change in emotional awareness and self-concept …
TRANSCRIPT
CHANGE IN EMOTIONAL AWARENESS AND SELF-CONCEPT
IN FOUR TO FIVE YEAR OLD DISADVANTAGED NEGRO
CHILDREN THROUGH A STRUCTURED GROUP
PSYCHOLOGICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
by
WILLIAM JEROME KLEINPETER, III, B.S.
A DISSERTATION
IN
PSYCHOLOGY r
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
A n T T r n v f i d
May, 1973
"'"•"««••
îo\
1073
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am deeply indebted to Professor Joseph B. Ray for
his direction of this dissertation and to the other members
of my committee, Professor Charles Mahone, Associate Profes-
sor William Landers, and Professor Charles Jones.
Additionally, thanks go to Harold Goolischian and
Bill Patton who provided incentive and financial support
for me to pursue my special interest leading to this
research project.
Warm mention must also go to Waldo Palomares, Harold
Bessell, Jerry Southard, and Tim Timmerman for their
hospitality and personal attention extended to me while
the present research problem was being formulated.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• t
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 11
LIST OF TABLES vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Review of the Literature: The
Disadvantaged Negro Child 4
Purpose of the Study 18
II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 19
Subjects 19
General Experimental Design 20
Dependent Variables 21
Affect Awareness: Theory and
Supporting Data 21
Affect Measures 27
Self-Concept 33
The Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents
Test (Brown) 36
Teachers' Behavioral Ratings 38
Procedures 42
Hypotheses 46
III. RESULTS 51
General Summary of Collected Data and Organization of Results Presented 51 Characteristics of the Children Studied . . 58
111
Results of Data Analysis Revealing Differences Between Experimental and Control Groups 62
Changes in Intelligence as a Function of Participation in the HDP 68
Differential Responses of Boys and Girls to the HDP 69
Post hoc Results Obtained After Collapsing of the Four Groups into One Experimental Group and One Control Group 75
IV. DISCUSSION . 77
Characteristics of the Children Studied . . 77
The Mainland Center Comparisons on Posttest Data: Significant Findings and Implica-tions: Experimental Group I vs Control Group I 78
Mainland Experimental Compared to Distal Control Groups: Significant Findings and Implications: Experimental Group I vs Control Group II 81
Intact Experimental (EII) and Control Groups (CII) Chosen from Two Differ-ent Day-Care Centers: Findings and Implications 86
Human Development Program and Intelligence . '. I ', ", ', 93
Differences in Response to the Human Development Program Between Girls and Boys on Posttesting 95
Overview of Major Experimental Effects for the Two Experimental Groups 100
Collapsing and Comparing of Results of Experimental Groups I and II with Control Groups I and II 105
IV
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 107
Suggestions for Further Research 116
REFERENCES 119
APPENDIX 127
A. Knowledge of Affect Words Test 128
B. Affect Acknowledgment Scale 129
C. Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale . . . 132
D. Evaluative Responses Inventory 143
E. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test 208
F. Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist . . . . 213
G. Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale 224
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Summary Table: Mean Pretest, Posttest Scores by Group by Dependent Variables 52
2. Summary of ;t Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Chronological Ages of Experimental and Control Subjects 58
3. Summary of ib Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Raw Scores of Experimental and Control Subjects 59
4. Mean Peabody Raw Scores, Mean Chronological Age, and Mean Peabody Mental Ages by Group . . . 60
5. Summary of t. Tests Comparing Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II on Pretest Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist Teacher Ratings 61
6. Summary of Experimental Control Group Comparisons for All Dependent Variables . . . . 63
7. Summary of t Tests Comparing Experimental and Control Groups on Gain Scores on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Scores—Pretest to Posttest 68
8. Summary Tables Analysis of Multiple Covari-ance by Sex, Means Adjusted with Covariates: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Scores and Pretest Scores on Respective Dependent Variables 71
9. Analysis of Multiple Covariance on Collapsed Data: EI + EII Compared with CI + CII on Posttest Results 76
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Early childhood education and preventive mental health
programs need a place of meeting. The child mental health
crisis and the educational crisis of the 1970's point to
pressing educational and emotional needs in children in the
United States which are not being met (Report of the Joint
Commission, 1970; Gordon & Wilkerson, 1966). These needs
demand innovative, coordinated, and systematic planning
from both educators and mental health professionals. There
are immediate demands which require the development of
newer methods for dealing with the acute emotional problems
with which contemporary children are faced. Additionally,
preventive programs to promote normal emotional growth and
development need further implementation. These programs
need to be applied in established social institutions,
such as the educational system, for the most parsimonious
use of professionals and community resources. The changing
role of psychologists will include the preparation of
teachers in mental health principles and practices. Hope-
fully, in the near future the teachers and administrators
of the school programs in which children are placed will be
involved increasingly in preventing crippling life-long
patterns of maladjustment from being perpetuated and aggra-
vated. This is essential for white, middle-class children
who are intellectually, socially, and emotionally advan-
taged as well as of paramount importance for the "pseudo"
intellectually retarded and emotionally disadvantaged
lower-class children. It is this latter group whose
emotional development was the topic for investigation in
the following research. A preventive mental health program,
suitable for use in the classroom with a regular teacher
and with culturally disadvantaged Negro preschool children,
was evaluated.
