
.—~ .—..

 

 

 

 

- . . . .
. . a - - .. . . ~
. ., ..- ......u . . . .... .. . . .
. .. ... ... . ...
.... . .. . - . . . - .
Hl- . . . . . . .-
. .... .... . .. -

 

O .
...-.. . ..<.- A. »

 

 

 

.... .
.--l
I .o

 

Hay alguien en la casa, Como us-
ted, que lea al nifio? Cuéntas
veces por semana?

Si lee a1 nifio, qué material
usa?

 

Tiene e1 nifio accidentes con es-
tos materiales, como perder el
lépiz, o arrancar hojas del 1i-
bro durante intentos de dominar
1a técnica? Qué ocurre?

 

11).

Le gusta al nifio oir o usar el
radio, e1 televisor, o discos?
Instrumentos musicales?

 

ll.

Tienen ustedes algunos de éstos
en la casa? Cuéntas veces por
semana los usa e1 nifio?

 

INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS: Parte I: EL NINO

10
FAI-IILIA

CLASIFICACION:

4. PATRON DE JUEGO

RESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad Calidad

Utilizacién: Cantidad Calidad

1 2 3 4 5

 

Pregunta

 

Tiene e1 nifio algun juguete,

tal como bloques (cubos, tucos),
cuentas, tableros agujereados?
Cual prefiere usar?

 

Tiene e1 nifio algun juguete,

tal como mufiecas, animalos, vaqug
ros, carros, aviones, vajillas,
escobas, teléfono, cocina, herra—
mientas, maletin de médico 0 de
enfermera? Cuél prefiere usar?

 

5.

Tiene e1 nifio algun juguete, tal
como papel de color y tijeras,
crayones, libros para colorear,
pinturas y caballete, plasticina
o arcilla, instrumentos para cos-
tura, para trabajo en cuero, mu—
sicales...? Cual prefiere usar?

Tiene usted algunos sustitutos

de juguetes que usa e1 nifio, ta-
les como ollas y cacerolas, pie-
dras y palos, barro y agua, etc ?

Qué juguetes tiene e1 nifio para

jugar a1 aire libre? (Tales como
caja de arena, casa de mufiecas,

casa en un irbol, columpios, bi-
cicleta, patines).

 

Qué juguetes usa e1 nifio regulaz
mente dentro de la casa?

 

 

 

 

-... ... .--... .- - ~—

 

...~-.oooo-.~-~ .

o ... .u...-..--

...—..- «...-... ....

my... -. .-.. u

 

......“ .-....

 

 

   

 

 

\
. - I .
I .
-,:-...-~.... .. . n.
u .
~... .... . .1 -
. ,, .. ..-. .... .... -. . . . . .»... I .. . ..- . a .. _ .. ...-9. _ .
. .. .-. ......-—.. . . .. ,....._v..¢--—...---.H.. _4~‘-.. -...
. I
-.--...”...u. ...s. . y- . — ...—4-. -..“ .. . Q
h
‘. .
...... ....-. ..- ... . . .. -.., __ .... , , -
. ,
I
. .. -g....—.- ...-~o.....-.- -~--.--,...<-....,..._ . ..- F- .»
!
..-... I... ->-. ...- .- . . . I . .. . . . . . .
I
' .I‘
.
.. _. . - ----.... .-. .....--. -.. .. . ,. . .. ...... , . , .. . . .
- I
....- a.... >- -.. -
- - l . . . . . . ., . .

 

 

 

ll

 

7.

Qué juguetes hay que el nifio
disfruta especialmente?

 

12

INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS: Parte I: EL NINo

.8. PATRON DE CONTnCTOS SOCIALES DIRECTOS

RESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad

 

Utilizacién: Cantidad

 

FAMILIA
CLASIFICACION:

Calidad

123l+5

 

Calidad

 

 

Pregunta

 

'

En qué actividades y celebracio-
nes de la familia participa e1
nifio? Qué hace el nifio en estas
actividades? Con qué frecuencia
participa e1 nifio?

 

Qué actividades hace e1 nifio con
nifios pequefios o bebés? Con qué
frecuencia?

 

Qué actividades hace el nifio con
otros de su edad (sus iguales)?
Hay algo especial que le gusta
a1 nifio hacer con ellos? Con
qué frecuencia lo hace?

 

Tiene el nifio contactos con a1-
gunos adultos extrafios? Qué?
Con qué frecuencia?

 

5.

Participa e1 nifio en algunos gru-
pos grandee (como la iglesia)?
Cuél es la participacién de él?
Con qué frecuencia?

 

13
FAMILIAfiV

r- r .
INVENTARIO DE RECURSOS: Parte II: LA FAMILIA CL“SIFIC“CION- 1 2 3 4 5

7. PATRON DE APRENDIZAJE INDIRECTO

 

 

 

RESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad Calidad
Utilizacién: Cantidad Calidad
Pregunta

 

PARA USTED Y EL RESTO DE LA FAMILIA:

1. Le gusta a alguien en la familia
leer algunas cosas? Qué? Quién?
Con qué frecuencia?

 

2. Le gusta a alguien de la familia
oir e1 radio 0 mirar el televisor?
Qué cosas eye 0 mira regu-
larmente durante la semana? Quién
lo hace? Tiene un radio 0 tele-
visor siempre en la casa?

3. Le gusta a alguien la mfisica?
A quién? Oye la mfisica? Toca
algfin instrumento? Cuél y con
qué frecuencia?

 

#. Va alguien a lugares Como el mu-
seo, biblioteca, zoolégico, cine,
parque o la plaza? A cuél?
Quién? Con qué frecuencia?

 

5. Ademés de éstos, ha hecho alguien
viajes fuera de la comunidad? A
dénde? Quién? Con qué fre-
cuencia?

 

6. Usa alguien los servicios del
Banco? Para qué? Qnién? Con
qué frecuencia?

 

 

 

 

 

.. ...-..

... .. —. --.- a

n
. 4
.... u 4
..-. ... .
do... -
. —.-.- ......

...- -~- -

_ - n -. .- .-
.. ... -A . “A .
.l . ..-.
w- <
:- .. » . .

.c~.<o .-

«ma-o-

 

l#

 

Ademés de los nifios que estén en
la escuela primaria, sigue alguien
algfin programa de educacién? Que?
Quién? Con qué frecuencia?

 

 

--.»4

,.‘.—-

 

15
FAMILIAf

INVENTARIO DE RECUReos: Parte II: LA FAI-IILIA CLASIFICACION‘ 1 2 3 1* 5

9. PMTRDN DE CUNTACTOS SOCIALES INDIRECTOS

 

 

 

 

 

LRESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad Calidad
Utilizacién: Cantidad Calidad
Pregunta

 

PAEm.USTED Y EL RESTO DE LA FnMILIA:

IL. Qué participacién tienen ustedes
en actividades u organizaciones
de la comunidad (tales como la
iglesia, cooperativas, patronatos
escolares, junta de deportes,
etc.)? Quién? Con qué frecuencia?

22. Qué contactos tienen ustedes como
parte de actividades u organiza-
ciones fuera de la comunidad?
Qnién? Con qué frecuencia?

 

.3. Qué contactos tienen miembros de
la familia con amigos que no son
familiares? Quién? Con que
frecuencia?

 

4. Qmé contactos tienen ustedes y
qué actividades hacen ustedes
con familiares (como tios, abue-
los, sobrinos, etc.)? Quién?
Con qué frecuencia?

 

l6
FAMILIA

INVENTARIO DE RECUKSOS: Parte III: LA casa CLASIFICACION‘ 1 2 3 4 5

IL. PATRON DE ESPACIO

 

 

 

 

 

‘RESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad .i.___i. Calidad
Utilizacién: Cantidad Calidad w
Pregunta

 

l. Dibujo de la distribucién del
espacio y el contenido de la
vivienda.

 

‘2. Qué clase de vivienda? (Casa.
individual, casa de una hilera
de casas, casa anexa).

 

3. Cuéntas personas duermen y comen
en la casa? Cuéntas habitaciones
hay en la vivienda?

 

 

v.---.. u..— .—.-..——- . -. ...-...,

.O‘--mo-

 

.——-

 

... .-.... ¢

 

 

.W-o—u... -' -

-.~\..--.

..¢

. o
a.-.

 

.-.—... -....

~.o<

a.

cu--.

...-

. -.~-- ....

 

1?

 

4. Cuél es el nombre de las habita-
ciones? (Sala, cocina, etc.)

 

5. Tiene corredor, patio interior,
patio?

 

6. Hay espacio para que el nifio
juegue en la casa? Cuél es?

 

'7. Que facilidades hay para que
duerma el nifio? (Y con quién
duerme?)

