THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN . - EXPRESSED ATTITUDES AND OBSERVED ” ’ BEHAVIORS 0F MOTHERS or PRESCHOOL ,HEARING-IMPAIRED CHILDREN . Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. ', MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MEREDITH JOHNSON MEAD 1971 R l t 19 TTTTTTTTTTT $9,197.15 2459 I _ _,____._ ._._ rnfisll This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Relationship Between Expressed Attitudes and Observed Behaviors of Mothers of Preschool Hearing-Impaired Children presented by Meredith Johnson Mead has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Family Ecology Date Feb.‘ 22, 1972 0-7639 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPRESSED ATTITUDES AND OBSERVED BEHAVIORS OF MOTHERS OF PRESCHOOL HEARING-IMPAIRED CHILDREN BY Meredith Johnson Mead The attitudes and behaviors of seventeen mothers of preschool hearing—impaired children were studied to examine relationships between expressed attitudes toward the disability of deafness, expressed attitudes toward family and behaviors exhibited by the mother in inter- action with her preschool hearing-impaired child. The specific objectives were to examine relationships between 1) expressed attitudes and characteristics of the hearing- impaired child, 2) expressed attitudes and characteristics of the mother and the family, 3) maternal behavior and characteristics of the hearing-impaired child, 4) maternal behavior and characteristics of the mother and the family, and 5) expressed attitudes and behavior of the mother in interaction with her hearing-impaired child. Emmerich's modified form of the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) was used to assess maternal attitudes toward family life and child development on the Meredith Johnson Mead dimensions of Authoritarian Control, Hostility-Rejection and Democratic Attitudes. The Attitude to Deafness Scale was used to examine expressed attitudes toward the dis- ability of deafness. Ratings of the mother's characteris— tic behavior in interaction with her hearing-impaired child were made using the Maternal Behavior Inventory. The Pre- school Attainment Record and the Denver Developmental Screening Test were used to assess the developmental levels of the hearing-impaired child. Basic family infor- mation was gathered from the Language Development for Deaf Children through Parent Education Program case files. As a group, the mothers studied disagreed with statements expressing a negative attitude toward the handicapping condition of deafness. They expressed agreement with democratic attitudes toward family life and children and tended to disagree with an authoritarian- control attitude. There were no significant correlations between the Attitude to Deafness Scale and the scales on the Parent Attitude Research Instrument. The attitudes expressed by mothers of preschool hearing-impaired children toward the disability of deaf- ness were not related to characteristics of the child, the mother or the family. Mothers in the lower income groups and with lower social class rankings expressed attitudes of authoritarian-control, seclusiveness, and an attitude favoring the fostering of dependency in their child. Mothers with higher educational levels expressed Meredith Johnson Mead attitudes favoring the suppression of aggression in their Child. Young mothers with a young deaf child and a small family expressed attitudes of marital conflict and irrita- bility while also holding attitudes of equalitarianism and comradeship and sharing. As a group, the mothers were rated as being cooperative and sociable. They were viewed as expressing affection toward their hearing-impaired child, as granting him a positive evaluation and autonomy although, they also tended to limit his behavior through excessive contact. In general, the mothers were not punitive, irritable or ignoring of their child. They did not seem to withdraw from the relationship with the child or show excessive concern about his health. Income and age of the mother appeared to be the most important personal variables related to maternal behavior toward the hearing—impaired child. Characteris- tics of the child that were related to maternal behavior were developmental level, age of the child, handicapping condition and position in the family. Mothers who expressed a negative attitude toward deafness were seen as being equalitarian. They were also seen as granting the child autonomy and a positive evalua- tion. Mothers who expressed a negative attitude toward deafness were seen as behaving in an anxious, ignoring, punitive manner and as using punishment and fear to con- trol the child. Mothers expressing an attitude of marital Meredith Johnson Mead conflict were seen as exhibiting behavior of punitiveness, withdrawal of relationship, ignoring, and mood changes in relation to their hearing—impaired child. Lack of the marital conflict attitude was related to COOperativeness, sociability and expression of affection toward the child. Future research should consider the use of more comprehensive personality measures as well as assessment of the dynamics of family interaction. Future studies are needed regarding the development and use of instru- ments to assess attitudes and behaviors with clearer conceptual organization and definition. Action programs should be aware of the complexity of parent-child rela- tionships and seek to understand individual and family dynamics so that intervention can be as effective as possible. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXPRESSED ATTITUDES AND OBSERVED BEHAVIORS OF MOTHERS OF PRESCHOOL HEARING-IMPAIRED CHILDREN By Meredith Johnson Mead A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family Ecology l97l ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation is expressed to the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Jane Oyer, Dr. Larry Borosage, Dr. Norma Bobbitt and Mrs. Vivian Stevenson, for their help in planning the study and their guidance. Special thanks is expressed to Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, Chairman of the Committee, for her guidance throughout my entire doctoral program and her continued support and encourage- ment. Financial assistance for graduate study and research was received through an AHEA-VRA Fellowship in Rehabilitation and the ESEA, Title III Project: Language for Deaf Children through Parent Education. This assis- tance made the completion of my graduate studies possible and I am very grateful for the opportunity to continue my education. To my friends and family I extend warm feelings of companionship and gratitude for your continued support and love. To my daughter--Margaret Ann--I give my love. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS AIKMMfimssScale, Maternal Behavior Inventory, Preschool Niahmmm Mmord (PAR), and the Denver Developmental Scnmnhm'flmt (DDST). The conceptual content of each nmtnmmntem well as the methods of recording responses andfbrscmflng are described below. Copies of each instnmenteue included in Appendix A. Iknentallmtitude Research Instrument (PARI) Emmerich's (20) modified form of the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (Appendix A) originally developed by Schaefer and Bell (53,54) was used to assess maternal attitudes toward family life and child develop— ment. This set of 55 statements includes a mixture of items taken from Schaefer and Bell and Zuckerman (64,67) fifth scmm3.items formulated by Emmerich. The three factors rui the cxxrresponding scales on the mother's form were: ZAutfuaritarian Control--Fostering dependency, :seclusiveness of the mother, suppression (3f aggression, excluding outside influ— enices and suppression of sexuality; fusstzility-Rejection-Marital Conflict--Rejection caf the homemaking role, and irritability; [Menuocxratic Attitudes—~Encouraging verbalization, exqualitarianism, comradeship and sharing. ENDI: enach statement, the mother was asked to circle lxetztear \Nrrich best represented her opinion of the state- according to the following key: 42 = if you strongly agree if you mildly agree if you mildly disagree = if you strongly disagree 0040133 II Scoring was based on assigning the numerical values of 4 for strongly agree, 3 for mildly agree, 2 for mildly disagree and l for strongly disagree. Scoring was reversed for items where agreement signified the absence of the attitude so that high scale scores represent the presence of the attitude. Attitude to Deafness Scale The Attitude to Deafness Scale (Appendix A) con- tains 25 items presented in a 4—point Likert-type rating framework of strongly or mildly agree of disagree. Agree— ment on 21 of the items indicates a negative attitude to deafness whereas agreement indicates a positive attitude to deafness on four of the items. Positive items are reverse-scored so that higher scores on the final scale indicate more negative attitudes to deafness. Cowen, et al. reported a corrected split-half reliability of .83 (14:185) for the scale. A judging Iorocedure was used to establish face validity. Concurrent \Jalidity was demonstrated in a correlational study in unlich negative attitudes to deafness were related to a crluster of socio-psychological attitudes. The scale had Exredictive validity in an experimental test situation (13). 3.x“tflwfiz1need azgpiide tx) aid 1J1 the Chatectirui of snfluficant developmental delays so that further diagnosis and treatment can be prescribed“ The DDST contains 105 items designated by a bar located under an age scale which extends from birth to six years so as to indicate the ages at which 25, 50, 75 and 90 per cent of the standardization population performed The items are grouped in the behavioral cate— the item. (the use of fine motor-adaptive gross motor, the ability to solve gories of: as the child grows older, (the ability to hear, and hands and, language nonverbal problems), (the ability to perform tasks talk), ENNfl personal-social of'smiLf-care and to relate to others) 'The test items are presented to the child accord— (24). LI g‘to tine standard procedure and scoring is on a pass or "ail_loasigs depending on whether or not the child's per— In some instances the ormance meets the item description. (eunirner Inay rely on the parent report of the child's ~Iuavi11r. The examiner determines which items to admin- tear loy' dinawing a vertical line through the behavior txegrarixes at the child's chronological age and administers 47 Umee Unpugh which the line passes plus additional items to deUmmdne the point at which the child passes and fails efll imme in each category. The parent may administer an ianif the child refuses to perform for the examiner. Delays in development can be noted by items passed and failed in relation to the child's chronological age line. A developmental ”delay" is defined as "any failure by a child on an item if he is older than the age at which 909 of the children pass the item" (24, p. 7). Test 0 results can be categorized in each sector as: a. Normal--if the child passes at least one item intersected by his age line and if he has no "delay” on any item within that sector. b. Questionable--if the child is delayed in just one item and/or if he does not pass any item which is intersected by his age line, and c. Abnormal——if the child has two or more delays in the sector. The test design does not allow for the computation of a developmental or mental age or quotient. However, a systxnn for rating the child's total test performance was mex1 for comparisons between categories and in a study of test validity and reliability (24, p. 4). The ratings and definitions used were: a. l——normal performance and no developmental "delays" on any test item, b. 2--a "delay" on one test item or failure to pass at least one item in each category through which his chronological age line passed, and 48 c. 3~-two or more delays on items in any one sector. Preliminary results of studies on test reliability 0 95.8 1.5 mul\nflidity were reported in the test manual. gxm'cent item agreement was reported in a test-retest reliability study. Reliability among examiners based on per cent of agreement on items passed or failed ranged from 80 to 95 with an average per cent agreement of 90. A Pearson product moment correlation of r = 97 was reported in a validity study in which DDST Ratings were compared with ratings on the Revised Yale Developmental Schedule (24). Collection of Data Family Information The cumulative case file records for each child were used as the source of information regarding family members and family composition. These records contained family data forms, a description of the child's develop- rmmital history, audiological assessment reports, psycholo~ aflm .m ewmmoflm a HHeBOHHm: rmfl>mo "Eonw Ueummpflm l'l. - 4". . .u."lfl ul| .ococ Honnsommem pmeHHmEm no Umusocm mmoflpcmm maco ccmumumccs cam mp om me on owo>mm m on O cooodm UsoH hues mmoflpcmm 5 suanufluufim ucmnwmum mm as mm mm smegma a mm coeomm Hmfiuoc zbaa gmoflpcw: sufisusuuae ucmgwmlu mm mm mm ow mas: o as comomw pcoumampsm cmgB such mmofloce: mmoau AOmHV no Mbflaflm. ouog boz msoz mo voumwo mp Ho>mq UHOCmmHQB mm mm m , m bu m mcflumm: ecu CH mm ooom Ucm oooa .oom How Hm>eq paocmmmce mCHHmom mmmsw>< .dmoflocmm mcflumom mo mommmauun.v uqmae Bl Maternal Attitnnles The mothers of the hearing—impaired children were asked to compledxa the [attitude in) Deaffmxms Scale:suni the Panfln:Attitude Research Instrument during a routine visitlnrthe family worker. The mothers were informed that Umainformation requested was part of a general research that their responses would be confidential, and study, that the family worker would not be aware of how the mother The attitude scales were handed to the mother enclosed in an unsealed envelope and she was requested to During the time that responded. return them in the sealed envelope. the mother was completing the scales