Contemporary trends in preschool kindergarten, Head
Start and special early childhood education programs for
the disadvantaged throughout the United States challenge
educators and mental health professionals to rethink what
needs to be tau^ht and developed in "culturally different"
youngsters to facilitate their maximum social and cognitive
development (Beck & Saxe, 1965; Blom, Waite, & Zimet, 1968).
Many authors agreed that mere simplification of first
grade academic work to be administered in smaller doses
to preschool children was in many cases inappropriate and
unwise (Mussen, Conger, & Kagan, 1969). Additionally,
special language deficits, poor abstracting abilities,
short attention span, and other cognitive deficits most
often reported as characteristic of the disadvantaged
child prevented the effective use of traditional approaches
with them (Mussen, Conger, & Kagan, 1969).
In addition to these cognitive intellectual deficits,
it is estimated that 20 to 25% of Head Start children are
crippled in their emotional development by age four (Report
of the Joint Commission, 1970). This suggests that social-
emotional development shall have a high priority of impor-
tance in planning for the needed corrective experiences.
Designing emotional development programs for younger
and younger disadvantaged children demands that psycholo-
gists: (1) learn much more about early emotional and cogni-
tive development in these children; (2) find ways to clearly
communicate this understanding to teachers; and (3) encour-
age teachers to utilize techniques, programs and skills
which will help these children to experience, understand,
and communicate their feelings in an adequate, effective
manner. Self-understanding and understanding others more
fully becomes a primary goal. More often than not the
emotional development of disadvantaged children is left to
chance or crowded into a curriculum without a plan for
implementation. Everyone realizes the importance of good
early emotional development; yet, it is difficult for
professionals to transmit their knowledge so that it is
carried out in the classroom on a day by day basis (Borton,
1967; Bessell, 1969).
In recent years a number of programs have been develop-
ed to "teach" feelings systematically or to enhance
emotional or affective development in young children. One
of these programs is the Human Development Program (1969)
(HDP). There is no published research which has empiri-
cally evaluated the program, however. Thus, a demonstration
of the program's effectiveness in helping Negro disadvan-
taged children progress emotionally would be extremely
valuable. Positive results conceivably could influence
Head Start and other preschool programs throughout the
United States to begin planning and implementing systematic
emotional development programs to enhance and complement
current cognitive approaches.
. Review of the Literature: The Disadvantaged j Qgj o CH TH'
Feelings of being "different" and unacceptable are
often seen in Negro children.
The Negro child . . . gradually becomes aware of the social significance of racial membership. . . . He perceives himself as an object of derision and dis-paragement, as socially rejected by the prestigeful elements of society, and as unworthy of succorance and affection. Having no compelling reasons for not accepting this officially sanctioned, negative evalu-ation of himself, he develops feelings of inferiority [Ausubel, 1958, p. 365].
A large number of the Negro children in the United
States feel powerless and worthless. As early as the age
of three Negro children begin to prefer white skin to black.
They begin to think of Negroes in general and themselves
specifically as ugly, unwanted, and "bad" (Pettigrew, 1964).
Inadequacy and inferiority often become a psychological
fact of life long before the Negro child enters school.
Sociological, physiological, and psychological
factors influencing this inadequacy have been researched
extensively. A short review of some of the more critical
psychological and physiological factors follows.
Among physiological factors a large body of
literature suggested that the Negro mother often receives
inadequate nutritional and prenatal care resulting in
complications during pregnancy; therefore, prematurity
and congenital defects take a high toll (Knobloch, Rider,
Harper, & Pasamanick, 1956; Pasamanick & Knobloch, 1958;
Pasamanick, Knobloch, & Lilienfeld, 1956). Many of the
abnormalities noted involve neurological damage resulting
in impaired intellectual abilities, behavioral distur-
bances, and include hyperactivity, distractability, short
attention span, low frustration tolerance and perceptual-
motor dysfunctions (Bronfenbrenner, 1967). It also is
known widely that neurological disorders resulting from
complications of pregnancy and birth are considerably
more frequent for males than females. Likewise it is
well documented that reading disorders are likely to be
as much as eight or nine times more common for boys than
for girls (Pasamanick & Knobloch, 1958). Certainly this
factor accounts for early frustration and often contributes
to school failure in Negro boys. Kawi and Pasamanick
(1959) found that instances of two or more complications
of pregnancy were over nine times as frequent in the
records of mothers whose children later exhibited severe
reading difficulties as in a control population matched
on social class and other relevant variables.