 

8. Cuél es la fuente de suministro
de agua? (Tuberia (cafieria)
dentro de la casa, pozo, rio,
etc.)

 

9. Que tipo o tipos de iluminacién
usan ustedes? (Si usa la elec~
tricidad: Cuéntas bombillas usan
en cada cuarto? Tiene lémparas?

 

lO. Qmé combustible usa usted para
cocinar? (Canfin, lefia, carbon,
electricidad, etc.)

 

18

 

ll.

Cuéles son las facilidades sani-
tarias? (Tanque séptico, pozo
negro, letrina, inodoro). Las
usa el nifio con alguna dificul-
tad?

 

12.

Qué equipo eléctrico tiene?
(Radio, refrigerador, cocina,
tocadiscos, televisor, licua-
dora, etc.)

 

1}.

Que tipo de artefactos no eléc-
tricos tiene? (Ollas y sartenes,
trastos, escobas, herramientas,
radio con bateria, etc.)

 

14.

Que plantas y adornos tiene?
(Cuadros, floreros, etc.)

 

15.

Qué almacenamiento (para ropas,
alimentos, vajilla) usa usted?

 

l6.

Cuéntas ventanas tiene la casa,
y de qué tipo? (Vidrio, sin
vidrio, cedazo; nfinero y tamafio).

/

 

17.

Terminado de las parades: madera
sin pintar, repello, pintada,
empapelada, encalada, etc.)

 

 

.-- ~....

 

. .-- ..-.
... ..

... .-- -.—
. ... -

...

4 .

.... ....

I”...
--v

 

.
- ...
.-. .

 

......

-...
.-

 

am 0--

n...

 

 

 

--..

.-i A... _

l9

 

:18. Hay basuras o insectos dentro de
la casa?

 

19. Hay animales en la casa?
De qué tipo?

 

20
FAMILIA

INVENTARIO DE RECUHSOS: Parte III: LA CaSA CthIFICACION: 1 2 3 # 5
2. MOVIMIENI‘O FISICO
iRESUMEN: Disponibilidad: Cantidad Calidad

Utilizacién: Cantidad Calidad

 

Pregunta

 

l. Cuéntas entradas o salidas hay?
Las usa el nifio?

 

2. Hay escaleras? Las usa el nifio?
Tiene dificultad o miedo en
usarlas?

 

3. Hay cercas y portones? Como se
efectfian 1as actividades del
nifio?

 

~+. Qué espacios hay para activida-
des del nifio al aire libre?
(Para jugar; qué juguetes - como
bolas).

5. Qué areas y facilidades de juego
hay en el vecindario (como colum-
pios)? Las usa el nifio?

 

6. Qué cantidad de tréfico y de qué
tipo hay en el vecindario?
Como afecta al nifio?

 

 

 

.- .. ....

 

-- “——- ...—-.-..-”

m..~-..,
_ o- —

.. .» . .

,- . . ~ . . . - . .

,. . .... . . . ...—- ..

.~ - ... . .~~-...-..-- ...

. .-...a—‘._~..._.~c.. 9 . . -

n—c-‘>.——- -.——-_—-. .- .

 

.-

0A9- ...—... -...

i..—

 

 

 

 

. .-.-....
n.-
.. . ...,,
.—--. ---

 

“..-... .

~—

 

 

‘- ~n

 

.. - - -
...- .
. .__.. ..
.-- -.. . A
....-n-.-._.. .7

». 00‘.-

. w-o.-.

 

‘ no ......uu

”..-, .~.n
.... ..-..-..,..
,-- - .-i. ...-.—

 

   

. ....—

 

 

 

21

 

'7. Qué distancia recorre el nifio
fuera del hogar y el vecindario
inmediato? Con qué frecuencia?

 

8. Qué uso de autobfis, automévil,
bicicleta, caballo, reccrrido
a pie, hay por parte del nifio?

 

AID/EE—427/68
GBaker/iss
1 April 1968

 

».....a... .-.v‘..-, -. _ ~w<

 

 

 

 

 

4......” . ._ . -. . . ...-.........- ...a...._,r..-.--....-.. V, . . .-.-.- ....._.._..
. .
r . - z A ,. _
l ‘ . .
r.. - v ' ' -“ ‘ ‘
‘ G
. u, .v'
I ,. -‘ . . ~ ‘ ,
P , . .o , .
c . o .‘ ' 1 o
.. . . a . . . .. .......- . A a .i .- . _. ......-.. . .i .M . . . . - . .W .. .-_-. V -.-
. .
. ‘ F
-.....r - ..-. . - .c .-.. ...... “.-..-. .... .. W... ‘. .-..-- .m‘.....-‘-. .... .. . .. .. ....r ..

 

198

Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agricolas de la OEA
Centro de Ensefianza e Investigacion
Turrialba, Costa Rica

INVESTIGACION SOBRE RECURSOS FAMILIARES
Y ACTITUDES EDUCATIVAS

PREGUNTAS PARA LOS DIBUJOS DE ACTIVIDADES SOBRE
EL USO DE LOS RECUBSOS FAMILIARES

Georgianne Baker

Educadora para el Hogar
Economia y Ciencias Sociales

INSTRUCCIONES

 

Hay nueve (9) Juegos de dibujos. Cada uno cor-
responde a cada uno de los patrones de recursos (véase e1
Inventario de Recursos). El proposito de los dibujos es
usarlos como estimulos visuales para obtener ideas
adicionales y opiniones personales de la madre, ademas de
sus respuestas directas a1 Inventario.

El intercambio entre el entrevistador y la madre se
graba en una cinta magnetofonica. Asi, se puede considerar
que estas respuestas verbales a material semejante del
Inventario pueden servir como control 0 "check" de la com-
prensién por parte del entrevistador del idioma y palabras
de la madre. Se sugiere que se use este instrumento con la
madre antes del Inventario 0 al final de la recoleccion de
todos los datos, pero no immediatamente después del
Inventario. '

Primero, lea 1as ideas de la Introduccion a la madre.
Después, muéstrele el primer Juego de dibujos y expliquele
la accion o acciones que se ven. Hagale 1as preguntas que
pertenecen a este Juego de dibuJos en particular. No
agregue mas preguntas especificas, pero puede preguntar "Y-
qué mas?" o algo asi. Continue asi con los otros grupos de
dibujos. Tenga cuidado de grabar toda la conversacion y.
revise después para saber si la cinta esta bien.

INTRODUCCION

 

AQUI TENEMOS DIBUJOS EN QUE HAY NINOS PEQUENOS, QUE
TIENEN MAS O MENOS LA MISMA EDAD QUE ; ES DECIR,
ANOS. EN LOS DIBUJOS VEMOS AL NINO, ALGUNAS VECES A SU
MAMA, A SUS AMIGOS U OTROS MIEMBROS DE LA FAMILIA, U OTROS
ADULTOS. VEMOS ACTIVIDADES COMO LAS QUE PUEDEN OCURRIR EN
CUALQUIER FAMILIA, EAL COMO LA~SUYA. YO QUIERO QUE USTED,
COMO MADRE DE UN NINO DE ___ ANOS, ME DIGA SUS IDEAS Y
REACCIONES A LAS ACTIVIDADES PRESENTADAS EN LOS DIBUJOS.
USAMOS ESTA GRABADORA DURANTE NUESTRA CONVERSACION PARA QUE
YO PUEDA RECORDAR MEJOR SUS IDEAS DESPUES.

199

NINO ACOSTANDOSE, COMIENDO (Patron No. 3: Cuidado y
Apariencia Personal)

 

A la madre:

 

"HAY ALGUNAS ACTIVIDADES QUE LOS NINOS HACEN
DIARIAMENTE; ACTIVIDADES QUE CONTRIBUYEN A SU
CREDIMIENTO Y SALUD FISICA Y QUE DEMANDAN LA ATENCION
DE LA MADRE MUCHAS VECES. POR EJEMPLO, AQUI HAY UN

NINO ACOSTANDOSE Y OTRO EMPEZANDO A COMER."

Preguntas:

 

l. Qué pensamientos o preocupaciones podria la madre
tener con las comidas, el descanso, la limpieza
0 el vestuario de su nifio?

2. Qué esta diciendo la mama a su nifio en estos
dibujos?

3. Le parece que nifios que actuan como estos dos
tendran éxito en la escuela cuando empiecen?

Por qué?

201

NINO TRABAJANDO, HACIENDO TAREAS (Patron No. 5:
Tarea y Trabajo)

 

A la madre:

 

"AQUI HAY NINOS HACIENDO TRABAJOS o TAREAS PEQUENAS
PARA LA FAMILIA. RECUERDE QUE SON NINOS DE MAS o
MENOS ____ ANOS, COMO . ESTE NINO ESTA
CUIDANDO A SU HERMANITA QUE ESTA LLORANDO: ESTE OTRO
ESTA COMPRANDO PAN. ESTE ESTA COMIENDO -- QUE ES UNA
TAREA QUE TODOS LOS NINOS DEBEN DOMINAR, PERO AQUI

LA NINA HA TENIDO UN ACCIDENTE."