the family worker interacted with the deaf child in another room or across If the mother requested help, the family worker the room. "Respond according to responded with a statement such as, The sealed envelopes were returned to the how you feel.” faniilyr .y worker who wrote the program office by the famil code runflmer on the envelope after leaving the home. Maternal Behavior One week after the mother completed the attitude scalens, the seven family workers completed the Maternal Each worker rated the families he had Behavior Inventory . They received beeni wcnflting with for the past three months. tixlinirmg and experience in rating sample behaviors before theul‘werxa asked to complete the inventory. When the .beruavicn: statement implied interaction with a single child, true luaardJIg-impaired child was the referent. All ratings 52 xwme.nudeWed by the case supervisor who was familiar with eadinbther and child and with the on-going mother-child relationship. Developmental Level The Denver Developmental Screening Test and the Eweschool Attainment Record were administered to each child individually by a teacher of the deaf who had pre- Vious testing and diagnostic experience. A second test scoring was done by the child development instructor who observed each session. The child's mother and family worker brought the child to the testing room and remained as observers throughout the session. They were asked to participate only if the child was not co-operative or if the mother's report was necessary for the item scoring. Two of the children were tested in their homes with materials from the testing room. The test administrator did not feel that the change in environment influenced the test results. After the testing session, the family worker was asked to evaluate the child's performance and the mother”s responses based on her knowledge of the child. Items were presented following the format of the Deannerevelopmental Screening Test with the related itenu;.fron1the Preschool Attainment Record being inserted an: appuxnpriate times. Items were given a second time if the: testxsr felt that the child had not been sufficiently atteurtatixmecm motivated during the first presentation. 53 Stmmanimaterials were used except for a larger ball and W'x F'enlargements of the pictures on the Denver Deve lopment a l . The scoring of items followed the criteria stated hithetest manuals. When possible, the child's observed kehavhn was used as the basis for scoring, except in cmsesvflmre it was impossible to observe the behavior or Total if Uneitem required a response from the mother. testsmnres were computed according to test directions. Am adjusted score to allow for the hearing impairment was derived by omitting the language items in the computation of the score. The test results received a l, 2, 3 rating based on the rating system reported in the validation studies The Attain- of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. ment Quotients on the Preschool Attainment Record were ratmxi as follows: 100+ = l, 80:99 = 2, 79 Below = 3. Data Analysis (33mputer analysis of the data was completed on the The Bastat .Micflmigeuu State University 3600 Computer. Statistical Routine for Correlation Analysis was used. consultation was obtained through the Research Office in the College of Education at Michigan State University. A separate analysis was made including and excluding the four deaf mothers . 1|..Iv‘d-xiuu, .HL. . . 3. “.5, ,..uw. ‘dv salt .. .I'II. _ CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The first part of this chapter includes a des- criptive summary of the maternal attitudes expressed on the Attitude to Deafness Scale and the Parent Attitude Research Instrument as well as ratings of the maternal behavior on the Maternal Behavior Inventory. Descriptive results of the performance levels of the hearing—impaired children on the Preschool Attainment Record and Denver Developmental Screening Test are also included. The results of the study in relation to the five hypotheses are reported in the second section. Descriptive Results The range, mean and mean item ratings of the nmflflners (Hi the Attitude to Deafness Scale and the Parent Attitude Research Instrument are included in Table 5. Ratings on the Attitude to Deafness Scale ranged from 25 to 54, with a mean rating of 40.1. The average item rating was 1.6 which indicates that the mothers generally expressed disagreement with statements expressing a 54 55 TABLE 5.--Range and Mean of Maternal Attitude Scores. Mean Item Attitude Range Mean Rating Attitude to Deafness 25-54 40.1 1.6 Authoritarian Control 39-6 1 49 . 4 2 . O Fostering Dependency 5-11 7 . 7 1 . 5 Seclusiveness of Mother 7-17 11 . 0 2 . 2 Suppression-Aggression 5-17 10 . 0 2 . 0 Excluding Outside Influence 5-18 10 . 1 2 . 0 Suppression of Sexuality 8-14 10 . 6 2 . l Hostility-Rejection 30—50 40.2 2. 7 Marital Conflict 11-18 13.9 2.8 Rejects Homemaking Role 9-16 12 . 4 2 . 5 Irritability 10-20 14.2 2.8 Democratic 35-57 48.4 3.3 ' Equalitarianism _ 10-20 14.5 2.9 Encouraging Verbali zation 10-20 16 . 5 3 . 3 Comradeship and Sharing 11-20 17 . 4 3 . 5 negative attitude to the handicap of deafness. Mean item ratings on the Parent Attitude Research Instrument indi- Cate that mothers tended to agree with statements related to democratic attitudes and disagreed with statements regarding authoritarian control. The mean item rating on the Hostility-Rejection Scale is at the mid—point between agree and disagree. The correlation matrix for the attitude scales are included in Table 6. Levels of significance were taken from Edwards (21). Correlation coefficients of .41 to . 55 are significant at the .05 level of confidence and coefficients of .56 or above are significant at the .01 5(5 Hm>wq Ho. um unmUNMacmam.. Ha>wq mo. an acaoamflcmam. oo.~ Ho. co. ..om. mo. no. I «N. ea. mo. I NH. I .Nm. I mm. #0. ma. I mm. I meauaem ecu aficmwnquoo oo.a mm. cams. so. OH. I No. No. cav. I «mm. I MN. ow. I om. «we. I an. I ceaumuflamnuo> mcflmcusoocm oo.H .uon. mm. vo. .ov. mm. mm. I mg. I va. ma. Ho. _ mo. I mo. I Emacmflumuaaasvm oo.a om. co. I ma. mo. on. I .mv. I No. I no. «A. mm. I mm. I oflumuooemo oo.~ ..~n. «coo. .c~m. mo. NN. mg. I em. I co. so. I mm. I xuaaflnmufluuu oo.« pm. «.55. Ho. ma. NH. I .mv. I ma. MN. I ma. I maom ozomeoEOmIcofluomflwm oo.H «.mn. mo. ma. .nv. ow. om. so. am. I uofiawcou Havana: 004 we. om. «o. I om. I mo. _ mo. I ma. I 5360373338: oo.H ..oo. ha. I mo. o~. _ ..m@. 5H. I suaamsxomIcOgmmwuaaam oo.~ _ em. I ha. cm. “ IIHN. Hm. mucosamcH opamuso mcapsHUxm _ oo.H ma. I mm. u vo. I vm. I cofimmoummfimzaomm . oo.a _ «cum. om. mocoocoawo meaumumom _ i oo.~ om. Heuucoo cadumufluonus< h i oo.H mmOCWMOQ Ou modufiuu< 3 3” EH SS 13 fl VS 0 S H “mm Mnu .m W H wufl m m b.m m.m u x 6.n 1.3 m_% i mow M_W P m 1 3 n m x u.L. 3.I a 1 n.d 3‘4 5 o 3 d s _ u 3 9 3 J J a.o 9 o I. a a 7.3 o r. e 1 T.I 1 1 3 I a 3 i 3 u 1.1 1.9 e n T 3 3 m 3 1.9 3 I T.a m m. a a u.n u a _ 1 O u 3 u P 141 I. 1 e e 3 a I 1.1. 1.5 u I s s a s. 0.1 _ o x a n 5% mm m w. m um. I on as 3 mm Nu mm. 1 It as. U c I. 1 r. I u u u.M K m. 9.6 o o o m 3,6 M m s a I. in. T. 3 T. 5 u u u 3U .A _, 1 2 d 1.5 D. «4 o O ”.9 i T. o o u A 8.; o n o a s _ e e u I. o 3 3 1 s u m. m m I m _. W i .mmpsuauu4 Hmcuwumz qu Xauumz ceaumHmuHOUII.o mqm<fi 57 level of confidence. There were no significant correla- tions between the Attitude to Deafness Scale and the scales on the Parent Attitude Research Instrument. On the Parent Attitude Research Instrument, the sub—scales were positively related to the summary scales at or above the .01 level of confidence, except for the sub-scale of Suppression of Aggression in the Authoritarian Control Scale. This scale was positively related to the Marital Conflict sub-scale within the Hostility-Rejection Scale. There were few significant correlations between the sub-scales. Within the Authoritarian Control Scale, Seclusiveness of the Mother and Fostering Dependency were related at the .05 level of confidence and Suppression of Sexuality and Excluding Outside InfluenCe were related at the .01 level of confidence. The sub-scale of Irritability was related to the other sub-scales in the Hostility-Rejection Scale. There were no significant correlations among the sub—scales in the Democratic Scale. The general lack of correlations among sub-scales indicates that for the sample studied the sub-scales functioned independently and were not intrinsically related to one another. Table 7 includes the scores on the Maternal Behavior Inventory. The mean scale scores ranged from 17.1 to 34.7. The behaviors of sociability and c00pera— tiveness were rated as being characteristic of these TABLE 7.—-Mean and Range for Total Scale Scores and Mean Scale Rating. Mean Range of Scale Scale Maternal Behavior Score Scores Equalitarian 3.5 20.8 10-35 Emotional Involvement 4.3 25.9 18-33 Rejects Homemaking Role 4.0 23.9 13-35 Excessive Contact 3.0 17.9 7-26 Physical Health-Mother 4.9 29.1 13—42 Lax Discipline 3.8 22.9 9-36 Cooperativeness 3.0 18.2 9-30 Intrusiveness 4.9 29.6 8-33 Ignoring 5.4 32.4 19-41 Fostering Dependency 4.3 26.1 16-35 Financial Stress 5.3 31.6 10-42 Inconsistent Discipline 3.3 19.6 5—25 Autonomy 2.7 16.3 11-29 Punishment 5.1 30.4 9-39 Expressing Affection 2.9 17.1 6-35 Anxiety 4.2 25.1 15—32 Perceives Child as Burden 4.9 29.6 10-41 Dependency 4.6 27.8 9-38 Concern about Health 5.6 33.7 21-42 Punitiveness 5.8 34.7 10-35 Control 4.7 28.4 19-39 Mood Changes 4.6 27.5 14-36 Achievement Press 3.9 23.1 11-40 Positive Evaluation 3.1 18.4 7-34 Enforcement 4.2 25.1 12-35 Suppression of Aggression 4.7 28.1 15-26 Intelligence 3.4 20.4 8-31 Withdrawal-Relationship 5.2 31.4 8-42 Use of Fear to Control 5.0 29.8 8-38 Sociability 3.2 19.1 9-37 Irritability 5.7 34.4 8-42 Negative Emotional State 4.7 28.0 13-40 59 mothers. The mothers studied tended to have excessive contact with the child but also granted the hearing- impaired child autonomy. They also exhibited affection toward the child and appeared to have a positive evalua- tion of the child. Behaviors that were rated as being "very little like the mother" were concern about health of the child, punitiveness and irritability. Mothers were not seen as being ignoring or as withdrawing from the relationship with their child. Scores on the Preschool Attainment Record (PAR) and Denver Developmental (DD) are in Table 8. Attainment Quotients received on the Preschool Attainment Record ranged from 38.4 to 134.6 with a mean of 83.2. Adjusted scores ranged from 43.1 to 147.4 with a mean of 90.8. The percentage of items passed on the Denver Develop- mental ranged from 8.2 or 9.1 on the adjusted score to 65.6 or 73.3 on the adjusted scores. The mean score was 38.9 and for the adjusted scores was 49.0. Correlation between the scoring by the two testers were .992 for the Preschool Attainment Record, .985 for the Adjusted Pre- school Attainment Record, .996 for the Denver Develop— mental Screening Test and .975 for the adjusted score on the DDST. Ratings of the scores for the Preschool Attainment Record were: nine children received a 1 rating, three received a 2 rating, and five received a 3 rating. On the Denver Developmental five children received a 1 rating, 60 TABLE 8.--Mean Scores on Preschool Attainment Record and Denver Developmental. Preschool Denver Preschool Attainment Developmental Attainment Record Denver Record Case Record (adj.) Developmental (adj.) 1 61.7 74.0 36.4 43.5 2 50.5 57.4 16.2 23.8 3 93.2 101.5 34.4 50.0 4 102.4 106.5 50.0 65.0 5 105.6 109.3 56.5 73.3 6 87.8 95.4 40.0 52.2 7 123.5 140.8 64.0 68.4 8 134.6 147.4 65.6 72.7 9 52.5 62.1 24.4 33.3 10 93.8 107.1 40.6 60.0 11 38.4 43.1 8.2 9.1 12 108.1 115.6 59.4 72.7 13 71.3 71.5 35.3 43.5 14 66.6 70.3 28.6 39.1 15 99.0 112.0 50.0 57.9 16 84.2 85.8 40.5 56.0 17 41.5 42.9 12.2 12.5 Total 1414.7 1542.7 662.3 833.0 Mean 83.2 90.8 38.9 49.0 three received a 2 rating and nine received a 3 rating. The correlation coefficient between ratings on the Pre- school Attainment Record and the Denver Developmental was .761. The children did show a wide range in total devel- opmental level of functioning. Adjusting the scores did not appear to change the relative position of the child within the group tested and intertester correlations were 61 lower but still significant. Ratings of the scores did result in different relative positions of children within the groups. Hypotheses Hypothesis I: There will be no significant relationships between the expressed attitudes of mothers of preschool hearing-impaired children and characteristics of the hearing- impaired child. Attitudes expressed by mothers of preschool hearing-impaired children toward the handicapping condi- tion of deafness were not related to descriptive charac- teristics of the hearing-impaired child (Table 9) nor to the developmental level of the child. (Appendix B; Table B-l.) There were no significant relationships between the attitude scales and the sex of the child, the severity of the hearing loss or handicapping condition except for a significant correlation between the sub-scale of Encouraging Verbalization and the singular handicap of deafness. Mothers of younger children expressed attitudes of hostility-rejection and democratic attitudes. Sub- scales indicating the same attitudes were Marital Conflict, Rejects Homemaking Role, Irritability and Equalitarianism. Mothers who expressed attitudes of marital con- flict and hostility-rejection had smaller numbers of children. Mothers with larger numbers of children expressed an attitude of seclusiveness of the mothers. Mothers of children holding first and only child positions in the 62 Hm>wa Ho. um unmoauacmHmI. Hm>ma mo. um unmofluflcmHmI so. I ma. om. so. «H. I ma. sm. I ocflumcm cam mflnmmcmHEou OH. I OH. I mo. «N. mo. mm. mm. I coflumwflamnum> mnemmuzoocm ov. I mm. I ma. I «we. I mm. I mo. ««mw. I Emflcmflumuflamsgm mm. I ma. I so. mo. I we. I