It is demonstrated readily that many poor Negro
children do not receive even minimal health care, as most
of the Negro children included in the 600,000 children
between the ages of 3 and 5 years who attended Head Start
programs in 1965 had not been to a physician or dentist
and had not received their immunizations (United States
House of Representatives, 1965). Malnutrition often has
been posited as a chronic reality among poor, urban Negro
children. This alone is likely to increase children's
vulnerability to sickness, loss of energy and motivation,
feelings of estrangement, and decreased frustration
tolerance.
The lower class poverty environment is likely to
contribute to the lack of intellectual and emotional
development of Negro children. This is strikingly illus-
trated by the report of the Joint Commissiori on Mental
Health of Children (1970). In that report they discuss
eight major factors closely associated with poverty:
(1) the poverty environment; (2) chronic unemployment;
(3) low income; (4) life styles which are a product of
impoverishment; (5) poor physical and mental health;
(6) large families; (7) broken families; (8) little
education.
They suggested that,
One fourth of American children under age eighteen live in poor families. Non-white children are almost four times as likely to be disadvantaged as white children. Nearly one-half of the families in this country have incomes which fall short of meeting a basic standard of economic self-sufficiency [p. 185].
The Joint Commission reported that in 1966
. . . three times as many Blacks (15 percent) as whites had critically low annual incomes (less than $2000 a year), and more than twice as many (40 per-cent) had "poverty incomes" of less than $4000 a year. . . . Since low income Black families, like white ones at that income level, tend to be large, one could estimate that the vast majority of Black children suffer from poverty or near poverty [p. 187].
The urban poverty environment usually is characterized
by highly defective housing and deteriorating neighborhoods,
Poverty stricken neighborhoods are subject to rapid immigra-
tion of very poor unskilled people from rural areas. Such
high mobility is often associated with social disorganiza-
tion and high incidence of psychiatric disorders. Play-
grounds and recreational facilities are lacking as are
adequate medical and dental facilities, while high crime
rates, drug addiction, and all varieties of vice are most
common.
8
Studies summarized by Bloom, Davis, and Hess (1965)
suggested that the lower class Negro home was barren of
objects such as books, newspapers, pencils, papers, toys,
games as well as social interaction. Keller (1963)
reported that in urban slums children had little sustained
contact with adults,, few organized conversations, and
little shared family activity. Deutsch (1960) in comparing
Negro and white lower-class children found that the former
had fewer books in the home, got less help on homework,
took fewer trips beyond a 25 block radius of their home,
ate less frequently with their parents, and spent less
time with their parents on Sundays. Verbal interaction
which managed to occur tended to be limited in complexity
and completeness. Commands typically were given impera-
tively in one or several words rather than in sentences
and typically were given without explanation. Hess and
Shipman (1965) also found similar results when they
focused on defective mother-child communication systems
in culturally deprived 4-year olds.
In addition to the deprived home conditions it is
important to consider the effects of peers in the teaching
of destructive behavior outside of the home environment.
Polansky, Lippitt, and Redl (1954), and Bandura and Walters
(1959, 1963) have shown in field and laboratory studies
that disintegrative and destructive behavior of peers was
contagious. Needless to say, the rampant aggressive-
destructive outbursts of the past years illustrate the
potential of the emotional contagion factor in lower
class Negro neighborhoods.
Poverty has been associated with family breakdown.
Among factors related to family life, paternal absence has
been reported as a major debilitating element, especially
for the Negro male. The extent of paternal absence was
summarized by Pettigrew (1964):
Census data for 1960 illustrates the depth of this family disorganization among Negroes: over a third (34.3 percent) of all non-white mothers with children under six years of age hold jobs as compared with less than a fifth (19.5 percent) of white mothers with children under six; only three-fourths (74.9 percent) of all non-white families have both the husband and the wife present in the household as compared with nine-tenths (89.2 percent) of white families; and only two-thirds (66.3 percent) of non-whites under eighteen years of age live with both of their parents as compared with nine-tenths (90.2 percent) of such whites . . . [p. 16].
Rainwater (1967) reported similar results as he
found that the vast majority of incomplete Negro households
was lacking the husband. Frazier (1957) estimated in 1950
that the male parent was missing in roughly 20% of Negro
households. In addition to divorce and separation, part
of this phenomenon was due to a higher Negro male death
rate, The percentage of widows among Negro women 54 years
old or less was roughly twice that of white women (Petti-
grew, 1964).