Preguntas:

 

l. Qué otras tareas o trabajos pueden hacer los
nifios pequenos?

2. Qué hace.la mama cuando su niho pequefio tiene
problemas o accidentes durante suS intentos de
aprender 1as tareas?

3. Piensa usted que nifios como éstos van a tener
éxito en las actividades futuras en la escuela?

Por qué?

203

MOVIMIENTOS DEL NINO (Patron No. 2: Movimiento
Fisico)

 

A la madre:

 

"VEMOS AHORA A UNOS NINOS REALIZANDO ACCIONES FISICAS:
UNO ESTA CORRIENDO Y JUGANDO VIGOROSAMENTE AL FUTBOL.
OTRA ESTA SENTADA DENTRO DE LA CASA, SIN HACER NADA.
Y OTRA NINA ESTA SALIENDO DE LA CASA HACIA UN LUGAR EN

EL VECINDARIO."

Preguntas:

 

1. Piensa usted que estos nifios actfian en forma muy
parecida a nihos de edad prescolar? Por qué?
2. De estos nifios, cual esta actuando mas parecido

a ? Como?

 

3. De estos tres nifios, cual piensa usted que podré

ir a la escuela con buen éxito? Por qué?

2014

  
 
 

,\

VIII I
{ml/0’1"

;//,:/,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

205

NINOS USANDO EL ESPACIO Y OBJETOS (Patron No. l:
EspaciOIC '

 

A la madre:

 

"AQUI HAY DIBUJOS QUE REPRESENTAN A NINOS PRESCOLARES
USANDO ALGUNAS COSAS DE LA CASA. HAY UN NINO EN LA
SALA ARREGLANDO EL RADIO. HAY UNA NINA EN LA COCINA

Y ELLA YA HA PUESTO ALGO EN EL REFRIGERADOR."

Preguntas:

 

l. Qué cosas de la casa 1e gusta usar o trata de usar
el nifio pequefio?

2. La mama de estos nifios esta contenta de que sus
nifios realicen actividades como éstasdentro de
la casa? Por qué?

3. Le parece que los nifios queestan acostumbrados
a usar las cosas de la casa son aquellos que

tendran éxito cuando vayan a la escuela? Por que?

206

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

207

APRENDIZAJE DEL NIfio (Patron No. 6: Aprendizaje
Directo)

 

A'la madre:

 

"TENEMOS AHORA UNOS NINOS QUE NO TIENEN EDAD SUFICIENTE
PARA IR A LA ESCUELA PERO QUE, SIN EMBARGO, ESTAN
TRATANDO DE "APPRENDER": UN NINO QUE QUIERE
"ESCRIBIR"; UNA NINA QUE PREGUNTA ALGO A SU MAMA; Y

UN NINO TRATANDO DE PINTAR Y QUE HA DEJADO CAER LA

PINTURA?"

Preguntas:

 

1. En la familia, hacen los pequehos usualmente
cosas para aprender, como en la escuela, por
ejemplo?

2. Qué hace la mama de la familia sobre estas
actividades de su nifio?

3. Cree usted que actividades como éstas tendran
importancia para nifios der3 hasta 6 afios, que
todavia son demasiado pequefios para ir a la

escuela? Por qué?

209

JUEGOS DEL NINO (Patron No. A: Juego)

A la madre:

 

"HABLEMOS AHORA DE NINQS JUGANDO. COMO EJEMPLOS, AQUI

TENEMOS NINOS DE ANOS DE EDAD, COMO ,

 

JUGANDO DE CASITA. Y AQUI VEMOS A LA MAMA DANDOLE

A SU NINA ALGO PARA USAR COMO JUGUETE."

Preguntas:
l. Qué actividades de Juego son mas comunes para
los nihos pequefios?
2. Qué cosas podria ofrecerles la mama para Jugar?
3. Le parece que a los nifios que Juegan mucho cuando

son pequefios les gustara la vida escolar?

 

 

211

CONTACTOS SOCIALES DE LOS NINOS (Patrén No. 8:
Contactoerociales Directos)

 

A la madre:

 

"AHORA PENSEMOS EN LAS OPORTUNIDADES QUE TIENEN LOS
NINOS PARA CONOCER, Y HACER ACTIVIDADES, CON OTRAS
PERSONAS. HASTA AHORA HEMOS VISTO A ALGUNOS NINOS
PRESCOLARES CON SU MAMA, CON EL PANADERO, CON UNA
HERMANITA Y CON SUS AMIGOS. Y AQUI HAY: UNA NINA
CON SU PAPA, UN NINO CON SU TIO Y ABUELOS, Y OTRO

CON UN EXTRANO - TAL VEZ UN MAESTRO."

Preguntas:

 

l. Hay ocasiones especiales cuando el niho pequeho
podria tener oportunidad de contacto con otras
personas?

2. De los contactos sociales, cuales serian mas
parecidos a las actividades de nifios de
afios de edad?

3. Podrian contribuir las experiencias sociales del
nifio a su éxito en la escuela, mas tarde?

Por qué?

213

OTRAS PERSONAS DE LA FAMILIA: APRENDIZAJE (Patrén
7: Aprendizaje IndirectO)

 

A la madre:

 

"HEMOS TERMINADO DE DISCUTIR LAS ACTIVIDADES DE LOS
NINOS. PERO QUIERO TENER SU REACCION A DOS GRUPOS
DE DIBUJOS QUE REPRESENTAN A OTRAS PERSONAS DE LA
FAMILIA. EN PRIMER LUGAR, AQUI HAY MIEMBROS DE UNA
FAMILIA ENTRANDO A UN EDIFICIO PARA VISITARLO; Y
AQUI ELLOS ESTAN LEYENDO Y ESCRIBIENDO. TAL VEZ

ELLOS ESTEN APRENDIENDO MUCHAS COSAS."

Preguntas:

 

l. Puede nombrar otras actividades que esta familia
podria realizar Si quiere aprender?

2. Con qué frecuencia piensa usted que esta familia
realiza actividades que podemos llamar
"educativas"?

3. Cuando los nifios de esta familia vayan a la
escuela, cree usted que seran mejores alumnos
que los nifios de una familia que tiene pocas

oportunidades de aprender?

215

OTRAS PERSONAS DE LA FAMILIA: CONTACTOS SOCIALES
(Patr6n 9: Contactos Sociales Indirectos)

 

A la madre:

 

"OTRA VEZ VEMOS A OTRAS PERSONAS DE UNA FAMILIA,
PARTICIPANDO AHORA EN ALGUNOS ACTOS SOCIALES. AQUI
ESTAN LOS HERMANOS DEL NINO PRESCOLAR HABLANDO CON
UN AMIGO. Y TAMBIEN HAY MIEMBROS DE LA FAMILIA

ESCUCHANDO UNA CHARLA EN UNA REUNION."

Preguntas:

 

l. En-qué otras actividades sociales puede participar
esta familia?

2. Con qué otras personas de la comunidad podria
tener contactos la familia?

3. Los nifios de familias con muchos contactos
sociales tendran major o menor éxito en la vida

escolar?

APPENDIX B

SCORING MANUAL

217

SCORING MANUAL

Purpose: The manual provides instructions for com-
puting scores and subsequent ratings for nine Resource
categories. The measures are derived from a variety of
data: mothers' anSwers to questions on Resource Inven-
tories, to questions about visual stimuli in the form of
drawings of Resource-related activities (called Picture
Questions), as well as written observations of the inves-
tigator. Illustrations of scoring are provided where
they contribute to a general understanding of procedures.

Preparation of data: To increase objectivity in

 

scoring, all family identification is removed from both
Resource Inventory and Picture protocals, code numbers
assigned, and then protocals are assembled into groups by
code number and Resource category.

Order of scoring: Because the scoring procedure is

 

developed by examination of the data, it is essential to
identify ambiguities in operational definitions and inter-
pretations early in the scoring process. Therefore, two
groups of ten randomly selected families are first scored
and problems discussed and resolved by the scorer and

another person familiar with the data and scoring

218

219

procedure. Then all families are scored on each Resource
category, one category at a time.

The scores: This procedure results in thirty—six

 

scores divided into groups of four scores which pertain to
nine Resource categories. Each group of scores is in—
tended to operationalize four dimensions of a Resource:
Availability-Quantity (AQN), Availability-Quality (AQL),
Use-Quantity (UQN) and Use-Quality (UQL). Each score is
named by the Resource category and dimension to which it
refers.

A standardized procedure is used to score one of
these dimensions, UQL, for all Resource categories. It
is discussed immediately following the first Resource
category, Space, on page 225.

Transformations: The scores do not sum to a total

 

Resource score. However, they may be transformed to
ratings by means of a standardized logical procedure,
such as that explained on page 2A9° Then the ratings can

be used for comparative family analysis.