vm. «gas. I oeumuooewo mm. I mm. I oo. I Ha. mo. mm. «em. I suflaflnmuHuHH «0. ma. I mm. I mo. I oo. I mm. «we. I maom mcflxmeoEO: mo cofluomsmm *«os. I *«ms. I «sea. I No. sN. ma. «mv. I uUflHmCOU HMUflHmZ Hm. I mm. I «mm. I mo. sH. mm. *vm. I cofluomsmmlsuflaflumom ma. mo. «0. I «0. I mo. I am. mm. muflamsxmm mo :oflmmmummsm Ha. I so. oo. oo. I vH. Ho. mm. mucosawcH mpflmuso mcflpzaoxm mm. I «we. om. I oo. oo. om. Ho. I coflmmwummé mo :ofimmwudosm oo. mm. I ««om. OH. Ha. oo. oo. Honuoz msu mo mmocm>flmsaomm 04. «as. am. so. I am. I mm. as. I socmecmmwo Beaumumom No. I «H. mm. oo. oo. ma. mm. Houucou mafiumufluosus< mo. Hm. Hm. oo. I Ho. mo. om. mm¢¢wmmo Ou mosufluu< cofluflmom coHuHmom mmcflanflm :oflwficcou mmoq mo xmm mm< moosufluud accumumz mcflanflm Hmcflpuo wo umnfisz mcfldmmoflpcmm wuflum>mm >HHEmm ca cofluflmom UHHSU pmuflmmEHImcHummm wo moflumfluwuomumno .eaaeo cmuflmaeH Imcflummm on» m0 moflumflpouomumsu cam mopsufluud accumpwz cmozuom mucmfloflmmwou coflumeuuouII.m mqmma mo. um SamoauflcmHmI ma. I exec. I oa. mcflnmnm pom mflcmmcmmeoo ma. I oo. I Ho. coHuMNHHmon> mcflmmusoocm mm. I HH. I so. I amflemHHMUHHmsvm mm. I em. I mm. UHDMHUOEoQ mm. I *mv. I mm. I muflaflnmufluuH oo. Hm. I am. I maom mcflxmameom mo coepomsmm mo. I oo. *«om. I DQflHmcou Hmuflumz ma. I em. I mm. I aofluomhmmIsuHHflumom ea. I ma. I *sv. I suflamsxmm mo coflmmmummdm mo. Ho. I mm. I wocmsaucH meflmpso mcflosaoxm me. I *mv. mm. I coflmmmnomm mo coflmmmnmmsm om. I sm. I ma. Hocuoz mcu mo mmmcw>flmdaoom mo. I sm. I sH. I socmpcmmmo mcfluwumom om. I ma. I mm. I Houucou coaumufluocus< mm. mm. mm. mmmcMmmo ou mcoufluud coflummsooo coeumospm mom mmcsufluum Hmcuwumz .Hmzuoz mzu mo coflummsooo can coflumoscm .mo< .mmcsufluu< Hmcumumz cwmzumm mpcmHOwamou coflumHmHHOOII.oa mqmma Ho. um unmoHMflconII .Hm>oa mo. um pcmoflwflcmflm« em. m. no. em. madamem use oflemmemnsoo om. «me. I mm. sm. COHDMNHHMQHo> mcflmmusoocm mo. NH. mm. I mm. I Emflcmaumuflamsvm om. oo. I eo. Ha. UHumuooaoo mm. mm. mo. I mg. I suflaanmuHHHH ma. ma. sm. om. oaom ocflmemEom mo cofluowsom *sv. sm. mm. I om. I poeawcoo Hmpflumz 04. mm. so. I ma. I cofluommmmIspHHHumom mo. I ea. I mm. I Ho. suflamoxmm mo coflmmmummsm ma. I Hm. so. I am. I mocmsamcH moflmuso ocflosaoxm oo. mm. I om. I mm. I coflmmmnmmfi mo coflmmmummsm mm. I ma. ««oo. I ewe. I nozuoz mzu mo mmmcm>flmsaomm mm. I oo. *mv. I ma. I socmocmmmo mcflnmumom om. I oo. exam. I «oo. I Honucou swanmufluosuse ma. I No. om. oo. I mmmcmmmo ou mcsufluum coamfiamm comm mmmau Hm>mq mmoouflpwd accumpmz Hafioom oEoocH .%HHEmm one mo aoflmflamm cam comm .mmmHU Hmfloom .Hm>mq wEoocH map can mopsufluum accumumz cmmBDmm mucmfloflmmwou coflumamuuooII.Ha mqm<9 67 Hypothesis III: There will be no significant relationships between the maternal behavior of mothers of preschool hearing-impaired children and characteristics of the hearing—impaired child. Correlation coefficients between maternal behavior and characteristics of the hearing-impaired child are included in Tables 12 and 13. No significant relationships were found between the sex of the hearing-impaired child or the severity of the hearing loss and scores on the Maternal Behavior Inventory. Mothers of older children were seen as exhibiting behaviors characteristic of equalitarianism, sociability, encouragement of autonomy in the child and positive evalua— tion of the child. Positive evaluation of the hearing~impaired child was associated with the child having deafness only, whereas mothers who were seen as ignoring their child and as perceiving their child as a burden had children with a multiplicity of handicapping conditions. Maternal enforcement of rules and press for achievement were related to a larger number of siblings in the family. Behaviors of equalitarianism, excessive contact, cooperativeness, expressing affection, intelli- gence, achievement press and sociability were associated with the deaf child holding a later ordinal position. Mothers of deaf children in the first and second positions exhibited behaviors characteristic of ignoring, perceiving 68 .Hm>mq Ho. um unmofiwwcmwmet .Hm>mq mo. um ucmoflmwcmfime «me. «No. oN. Ho. I oH. NN. om. mumum HmcoHHOEm m>Hummmz oN. IHv. Nm. oN. I oH. I NN. Nm. suHHHnmuHuuH IINo. .IHo. I oo. I «H. so. so. I .om. I suHHHanuom oH. «Ho. Hm. No. I mH. I oH. om. Houucoo ou ummm H0 mm: oo. sm. mH. oN. I mo. om. om. mHnm:0HHMHmm mo Hmsmuusqu «so. I Iom. I so. I oH. I oH. I No. om. I mocmmHHHmucH Ho. I HH. I mm. I Hm. I mo. I NH. oH. conmmumoaIconmwummsm om. I om. I .No. I oo. I mo. I oH. oN. I newsmouomcm «oo. I em. I oH. I IIoo. Hm. mo. «so. I :oHumsHm>m m>HuHmom «mo. I IIsm. I .Hm. I No. mN. No. I HN. I mmmum ucmso>mHnom «mo. IHm. so. om. I HN. I mm. mm. mmocmso woo: HH. I om. I om. I om. I so. oN. so. Houucoo «oo. om. oH. oH. I oo. I om. om. mmmcm>HuHcsm mo. I om. I oo. I oo. I mH. oH. No. suHmmm uaonm cumoaoo om. oH. oo. oN. I mo. Ho. oH. socmucmmmo «oo. «so. sN. «oo. I oN. I No. I NN. :mousm mm oHHno mm>Hmoumm sH. NH. oN. NN. I mo. om. mN. sumeqc «Ho. I «mm. I Hm. I mo. Ho. so. I No. I :oHuomww< mchmmumxm oH. oN. oN. oo. No. I oo. mm. ucmsschsm oH. I oH. I Ho. sN. I HN. I oo. «oo. I ssocopsa Nm. om. om. oo. No. I om. Nm. mcHHaHomHo ucmumHmcoocH oo. I HH. I oo. I HN. mH. oo. so. I mmmuum HmHocmch HN. om. oo. No. I Nm. oH. I oH. socmocmmmo ocHumumom Iom. «Nm. mm. .No. I sH. mH. oN. mcHuocoH oH. oH. HH. oH. NH. mH. NN. mmmcm>HmsuucH so. I Ioo. I mm. I oH. I oo. I MN. I oN. I mmmcm>Humumaooo mm. Hm. om. mH. mo. mm. I Hm. mconHomHo xmq oN. mo. mo. I oH. I mH. mN. Ho. umnuozInuHmmm Hmonsnm «mo. I «om. I mm. I oH. oH. HH. I sH. I uomucoo m>Hmmmoxm oo. oH. HH. oo. mH. MN. om. mHom mcHHHEmsom muomsmm «oo. oN. Hm. HH. I oo. HN. NH. pcme>Ho>cH HmcoHuoem oN. I «Nm. I oo. I oo. sH. mo. I INo. I cmHumuHHmswm coouflmom coHuHmom mocHHnHm :oHuHUCOU mmoq mo xom mod H0H>mcwm Hmcumumz mGHHnHm Hmcflpuo mo HwnESZ mchmmowpcm: >uouo>mm sHHEmm cH aoHuHmoo .paflnu mzu mo moflumwuwuomumnu paw H0H>mcmm Hmcnwumz cmmBumm mucmwoflmwwoo coHumHmHHOUII.NH mqmdfi 69 .Hm>mH Ho. um unmonHGmHm«« .Hm>mH mo. um acmoHHHcmHmI Ho. Hm. o«. mm. I o«. o«. mumum HmcoHuosm m>Hummmz so. NH. «H. MH. I NN. oH. wuHHHnmuHHHH ON. I OH. I HH. mo. sH. I mH. I suHHHanoom oH. I Ho. I «o. HH. so. mo. Honucoo 0» Hmom H0 mm: oH. I MN. om. mM. I «M«. mM. chmcoHumHmmIHmsmesqu oN. I mo. I NH. oo. oo. I NH. mocmoHHHmncH «o. MN. HN. mo. I sH. «H. I GOHmmmHmdeGOHmmmHmmsm mo. I oo. I sH. oH. NH. sH. I HamEmOHOHGM sm. «*oo. I «*No. ««sm. «eom. I «*sm. I GOHHMDHM>W Gofluwmom Mo. mH. I oN. mN. mN. I MM. I mmmum ucmEm>mH£o¢ «o. I «N«. «o«. NM. I «««. «m«. mmmcmau coo: Ho. I oo. oo. oo. mo. I HH. I Houucoo so. MH. «H. oH. I MN. oH. mmmcm>HuHcdm om. I oo. oo. «H. I oo. oo. nuHmmm usonm cumocoo mm. I «can. «amw. «*mm. I ««mw. «s00. hocmficmmmm HH. I «««. «o«. «M«. I H«. o«. ampusm mm pHHzo mm>Hmonm oo. oH. «N. mo. I oH. HH. sHmec4 oH. I NH. I oH. mN. oN. I mN. I :oHuomHH¢.mchmmumxm mH. mo. I Mo. oo. Ho. «o. I pamEQchsm NN. I oN. NH. mm. I oH. oH. Neocou5< HH. so. I No. Ho. I mo. oo. mcHHmHomHa ucmumHmcoocH oM. MH. I NH. MN. oH. I MH. I mmwuum HmHocmch HH. Ho. No. mH. NH. I mo. I aocwpcmmma mcHHmumom OH. I «o«. eNm. «Mm. I «Nm. eHm. mcHHocmH mm. oN. I mH. sN. NN. I mN. I mmmcm>Hmsuch mo. I oo. I so. sH. MN. I NN. I mmmcm>Humuomooo mo. I Ho. OH. HO. oo. mo. mcHHmHomHo xmq MN. I Hm. om. «No. I sm. o«. uwnuozInuHmmm Hmonssm oo. I «N. I MN. o«. HM. I HM. I uomucoo m>Hmmmoxm mH. mo. so. oH. I NH. oH. mHom mcmeEoEom muomflwm so. I NN. mN. MN. I NN. «N. ucmEm>Ho>cH HmcoHuoEm «N. oo. I oH. No. sH. I HH. I :mHumuHHmsvm MIDQ mo can .pHHnU may wo moHumHHmuomuan HOH>mcmm Hmcumumz cwaHom mucmHonmmoo GOHHMHwHHOUII.MH mqmfie 70 the child as a burden, mood changes, use of fear to control, irritability and negative emotional state. In families where the hearing-impaired child was the first child, the mother was seen as exhibiting behavior characteristic of emotional involvement, ignoring, puni- tiveness and perceiving the child as a burden. These mothers were seen as being sociable, having mood changes and expressing a general negative state. When the deaf child occupied a middle or last position the mother exhibited excessive contact, affection, positive evalua- tion, a press for achievement and a level of intelligence for dealing with the child. Mothers of children with high developmental levels exhibited behaviors indicating a positive evaluation of the child whereas when the child had a lower developmental level the mothers tended to ignore the child and expressed dependency upon others to make decisions or care for the child. These relationships were found for all the developmental scores and ratings except the rating of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. This hypothesis was partially supported in that there were no significant relationships with some of the behavior scales, but significant relationships were found between some of the behavior scales and characteristics of the hearing-impaired child. 71 Hypothesis IV: There will be no significant relationships between the maternal behavior of mothers of preschool hearing—impaired children and characteristics of the family. Tables 14 and 15 include the correlation coeffi- cients for the relationship between maternal behavior and characteristics of the mother and family. Younger mothers rejected the homemaking role, had mood changes and exhibited a negative emotional state. In relationships with their hearing—impaired child they were emotionally involved, tended to ignore the child, used inconsistent discipline, were punitive, and perceived the child as a burden. Older mothers exhibited excessive contact, expressed affection, pressed for achievement, enforced rules, were sociable and appeared to have an intelligent approach to problems. There were no significant relations with education or occupation except that mothers who were involved in activities outside of the home engaged in behaviors that would grant the child more autonomy. Mothers in the lower income categories were equalitarian and evaluated their handicapped child in a positive manner. They also expressed concern about finances and their own physical health. Mothers at higher income levels were more likely to control their hearing- impaired child and used punishment to discipline them. Lower class mothers were concerned about finan- cial problems and exhibited mood changes. 72 TABLE 14.--Correlation Coefficients Between Maternal Behavior and Age, Education and OCCUpation of the Mother. Maternal Behavior Age Education Occupation Equalitarian - .33 - .09 .17 Emotional Involvement .49* .10 .27 Rejects Homemaking Role .49* .10 — .25 Excessive Contact - .47* .14 .36 Physical Health-Mother .32 .02 .32 Lax Discipline .22 .10 .01 Cooperativeness - .25 .25 .08 Intrusiveness .39 .25 .04 Ignoring .48* .06 - .02 Fostering Dependency .35 .02 .16 Financial Stress .30 .06 .13 Inconsistent Discipline .43* .16 - .19 Autonomy - .13 - .23 - .45* Punishment .38 .20 .02 Expressing Affection - .49* .07 .14 Anxiety .32 .36 .14 Perceives Child as Burden .53* .26 .10 Dependency .33 .14 .20 Concern about Health - .29 .24 - .06 Punitiveness .44* .19 .04 Control - .36 .14 - .24 Mood Changes .55* .16 .30 Achievement Press - .53* .24 .05 Positive Evaluation - .26 - .35 - .08 Enforcement ~ .56** - .05 .10 Suppression-Aggression - .17 .10 .16 Intelligence ~ .63** .13 — .11 Withdrawal-Relationship .33 .15 .13 Use of Fear to Control .25 .20 .09 Sociability - .55* .05 .03 Irritability .40 .09 .10 Negative Emotional State .54* .11 .18 *Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. 73 TABLE 15.--Corre1ation Coefficients Between Maternal Behavior and the Income Level, Social Class, Race and Religion of the Family. Income Social Maternal Behavior Level Class Race Religion Equalitarian .45* .16 - .10 .45* Emotional Involvement .26 .21 — .53* .01 Rejects Homemaking Role -.27 - .17 - .51* — .21 Excessive Contact .21 .10 .06 .34 Physical Health-Mother .50* .31 — .05 — .06 Lax Discipline -.05 - .08 - .32 .01 Cooperativeness -.02 .16 - .19 .10 Intrusiveness -.26 - .05 - .26 - .03 Ignoring -.13 .09 - .14 - .49* Fostering Dependency .18 .29 - .22 .10 Financial Stress .65** .67** - .42* .22 Inconsistent Discipline -.O6 - .12 - .39 - .09 Autonomy .10 - .13 - .16 - .03 Punishment -.57** - .31 .06 - .19 Expressing Affection .12 .00 - .18 .27 Anxiety .04 .17 - .50* - .31 Perceives Child as Burden -.16 .19 - .22 - .34 Dependency .27 .40 7 - .4l* - .ll Concern about Health -.05 - .16 - .39 - .17 Punitiveness -.l6 - .05 - .27 - .27 Control -.48* - .36 - .05 - .35 Mood Changes .28 .45* - .22 - .33 Achievement Press -.35 - .22 .18 .02 Positive Evaluation .44* .09 .22 .57** Enforcement -.14 - .20 .42* .09 Suppression—Aggression -.Ol .31 .19 - .15 Intelligence -.18 — .29 - .02 .05 Withdrawal-Relationship -.O9 - .09 .03 - .28 Use of Fear to Control -.24 - .06 .04 - .12 Sociability .12 .02 .10 .55* Irritability -.29 - .16 .10 — .19 Negative Emotional State .22 .29 .21 — .25 *Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. 74 White mothers enforced rules more than the two Negro mothers. The two negro mothers tended to reject the homemaker role, and were emotionally involved with their child. The negro mothers also expressed concern about finances and anxiety about the child. Protestant mothers were equalitarian, sociable and placed positive evaluations on their child. Catholic mothers tended to be ignoring of the child. The relationships found indicate partial rejection of the hypothesis. However, some scales were not signi- ficantly related and indicate partial support for the hypothesis. Hypothesis V: There will be no significant relationships between attitudes expressed by mothers of preschool hearing—impaired chil- dren and maternal behavior. Correlation coefficients between maternal behavior and the Attitude to Deafness Scale are in Appendix B, Table B-2. Table 16 includes significant correlations. Mothers who expressed a negative attitude toward deafness were seen as being equalitarian in their rela- tionship with their hearing—impaired child as well as granting him autonomy and indicating a positive evaluation toward him. Mothers who expressed a more positive attitude toward the handicap of deafness were seen as being irri— table and having mood changes. They perceived their child as a burden and were anxious yet ignoring in their behavior toward the child. They also used punishment and fear to 75 TABLE 16.