10
The effects of not having a consistent male influence
in the family has been explored by Bach (1964), Barclay
and Cosumano (1967), Sears (1951), Sears, Pintler, and
Sears (1946), and Stolz (1954). These studies suggested
that father deprived Negro boys were more immature, sub-
missive, dependent, and effeminate than other Negro boys.
As they grew older this behavior often changed, only to be
overcompensated for by exaggerated powerfulness, masculin-
ity, and aggressiveness. Many investigators pointed to
this inadequacy and to paternal absence in relation to
later antisocial and delinquent behavior (Bacon, Child, &
Barry, 1963; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Burton & Whiting,
1961; Glueck & Glueck, 1950, 1956; Miller, 1958; Rohrer
& Edmonson, 1960; Scarpitti, Murray, Dintz, & Reckless,
1960).
Additionally, Mischel (1958, 1961a, 1961b) has shown
that father deprived Negro children 10 years of age showed
an extremely poor ability to delay immediate gratification
in favor of obtaining a later, more attractive reward.
Deutsch (1960) has shown that lower class Negro children
from broken homes were far more likely to score below
grade level on tests of achievement than classmates from
intact families.
Child rearing patterns also were noted as contributing
to psychological problems among lower class Negroes. Davis
r
/^
11
(1941), Davis and Dollar (1940), Davis and Havighurst
(1946), Frazier (1957), and Rohrer and Edmonson (1960)
have suggested that many households alternatively vascil-
late between a repressive restrictive atmosphere and an
extremely overindulgent nonstructured one. Discipline
which typically is given by the mother is restrictive and
inhibitory. It is often focused on overt acts rather than
on more subtle motives and goals. The "do not do that,"
"keep quiet," "do not ask questions," type of interaction
is considered both an emotional and intellectual inhibitor.
Hess and Shipman (1965) suggested that these types of
"restricted codes" were
. • . stereotyped, limited, and condensed, lacking in specificity and the exactness needed for precise conceptualization and differentiation. Sentences are short, simple, often unfinished; there is little use of subordinate clauses for elaborating the con-tent of the sentences; it is a language of implicit meaning easily understood and commonly shared. It is the language form often used in impersonal situ-ations when the intent is to promote solidarity or reduce tension. Restricted codes are non-specific cliches, statements, or observations about events made in general terms that will be readily understood. The basic quality of this mode is to limit the range and detail of concept and information involved [p. 886].
These restricted codes then become the social and inter-
personal models that Negro children use to conceptualize
their world, It puts them in a position so that they view
the world passively and in rather stereotyped restrictive
terms. Family control is in terms of status—who is the
12
strongest and most authoritative figure rather than the
one most personally interested in the individual child's
specific feelings, preferences, personal needs, goals,
and subjective emotional states. For this reason the
language or linguistic system which develops does not
allow Negro children the opportunity to develop fine dis-
criminations and nuances in describing and articulating
their feelings about personal specific events, impulses,
and problems. Hence, the Negro child often develops a
cognitive system that renders him almost nonverbal in
comparison to his white counterparts. The language system
does not allow the same type of affective or emotional-
social expression. The lack of consistent success of more
traditional verbal psychotherapy with Negroes (Shane, 1960)
attested to this early learned pattern of language develop-
ment as it evolves from the social familial communication
network. The negative reinforcement of these repressive
child rearing techniques also is likely to discourage
early initiative and motivation, curiosity, and exploration
of individual interests as well as set a noncooperative
pattern of adult-child interaction.
A complete review of the achievement. deficits found in
lower-class Negroes is inappropriate here. The reviews by
Pettigrew (1964) and Bronfenbrenner (1967) provide good
references. Suffice it to say that the longer the Negro
13
child remains in the classroom, the further behind he falls
in relation to the norms for his age and grade. This is
shown in academic achievement and also for scores on tests
of general intelligence (Coleman, 1966; Deutsch & Brown,
1964; Kennedy, Van de Riet, & White, 1963). Deutsch (1960)
reported that Negro children show progressive retardation
in reading and language skills, shorter attention span,
reduced concentration and persistence, and lack of motiva-
tion in the face of failure. This points to the sobering
fact that even when a Negro child enters school without
obvious emotional-social intellectual difficulty, he is
likely to develop feelings of failure and frustration as
he finds that he cannot master materials that even his
white lower-class peers can master. Failure obviously
does great harm to children's feelings of self-confidence
and social acceptability.