RESOURCE CATEGORY 1: SPACE

I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers to household spaces available in relation to the
number of persons present. Sources of data are the house
floor plan and number 3 of the Space Resource Inventory.
The score is obtained by summing items under A and then

dividing by B.

220

A. Count the total number of individual house—
hold spaces. Such a space is defined as an area for
family-related activities or use which is "roomlike"
in that it has a roof and is divided off from sur-
rounding spaces by means of walls, half—walls, a
doorway or archway. The space may be attached to
the main house or separate, but it must be used for
a family-related purpose. Thus count a storage area
used for kitchen firewood, household tools, or the
family jeep, but not one used for animals such as a
chickenhouse. Count each of the following as indi—
vidual spaces:

A covered porch,

An attached enclosure separate bath and/or
toilet space,

An enclosed toilet or bath facility detached
from the house but on the house grounds,

A roofed-over sink area if detached from
the house but on the house grounds,

A hall or inside stairway.

B. Count total number of persons who are mem—
bers of the group living in and using the house:
all eat and sleep there. Include roomers or ser-
vants, and adolescent children who may board away

during the week but return on weekends.

II. Availability—Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to total variety available in five kinds of hous-
ing elements. The score is obtained by summing items
under A, l to 5, and then subtracting negative descrip-

tors under B.

221

A. Count the different kinds, or amounts if
more than one, of these variety elements. "Kind"
refers, for example, to electric light bulb:
"amount" refers to 5 electric light bulbs.

1. Materials and surfaces. Data are the
house floor plan plus 13, IA, 15, 16 and 17 of
the Inventory. Some illustrations are: plastic
curtains, chicken wire, glass windows, cement

floor, red painted wall, china dishes, aluminum

 

 

pan. The underlined words (red, painted, etc.)
represent variety in metals, fibers, colors or
other substances present in the house.

2. Machines, tools and food containers.
Sources of data are the house floor plan and
10, 12, and 13 of the Inventory. Some illus-
trations are: television set, radio, car,
washing machine, "machete," corn grinder, cook-
ing stove, forks, set of dishes.

3. Storage facilities. Sources of data
are the house floor plan and number l5 of the
Inventory. Illustrations include: dish cabinet,
clothes cabinet, trunk, basket for clothes,
nails in walls for hanging clothes or tools,
shelf. Do not count tables as storage facili-

ties.

222

A. Utilities and fuels. Sources of data
are the house floor plan and 8, 9, 10 and 11 of
the Inventory. Illustrations are: water
source(s) within the house, electric light
bulbs, flourescent light fixture, cooking oil or
keroscene, firewood, flush toilet. Count each
different item only once.

5. Adornments. Sources of data are the
house floor plan and number 14 of the Inventory.
Illustrations are: small figurines, a doll
used as decoration (not for play), flowers,
fancy doilies, photographs, claendars, diplomas
displayed or the wall.

B. Count descriptors which indicate limits on
quality of the variety elements. These will be
found in the observer's notes on the house floor
plan and 8 to 19 of the Inventory, for example:

Light bulbs are all burned out.

Sanitary facility is far away from house.

There are no ceilings in the rooms.

The paint is peeling (faded).

The windows do not have glass.

There is no floor in the kitchen.

The walls are unpainted.

There are chickens (insects) in the house.

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

objects and spaces of the house which the child uses, and
his use-actions involving these Objects and spaces, minus

constraints or limits upon either of these two elements

223

by his mother or others. Sources of data are Picture Ques-
tions 1 and 2, and 6, 7 and 11 of the Inventory. The
score is obtained by summing items A through B.

A. 'Objects of the house used and actions re-

lated to use, minus constraints. From Picture Ques-

 

tions 1 and 2, count response units which indicate
objects the child may use. Count and add response
units which indicate child's actions involving the
objects. Count and subtract response units which
indicate constraints on either the objects or ac-
tions. A "response unit" refers to the presence
of the element being scored: in this instance, of
an object, a use-action, or a constraint on either
of these two. One sentence may contain several

scoreable response units. Some illustrations are:

 

Response of Family A Unit Score
"Well, he is interested in Objects: radio, A
everything, like the radio, typewriter,
the typewriter, and tools knives, hammer

like knives and hammers.

 

Use-actions: 1
He tries to use every- tries to use
thing.
Constraints:
Total:
Response of Family B Unit Score
"Sometimes I let her turn Objects: radio 1

on the radio if she is
careful, but also I have
to be very careful because
she could get a shock

Use-actions:
turn on, carry—
ing it around

22A

 

 

Response of Family B, cont. Unit Score
from the current, or be- Constraints: -2
cause Of carrying it around one related to
she might drop it, so I shock for child;
don't let her for fear of one to damage
damage." for radio
Total: 1
Response of Family C Unit Score
"The only thing he plays Objects: boxes 2
with are boxes or benches benches
because that's all there
" Use-actions: l
is in the house, inside. plays with
Constraints: -1
that's all there
is
Total: 2

B. Child's sleeping. Count weighted items which

pertain. Source of data is number 7 of the Inventory.

 

 

Item Score
Child has a bed to himself 2
Child sleeps with one other person in
the bed 1
Child sleeps with more than one other
person in bed —1
Child and no more than two other persons
sleep in the same room 1
More than two persons sleep in the same
room with the child —1
C. Child's use Of sanitary facilities. Count
the following weighted items which apply. Source
of data is number 11 of the Inventory.
Item Score
Child uses facilities with no problem. 1
Child has problem in using facilities. -1
ThEre are no facilities available for
child to use at the family's house. -1

225

D. Child's use of play spaces within the house
only. Source of data is number 6 of the Inventory.
Count spaces which the child is permitted to use for
playing in the house. If mother says he plays
"everywhere" or "anywhere," count this (3); if she
says "only out-of—doors," count this a (—1) re-
Sponse.

IV. Use—Quality (UQL). Consult general scoring

 

instructions and illustrations which follow.

USE—QUALITY (UQL)

Scoring Instructions

 

A basic procedure was used to score this dimension
for all Resource categories except for Child's Movement,
where it forms part of this dimension score. Illustrations
of the procedure are listed where necessary for consistent
interpretation under each Resource category, except for
Child's Learning, Family Learning, Child's Contacts and
Family Contacts included here.

The UQL dimension refers to mother's perceptions of
the relation of the Resource category to probable success
of the child when he goes to school. It allows the re-
spondent to verbalize the quality of school-relatedness
for actions involving each of the Resource categories.
Source of data is the mother's response to Picture Ques-

tion 3, of the general form:

226

"Do you think that a child who (whose family)

acts like the ones we see in these pictures

(does these things, uses things like these)

will be successful in the activities of

school when he (she) goes? Why?"

To score, count and add or subtract the five re

sponse units described below. A response unit refers
to the presence of the particular Resource category,
resource-actions and school relationship qualities being
scored. Such a unit might be a sentence, a single word,

a phrase or a paragraph.

I. Positive. Score each response (1) and sum the

 

total. Three common units occur:

A. (SP) Simple positive, with or without an
immediately following phrase, such as: "Yes, I
think so," or "I hope so." Be careful in scoring
because the mother may say "No," but the response
is actually positive because she proceeds to give
an illustration which indicates that she does see
a relation between the Resource and future school
success for the child.

B. (GR) A general relation is expressed be—
tween the Resource Of the question and future
school success.

C. (SR) The response gives a specific illus—
tration of the simple positive response (SP). It
may be one word or a whole paragraph, but it clearly

relates to the Resource category under discussion

227

and is neither vague nor repetitious. It may en-
tail a characteristic of the child.

II. Not Positive. Score each such response unit

 

(-l), and sum the total. Three common units appear:
A. (SN) A simple negative response which is of
the order: "I don't think so," or simply: "No."
B. (NR) The unit states a reason that is ng£_
related to the Resource category of the question

even though it may indicate a favorable relation

 

to school success or a favorable characteristic of
the child.
C. (NR) The response unit states a reason why

the relationship would not exist between the

 

Resource category and school success, or it ex-
pands the reason already given for the non-
relationship by giving a specific example.

III. Vague (V). Score each illustration (0). Common

 

vague responses do not arrive at a generalization or a
bringing together of several concepts or ideas in terms of
the Resource category of the question. The unit repre—
sents a series of incomplete phrases which could be either
positive or negative if they were completed or which can—
not be clearly interpreted in the context of the total
response given. Illustrations are: ". . . with the Same

teachers . . . ," and "Well . . . at times."

228

IV. Repetitious (R). Score each response (0). A

 

repetitious unit says the same thing more than once,
using slightly altered words; it does not add a new
specific idea to illustrate a preceding statement.