--Significant Correlations Between Attitudes to Deafness and Maternal Behavior. Correlation Coefficients Positive Correlations Ignoring .54* Punishment .63** Anxiety .46* Perceives Child as Burden .49* Punitive .45* Mood Changes .50* Use of Fear to Control .76** Irritability .57** Negative Correlations Equalitarian -.68** Autonomy —.45* Positive Evaluation —.43* control the child and were regarded as exhibiting a puni— tive approach to discipline. Relationships between maternal behavior and the Authoritarian-Control Scale are included in Table 17. Mothers concerned about financial stress expressed atti- tudes of authoritarianism, seclusion of the mother, sup- pression of sexuality and fostering dependency in the child. Mothers with concern about their own physical health also expressed attitudes favoring authoritarian control of their hearing-impaired child. The behaviors of excessive contact, lax discipline, cooperativeness, expressing affection, concern about child's health, achievement press, withdrawal of 76 .Ho>mH Ho. um unmoHNHcmHmII .Hm>mq mo. um unmoHuHcmHme «H. I NN. MM. «O. «H. I mo. I mumum HmcoHuoEm 0>Hummoz ON. NO. o«. MM. ON. OO. suHHHnmuHuuH NN. I NN. I a««. ON. I NN. MH. I suHHHanoom MH. sH. MN. I OH. OH. I MH. Houucoo ou ammo mo mm: mN. . mH. .o«. I oN. mN. «H. mHsmcoHuuHmmIHmzmucsuHs HN. NO. I NM. so. HN. OH. mocmmHHHmucH OM. I MN. MH. I OM. I OM. I OH. I :onmwumdeconmmummsm OH. OH. I «O. I MO. OH. mo. I ucmEmUHOHcm OH. I MH. I MO. NH. I OH. I OH. I :oHumsHm>m w>HuHmom mo. I OO. «o«. NO. I oo. I oo. mmoum ucmEm>ano< OH. I NO. I MM. I «O. I OH. I HN. I mmmcmnu @002 HO. I HO. ON. mo. HO. I MH. Houucoo sN. OH. I NM. I NH. sN. HH. I mmwcm>HuHcsm mo. I so. I aH«. HO. I MO. I oo. :uHmw: usonm cumocou MN. I OO. sH. I «N. I MN. I NN. I Nocwncwdwo HO. «O. I HH. I oo. I HO. mo. I amousm mm OHHno mm>Hwoumm «N. I NN. I OH. mo. «N. I «H. I sumeq< «O. I OM. I «mm. MN. I «O. I NH. I :oHuomum< mchmeaxm MN. MO. OO. I «M. ON. OH. ucweancsm HO. I oH. I «o. I OH. mo. I Ho. I >Eocous< mH. oo. No. MH. mH. HN. mcHHmHomHo acmumHmcoucH I««. I OM. I MO. I «««. I u««. I com. I mmmuum HMHocmch oH. I «o. I oN. Hm. I oH. I HH. I Nucmocmamo mcHumumom oo. mN. om. I NN. oo. I HH. ocHuocmH OH. I NM. I ON. Ho. I OH. I ON. I mmmcm>HmsuucH «N. I OM. I acNo. OM. I «N. I MN. I mmwcm>Humuwmoou «o. I 3. .H«. «o. I «o. I «N. mcHHmHomHe 53 «N. I oN. I «N. I oH. I «N. I .m«. I uwcuozInuHmmm Hmonan MH. I ON. I «N«. ON. I MH. I ON. I uomucoo m>Hmmmoxm mo. I HM. I MO. oo. oo. I HH. I wHom mcmeEmeom muownmm OO. ON. I sO. I «O. I OO. ON. I ucmsm>Ho>cH HmcoHuOEm ON. I OM. I «M. OM. I ON. I MN. I CMHumuHHmswm “Emu Wm. B“ m. Wm, Haumo mow Hot/93m Hmcumumz xd In 6d 9 ds u: n d T. T. 1 d W T a 1. 3 u. e 1 n n a x o n u a 1 0 Ta op 59 35 P1 01 T.s u T. s s u.r. a T T.T K M arD mu” 1 W brb P u 0 u a U 0 m H S 9 7+. S S U T. p a mopsuHuuc .H0w>wfiwm Hmcumdmz UCM WGUDUHUU< GMfiHMUHHO£uD¢ Gw®3umm mUC®HUHMw®OU COflUQHQHHOUII.BH WQQmH HO. um undonHcmHm«a .Hm>mH mo. um unmoHOHcMHm. o«. I HH. I «mm. I OM. I mumum HmcoHuoem m>Hummmz «M. I a««. I HM. I «N. I suHHHnmuHHHH MM. «M. «Mm. MM. MHHHHanoom «M. I HM. I OH. I sH. I Honucoo 0» Hmmm m0 mm: mm. I sm. I Im«. I oN. I mHamcoHumHmmIHmzmucsqu HN. «o. «o«. «N. mocmMHHHchH NN. «m«. ON. «H«. :onmmHmmm coHuHmom OH. NN. «MO. «««. mmmum ucoEm>mHno< «M«. I OH. I «m«. I «H«. I mmmcmno @002 NH. OH. «m«. NM. Houucou HM. I «M. I «N«. I MN. I mmwcm>HuHcsm OH. OH. «N«. MN. cunom usonm :Hmocoo oH. I oH. sm. I oN. I Mocmocmmmo NN. I MO. I ON. I HH. I Gotham mm pHHsu mm>Hwoumm o«. I oo. I NH. I oH. I sumec< MH. MH. «om. NN. :oHuomOON mchmmumxm om. I .««. I NH. I OH. I unmaanaam NH. mo. mo. I oH. I seocoas< sm. I «o«. I mm. I om. I mcHHmHomHo ucmumHmcoocH NO. I OO. OH. I mo. I mmwuum HmHocmch OH. I MO. «O. I OH. I Mocmpcmmmo mcHHmumom NM. I NH. I *M«. I MN. I mcHHocmH sH. I OH. I so. mo. wmmco>HmsHucH ON. ON. «Om. OM. mmmcw>Humuwmoou OH. I MH. I MO. I HN. I OCHHQHUOHQ xmq Nm. I MH. I I««. I sm. I HmauozInuHmmm HMOHman NH. HN. «s«. ON. uomucou m>Hmmmoxm OH. I «M. I MN. I MH. I mHom @GHHMEmEom muumnmm NN. I «O. I OM. I «H. I Hame>Ho>cH HmcoHuoem mm. Hm. Mm. MN. :mHumuHHmsem NHHHHQMHHHHH wHom mcmeE®Eom HOHHOQOO :oHuomsmm HoH>msmm Hmcumumz coHuomswm HmuHHmz IMHHHHumo; mopsuHuud .H0H>mnmm Hmcumumz can coHuommmmIMuHHHumom m0 mopsuHuu< cmoBHOm mucwHonmwoo coHumeHHOUII.MH mqmde TABLE l9.--Correlation Coefficients Between Democratic 79 Attitudes and Maternal Behavior. Attitudes E U) -H c c o m UMH QIO o -H e.u -H e .,..I H -r-I (U .C -r-I 4..) rd UN N U) M (5 JJ “'5 'r-l Q) I77; H ~H HIH r5; O H :3 n3 (U U) 0 m 012 H E 3 (IN gun o 01 czm o c Q [d u1> O o Equalitarian .30 .12 37 .07 Emotional Involvement .05 - .13 .28 .12 Rejects Homemaking Role .09 - .09 .32 .14 Excessive Contact .13 - .08 - .03 — .16 Physical Health-Mother .28 - .05 .25 .38 Lax Discipline .25 - .36 .17 - .41* Cooperativeness .14 .28 .28 .40 Intrusiveness .07 - .02 .16 — .38 Ignoring .06 .05 - .16 .02 Fostering Dependency .05 - .20 .25 — .24 Financial Stress .42* — .15 .65** .27 Inconsistent Discipline .04 - .09 .28 - .19 Autonomy .56** .47* 21 .49* Punishment .26 - .05 - .21 — .28 Expressing Affection .12 .ll .23 - .16 Anxiety .08 .01 .02 — .24 Perceives Child as Burden .07 .13 .00 — .34 Dependency .03 - .19 .19 .03 Concern about Health .05 .29 .06 — .38 Punitiveness .08 - .06 .03 - .16 Control .16 .32 - .33 - .31 Mood Changes .00 - .08 - .03 .14 Achievement Press .16 .27 - .22 — .40 Positive Evaluation .28 — .14 .31 — .41* Enforcement .03 .27 — .37 .14 Suppression-Aggression .25 .04 - .39 — .10 Intelligence .09 .40 - .ll — .10 Withdrawal-Relationship .15 .02 — .29 .03 Use of Fear to Control .26 - .07 — .27 — .16 Sociability .14 .18 .12 - .03 Irritability .09 .08 - .25 .04 Negative Emotional State .11 - .27 - .01 .06 *Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. 80 Mothers expressing an attitude of comradeship and sharing were seen as being lax in discipline and as having a positive evaluation of the child. Lack of significant relationship between some scales would indicate that there seems to be no signifi- cant relation between the maternal attitudes studied and the maternal behaviors observed. Thus, the hypothesis is partially supported. However, the significant corre— lations reported give some indication that there may be some relationships between these attitudes and behaviors. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Discussion of Findings Attitudes of Mothers of Preschool Hearing-Impaired Children As a group, the mothers studied disagreed with statements expressing a negative attitude toward the handicapping condition of deafness. They expressed agreement with democratic attitudes toward family life and children and tended to disagree with an authoritarian- control attitude. The mean item rating onthe Hostility- Rejection scale was midway between disagree and agree for the group studied although individual scores on this scale did show a wide range. There were no significant correlations between the Attitude to Deafness Scale and the scales on the Parent Attitude Research Instrument. This finding would tend to support the idea of Neuhaus (42) that attitudes toward disability cannot be classified with other parental atti- tudes. However, other studies have related attitudes 81 82 toward disability to other attitudes and personality char- acteristics which would suggest overlapping and interaction of these attitude constructs (13,29). Rokeach (46) pre- sents some variables related to attitude definition that may explain some of the confusion regarding attitudes and the conflicting results of current research studies. He makes a distinction between attitude generality and specificity and between attitude toward object and atti- tude toward situation. An attitude object is always encountered within the context of a situation about which there is also an attitude. The instruments used in this study were not clearly defined along the object-situation nor the specificity-generality dimension and the concep- tual over—lapping or differentiation of attitude universes is not clear. Therefore, it is impossible to state a firm conclusion regarding the lack of relationships found. The attitudes expressed by mothers of preschool hearing-impaired children toward the disability of deaf— ness were not related to characteristics of the child, the mother or the family. This finding does not agree with that reported by Horowitz, Rees and Horowitz (29) who concluded that increased age and education of adults was related to attitudes expressed toward the deaf. Neuhaus reported a decrease in acceptance with an increase in age for the deaf child (42). This finding cannot be directly compared with the present study because this sample included only preschool age children. However, it 83 is important to note that in both studies the mothers of young hearing-impaired children were generally accepting of the disability of deafness. Mothers in the lower income groups and with lower social class rankings expressed attitudes of authoritarian- control, seclusiveness, and an attitude favoring the fos- tering of dependency in their children. The mothers who expressed an attitude of encouraging verbalization were white mothers. Mothers with a higher educational level expressed attitudes favoring the suppression of aggression in their child. These findings are in general agreement with other studies relating attitudes to socio-economic variables (54). Younger mothers expressed attitudes of hostility— rejection especially on the sub—scales of Marital Conflict and Irritability. The same attitudes were expressed by mothers in families where the hearing-impaired child was young, was the first child and had few siblings. However, younger mothers also expressed an attitude of comradeship and sharing and an equalitarian attitude in relation to their young deaf child. These findings would tend to support the idea that the young mother with a young deaf child and small family expressed attitudes of marital con— flict and irritability while also holding attitudes of equalitarianism and comradeship and sharing. These mothers are in the beginning stages of the family life cycle and attempting to cope with the marriage relationship as well 84 as a handicapped child, and may be expressing the stress this places on their family as well as the attitudes they would like to achieve in their family situation. Behaviors of Mothers of Preschool Hearing-Impaired Children As a group, the mothers were rated as being cooper- ative and sociable. They were viewed as expressing affection toward their hearing—impaired child, as granting him a positive evaluation and autonomy although, they also tended to limit his behavior through excessive contact. In general, the mothers were not punitive, irritable, or ignoring of their hearing-impaired child. They did not seem to withdraw from the relationship with the child or show excessive concern about his health. I Income and age of the mother appeared to be the most important family variables related to maternal behavior toward the hearing-impaired child. Lower income mothers tended to be concerned about finances, their own physical health and exhibited mood changes. However, they were also equalitarian and placed a positive evaluation on their deaf child. These behaviors would appear to express concern about self and limited resources which places additional strain upon the mother. However, these concerns did not seem to interfere with her positive evaluation of the deaf child, and she did not perceive him as a burden. 