Cultural and Emotional Deprivation Defined
A culturally deprived child has been defined by Frost
and Hawks (1966) and Reissman (1962),
. . . as those pupils with a particular set of educa-tionally associated problems arising from and residing extensively within the culture of the poor or with members of lower socio-economic groups who have limited access to education [Frost & Hawks, 1966, p. 14].
The review of the literature suggested an addition to
this definition. The Negro child who is culturally deprived
14
also is often affectively or emotionally deprived. This
progressive deprivation, furthermore, does not occur in
many instances as a consciously perpetrated rejection or
exclusion by parents, although this may be true in some
cases. It is more often an insidious progressive develop-
mental deprivation that emerges from the family style of
life, communication patterns, poverty environment, and
other factors cited above. This deprivation is reflected
in a poor self-concept. It is also reflected in Negro
children's reduced "affect awareness" or comparatively
little knowledge about nuances in feelings, particularly
positive feelings for themselves and for others. This lack
of awareness of self and feelings is often considered to be
the root of psychopathology.
The Human Development Program and the Deprived Child
The Human Development Program (HDP) was designed to
increase and enhance children's emotional awareness and
self-concept. In relating its applicability to the deprived
child, Palomares (1969) stated that the
HDP helps children develop an articulate awareness of their positive and negative feelings, thoughts, and behavior. The effect this has on children from divergent cultural groups is that they learn to develop an increasing awareness of their similarities, as well as their differences. In addition to this, they discover that all have feelings, no matter what color they are. They are systematically exposed to their own feelings, thoughts, and behavior and to
15
those of their peers. They learn early and continue to practice looking beyond color [p. 39].
Bessell (1968) further stated that, as a result of
the HDP,
teachers report that discipline problems are reduced markedly, and that children show increased personal involvement, greater verbal expressiveness, more self confidence, higher motivation, far more personal awareness and an increased degree of comprehension of social interactions [p. 33].
These assertions suggest the potential applicability of
this program to culturally disadvantaged Negro children,
as well as to children of other minority groups.
The Human Development Program is a curricular approach
to educating school children in the affective or social-
emotional area of human relationships. It is one of the
first programs offered to school systems in this country
that deals with helping children grow and develop inter-
personally as well as cognitively. The major theoretical
basis for the HDP is the personality development theory of
Horney (1950), who added to Freudian theory by emphasizing
the importance of mastering continuing social relationships
as a critical factor in the development and maintenance of
healthy self-concepts. There also is a heavy borrowing
from recent humanistic thoughts in American psychology
stemming from works of Maslow, Rogers, Perls, and many
other authors grouped under the existential-philosophical
theoretical movement. These ideas centrally focus on the ,
16
healthy man, the normal person, and his enhancement of self,
rather than the more traditional medical-psychoanalytic
focus on man's illness and psychopathology. More commonly,
authors in this theoretical area have stressed and developed
programs in the following areas:
increasing achievement motivation, awareness, and excitement, creative thinking, interpersonal sensi-tivity, joy self-reliance, self-esteem, self-understanding, self-actualization, moral develop-ment, identity, non-verbal communication, body aware-ness, value clarity, meditative processes, and other aspects of ideal personality functioning [Alschuler, 1969, p. 1].
In line with these trends the authors of the HDP
stressed that
. . . human beings are our most valuable resources.
. . . Our children, as an underdeveloped resource, therefore., merit every possible attention if their potential talents and personal satisfactions are to be realized to the fullest [Bessell & Palomares, 1967, p. ii].
In order to bring about the realization of these potentials, they proposed a planned semi-structured program for use in the classroom to make sure that children develop these resources rather than leaving their learning to chance. This program consists of a semi-structured set of sequential, developmental and cumulative lesson plans for daily use in the classroom as an adjunct to the regular curriculum [Ballard & Solomon, 1970, p. 4].
The program has been designed around three basic
themes (Bessell & Palomares, 1967): (1) awareness-feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors; (2) mastery-language quantitative
concepts, motor coordination, performance skills, personal
hygiene, and social comprehension; and (3) social
17
interaction. Within each of the above areas special topics
of discussion are introduced into small groups. The chil-
dren are encouraged to become aware of and discuss their
own and other's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, both
positive and negative. They are given the opportunity to
discover how their own behavior, in turn, affects the
thoughts and feelings of others. They also are encouraged
to become aware of the similarities and differences noted
in members of the group; since differences are discussed
openly and in a friendly manner, children learn to accept
these differences.
The program is designed to develop a genuine awareness
and sense of personal comprehension of self in the child I
and a sense of personal and social effectiveness; thus, the
HDP seeks to develop a positive self-concept in children.