V. Inability to respond (I). Score these forms of

 

response as (0). Two illustrations of (I) are:
A. Statements like: "I don't know," "Who
knows?" or "One can't really tell."
B. No response is made after several explana-
tions of the question and general probes have been

offered.

Illustrations

 

The following are illustrations of response units
and scoring decisions for four Resource categories.

1. Child's Learning (and future school success)

 

 

Response of Family A Unit Score
"Yes, they (child's learning actions) SP 1
can have much importance."
"That is, reading, and drawing can SR, SR 3
have much importance, and the same SR
with writing . . ."
"Because from the time they are small GR 1

they like to study."
Total: '6

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response of Family B Unit Score
"Yes, it's important." SP 1
"This one likes to paint and, SR 1
already, all those things."
"It's a good thing for them." R 0
"When they enter school they'll
already . . . " V 0
Total: 2
Family Learning (and future school success)
Response of Family C Unit Score
"Yes, it could be. . . .‘" SP 1
"The small child . . . it has to be
the big one, who has studied much,
and already has more experience than
the smaller . . . NR -1
"All that she (the big one) is learn-
ing, it will serve her more because
she has already studied more." R 0
Total: 0
Response of Family D Unit Score
"This . . maybe." V 0
"It's that I don't know, I don't I, R O, 0
know."
Total: 0
Child's Contacts (and future school success)
Response of Family E Unit Score
"Well, there are children, perhaps, GR 1
already educated, they are
cultured . . .
"It's like this child she is SR 1

this way: comes to the house and
doesn't talk at all. She'll go to
school and do the same."

230

 

 

 

 

Response of Family E, cont. Unit Score
"They are that way as older children. R 0
They go to school this way, and I
think they are this way the same
as in the house."

Total: 2
Family Contacts (and future school success)

Response of Family F Unit Score

"If he'll have more success if he sees R 0
these things, you ask me?"
"Well, I think that always the child
who has more chances to go out, SR 1
to contact other people, SR 1
has more chances to develop himself GR 1
than the child who is always kept
closed in."

Total: 3

Response of Family G Unit Score

"It seems to me that he should have GR 1
greater success because of every-
thing for learning . . . "
"The children are intelligent and SR 1
they pay much attention to what
another person says and explains."
"When they go to school perhaps that GR 1
will serve them."
"One day the teacher will ask if they SR 1
have ever been in a discussion and
they can say, yes, that they have
heard a doctor explain that fruits
have to be washed before eating; that
if they have fallen from a tree the
fruits then have to be washed so they
can be eaten; that before eating they
should wash their hands and brush
their teeth. Well, many things " Total: A

231

RESOURCE CATEGORY 2: CHILD'S MOVEMENT

I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers to movement-related elements present within the
house, neighborhood or community that are listed under 1
to 8 of the Movement Resource Inventory. The score is
obtained by summing the items. Include "traffic" as a
movement-related element unless the respondent has said
that there is none. Include as an element such items as
river, train crossing, cliff or hill if mentioned.

II. Availability-Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to movement elements which are "housebound."
Sources of data are l to 8 of the Inventory, and Dimension
AQN. The score is obtained by summing items under A and
then dividing by B. The higher the score is, the mgrg
"housebound" are the movement elements, and therefore the
lgrgr is the movement variety available.

A. Count total number of elements which are

restricted to the house and the immediately sur-

 

rounding household property. Do not count a
"cafetal" (coffee field) as part of household
property because it is often not possible to know
if it pertains to the household.

B. Use the score from Dimension AQN, (total
movement elements present within the house,

neighborhood or community).

232

III. Use-Quantity (AQN). This dimension refers to
the child's actual movements: his actions involving the
movement elements minus constrictions he experiences.
Sources of data are numbers l—3 and 5—8 of the Inventory
and Picture Question 2. The score is obtained by summing
items under A and then subtracting those under B.

A. Count each movement which is performed,
allowed, or encouraged for the child. Sources of
data are those listed above. Illustrations are:

Child uses all entrances and exgfig of
the house.

Child's movements are not endangered by
traffic.

Child uses public transportation, rides
a horse, goes for a walk often.

Child plays vigorously, goes out of the

house and around the neighborhood,
and also sits quietly at times.

 

 

 

 

B. Subtract number of different constrictions
placed upon the child's movement. These may be
evidences of movements hindered, prevented or dis—
couraged. Sources of data are all those listed
above. Some illustrations, with indicants of
constriction underlined, are:

Child is afraid of stairs.

Child does not go to the other side of
the fence; he stays within.

Child does not use a neighborhood play area
which is available.

Traffic is a danger; it stops or limits
the child's movements.

Child seldom goes away_from home, or £22
alone, or he is afraid of animals or a
bicycle.

Mother prevents a certain action by the
child.

 

 

 

 

233

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). This dimension refers to
mother's perception of the school—success—relatednesS of
the child's movement. Source of data is her response to
Picture Question 3. The score is obtained by summing
A and B.

A. Score the mother's weighted estimation of
movement relevant to school success according to

the following scheme:

 

Response Score
"I don't know." 0
"Only the seated child." 1
"Either the child playing ball or the one
going out of the house." 2

Any two examples, such as: "both the child
playing ball and the one going out of
the house." 3
"All three children." A
B. Count each reason given for the choice under
A and subtract each reason given against other
possible choices, against the one actually chosen,
or unrelated reSponses. Follow the basic procedure
set up for the UQL dimension. Due to the way this
question is stated:
"Of these three children we see here, which
do you think will be able to go to school
with good success? Why?"

count as positive responses general qualities of a

child such as "bigger," or "more lively."

23A

RESOURCE CATEGORY 3: CARE AND APPEARANCE

I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers to food and clothing items usually available for
child and mother. Source of data is the Care and Appear—
ance Resource Inventory. The score is obtained by summing
A, B, and C.

A. Count whatever items mother mentions as
food in 2, 3 and A of the Inventory. Include
"agua dulce" (sugar water), coffee, bread and
tortillas.

B. Count items of clothing for the child in
10 and 11 of the Inventory. These are items used
every day, at night, and "for good." If socks and
shoes have not been mentioned but they are found
listed under clothing observed on the child (13),
count them also. However, do not include the
clothes which the child is observed to be wearing;
these will be counted under the UQN dimension.

C.‘ Count items of the mother's clothing which
are listed under number 15. Include two observa-
tions only. If there is no second observation,
repeat the first one.

II. Availability—Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to available daily routines in household activi-

ties of eating, personal care, sleeping, and changing

235

clothes. The score is obtained by summing items A through
D.
A. Count the number of meals plus the number
of regular snack times (small meals often called
"coffee" times) which mother says the child has
everyday. Data is number 1 of the Inventory.
B. Count and sum the following weighted
items pertaining to personal care. Sources are

numbers 6 and 6 of the Inventory.

 

Item 1 Score
Daily bath 2
Bath every other day, or 3—A, 2—3 times
per week 1
Bath less than the above 0
Item 2 Score

 

Teeth brushed every meal, at meals, or

 

 

several times a day, or twice a day 2
Teeth brushed once per day, or "everyday" 1
Teeth brushed hardly ever, very little,

sometimes, never 0

Item 3 Score
Hands washed before eating, or at every meal 2
Hands washed several times, often, twice

per day, "when dirty" 1

Hands washed once per day, hardly ever 0

Item A Score
Hair is washed daily 2
Hair is washed every other day, or 3-A,

2-3 times per week 1
Hair is washed less than the above 0

C. Count and sum the following items which
refer to the child's sleep. Sources of data are 7

and 8 of the Inventory.

236

Items Score

 

Sleeps "well" or a regular number of hours
each night

Naps usually during the day

Goes to bed by 7 p.m. at night

Sleeps 10 hours or more each night

None of the above occur

OHI—‘i—‘H

D. Count number of regular changes of clothes
provided, using these weighted items from 10 and 11
of the Inventory.

Items Score

 

Clothes changed both for going to bed and
for "good" or other reasons

Clothes changed for going to bed.

Clothes changed for "good" or other reasons

Same clothes worn all the time

OHNUO

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

the child's use of foods and clothing minus limits placed

 

upon use. Score by summing items under A and B and then
subtract items under C.

A. Sum only the foods which the child eats
from the food groups of milk (cheese, ice cream),
meat (fish, poultry, eggs), fruits and vegetables.
Sources of data are 2, 3, and A of the Inventory.
Count illustrations given, not general terms such
as meat, unless no illustrations are given.

B. Sum items of clothing observed on the
child. Source of data is number 13 of the In—
ventory. If the child is observed to wear shoes

and socks on more than one visit, count them twice

237

in order to allow for cases where the child does
not wear them each time, or at all. Count only
two observations of the child's clothing.