85 The age of the mother appeared to be an important factor in that younger mothers exhibited behavior charac— teristics of perceiving the child as a burden, ignoring the child and the use of punitive, inconsistent discipline. Younger mothers also exhibited more mood changes, rejected the homemaking role and exhibited a general negative emotional state. It appears that the mother's age may contribute to her ability to respond to the handicapped child in a positive manner and that younger mothers have more difficulty in dealing with their handicapped child and their role as a mother. Characteristics of the hearing-impaired child that were related to maternal behavior were developmental level, age of the child, handicapping condition and position in the family. Children with higher developmental levels and singular handicap of deafness received positive evaluations from their mother whereas children with lower developmental levels and a multiplicity of handicapping conditions tended to be ignored and were perceived as a burden. Mothers of children with lower developmental levels were also more dependent upon others to make deci- sions concerning the care of the child. Thus it appears that the child's disability and general developmental level is related to different maternal behaviors directed toward the child. Mothers of older children were seen as engaging in behaviors that would further the development of their 86 child in that they were seen as encouraging autonomy and as positively valuing their child. Mothers exhibited more difficulty in dealing with younger hearing—impaired children in that they exh;bjted behaviors characteristic of ignoring, perceived the child as a burden and used fear to control the child's behavior. These mothers also exhibited a negative emotional state and mood changes. These behaviors were also characteris- tics of the mothers when the first child in the family was hearing impaired or when there were a small number of children in the family. When the deaf child held a later family position the mother was more equalitarian, coopera- tive and achievement oriented. Behaviors exhibited by the mothers would tend to support the idea that the young mother with a hearing—impaired child has difficulty in interaction with her child especially when he is the first child and/or there are a small number of children in the family. When the deaf child occupies a later family posi- tion and the mother is older, behaviors appear to be more supportive of the child. Relationship Between Attitude and Behavior Mothers who expressed a negative attitude to deaf— ness were seen as exhibiting equalitarian behaviors toward their child. They were also seen as granting him autonomy and a positive evaluation. Whereas mothers with a positive attitude toward deafness were seen as behaving in an anxious, ignoring, punitive manner and using punishment and 87 fear to control the child. These mothers were also irritable, exhibited mood changes and behaved as though they perceived the child as a burden. Related findings are presented graphically in Table 20 using the hIghest and lowest Attitude to Deafness Scale scores. Several interpretations regarding these findings are possible. Mothers of deaf children may express atti— tudes that are socially acceptable and yet behave toward the child in a punitive, inconsistent, distant and nega— tive manner. Thus, there would appear to be in this study a discrepancy between attitude and behavior. Another interpretation would be that mothers who were actually controlling their deaf child through punishment and fear and were able to detach themselves from the relationship through ignoring and withdrawal could hold positive atti— tudes toward the disability because their behaviors gave them a feeling of effectiveness in dealing with their child. ‘There is no research base to support either inter~ pretation and further research is needed. The other attitude scale scores for the mother with a positive attitude to deafness were: Authoritarian— Control - 48, Hostility-Rejection - 43, and Democratic - 51. Attitude scores for the mother with the most negative attitude to deafness were Authoritarian—Control - 49, Hostility-Rejection - 30, and Democratic - 55. The scores are very similar for the Authoritarian Control Scale and the Democratic Scale but are quite different for 88 Unlike 45 40 35 30 25 20 Scale Scores 15 Withdrawal of Relationship Perceives Child as Burden Inconsistent Discipline Use of Fear to Control Equalitarianism Intelli Punitive Irritability I Maternal Behavior Mother who expressed a positive attitude to deafness. - — Mother who expressed a negative attitude to deafness. Figure 6.—-Maternal Behavior Scores of a Mother with a Positive Attitude to Deafness and a Mother with a Negative Attitude to Deafness. 89 the Hostility-Rejection Scale. Within the Hostility— Rejection Scale the sub—scale of Marital Conflict was related to maternal behavior most frequently. The expression of marital conflict was related to concern about the physical health of the mother, ignoring the child, punitiveness, mood changes, withdrawal of relationship and negative emotional state. Whereas lack of marital conflict was associated with excessive contact with the child, cooperativeness, expressing affection, concern about the child's health, sociability and intel- ligence. Although no conclusions can be drawn, there is enough overlapping between these maternal behavior variables and those that were significant in the attitude to deafness—maternal behavior relationship to warrant fur- ther investigation Concerning the interrelatedness of these variables. The other relationships reported are scattered and do not present an organized pattern of relationships. Mothers who expressed attitudes of authoritarian- control exhibited concern about financial stress, were concerned about their own health, were suppressive of sexuality in the child and fostered the dependency of the child. Mothers expressing democratic attitudes encouraged verbalization and did not have financial stress. Ross (47) and Barsch (4) point out that the rela- tionship between attitude and behavior is very complex and 90 that further research is needed. Considerations that complicate the study of the relationships are: 1. Parents verbal description of behavior and attitudes may be discrepant from actual behavior and attitudes. 2. Other variables such as personality factors, interpersonal family dynamics and cultural environment need to be controlled or incor- porated into the studies. 3. One underlying attitude may influence a great variety of behaviors and behavioral referents for an attitude may be widely discrepant. 4. The specificity or generality of attitude and behavior conceptualizations influences comparability. Rokeach (46) attributes the lack of progress in understanding the attitudes-behavior relationship to the fact that most research ignores the cognitive and affec- tive aspects of attitudes. An additional factor is the limited conceptualization of the behavioral component. He views behavior as a function of the interaction between two attitudes--the attitude toward object and the attitude toward situation. These two attitudes interact with dif- fering degrees of importance with respect to one another and if only one is focused on there is bound to be some inconsistency between attitude and behavior or a lack of 91 dependence of behaviors on attitude. Ignoring that an attitude object is always encountered within some situa— tion, about which we also have an attitude, has resulted in unjustified interpretation and conclusions regarding lack of relationship between attitudes and behavior. Another related problem is that ". . . where there is a negative correlation between a given attitude and behavior there is always the possibility that some other attitude that was not measured may be congruent with the behavior" (46, p. 128). Conclusions General conclusions that can be drawn from the study are: l. Maternal attitudes to the disability of deafness were not related to characteristics of the child or to family characteristics, nor were they related to the other attitude measures used. Maternal attitude to deafness does not appear to be influenced by physical or social variables and appears to function independently from other attitude variables. 2. Negative attitudes toward deafness expressed by the mothers were significantly related to maternal behaviors of equalitarianism, positive evaluation of the deaf child and granting the child autonomy. Maternal behaviors of punishment, punitiveness, use of fear to control, ignoring the 92 child, anxiety about the child, perceiving the child as a burden as well as behaviors of irritability and mood changes were related to the expression of more positive maternal atti— tudes toward the handicapping condition of deafness. Attitudes of Hostility-Rejection and the sub- scales of Marital Conflict, Rejection of the Homemaking Role and Irritability were expressed by mothers who were younger and who had a deaf child who was a first child in the family. They also expressed an attitude favoring comradeship and sharing. Sex of the child, severity of the hearing loss and handicapping condition were not related to either the expressed maternal attitudes or the observed mother's behavior except for a more positive evaluation by the mother of a child with a singular handicap and the perception by the mother of the multiply handicapped child as a burden. Maternal behaviors indicating mood changes, negative emotional states, perception of the child as a burden, punitiveness, ignoring, inconsistent discipline and emotional involvement were related to younger mothers and mothers with 93 younger hearing-impaired children occupying first sibling positions in the family. Mothers in the lower income and social class categories expressed attitudes along the authoritarian dimension and exhibited behaviors indicating concern about their own health and financial stress. However, they were equali- tarian in their behavior and expressed positive evaluations regarding their handicapped child. Mothers expressing agreement with attitude statements regarding marital conflict were concerned about their own health, exhibited mood changes and a negative emotional state. They also tended to ignore the hearing-impaired child, were punitive and tended to withdraw from the relationship. Mothers who did not express marital conflict were cooperative, sociable and expressed concern and affection toward their hearing—impaired Child. In general, mothers who expressed democratic attitudes did not exhibit behaviors character- istic of financial stress and did not grant their deaf child autonomy. 94 Limitations of the Study The sample was a small, purposive, non-random sample and generalizations cannot be made regarding a broader population. Only mothers of preschool children and preschool children were studied. Exclusion of variables related to the father of the child may ignore very important dimensions of the total family relationship and limit the conclusions regarding the mother-child relationship. The focus on the preschool age group ignores changes of attitude and behavior over time (42, 55) and views attitudes and behaviors at a time of great flux. Behavioral observation ratings were made by several different raters and the reliability of these ratings was not ascertained. This may have influenced the maternal behavior scores. However, special training sessions were held and reliability checks of the ratings were con- ducted. Implications for Research and Action Programs Implications for further research are: Further studies are needed concerning the develop- ment and use of instruments designed to measure attitudes and behaviors with clearer conceptual 95 organization and definition along the specificity- generality and object—situation dimensions. Special emphasis needs to be placed on the development of value free instruments. Further studies are needed with samples varying in family composition and at various stages in the family life cycle with the deaf child occupy— ing various positions within the family. Future investigations should include consideration of the dynamics of the family interaction includ- ing aspects of the marriage relationship and interaction with the non-handicapped children in the family as well as with the handicapped child. Future studies should consider the use of more comprehensive personality measures to provide a broader perspective for viewing attitudes and ‘their relationship to behavior. Intensive case studies are needed in order to define the salient personality, family, attitudi- nal and behavioral variables and to develop systems regarding the organization and inter- relatedness of these variables. Future studies should employ more complete analysis of the data in order to gain insight into the com- plexity of the relationships among the variables. 96 Implications for action programs are: Programs concerned with the education of young hearing—impaired children and their parents should be aware of the complexity of the parent— child relationships and seek to understand the on-going family dynamics so that early interven- tion can be as effective as possible. The relationships found between expressed maternal attitudes toward deafness and maternal behavior indicate that mothers with positive attitudes engage in more controlling behaviors than mothers with negative attitudes. Profes- sionals need to be aware of how the mother per- ceives her role and what behaviors are possible for her to perform and are effective in dealing with her handicapped child before making gener- alized recommendations regarding the use of child-rearing techniques. The uniqueness of the handicapped child, his abilities and limitations need to be considered when principles of guidance and child-rearing approaches applicable to normal children are being applied to the hearing handicapped child. Training programs for professionals and child care aides should include consideration of the attitudes of the trainee as well as the family as they seek to change or improve parent-child and/or teacher-child interaction. LITERATURE CITED 97 LITERATURE CITED Abel, Harold and Gingles, Ruby. "Development of Scales to Measure Parental Attitudes and Behavior: A Progress Report." The Family Life Coordinator. 15:4 (October, 1966), 127-131. Allport, Gordon W. ‘"Attitudes in the History of Social Psychology." Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I, Gardner Lindzey, ed. Addison Wesley, 1954. Avery, Charlotte B. "The Social Competence of Preschool Acoustically Handicapped Children.‘ Journal of Exceptional Children. 15:4 (December, 1948), 71-73. Barsch, Ray H. The Parent of the Handicapped Child. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1968. . Bayley, Nancy and Schaefer, Earl S. "Relation- ships Between Socio-economic Variables and the Behavior of Mothers Towards Young Children." The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 96 (March, 1960, First Half), 61-77. Bell, Richard Q. "Retrospective Attitude Studies of Parent-Child Relations." Child Development. 29:3 (September, 1958), 323-337. Bennett, Daphne N. "Parents as Teachers of the Preschool Deaf Child." Journal of Exceptional Children. 22:4 (December, 1955), 101-103, 122. Bennett, Daphne N. "Therapy with Parents of Handicapped Children." Exceptional Children. 23 (January 5, 1957), 154-155. Blair, John R. "A Comparison of Mother and Teacher Ratings on the Preschool Attainment Record of Four Year Old Children." Exceptional Children. 37:4 (December, 1970), 299-300. 98 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 99 Bloom, Benjamin S. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: Wiley, 1964. Bryant, John E. "Parent-Child Relationships: Their Effect on Rehabilitation." Journal of Learning Disabilities. 