The HDP group is typically composed of 10 children,
5 girls, 5 boys who sit in a circle with the teacher as a
part of the circle. She is encouraged to be an active
listener and facilitator. The atmosphere in the "magic
circle" as it is termed is open and free except that any
acting out is stopped immediately by the teacher. Children
also are encouraged to speak one at a time unless the
lesson plan suggests differently. All children are given
the opportunity to participate each session and the
teacher positively reinforces participation even if it
18
is very minimal. Exclusion from the group rarely is used
as a way of controlling or motivating a resistive child.
Purpose of the Study
The above review suggested that disadvantaged Negro
children were often deficient in (1) a positive self-
concept and (2) emotional awareness of themselves and
others. The authors of the HDP specifically claim that
their program enhances these attributes in Negro disad-
vantaged children; however a review of the literature
did not reveal any published research study utilizing the
HDP with Negro Head Start children. Further, there were
no studies found which evaluated the effectiveness of the
HDP in changing self-concepts and emotional awareness in
Negro children.
The purpose of the following research is to investi-
gate the effects of the HDP on the development of personal-
ity characteristics in 4- to 5-year-old disadvantaged
Negro children.
CHAPTER II
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Subjects
Twenty male and 20 female Negro children ages 4 and
5 years enrolled in three Head Start day-care centers in
Galveston County, Texas, served as subjects. All subjects
were in classes for the 4-year-old and 5-year-old with a
Negro teacher. The children had been medically screened.
Similar educational and enrichment instruction for the
subjects was provided in each respective day-care center.
As recipients of the full year Head Start program, all
subjects qualified as disadvantaged.
The 40 subjects were divided into four groups of 10
with two groups designated as experimental and two as
control. Each group of 10 subjects contained five girls
and five boys. Selection and allocation of subjects into
experimental and control groups proceeded as follows. The
Mainland center contained two classes having 4- and 5-year-
old Negro children. To control for possible teacher
effects in the two classes, subjects from both classes
were placed randomly into two new groups of 10 children.
A replacement method was used so that each of the two new
groups formed had an equal number of boys and girls. Both
groups of 10 subjects had an approximately equal number of
19
20
children from each class. One group was designated as
experimental (EI) and one as control (CI).
The Galveston center and the Dickinson center each
had one class having 4- and 5-year-old Negro children with
a Negro teacher. Random assignment of children from each
of these two classes into two new groups, as was done with
the Mainland center subjects, was impossible; therefore 10
children were chosen randomly from each of the two intact
classes. The replacement method of choosing subjects was
used again so that five boys and five girls were in each
group.
A coin toss designated the subjects chosen from the
Galveston center as Experimental Group II (EII) and the
subjects from the Dickinson center as Control Group II
(CII). Since the Dickinson center was geographically
distant from the Galveston and Mainland centers, it also
was designated as a distal control group.
General Experimental Design
A pretest, posttest, control group design was used
to evaluate the effects of the group instructional experi-
ence. The experimental and control groups were pretested
on respective dependent variables prior to the beginning
of the experimental program. The experimental program
then was conducted followed by posttesting. Differences
21
in mean group posttest scores were calculated and evaluated
using^an analysis of multiple covariance statistical pro-
cedure. Lindquist (1956) and Campbell and Stanley (1963)
suggested this approach in evaluating educational research
where subjects in experimental and control groups
were chosen from different classrooms.
Two covariates were used in all major analyses. They
were pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test raw scores and
pretest measures obtained on respective dependent variables.
Peabody scores were used to control for the possible biasing
effect intelligence and receptive vocabulary might have on
the outcome of the HDP.
Dependent Variables
Two 'types of dependent variables were utilized:
(1) individually administered psychometric tests designed
to measure various dimensions of affect or emotional
awareness and self-concept; and (2) teacher's ratings
of subjects along a number of behavioral dimensions.
Affect Awareness: Theory and Supporting Data
Theoretical and empirical data relating affect aware-
ness, its development in children and emotional health
follow. Affect awareness was defined in line with Gil-
bert's (1969) formulation as a child's ability to identify
his subjective feelings with familiar verbal labels such
iTirrr-
22
as "afraid," "scared," "mad," "happy," "sad," "jealous,"
"tired," and other similar descriptive words. The affect
awareness dimension, while being quite standard in clinical-
psychiatric jargon, needs further research. This particu-
larly applies to developmental aspects. Theoretically,
affect is in part cognitive or is the result of learned
interpretations made from sensations which come from internal
bodily states. Additionally these bodily states are known
to be influenced by "our perceptions of the environmental
context of the moment [Kagan & Havaman, 1963]." Therefore,
a child may have various bodily sensations in response to
stimulation or frustration but no affect concepts until he
is taught verbal labels for these via repeated interpersonal
experience. Schacter and Singer (1962) treated affect as
informational codes that were linked to physiological states.