C. Count number of illustrations of limits
on the child's use of food and clothing in the
Inventory. Illustrations of limits are:

Signs of soil on child or his clothing

No shoes worn

Some foods are not liked or not eaten at
least weekly, or only irregularly

Clothes are ragged

There are problems in getting clothes or
food for the child

IV. Use Quality (UQL). Follow general scoring in-

 

structions set up for the dimension. Note that a char-
acteristic response of the mother to the question of the
relation between the Resource category and later school
success of the child is: "No, this child will not be
successful." Then she gives illustrations which are
characteristics of the child ("lazy about getting dressed,"
"not paying attention to his eating") specifically re-
lated to both the Resource category and to school success,
thus indicating that she sees a relationship. In this

case, her response is scored positively.

RESOURCE CATEGORY A: CHILD'S PLAY

' I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers to elements and situations for play, either avail-
able or possible as indicated by the mother's perceptions.

Score by summing A and B.

238

A. Number of play objects and situations men—
ioned in numbers 1-7 of the Play Resource In—
ventory. Be careful not to repeat items.

B. Number of common play situations, and
objects which mother might offer the child for
play. Count here only those items which are dif-
ferent from those counted under A. Sources of
this data are Picture Questions 1 and 2.

II. Availability-Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to variety of play usually available, that is, the
presence of building, role—playing and creative play
things and situations for the child at home. Sources of
data are 1-3 of the Inventory. Do not count such items
as mud, water, stones and sticks here unless the mother
has mentioned them. Score by summing A, B, and C.

A. Count number of items mentioned under the

building category of number 1 of the Inventory.
B. Count number of items mentioned under the

rolejplaying category of number 2 of the Inventory.

 

C. Count number Of items mentioned under the

creative category of number 3 of the Inventory.

 

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

the child's usual play (objects and actions) minus any
restrictions on his play. Sources of data are A-7 of the

Inventory and Picture Questions 1-2. Score by.summing

239

A, B and C, and subtracting D. Do not repeat items once
they have been mentioned under A or B.

A. Count play substitutes which mother gives

 

the child or which he encounters by himself, such
as sticks, water, and mud.

B. Count number of outdoor and indoor play

 

objects which the child has.

C. Count number of limits on his play,
either mentioned under the above three items, or
in the mother's responses to Picture Questions
1 and 2. Illustrations are:

Child uses no play substitutes or has no
favorite toy.

Mother will not let him use substitutes
for toys.

Child has nothing to play with out-of-
doors, or nothing for indoor play.
Toys are sex-typed by mother: only boys
play with certain toys or only girls

play with certain toys.

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). Follow general scoring in-

 

structions set up for the dimension (page 225).

RESOURCE CATEGORY 5: CHILD'S TASK AND WORK

I. Availabilitnyuantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers to situations at home which might allow the child
to have experiences in personal tasks or work efforts of
the family. Not only the child, but mother or other
family members may be engaged in these activities. Source

of data are the Task and Work Resource Inventory,

2A0

especially 1, A and 7, and Picture Questions 1 and 2 for
additional illustrations. Score by summing A and B.

A. Count personal tasks which mother mentions
such as the child getting himself dressed or being
dressed by his sister.

B. Count work experiences available in the
home, whether or not the child himself participates.

II. Availability—Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to family involvement in children's task and work
experiences leading to press for or against the child's
participation. Sources of data are the Inventory and
Picture Questions 1 and 2. The score is obtained by
summing items under A and then subtracting items under B.
A. Count number of illustrations of family
involvement, support, allowance for error, help
Offered, expecting or allowing the child to do
(try) something in the way of a task or small job
for himself or the family. Do not count here an

illustration of someone doing a task instead of

 

the child.

B. Count number of illustrations of punishment,
warnings to the child, stOpping him from engaging
in a task, or deprecating his efforts at doing a

task.

l\.)
J“?
F"

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

the child's usual participation in task and work. Score
by subtracting B and C from A.

A. Total number of task and work available in
the home: use score from Dimension AQN.

B. Count number of problems which the child
himself encounters in his efforts to do a task,
such as not being able to put his shirt on right,
or tie his shoes, or having an accident when he
does something for his father. Sources of data
are 2 and 5 of the Inventory, plus Picture Question
l and 2.

C. Count illustrations in the Inventory and

Picture answers of someone doing a task instead of

 

the Child.

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). Follow general scoring in-

 

{\o
R)
U1

structions and illustrations for the dimension, page ’

RESOURCE CATEGORY 6: CHILD'S LEARNING

I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

indicates objects and activities for learning which are
available or possible for a preschool child. Sources of
data are the Child's Learning Resource Inventory and
Picture Questions 1 and 2. The score is obtained by
summing A and B.

A. Count number of Objects available, such as

books, paper for drawing, pencils.

2A2

B. Count number of activities the mother men-
tions which the child might do "to learn" before
going to school, such as "writing," making lines,
drawing, being read to, reciting.

II. Availability-Quality (AQL). This dimension
refers to family's involvement in learning for the child
before school. Inventory and Picture Questions 1 and 2
are data sources. Count items under A and then count and
subtract the items under B.

A. Sum number of evidences of family's (and
others') active participation in learning oppor-
tunities for the child, as well as evidences of the
family "allowing" these opportunities. Illustrations
are: the mother reading to the child or letting him
take a page from a notebook to use for writing.

B. Sum and subtract evidences of family's
and others' non—involvement or negative involve-
ment, such as preventing the child from looking at
his older brother's school books.

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

amount of learning activities in which the child actually
engages. Data is from the Inventory except number 9.

The score is the sum of each weighted activity times the
score assigned to the frequency of its occurrence,.under

A and B.

2A3

A. Activities assigned (2) are those most

directly related to school activities, such as draw-

 

ing, plays school, looks at pictures, is read to-
B. Activities assigned (1) are those less

directly related to school activities, such as

 

dances to music, watches TV, uses musical instru-
ment.
For each of the above activities, multiply its assigned
weight by the score assigned to the frequency with which

it occurs:

 

Frequency Score
Daily, all the time A
Weekly, several times a week, almost every
day, less than daily 3
Less than weekly, every 15 days, 1-2 times
a month, very often 2

All others (every 3 months, 1-2 a year,

sometimes, once in a while, in the

past) 1
Never, almost never, very little 0

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). Follow general scoring in-

 

structions and illustrations for this dimension, page 225.

RESOURCE CATEGORY 7: FAMILY LEARNING

I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers not to the young child, but to family learning
activities: all those which the mother mentions in her
responses to the Family Learning Resource Inventory and
Picture Questions 1 and 2. The score is the sum of A,

B and C.

2AA

A. Count number of activities mentioned which

refer to school-related learning, such as reading,

 

writing, arithmetical transactions (such as use of
bank services), informal study. Do not include
regular school attendance for the purpose of secur-
ing a grade school, high school or university
diploma or degree.

B. Count number of activities mentioned which

refer to travels or visits to places such as to the

 

zoo, museum, park, library, school, or other towns
or parts of the country or a foreign country.
C. Count number of activities mentioned which

indicate entertainment facilities, such as tele-

 

vision, radio, music or movies.

II. Availability-Quality (AQL). This dimension re-

 

fers to the extent that family learning activities are

primarily school-related. The score is obtained by divid-

 

ing A of AQN by the total score of AQN.

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

regularity with which the family actually engages in
learning activities. To score it, sum the weighted fre-
quencies of the activities under A, B and C of AQN. Fre-
quency categories are the same as those listed under UQN
of Child's Learning.

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). Follow general scoring in-

 

structions and illustrations for this dimension, page 225.

2A5

The question is worded in a slightly different way for
this Resource category and the following one; it asks the
mother not about the preschool child, but about other

family members and then how their activities might influ-

 

ence the child's later school success. An illustration

 

showing how mother might respond is the following:
"Because the older ones have learned they teach
those who are moving up. I find it has to be
so. The older person teaches the younger; be-
cause the family has helped him (the child); he
has developed "

RESOURCE CATEGORY 8: CHILD'S CONTACTS
I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

refers to total possible social contacts and events in

which the child might be able to participate. Sources

Of data are the Child's Contacts Resource Inventory and
Picture Questions 1 and 2. The score is the total of A
and B.

A. Count the contacts which a preschool child
might have, for example, with his parents, his
brothers and sisters, an adult friend of his father,
a teacher who comes to visit, a cousin with whom he
plays, uncles and aunts.

B. Count events in which the child might be
included, such as a children's birthday party,
conversation with grandparents, going for a walk

with father, going to church with a sister, shopping

in town, attending a party at the school.

2A6

II. Availability-Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to the extent to which the child's social contacts
and activities are centered within the family. Sources
of data are the same as for dimension AQN. The score is
the sum of A and B, divided by C. The higher the score
which results the more restricted is the variety of the
child's contacts.

A. Count number of persons with whom the child
interacts who are within the family. "Padrinos"
(godparents) are not listed as family members.