4:6 (June/July, 1971), 40-44. Carr, Janet. "Handicapped Children - Counseling the Parents." Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 12:2 (April, 1970), 230-231. Cowen, Emory L.; Bobrove, Philip H.; Rockway, Alan M.; and Stevenson, John. "Development and Evaluation of an Attitude to Deafness Scale." Journal of Personality and Social Psycholpg . 6:2 (June, 1967), 183-191. Davis, Hallowell and Silverman, Richard S. Eds. Hearing and Deafness. 3rd Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Davis, William A. and Havighurst, Robert J. "Social Class and Color Differences in Child Rearing." American Sociological Review. 11 (1945), 698-710. Doll, Edgar A. Manual: Preschool Attainment Record. Research Edition. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1966. ' Doll, Edgar A. Preschool Attainment Record. Research Edition. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1966. D011, Edgar A. "An Attainment Scale for Apprais- ing Young Children with Expressive Handicaps." The Cerebral Palsy Journal. 27 (September- October, 1966), 3-5. Edwards, Allen. Experimental Design in Psycholo- gical Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Emmerich, Walter. The Parental Role: A Functional- Cognitive Approach. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 34 (November, 1969), Serial No. 132. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 100 Elkind, David and Sameroff, Arnold. "Developmental Psychology." In Annual Review of Psychology. Edited by Paul H. Mussen and Mark R. Rosenzweig. Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1970. Elonen, Ann. "A Psycho-Social Adjustment of Families of Deaf Infants." Report of the Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Meeting of the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf. 323-329. Fliegler, Louis A. and Hebeler, Jean. "A Study of the Structure of Attitudes of Parents of Educable Mentally Retarded Children and a Study of a Change in Attitude Structure." Syracuse University, 1960. Frankenburg, William K. and Dodds, Josiah B. Denver Developmental Screening Test. Univer- sity of Colorado Medical School, Denver, Colorado, 1967. Garfield, Sol L. and Helper, Malcolm M. "Parental Attitudes and Socio-economic Status." Journal of Clinical Psychology. 18:2 (April, 19625, 171-175. Gerhart, Ursula and Greismar, Ludwig L. "The PARI as a Predictor of Parental Behavior." Child Welfare. 48:10 (December, 1969), 602-605. Greenberg, Harold. "Problems of Parents of Handi- capped Children." Journal of Exceptional Children. 17:1 (October, 1950), 23—24. Harris, Norma. "A Pilot Study of Parental Atti- tudes." Volta Review. 62:7 (September, 1960), 355-361. Horowitz, Leola S.; Rees, Norma S.; and Horowitz, Milton W. Attitudes Toward Deafness as a Function of Increasing Maturity. Report of the Proceedings of the International Congress on Education of the Deaf and the 4lst Meeting of the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf. Gallaudet College, Washington, D.C., 1963. U. 8. Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C., 1964. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 101 Jordon, Thomas E. "Research on the Handicapped Child and the Family." Merrill-Palmer Quar- terly. 8:4 (October, 1962), 243-260. Kinstler, Donald Butler. "Covert and Overt Maternal Rejection in Stuttering." Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 26:2 (May, l96l),l45-155. Klebanoff, Lewis B. "Parents of SchiZOphrenic Children. I. Parental Attitudes of Mothers of Schizophrenic, Brain-Injured and Retarded and Normal Children." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 29:3 (July, 1959), 445-454. Love, Harold D. Parental Attitudes Toward Exceptional Children. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1970. Lowell, Edgar L. and Metfessel, Newton S. "Experimental Concept Formation Test for Pre- school Deaf." Journal of Speech_gnd Hearing Disorders. 26 (August, 1961), 225-229. Madoff, Jeff M. "The Attitudes of Mothers of Juvenile Delinquents Toward Child Rearing." Journal of Consulting Psychology. 26:2 (November, 1959), 518-520. Margolis, M. "The Mother-Child Relationship in Bronchial Asthma." Journal of Abnormal Social Psyghology. 63:2 (September, 1961), 360-367. Mead, George H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Mindel, Eugene. Studies on the Deaf Child. In Grinker, Rox, et al., Psychiatric, Diagnosis, Therapy and Research on the Psychotic Deaf. Final Report New Social Rehabilitation Service Grant No. RD-2407-S (September, 1969). Chicago: Institute for Psychomatic and Psychiatric Research, Michael Reese Hospital, 73—88. Miller, June. (Parent Education at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Report of the Pro- ceedings of the Forty-Fourth Meeting of the Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf. 318-323. 102 Merrill, B. "A Measurement of Mother-Child Inter- action." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology. 41:1 (January, 1946), 31-49. Myklebust, Helmer R. The Psychology of Deafness. New York: Grune and.Stratton, 1964. Neuhaus, Maury. "Parental Attitudes and the Emotional Adjustment of Deaf Children." Exceptional Children. 35:9 (May, 1969), 721-727. Oyer, E. Jane and Paolucci, Beatrice. "Homemakers' Hearing Loss and Family Integration." Journal of Home Economics. 62:4 (April, 1970), 257-262. Poulos, Thomas H. "Attitudes Toward the Deaf: A Guttman Facet Theory Analysis of their Content, Structure, and Determinants." Unpub— lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Ridenour, Nina. Building Self-Confidence in Children. Science Research Associates, 1954. Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., PubliShers, 1970. Ross, Alan 0. The Exceptional Child in the Family. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1964. Schaefer, Earl S. "A Circumplex Model for Maternal Behavior." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59:1 (January, 1959), 226-234. Schaefer, Earl S. "Converging Conceptual Models for Maternal Behavior." In Parental Attitudes and Child Behavior. Edited by John C. Glide- well. Illindis: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1969, 124-146. Schaefer, Earl S. "Organization of Maternal Behavior and Attitudes Within a Two Dimensional Space - An Application of Guttman's Radex Theory." American Psychologist. 12:7 (July, 1957). 401. Schaefer, Earl S. "Social Science Contributions to the Measurement of Parent Behavior." Quantitative Approaches to Parent Selection. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1962. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 103 Schaefer, Earl 8.; Bell, Richard Q.; and Bayley, Nancy. "Development of a Maternal Behavior Research Instrument." The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 95 (September, 1959, First Half), 83-104. Schaefer, Earl S. and Bell, Richard Q. "Develop- ment of a Parental Attitude Research Instru— ment." Child Development. 29:3 (September, 1958), 339-361. Schaefer, Earl S. and Bell, Richard W. "Patterns of Attitudes Toward Child Rearing and the Family." Journal of Abnogggl and Social Psychology. 54:3 (May, 1957), 391-395. Schaefer, Earl 8.; Bell, Richard Q.; and Bayley, Nancy. "Quantification of Maternal Behavior and Consistency of Mother-Child Interactions." American Psychologist. 11:8 (August, 1956), 404. Schlesinger, Hilde. "Cultural and Environmental Influences in the Emotional Development of the Deaf." In Psyphiatryyand the Deaf. Edited by John D. Rainer and Kenneth Z. Altshuler. Report of the Workshop for Psychiatrists on Extending Mental Health Services to the Deaf. New York State Psychiatric Institute and the New York University Center for Research and Training in Deafness Rehabilitation. April 7-8, 1967, pp. 128-131. Sears, Robert R.; Maccoby, Eleanor; and Levin, Harold. Patterns of Child Rearing. Illinois: Row and Peterson Publishers, 1957. Smith, Alathena J. Performance of Subjects Aged Two to Four on Nonverbal Tasks Presented in Pantomine: A Phase in the Development of a Test for the Clinical Appraisal of Hypacousic and Other Language-Handicapped Children. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1960. Sullivan, H. S. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton, 1953. Walters, James; Conner, Ruth; and Zunich, Michael. "Interaction of Mothers and Children from Lower Class Families." Child Development. 35:2 (June, 1964), 433-440. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 104 Warner, W. Lloyd. Social Class in America. New York: Harper Row, Publishers, 1960. Watson, Thomas J. The Education of Hearing-Handi- capped Children. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1967. Yater, A.; Oliview, K.; and Barclay, A. "Factor Analytic Study of PARI Responses of Mothers of Head Start Children." Psychological Reports, 22 (April, 1968), 383-385. Zuckerman, Marvin. "Reversed Scales to Control Acquiescence Response Set in the Parental Attitude Research Instrument." Child Develop- ment. 30 (December, 1959), 523-532. Zuckerman, Marvin; Barrett, Beatrice H.; and Bragiel, Raymond M. "The Parental Attitudes of Parents of Child Guidance Cases." Child Development. 31:3 (September, 1960), 401-417. Zuckerman, Marvin and Oltean, Mary. "Some Rela- tionships Between Maternal Attitude Factors and Authoritarianism, Personality Needs, Psychopathology and Self-Acceptance." Child Develppment. 30 (March, 1959), 27-36. Zuckerman, Marvin; Ribback, Beatrice B.; Monashkin, I.; and Norton, J. A. "Normative Data and Factor Analysis on the Parental Attitude Research Instrument." Journal of Consulting Psychology. 22:3 (1958), 165—171. Zuk, G. H. "The Cultural Dilemma and Spiritual Crisis of the Family with a Handicapped Child." Exceptional Children. 28:8 (April, 1962), 405-408. Zuk, G. H.; Miller, Ralph; Bartram, John; and King, Frederick. "Maternal Acceptance of Retarded Children: A Questionnaire Study of Attitudes and Religious Background." Child Development. 32:2 (June, 1961), 525-540. Zunich, Michael. "Relationship Between Maternal Behavior and Attitudes Toward Children." Journal of Genetic Psychology. 100 (March, 1962, First Half), 155-165. APPENDICES 105 APPENDIX A TEST INSTRUMENTS 106 FAMILY LIFE AND CHILDREN Read each of the statements below and rate them as follows: — a 9. g 2 strongly mildly mildly strongly agree agree disagree disagree Indicate your opinion by drawing a circle around the "A" if you strongly agree, around the "a" if you mildly agree, around the "d" if you mildly disagree, and around the "D" if you strongly disagree. There are no right or wrong answers, so answer according to your own opinion. It is very important that all questions be answered. Many of the statements will seem alike but all are necessary to show slight differences of opinion. Mother Form 1. A good mother should shelter her child A a d D from life's little difficulties. 2. Children should be taught about sex as A a d D soon as possible. 3. PeOple who think they can get along in A a d D marriage without arguments just don't know the facts. 4. Parents should not have to earn the A a d D respect of their children by the way they act. 5. The woman who want lots of parties seldom A a d D make good mothers. 6. Most mothers are content to be with A a d D children all the time. . 7. A child has a right to his own point of A a d D View and ought to be allowed to express it. 8. If a parent is wrong he should admit it A a d D to his child. 9. A child should be taught to avoid fighting A a d D no matter what happens. 107 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 108 Most mothers can spend all day with the children and remain calm and even- tempered. Parents who are interested in hearing about their children's parties, dates, and fun help them grow up right. A child should learn that he has to be disappointed sometimes. It is very important that young boys and girls not be allowed to see each other completely undressed. If a couple really loves each other there are very few arguments in their married life. Parents should adjust to the children some rather than always expecting the children to adjust to the parents. A good mother should develop interests outside the home. One of the worst things about taking care of a home is a woman feels that she can't get out. Children should not be allowed to disagree with their parents, even if they feel their own ideas are better. It's best for the child if he never gets started wondering whether his mother's views are right. A child should be taught to fight his own battles. Children will get on any woman's nerves if she has to be with them all day. Children would be happier and better behaved if parents would show less interest in their affairs. A child should be protected from jobs which might be too tiring or hard for him. Sex play is a normal thing in children. Sometimes it's necessary for a wife to tell off her husband in order to get her rights. Children should learn to compromise and adjust to the demands of their parents. Too many women forget that a mother's place is in the home. Most young mothers don't mind spending most of their time at home. A child's ideas should be seriously considered in making family decisions. A child should be encouraged to look for answers to his questions from other people even if the answers contradict his parents. WIV P > 3’ ID > 0:04 0404040404 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 109 Children should not be encouraged to box or wrestle because it often leads to trouble or injury. Raising children is an easy job. If parents would have fun with their children, the children would be more apt to take their advice. Children have to face difficult situations on their own. Sex is one of the greatest problems to be contended with in children. Almost any problem can be settled by quietly talking it over. There is no reason parents should have their own way all the time, any more than that children should have their own way all the time. A mother can keep a nice home and still have plenty of time left over to visit with neighbors and friends. One of the bad things about raising chil- dren is that you aren't free enough of the time to do just as you like. Children should be discouraged from telling their parents about it when they feel family rules are unreasonable. The child should not question the thinking of his parents. It's quite natural for children to hit one another. Mothers very often feel that they can't stand their children a moment longer. Laughing at children's jokes and telling children jokes usually fail to make things go more smoothly. Children should be kept away from all hard jobs which might be discouraging. Children are normally curious about sex. It's natural to have quarrels when two people who both have minds of their own get married. It is rarely possible to treat a child as an equal. A good mother will find enough social life within the family. Most young mothers are pretty content with home life. When a child is in trouble he ought to know he won't be punished for talking about it with his parents. A good mother can tolerate criticism of herself, even when the children are around. >4» > 3’ IV V > W 3’ ID > >’> > 3’ w 3’ 0404 04040404 04 04040404 0404 0404040: 53. 