Psychoanalytic thought contributes to the above
theoretical viewpoints (Mullahy, 1955; Hartmann, 1961).
Affect emerges or becomes differentiated from basic sexual
and aggressive drives which are initially a part of the id.
These drives are felt inherently to be undifferentiated in
the newly born child until he begins to experience his
surrounding environment. Drives are said to be linked to
basic instincts of survival and perpetuation of the species.
They also are oriented toward the maximization of pleasure
and the minimization of pain. As the child develops, he
23
learns that instinctual feelings always cannot be fulfilled
or expressed directly. The child must learn that even
though he experiences these instincts or deep feelings, he
must learn to modulate his pleasure seeking in line with
demands from what is called the super ego or conscience,
represented by his parents' values and belief systems and
the external world. Thus, the child is hypothesized as
developing a part of his personality (the ego) that allows
him to test reality or cope with the external world, his
parents' demands, and his own pleasure needs. A portion
of the ego which leads to the operation of the reality
principle and self-control over demanding drives is known
as the signaling and synthesizing portion of the ego. This
signaling portion, as a part of what is termed the observing
ego, operates as a sensitizer and informational coding
system for the child. The system acts as a warning device
to inform the developing child of his impending feelings
or emotions which, if acted upon, would be unacceptable
socially or morally or might be dangerous personally.
Therefore, psychoanalytic thought (Hartmann, 1961) stresses
very strongly the development of a cognitive aspect of the
personality which helps children to monitor and control
appropriately the expression of feelings and impulses.
The traditional psychotherapeutic model for developing
self-awareness is the talking technique. Psychoanalytic
24
writers stress helping children to talk out their feelings
and thus gain concepts or insight regarding their feelings.
Using these affect concepts as signaling devices, the
child learns to avoid or divert impulsive acting out of
dangerous or unacceptable feelings. Self-understanding
or insight additionally is felt to be linked intricately
with the exploration and awareness of one's most subtle
subjective emotional experiences.
Children code, remember, categorize, and analyze their
affective experiences as they grow and develop. The theory
elaborated above suggests that this coding of emotional
experience is associated with self-understanding. Emotional
health and emotional awareness clearly are linked. Ease
and fluency in talking about or verbalizing emotions or
feelings is seen as crucial in the development of affect
concepts.
Research supporting the assertion that the development
of affect concepts is crucial to emotional health and ad-
justment in young children is scarce. In Gilbert's (1969)
work with 4- to 6-year-olds she found that "teachers
describe the child who can verbalize his feelings as
expressive, mature, empathetic and imaginative." Amon
(1941) and Whiteman (1967), however, found that children
younger than kindergarten age seldom used inferential
psychological concepts of feeling and intent. Perhaps
25
ages 4 to 6 represent a critical period during which verbal
affect concepts are mastered corresponding with the emer-
gence of the observing ego. Kagan and Moss (1960) found
that, by age 10, children developed reliable differences
in the use of affect concepts. In preschool Negro children
social class and ethnic background have been shown to
retard the development of verbalized affect concepts (Hess
& Shipman, 1965). Children reared in white middle class
homes are thus far more likely to use concepts of feeling
and intent than children reared in lower class Negro homes.
Ojemann (1967) reported that as early as fourth grade,
children who have developed sensitivity to the dynamics of
behavior favor less arbitrary and punitive methods, have
lower authoritarian scores and lower anxiety. Wallach and
Kogan (1965) showed that creative thinking in 10-year-olds
is correlated with acknowledgement of a wide range of
internally experienced affect states.
Thus, there is some evidence to support the concept
that increased awareness of feelings or affect is associ-
ated with children who are creative, empathetic, and
emotionally healthy. It also follows that if affect
awareness can be increased via a verbal group interaction
technique in deprived Negro children, then they likely
will be able to cope more effectively both in the present
and in the future.
26
Several dimensions of affect awareness are thus
suggested. (1) Identification and definition of feelings
occur. The child gradually becomes aware that he is angry
when his wishes are thwarted. He identifies his frustration
and labels or defines the experience as feeling angry.
(2) Discrimination between different feelings in self and
others occurs. The frustrated child gradually learns that
he is angry, and that he is not happy, sad, or afraid.