B. Count number of activities which involve
the child and other family members. Each activity
encountered in the data is scored only once: either
as involving family members or non-family persons.
An activity involving the child with a family member
is scored here even though it may also occur with
non-family persons. To illustrate, if the child
usually "plays with his brother," play as an
activity is scored here even though the child also
plays with a neighbor. However, "goes to church
with mother" is scored as a non—family activity
and is not counted here.

C. Divide by the total score from dimension
AQN.

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

amount of social activity in which the child usually

2A7

participates. The Resource Inventory only is the source
of data. The score is the sum of the weighted frequencies
for activities in which the child engages from the follow—
ing categories;

Family celebrations and activities

Activities with smaller children

Activities with the peer group

Contacts with non-family adults

Participation in large groups

The frequencies are the following:

 

Frequency Score
Activity done every day A
Activity done weekly, several times a week,

almost every day 3
Activity done less than weekly, every
15 days, 1-2 a month, very often 2

Activity done less than monthly; every
three months, 1-2 a year, sometimes,

once in‘a while, in the past 1
Activity never done, almost never, very
little, hardly ever 0

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). Follow the general scoring

 

instructions and illustrations for this dimension, page

225.

RESOURCE CATEGORY 9: FAMILY CONTACTS

I. Availability-Quantity (AQN). This dimension

 

refers not to the preschool child, but to the total pos—
sible social contacts and events in which other family
members might be able to participate, either by themselves
or with others. Sources of data are the Family Contacts
Resource Inventory and Picture Questions 1 and 2. The

score is the total of A, B and C.

2A8

A. Count family members who engage in social
activities, for example, mother and father, brothers
and sisters, grandparents.

B. Count persons with whom the family has con-
tacts, such as friends of the parents or brothers
and sisters, teachers, employer.

C. Count the events, organizations and acti-
vities in which the family participates, such as
meetings in the community, visits with friends,
the village cooperative, picnics or trips on
weekends.

II. Availability-Quality (AQL). This dimension

 

refers to the extent to which the family's social con-
tacts and activities are centered within the family. The
score represents the total number of family members en-
gaging in social activities plus the family activities
engaged in. Source of data are the same as for dimension
AQN. The score is the sum of A and B, divided by C.
The higher the score the more restricted is the variety of
family contacts.
A. Count number of persons in the family par—
ticipating in social contacts.
B. Count number of social activities or con-
tacts which occur within the family group.
C. Divide the sum of A and B by the total

score of dimension AQN.

2A9

III. Use-Quantity (UQN). This dimension refers to

 

amount of social activity in which the family usually
participates. Source of data are l to A of the Inventory
only. The score is the sum of the weighted frequencies
for activities in which the family engages from the follow—
ing categories:

Community contacts

Contacts outside the community

Contacts with friends who are not extended

family members.

Contacts with family members.

The frequencies are the same as those listed under dimen-

sion UQN of Child's Contacts.

IV. Use-Quality (UQL). Follow the general instruc-

 

tions and illustrations for scoring this dimension, page

225.

TRANSFORMATION OF SCORES

The investigator may desire to compute a summary
value for all or any of the Resource categories explained
in the Scoring Manual and then use this value for com-
parative family analysis, similar to that undertaken or
suggested in this study. If so, it is necessary to trans-
form the scores according to some set of logical rules or
a statistical procedure in order to permit arithmetic
operations and comparisons. As one approach, the trans-
formation procedures used in this study are summarized

in Tables 23 and 2A.

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o H
H a 3 on C
m I. H Hum 36 o» and n om. « mm.m mm.m go:
0 an
H m 3 on 3
m o H ....Hsm SH 3 and a On. A ism :m.m 20:
- .o mH wchmL
.HmsaoacH came cm:»
0 ms. acumopm mH oncom 8H
.H nH mcHuon .Hm>L0o:H
H mm. :mm& mHmzro oncom aH
.4 m w .
o H :Huaa Hm>
unmocH cmwu can» wan
m mm. wH whoom mm “m oHom em. 0» as. n mo. H mm. mm. HO<
s
H m HmH 0H HHV pcoco>oz
m sH H anon os.HH 0» om.oH n on. « om.HH om.HH ZG< m.UHHLo
O 1|
H H Hm o» H“
u . H DH.1 ..w 0» mm.H u in. u -m.H mm.H 403
a a
H ... S U.. S
m HH . ems“ om.m oh om.: u 3m. u 0:.m 0:.m :02
O OH
H A... :m 0.. ....
m ...... Hod-.. .-...mm 3 me...“ u on. u M.I.T.. Hnmnzv 3.... 49‘
.o mH
mzHomL . annoucH Cap:
0 mm. saga xuoH mH choow OH
.H
n nuHunL .Hnuaoucfl
H .-. uni: nHM1wm on on M”
.w wH manna; .anawa
ucH camL snip Lcem.au
n om.H nH oaoom an H 6H3; um. On mu. u Em. a ma. Ammuzv mm. 2a< oomam
.Amm can»
”mHoa oHrHaa meH MH omumo
"mascooo nonaam or“ on usmoaoo ”mon» “cannons nchH xv ”noaoow
wcHoaL ”mH whoon now mnHum; as cacom a acHuomLunum Him mchHm an no CCsziHLHmHU on» concosHQ apomo w.
:oanmEHQ coanaeHo pH moaoomom mucmru .m Hm>a0ncH :mo; ocHn.onmm .m mo came monaiou .H monzomom u o
co meao moms
Hu 9 H whomoooaa
go mcoHpmpoasHHH
.mucHumL Ou nopoon mopzowom Echo uncaHquunsHHH mom smHomnaommcmLp umLHu Lou opsooooamnt.mm wqm<e

251.

 

x mm ”wcfiumm woasommm Hmpoe

 

 

Amanmsv stummv Hemuov
an: mHoon 30H
muodpcoo
x s o m m o HHHEmm
mpomucoo
x a m o m o m.oHHno
wchnmoH
x H o o H o HHHemm
. wchamOH
x m m m m o n.6HHno
xaoznxmme
x o o o o o m.oHH£o
zmHm
x a m H H o n.6HHco
mocmammaa<
x o o o o o amamo
pooEo>oz
x m H m H H m.oHHco
x q H H m o woman
Ho: 20: H®< 20¢
Hmuov Hmnmv Hmuov nCOanoEHQ oopsomom
cmHm mHeeHz zoo ”meanness
”mpHHHDMozpm OocH mHoEommm 0cm maowoumo zaowoumo
o» COHumHoa mo mHo>mH “mchma oopsomom m moaoommm some now mconcoeHo HHm

cu mmchmp mopsomom :mem< .m o» campuma some Eon .N no wmaoom pom mwcHump chuoo .H

 

mascoooam

 

.szHHanopo ou :oHumea mo mHm>mH o» mwchmL moasomwm
anm ”HHHEmm moo anw mmaoom wch: COHumaHmsHHH pow COprEHomwcmap UCOomm How manpoooamul.zm mHm¢B

. 11¢ 41:11:11]...“ .11

253

INSTITUTO INTERAMERICANO DE
CIENCIAS AGRICOLAS

 

El Insdtuto es un Organismo cspcciali-

zado de la Organizacio’n de los Estados

Americanos. Fue establecido por los 00- TURRIALDA. COSTA RICA
bicmos dc las Repuiblicas Americanas

para promovcr el adelanto dc la: cien-

cias agrfcolas por medio de la investi-

gacién. la educacién y el desarrollo dc

scrvicios tegionales.

Marzo de 1968

Estimados senor y senora:

Desde hace casi dos afios tengo e1 placer de vivir en Costa Rica, donde estoy
trabajando como educadora para el hogar y profesora en el Departamento de E02
nomia y Ciencias Sociales del Centro de Ensefianza e Investigacién de Turrialba.

Durante este tiempo he tenido oportunidades muy valiosas para aprender algo de
la vida costarricense, tanto en las areas rurales como en 1as urbanas. He vi-
sitado varias families, algunas escuelas y he oonversado con padres, maestros
y personal de algunos ministerios y de la Universidad sobre el crecimiento,la
educacién y el futuro de nuestros pequefios nifios de Costa Rica.

Ahora quisiera solicitar 1a ayuda de su familia en mi estudio de las familias
de doce comunidades de la Meseta Central. Estoy pidiéndoles muy especialmente
su cooperacién por el interés demostrado por ustedes y a la vez su amable pa-
ciencia durante la encuesta nutricional llevada a cabo e1 afio antepasado, 0
sea en 1966, por el Ministerio de Salubridad Publica y el Instituto de Nutri-
ci6n de Centro America y Panama (INCAP).

Desearia solicitar la cooperacién del senor jefe de la familia en cuanto a al-
guna informacién sobre la ocupacién actual y los ingresos de la familia. Tam-
bién solicito cooperaciOn a la sefiora madre del nifio "pre-escolar" en cuanto

a algunas informaciones e ideas sobre el nifio joven y sus actividades, y el
sistema educativo en esta érea.