54. 55. 110 Most parents prefer a quiet child to a "scrappy" one. A mother should keep control of her temper even when children are demanding. When you do things together, children feel close to you and can talk easier. a a a d D d D d D 111 ATTITUDE TO DEAFNESS SCALE Read each of the statements below and then rate them as follows: A a 9. 2 strongly mildly mildly strongly agree agree disagree disagree Indicate your opinion by drawing a circle around the "A" if you strongly agree, around the "a" if you mildly agree, around the "d" if you mildly disagree, and around the "D" if you strongly disagree. There are no right or wrong answers. Answer according to your own opinion. It is very important to answer all questions. ATTITUDE TO DEAFNESS SCALE Agree Disagree 1. The deaf generally have a less mature A a d D personality than the hearing. 2. In general, deaf people are more A a d D neurotic than those who hear. 3. It is impossible to really get "close" A a d D to a deaf person. 4. Deaf people somehow seem sadder and more A a d D wrapped up in themselves than hearing people. 5. The deaf do not seem to be bothered by A a d D ordinary life events any more than hearing people. 6. Because of his need to be pitied, it is A a d D particularly important that the deaf person have someone very tolerant to whom he can talk. 7. Deaf people also seem to have more than A a d D the usual number of other physical complaints. 8. Deaf people show personality characteris- A a d D tics which frequently make them seem odd. 9. A person who is deaf is as apt to be born A a d D a leader as anyone else. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 112 Deaf people seem to be overly polite and to lack spontaneity. Most deaf people feel that they are worthless. Most deaf people are dissatisfied with themselves. The deaf have as many interests as the hearing have. The deaf adult is not quite as mature or "grown-up" as the hearing adult. It's difficult to understand the deaf because they keep so much to themselves. It must be bitterly degrading for a deaf person to depend so much on others. On the whole, deaf children seem to be less intelligent than hearing children. You should not expect too much from a deaf person. A deaf person is constantly worried about what might happen to him. A deaf person is not afraid to express his feelings. Deaf people are more easily upset than people who can hear. The deaf are prone to have more fears about the world than the hearing. The deaf are usually on their guard with people. 113 MATE RNAL BEI-IAVI OR INVENTORY Name of Mother Case No. Name of Rater Date Please rate this mother on the behaviors listed. You should describe the mother's characteristic behavior with the infant you are visiting on items that describe mother-child interaction. In order to determine individual differences, you are asked to use the seven point scale given below. ‘Sgglo Interpretation 1 Very much like this mother 2 3 Somewhat like this mother 4 5 6 Little like this mother 7 Please use the points between the descriptions freely to describe intermediate degrees of the characteristic or when you cannot decide which of the two descriptions apply. A review of a few tendencies of raters may help you in making accurate ratings: 1. There is a general tendency of raters, expecially those who are ego-involved with the persons they are rating, to rate them in a positive direction. An attempt to be accurate and objective may reduce this tendency. 2. There is a tendency to give average or intermediate scores and to avoid extreme ratings. The extreme ratings should be used when applicable. 3. There is a tendency to describe a person according to a general attitude. However, a person probably does not have all positive characteristics nor all negative characteristics. Thus it is necessary to make an independent judgment of each trait. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 114 Does the mother play games with the child in an informal way? Does the mother continually need to bring the attention of the child back to herself during the visit? Does the mother express a prefer- ence for activities other than homemaking? Is the mother very much interested and involved in the child's behavior? Is she in need of medical or dental attention? Does she let the child get away with misbehavior without punishment? Does the mother seem to share the visit? Does the mother seem to be train- ing the child to think of him- self as the mother's possession? Does she often comment on how much extra work or trouble the child is? Does she often do things for the child he could do for himself? Is the family income unpredict- able or irregular? Does she punish for a thing one day and ignore it the next? Is the mother willing to let the the child work alone with no interference by the mother? Does the mother punish the child because of his eating or sleep- ing habits? Does the mother often hug or kiss the child? Does she seem upset when the child cries or complains? Does the mother complain of great difficulty in caring for the child? Does the mother seek support and reassurance from the visitor? Is she quite fearful of the child catching a cold? Does she take an "it serves you right" attitude toward any of the child's accidents or upsets? Has she many rules for the child? 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 115 Does she show changes in cheer- fulness or gloominess within or between sessions? Does the mother seem to be push- ing the child to perform tricks or say verses? Does the mother think the child is attractive in appearance by her standards? Does this mother insist the child do certain things even when the child resists? Does the mother strongly dis- approve of the child fighting with other children? Does she have a wide range of interests? Does the mother remain cold and distant from the child for an extended period of time after he misbehaves? Does the mother threaten punish- ment to control the child? Does there seem to be more verbal communication with this mother than with others? Does the mother speak to the child in a harsh, unsympathetic, or cross tone of voice? Does she typically seem gloomy? Does the mother attempt to talk with the child on his level? Does the mother keep the child with her around the home at all times and in all situations? Does she frequently complain of being tired in connection with housekeeping activities? Does the mother have a tendency to play, talk, and generally interact with the child during the session? Does she fatigue easily? Is the mother unable to say no to anything the child wants? Is this mother sensitive and considerate of others? Does the mother seem to think that she should be able to direct what he will think or say at any time? Does she tend to leave the situation during the session as though she is glad the baby is in someone else's hands? NM we) mm mm 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 116 Does the mother wish to help the child with difficult prob- lems during the visit? Is she worried about whether she can get things for her children that are usual for most children? Does her mood determine whether or not she enforces a rule? Does the mother encourage the child to play by himself or with- out supervision by the mother? Does the mother spank the child when he is negativistic? Does the mother hold the child in her arms to comfort and console him? Does she seem upset when the child refuses to perform? Does the mother talk about the tension and anxiety of child- rearing? Does she seem unable to handle even minor cries or illnesses alone? Does she show real concern over minor illnesses or insignificant defects? Does she talk in a negative vein about friends, husband, or associates? Are many objects, places, or things forbidden for the child? Does she show signs of emotional lability in her home situation? Does the mother seem to demand more achievements than the child easily attains? Does the mother think the child is intelligent in ways she likes? Does the mother enforce rules without exceptions? Does the mother disapprove of rough active play of the child? Is she mentally alert and responsive? Does the mother speak to the child in a cold, impersonal voice when he displeases her? Does the mother expect complete submission to her will? Does she converse about the husband and family events in an easy, sociable way? 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 117 Does the mother frequently make critical or derrogatory remarks to the child? E.g., He is "bad" or "stupid." Does she typically seem detached and inwardly absorbed? Does the mother enjoy spending time with the child? Does the mother tend to avoid having anyone else care for the child and seem to be anxious to resure care of the child after the tutoring session? Does she ever use phrases which indicate a feeling that she feels held down or "shut-up" in the home? Is the mother eager to quiet and comfort the crying child? Does she seem lacking in endur- ance and resistance to disease? Does the mother give mild or weak punishments that do not impress the child? Does she perceive the problems of the visitor in working with her baby? Does the mother seem to think that she should know what the child is thinking or doing at all times? Would she be willing to have others assume most of the responsibility for care of the child? Does the mother seem reluctant to have the child perform cer- tain tasks because it will be upsetting to him? ‘ Is she worried about providing food and clothes for her children? Are her orders or directions changed frequently or quickly? Does the mother permit the child to make his own decisions about his activities, where he will go, etc.? Does the mother spank the child when he cries or is emotionally upset? 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 118 Does the mother often smile or 1 speak in soothing tones to the child? Does she seem tense during the 1 session? Does the mother feel caring for 1 the child is a burden rather than a joy? Does she ask the visitor to make 1 decisions for her? Is she concerned greatly about 1 the child's growth? Does she show tendencies toward 1 an Open attack on the baby when in conflict? Does the mother insist the child 1 be polite to adults? Does she show changes in tension 1 and relaxation within or between sessions? Does the mother try to teach the 1 child language? Does the mother think the child 1 has a desirable emotional dis- position? Does the mother follow up an 1 initial order by further reminders? Does the mother try to put a stop 1 to any display of anger or temper by the child? Is the mother's speech 1 "standard English?" Is the mother slow to forgive l the child after a conflict? Does the mother believe the l stubborn will of the child must be broken? Does the mother converse freely 1 about her own reaction to events and her opinions, attitudes, and feelings? Does the mother lose her temper l with the child? Does she occasionally fail to 1 show adequate awareness of what is going on around her? Does the mother tend to reduce l emphasis upon age and role differences between mother and child? Does this mother complain about 1 housework? 119 99. Are there signs she doesn't feel free to leave the child in the care of others and to be separated from him? 100. Does the mother have frequent and close physical contact with the child? 101. Does she have many complaints about her health? 102. Does the mother find excuses for the child's misbehavior? 103. Is her handling of husband or relatives indicative of sensi- tivity to their problems? 104. Does the mother's approval of the child seem to be strictly dependent upon the degree to which he adapts his thinking and actions to her wishes? 105. Does she fail to show much beyond polite interest in the child during the session? 106. Does the mother see the child as weak, helpless, and as needing excessive help, care and support? 107. Is it necessary for her to work so as to alleviate the financial strain? 108. Are her rules for the child unclear or inconsistent? 109. Does the mother seem to be tolerant of separation of the child from herself? 110. Is the mother's punishment severe? 111. Does the mother praise the child for his behavior or in other ways express her love and approval? 112. Does she seem afraid that the child is being upset? 113. Does the mother talk primarily about problems she has in caring for the child? 114. Does she mention friends, husband, in-laws, or relatives in a way which indicates she must have people to rely on? 115. Is she concerned greatly about the child's weight? 