Como soy extranjera, ustedes me podrian ensefiar muchas cosas durante nuestras
conversaciones, que serén de mucha importancia en mi futura labor como profe-
sora a nivel universitario, y ojala también muchas cosas importantes para tan-
tas otras familias, asi como instituciones dedicadas a1 desarrollo social en
Costa Rica.

Les agradezco mucho su participacién en este proyecto de investigacién cienti-
fica y suscribo de ustedes,

    

, ente, .
WM 27%
Georgiann Baker

Educador para el Hagar
Economia y Ciencias Sociales

uto administra el Proyecto 39 del Programa de Cooperacién Te'cnica de la O.E.A. Este Proyecto procura e1 mcioxamiento de la agricultura y de la vida tu-
[as Americas, pox medlo de la ensenanza :ecmca. Pata facilitar la eiecucion dcl Proyecto se ha dividido alas Américas en (res Zonas. donde se hau esta-
) oficinas regionales: l) Zona None, con OflClna en La Habana, Cuba; 2) Zona Andina, con Oficina en Lima, Peni; y 3) Zone Sur, con Oficinaen Montevi -
rugu3Y-

 

-1: it IIII‘IA

 

25A

   
 

\'\
:gfi-

:)— msnww INTERAMERICANO DE CIENCIAS AGRICOLAS DE LA on

a

El Instituto es un organismo ospccialimdo do In
Organivacion do los Estados Americanos. Fuc osta- TURRIALBA, COSTA RICA

blocido por los Gobiomos do [as Repdblicas Amori- CINC: "CA- Mllbt
cams on 1942 para promovor en desarrollo ocondnuco

y social 3 craves do In oducacldn y la Investigacldn.

CT/DT-575
2 do mayo do 1968

Estimados sofioros:

Por este medio quioro presentarlos a la sefiorita Georgianne Baker,
profesora on nuestro Centro de Ensofianza o Invostigaoién aqui on
Turrialba.

Como parte de sus responsabilidades, 1a sefiorita Baker esta encor-
gada do una investigacion do la familia oostarrioonse: sus recursos

y sus actividades, y los opinionos do la familia on cuanto a la edu-
caoion. Esperanos que los resultados do esta investigacién, aunque
no beneficiarén direotamento a code familia participanto, ayudarén

a que los estudiantos do cioncias sociales del Centro y los profosio-
nalos do Costa Rice en el desarrollo comunal, 1a extonsién agricola
y la oducaoién, conozcan la vida real do la familia costarrioonso.

Le danos todo nuestro apoyo a1 desarrollo do esta investigaci6n y
solicitamos la cooperacién do ustedes durante los dies en que la
sofiorita Baker ostaré trabajando on esa comunidad.

Aunque coda familia no recibiré nada concroto por su participaoion,
esperamos que sontiré una satisfaccién profunda por habor contribui-
do a un trabajo que puede ayudar a mejorar los siotomas do oduoacion
y de servicios rurales on Costa Rica.

Agradeconos anticipadamente toda la colabo»-o)'. que/gzrproste a
sofiorita Baker y suscribinoo atontamont:
I // /
/

Dirnando Sudroz do Castro
‘ubdirootor del Centro do
Ensefianza o Invostigaoion

 

Anya.) tiene $1! Dirczxg 'u’m (it-I-uzol n ( 5!) Pi: n, .\}!.-II‘1;ldv «I 9181?, Sw jun!” Sus Eros Oficinas Regionalos abarcan los siguiontos parses: Zena Andinn,
“do 478, Lima, Peril (I‘Dlivizz, Colombia, Ecuador, Pom ', \I'onczzlcia): ”Iona None, Apartado 1815, Guatemala, Guatemala (Mexico, Istmo Centro-
rim-mo y Antillus Maw 13$); tom Sur, CIsiIIa dc Comm 1'2: 7, Mum IdCC , UmIgII'..y(1\rgentint, Brasi1,CbIIo, Paraguay yUmguay). Mantlono dos
ros: Centro de Ens-flu '.I In: u Invostigacién, TurII Hm, Cso ‘Gl RI: :;I 3." CLIVIIIH‘ III Invc filigacién y Enscnama para 11 Zona Tcmplada Como parte del Centro
wescigscionos Agri‘vsolz Is de' III loamy, la I): rm aw Ia, Colon”, UI'Iig : ,.Im1m.vw. eI Proyccto 206 (Re 10mm .zAgraI-ii) del Programa do Cooperacldu

no... do Id OER. ;-::'.I~'-I.I’-.I.-.I'.v pm e! (Ton git. [I v. r.. Hiczxno 12.....«31 Ru 3: {Oginl (CD’S). Mzzntwne mmbién mlcloos do invostigacidn y enseflanza para

CanoIJOIBNofiowulo hunnflgodén

4‘. .T. 'D'mr

’5. 5"A-1-

 

255

1 de Mayo de 1968

Para el que concierne:

Como sacerdote de la Parroquia de

 

me es grato reconocer y recomendar a la Srta. Profesora
Georgianne Baker, Educadora para el Hogar y Economia y
Ciencias Sociales. Ella es catolica y practica amplia—
mente su credo, siempre se ha mostrado con muy buena
voluntad para ayudar en la comunidad, en todos los campos,
religioso, social,etc. Por dicho motivo la reoomiendo
para que su labor pueda ser efectiva y para que todo lo
que Uds. puedan hacer para ayudarla en su trabajo. Reciba
la mas amplia aprobacfon de este humilde servidor y amigo.
Agradeciéndoles anticipadamente todo lo que hagan
en este respecto, y con sumo gusto reciban una bendicién

sacerdotal de quién les estima y quiere.

Padre

 

 

Coadjutor -

 

APPENDIX D

TABLE ON BASIC STATISTICS

256

 

TABLE 25.--Basic statistics for resource dimension scores.

 

Basic Statistics

 

 

Resource
Category Dimension
Scores Migiflzm Msgiflgm Mean 3:322:1gn Skewness Kurtosis

Space AQN 0.29 3.00 0.96 o.h6 1.5a 6.83
AQL 8.00 65.00 33.15 11.97 0.30 2.60
UQN -U.OO 16.00 5.u1 “.16 0.2“ 2.72
UQL -5.00 7.00 1.88 2.06 -0.77 “.30
Child's AQN 5.00 19.00 11.20 3.09 0.36 2.59
Movement AQL 0.11 0.88 0.52 0.1“ -O.18 3.18
UQN —5.00 11.00 3.3“ 2.03 -0.12 3.30
UQL -1.00 8.00 3.39 1.93 0.2“ 2.85
Care- AQN 12.00 35.00 22.19 5.03 0.20 2.u6
Appear- AQL 5.00 20.00 13.55 2.92 -o.us 2.97
ance UQN —3.00 20.00 9.51 5.11 -0.06 2.83
UQL -1.00 7.00 1.74 1.83 0.98 2.99
Child's AQN A 00 38.00 18.91 6.51 0.59 3.23
Play AQL 1.00 20 oo 8.99 n.01 o.u1 2.99
UQN 0.00 18.00 6.60 3.20 0.62 “.17
UQL -3.00 6.00 0.60 2.12 —O.23 2.22
Child's AQN 2.00 16.00 9.23 2.70 0.11 3.52
Task- AQL -5.00 8.00 1.91 2.31 0.12 3.30
Work UQN 0.00 1U.OO 6.73 2.85 -0.06 2.96
UQL -3.00 5.00 1.53 1.73 -O.25 2.72
Child's AQN “.00 26.00 19.65 “.85 0.20 2.65
Learning AQL -2.00 10.00 3.30 2.91 —0.19 2.76
UQN 1.00 49.00 22.97 9.99 0.17 2.95
UQL —3.00 7.00 2.60 1.90 -0.59 3.83
Family AQN 5.00 33.00 19.65 5.6“ 0.52 3.02
Learning AQL 0.00 0.60 0.33 0.12 -0.05 2.99
UQN 5.00 95.00 22.18 8.90 0.95 2.8“
UQL -3.00 6.00 1.89 1.89 -0.26 2.70
Child's AQN 2.00 29.00 13.91 5.42 0.51 2.75
Contacts AQL 0.20 1.00 0.58 0.18 -0.07 2.51
. UQN ' 2.00 27.00 12.90 “.96 0.86 3.03
UQL -3.00 8.00 2.UU 2.19 -0.39 3.2“
Family AQN 7.00 36.00 19.97 5.2“ 1.2” 5.17
Contacts AQL 0.19 1 00 0.55 0.15 0.99 3.28
UQN 1.00 26.00 8.70 u.u0 0.80 “.60
UQL -N.OO 9.00 1.71 2.33 -0.03 3.6“

 

257

"I111111171111111111s