120 116. Does she describe the child critically in such a way as to indicate she is gaining satisfaction from the criticism? 117. Does the mother give frequent orders or directions to the child? 118. Does she vary between warmth and reserve in her discussion of how she and her child are getting along? 119. Does she teach the child to do things he can't do during your visit? 120. Does the mother typically approve of the child's behavior? 121. Does the mother supervise the child's behavior and tell him when he is amiss? 122. Does the mother disapprove of any expression of anger directed against herself or the visitor and suppress it immediately? 123. Does her conversation reflect good judgment and understanding? 124. Does she refuse to talk to or play with the child as a response to misbehavior? 125. Does the mother use fear of punishment as the primary method of controlling the child? 126. Does she try to establish friendly social relations with the visitor? 127. Does the mother have abrupt or harsh handling of the child? 128. Does she seem to be unresponsive at times? 129. Does the mother tend to avoid a directive, commanding role? 130. Does the mother wish to keep the child closely attached to herself? 131. Does this mother seem to reject the role of homemaker? 132. Does the mother spend a great amount of time with the child? 133. Does she have frequent colds or other minor illnesses? 134. Does the mother give in to the the child if he resists or protests? 135. Does she avoid talking or socializing when it might be disturbing to the session? 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. 121 Does the mother seem to be unaware of the fact that a child has a mind of his own and that he should be able to do his own thinking without forceful intrusion by the mother? Does she tend to overlook the needs of the child? Does the mother tend to antici- pate the child's needs excessively and shelter him from even normal effort? Is the mother uncertain about meeting the monthly bills--rent, utilities, etc.? Is the mother inconsistent in his discipline? Does the mother seem willing to give the child freedom of action? Does the mother spank the child in order to get him to cooperate with her own or the visitor's instructions? Does the mother immediately respond to any need of the child for attention, care, or sympathy? Does she seem disturbed about the child's development or abilities? Does the mother show few signs of enjoying the child's activities? Does she expect others to care for her rather than assuming an adult, independent role? Is she concerned greatly about the child's diet? Does the mother seem punitive and unkind? Does the mother set firm limits to the child's freedom of move- ment in the home? Does she show changes in patience and frustration tolerance within or between sessions? Does she urge the child to perform in the tutoring situation? Is there an absence of fault finding in the mother's behavior relative to the child? Is the mother consistent and firm in her rules and prohibitions for this child? 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 122 Does the mother's ideal seem to be a quiet, passive child rather than an active aggressive one? Does she have an intelligent interest in the study's method and goals? Does the mother wait for the child to make up with her after a conflict rather than trying to restore the relationship herself? Does the mother see the child's negativism as a rebellion which must be crushed? Does she have a variety of skills in social contacts which indi- cate effort directed toward the establishment of friendly rela- tionships with others? Is the mother antagonistic, resentful or quarrelsome? Does she typically seem dull and lacking in emotionality? Does the mother tend to relate to the child as an equal? Does the mother have intense emotional and behavioral involve- ment with the child? Is the mother physically healthy? Is the mother lax in her dis- cipline with this child? Does this mother seem coopera- tive overtly? (Exclude officiousness, interventions, self—abasing cooperation.) Does this mother ignore or reject her child? Does this mother tend to baby her child or foster dependency in him? ' Does this mother seem to be subject to financial strain? Does the mother think the child should be free to act inde~ pendently and be allowed to work or play apart from the parents? Does the mother believe in punishment as an effective method of influencing the child's behavior? Does the mother openly express her love and affection for the child? b) we) Ibtb U'lUl mm \l\l 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 123 Does this mother appear overtly anxious during the session? Does the mother perceive the child more as a burden and inconvenience than a source of happiness? Is she a dependent mother? Does this mother seem to be preoccupied with her child's health? Does this mother try to control her child? Does she show mood swings? Does the mother concern herself about the child's achievement? Does the mother tend to have a positive evaluation of the child as a person? Does this mother enforce rules and regulations? Does this mother have high intelligence? Does this mother withdraw her love from the child when he misbehaves? Does the mother attempt to use fear as a way of controlling and teaching the child? Does this mother tend to be a social person? Is the mother irritable with the child? Does she tend toward negative emotional states? (400») (40(4) Isa:- I543 U'IU'I U'IU'I GAGA \l\l \l\l 124 .m>onm xon OHMHHQOHQQM 0:“ CH muwuuwH may pucowu Aozo mHnm>Homno uoz Ho Hmzo mHnmoumm uoz poxume mH EmuH OH .m>onm xon mHMHumoummm on» CH EwuH some now thoHHo Hones: mnu Hemmcmue "muoom 09 OOH oOH ONH OM «O Nm mumum HmcoHuosm m>Hummwz .Nm OOH MOH sNH OM OO Hm MuHHHnOHHuuH .Hm «OH OOH ONH «M NO om MHHHHanooO .om MOH sOH ONH MM HO MN Houucoo on name we mm: .MN NOH OOH «NH NM oO ON ermcoHumHmm Oo Hmzmucnqu .ON HOH OOH MNH HM MO sN mocmMHHHmucH .sN «OH NNH oM OO ON conmmuoma Ho conmmHaasm .ON oOH mOH HNH MO sO ON newsmouoOcm .ON MsH NOH oNH OO OO, «N coHumsHm>m m>HuHmoM .«N OsH HOH MHH sO OO mN mmwum ucmsm>cho< .mN ssH oOH OHH OO «O NN mmmsmco coo: .NN OsH M«H sHH OO mO HN Houucoo .HN O«H OHH «O NO oN mmmam>HuHcsM .oN OsH s«H OHH mO HO MH cuHmmm usonm :umocoo .MH «sH O«H «HH NO oO OH Moamccmamo .OH msH O«H MHH HO M« sH cmonsm a ma OHHno mm>HmoumM .sH NsH ««H NHH oO o« OH Muwaca .OH HsH m«H HHH Ms s« OH coHuowuoa mchmmuaxm .OH osH N«H oHH Os O« «H ucmsancsm .«H MOH H«H MoH ss O« mH Naocous< .MH o«H MoH Os «« NH mcHHaHomHo ucmumHmcoocH .NH OOH MmH soH Os m« HH mmmuum HmHocmcHM .HH sOH OmH OoH «s N« oH socmocmamo McHumumom .oH OOH smH OoH ms H« M mcHuocmH .M OmH «oH Ns o« O mmmcm>HmsuucH .O OOH OmH moH Hs Mm s mmmcm>Humumaooo .s «OH «mH NoH os Om O mcHHaHomHo NOH .O mOH OOH HoH MO «m O “mayo: Oo nuHmmO HmonMaM .O NOH ooH OO Om « Homecoo m>Hmmmoxm .« HmH MM sO Om m mHom Mcmesmeo: Oo :oHuomsmm .m NOH omH OM OO «m N ucmsm>Ho>cH HmcoHuoam .N HOH MNH sM OO mm H :OHHOHHHmst .H Hmuos O O « m N H .02 MMOM .oz onom mEmz amOBzm>ZH mOH>¢mmm Hfizmm9 ..cn 3:3: :3 a. )5 ...cu: 3.: l:=:>.c x: €655.3ev I. lune) :. 5300- H .3 .520 to: ISIS:- uoeeea 53.-1000:. 320: to slaps:- .eaoa 0.: u. :l.auw is“... 55:0 .....I. . :52 1...... :cI< E..:::a§(..... $25.. a: 3 _ _I 83:. 2.3. 35:. . Q .2 m2: 3 .w an: all“. -599: 86?: 2:25.: 258.; .389; $3222 $29: 8:39.. -955: 28b... 8333a 9825;: $85. $5.59 5.58.5 :5: 2 228 A8 Ems; av BEE e mum Int... 26?: $588. $32; .28.: a $550: .gEooS m 2583 deco: N 3:28: 3:222; 8:382 85522 223% 8:8... 322% 4.x .2.E..s_.< wm< 9:8 2.9 $8.50 $52 6m AB 2: 0V 3: 3v €22 5 2E SEE 38%: 2.55.8. mgocxaw mmsmzfi $5ch 3&sz £33 $55.3. $6.5: .woummom .uoowma -moomm: .moowma 5:25.... .m $23 8S; 5585 a: :8 tom x55 28 8:8 5.2.2:... .88. .888. 883%.. 286: 326?... 8.329... 283 $me -80: 852$ 25.: 2352 $2.2m 5:52.882 82m; . . . $32. $828. 255; m26§2 $2589... magmas .8on 9:33. Wigwam 855: $5253“ $2.805. 33%? S=§==E§u € @3858 AB E22; av A8 .38 av 5:5 9:58 8:2. 3 it... £858. £52 33:: mmEmR $3323 35%... £85: £832. 8:38am .EEgoR 35:52 MUSE: musmwmm teas: 35$ 2.: 8 macs; 302 82.3 83 $3.5m 321...... can 258. 2282.. 223%.. $653 $55: $89.... 85282.. $252. $82? .329.” 852:: 9.52.: 8229: 858% 83:25: 3E; 583 € 8 'alzci mmUEmoH mwocmonm m30__0n_mm met—2;; maiwmu wmw—otmvmm onInm mQE—zmv mnEZQ; wwuzflwmmm wczmmw wimgnfi mUESMm mtm~ Evan—afl—E‘ EMS 3.: 2d 8.8 3.: 3.: 2.“. NE” 38 8.: 3.2 2.2 a... 2 2.5: 5 .3 :85. "E2. 3 8 3 3 3 9o 3. 2 n... 3 8 an a.» 2 3 m... 2 3. 3. s 3.. m.» 2 a.» ...” 3 3 D.“ 2 ad 3 2 m; m; 8 3 a; 3 .... m. 8 c 23> =_ a: MJ_u_OW_n_ DZ< >m<5=23m Er <2 5 "5.3: ... o_ of <<+ 52 S 33> ... muscuw we... 23 0 ms F... c on R m a... a. 0/. «351$ wfiomm (hOmmZZE‘ .wm2_n_ MEDEU .wzadbm .wmmeimDn— we .§§% §§® Seesaw l‘n— DENVER DEVELOPMENTAL SCREENING TEST Cross-SocIion Norms 25 50 PERCENT OF CHILDREN PASSING PI=PRONE TH DATE Ton Hun no; wm-w>u- 20 m20_»<>uwm-O ¢O_>(Xwn waOZ mzhlox N — _ _ 5201. 2. 3:. N09 * =SITT|NG 550 N: M Ma :W WMwZEwo—I 1N NAME \\\\\\\\\\x oZOUum— .2 Z<._< _ mxplnv! 13. 14. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. DIRECTIONS Infant, when prone, lifts chest off table with support of forearms and/or hands. Examiner grasps child's hands, pulls him from supine to sitting, child has no head lag. Child may use wall or rail only, not person, may not crawl. Child throws ball overhand 3 feet to within examiner's reach. Child performs standing broad jump over width of test sheet. Ask child to walk forward, mm Q3013+ heel within 1 inch of toe. Examiner bounces ball to child, child must catch with hands (2 of 3 trials). Ask child to walk backwards, -(- 03030:) (IQ toe within 1 inch of heel. Examiner moves yarn in arc from side to side 1 foot above baby's head. Note if eyes follow 90° to midline (past midline; 80°). Infant grasps rattle when touched to his finger tips. Child looks after yarn dropped from sight over table's edge. Child grasps raisin between thumb and index finger. Child performs overhand grasp of raisin with tips of thumb and index finger. Copy: Pass any enclosed 15. "Which line is longer?" 16. Pass crossing 17. Have child copy first. form. Do not demonstrate. (Not bigger.) Turn paper lines, any If fail, demonstrate. Do not name form. upside down, repeat (Pass angle. Pass figure with h 3 of 3). square corners. When scoring, symmetrical parts count as one (2 arms or 2 eyes count as one part only). Point to picture and have child name it. Examiner asks child to: "Give block to Mommie, put block on table, put block on floor" (2 of 3). Caution: Examiner not to gesture with head or eyes. Child answers 2 of 3 questions: "What do you do when you are cold? hungry? tired?" Examiner asks child to: ”Put block 23 table, under table, in front of chair, behind chair." Caution: examiner not to gesture with head or eyes. Examiner asks child: ”Fire is hot, ice is . iother is a woman, dad is a . A horse is big, a mouse is ." (Pass if 2 of 3 are correct.) Ask child to define 6: ball; lake; desk; house; banana; curtain; hedge; pavement. Any verbal indication of understanding is passed. Examiner asks: "What is a spoon made of? a shoe made of? a door made of?" (No other objects may be substituted.) Must pass all 3. Examiner attempts to elicit a smile by: smiling, talking or waving to infant, do not touch, baby smiles responsively in 2 or 3 attempts. when child is playing with toy, pull it away from him. Pass if he resists. Child need not be able to tie shoes or button in the back. N. K. Frankenburg, M.D. and J. B. Dodds, Ph.D., Univ. of Colo. Medical Center, Denver, Colo. DATE AND BEHAVIORAL OBJERVATIONS (how child feels at time of the evaluation, relation to examiner, attention span, verbal behavior, self-confidence, etc.): APPENDIX B TABLES 133 134 sm>ms so. um homosmscosm.s sm>ms mo. um unmososcosm. sH. mo. os. I oo. I mo. I so. assumnm one dsnmmtheoo «ms. mm. I mm. I om. «as. I am. cosumNssmnum> scuomuooocm so. I so. oo. om. I so. I mo. assumpssmsom sN. sH. I mm. I mo. I am. I mm. oHumuoosmo MN. mHo l Hm. I MO. OM. I mN. WUHHHQMUHHHH Ho. ms. so. oH. I so. I so. msom mcflxmsmsom mo cosuomhom mo. I sH. I ms. I oo. mm. I mm. possmcoo Houses: ms. as. I am. I so. om. I om. ausssumom ms. I ma. ms. ms. I am. mm. mocmosmcH mosmuoo ocsoosoxm om. I sN. as. om. I mm. mm. .sussmoxmm so eonmmuddsm HH. I OH. I mo. I am. we. I ma. coammmumm< mo cosmmmummsm oH. mm. I um. I no. ha. I ma. Hmauoz mo mmmzm>smsaomm ms. I so. I ms. I mo. I so. I so. soawozmdmo ocsumomom ms. I so. I so. I so. I oo. mo. susuoouss mo. 0H. ma. mo. ma. sH. mamom mmmcwmwo Op monuflpu< "dnuG \IGnu Gnu nsVTa I’V.d V.d Pee 288 as 911 911 11 s+A u pnuu .nu lsse ps+e sse sIa A res A «on 1.9”: r5p.S v.8 HTS HIS Te UT..O HID To 5 0+4 coo I Osl Row U. S unn W q d 1Au d O nsm O O m a m m a O esoo «so 3 Pas a u T D.usL u_L U u U 1. 1. 1. m mm m a we a T O T T. e O a a I O 13 O a O a O O I. 1 (I: x P p P .paflno UmuflmmEHImcHummm may mo Ho>mq HmucmEmoHo>mo mam mopouflnum accumumz cmoBDQm mummsOHmmmou coaumHmHHooII.HIm mqmme 135 TABLE B-2.--Correlation Coefficients Between Attitude to Deafness Scale and Maternal Behavior. Attitude to Maternal Behavior Deafness Equalitarian - .68** Emotional Involvement .28 Rejects Homemaking Role - .08 Excessive Contact - .13 Physical Health-Mother - .23 Lax Discipline - .l3 Cooperativeness - .21 Intrusiveness .35 Ignoring .45* Fostering Dependency .07 Financial Stress - .04 Inconsistent Discipline .20 Autonomy - .4S* Punishment .63** Expressing Affection - .28 Anxiety .46* Perceives Child as Burden .49* Dependency .03 Concern about Health — .39 Punitiveness .45* Control - .08 Mood Changes .50* Achievement Press .09 Positive Evaluation - .43* Enforcement .01 Suppression-Aggression .17 Intelligence , - .12 Withdrawal-Relationship .35 Use of Fear to Control .76** Sociability - .27 Irritability .57** Negative Emotional State .32 *Significant at .05 level. **Significant at .01 level. "IIlIlIlIIIIIIIll‘“