(3) Verbalization or talking about feelings helps the
frustrated child to identify more clearly his moment to
moment feelings. Verbalization of feelings also helps
others to understand and help guide the child as to how
he may reduce his frustration. (4) Feelings or affects
gradually take on value or moral-ethical properties as the
child is censored by and identifies with parents and other
significant persons. An evaluative aspect is introduced
by parental figures in which children place a value of
"good" or "bad" on their own behavior and emotional experi-
ences and the behavior and emotional experiences of others
(Osgood, Suci, Tannenbaum, 1957; Divesta, 1966). The
frustrated child for instance knows that feeling sad is
a "bad" experience. He also develops a social feeling
and social judgment that helps him to understand that,
when other children feel sad, this is a "bad" experience
for them. Breaking social rules also takes on a "bad"
27
connotation as the child develops his conscience or evalua-
tive system of right and wrong. The same applies for good
or socially acceptable behavior.
Based on the above theory and data, four affect
measures were suggested:
1. Knowledge of Affect Words - ability to verbally define common affect words such as scared, happy, and afraid.
2. Affect Acknowledgment Scale - ability to recognize feelings m self given a frustrating or emotionally charged situation.
3. Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale - skill in identifying feelings in others.
4. Evaluative Responses of Good and Bad - social comprehension of "good" and "bad" behaviors in self and others.
Affect Measures
Knowledge of Affect Words
A scale was devised in which subjects were simply
asked to verbally define various affect words. The words
(1) "happy," (2) "sad," (3) "mad," (4) "angry," (5) "scared,"
(6) "love," or "loved," (7) "jealous," (8) "lonesome," and
(9) "tired" were selected. Amon (1941) found that many of
these affect words occur in 4-year-old children's vocabu-
laries in the normal population.
Pilot Study. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate
the knowledge of affect words test as well as several
other test instruments used in the research. Subjects
28
were 4- to 5-year-old Negro children drawn from a day-care
center which was not utilized in the final research project.
A female examiner who later collected all of the research
data conducted the individual testing sessions with the
children in the pilot study.
The knowledge of affect words test was pretested on
two groups of four children. The investigator found with
the first four children that they did not understand the
instruction "define" when the examiner asked them to
"define happy"; therefore a second variation was tried
with a second group of four children. They were asked
"how would you b£ if you were happy?" The examiner
followed this inquiry with "tell me a time you were happy,
when were you happy, and tell me about being happy." The
examiner was instructed to repeat these cues as many times
as necessary until in her best clinical judgment she could
decide whether the subject understood each affect word
or not.
Scoring Criteria. A liberal scoring criteria was
developed. A child's answer was correct if he could
verbally give (1) a synonym, (2) concrete action or
situation, or (3) a nonverbal facial or postural gesture
appropriate to the conventional way in which the described
feeling might be expressed.
29
Examiner Accuracy. As a basis for evaluating the
female examiner's clinical judgment, she was encouraged
to make extensive notes in the latter testing trial. The
sessions also were tape recorded. The investigator and
another PhD candidate clinical psychologist (called a
co-rater henceforth) independently listened to the tapes and
read the examiner's notes. Both observers agreed with the
examiner's judgment on 90% of the test responses. The scale
is reproduced in Appendix A.
Affect Acknowledgement Scale
Children gradually learn to discriminate and acknow-
ledge, one feeling from another. They know when they feel
good or bad, happy or sad, scared or angry. The literature
suggested that deprived Negro children have a great deal
of difficulty in matching more subtle affect words with
their subjective experiences than do children more exposed
to advantaged child rearing techniques.
A multiple choice Affect Acknowledgement Scale was
devised, The subjects were asked a series of questions
beginning with the statement "How would you be if " ?"
Various situations were then described such as "saw a
monster on TV," The child was given a choice of three
answers such as "(1) angry, (2) scared, (3) happy," All
statements were designed to elicit how the particular
child would feel given a particular frustrating or
30
emotionally arousing situation. Questions did not relate
to how others might feel but related to how the child
personally would feel in the described situation.
Pilot Study. A pilot study using the same testing
examiner was done with the same two groups of four children
previously described. The first pretesting was not done
with the above described multiple choice format; however,
for pbjectivity purposes and to reduce the time of admin-
istration, a multiple choice format was introduced and
pretested.
Scoring Criteria. A three choice format for the
test instrument was devised. Before the final pretesting
the investigator and the co-rater reviewed the test answers
together, changing several where necessary, until they were
in complete agreement on the appropriateness of the correct
answer in each test statement. The correct answer in each
test statement was distributed randomly between first,
second, and third choices so response style or set bias
would be distributed randomly. The final form consisting
of 26 items appears in Appendix B.
Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale
Discrimination of other children's and adult's
feelings was felt to be an important affect awareness
dimension. Disadvantaged Negro children as compared to
advantaged children were described as having a reduced
31
or impaired ability to sense how others might be feeling
whether sad, mad, angry, etc. To measure this "other"
directed affect awareness dimension, a test was devised
similar to the Sarbin Stick Figures (Sarbin, 1954). Ten
stick figures were drawn individually on 5" x 8" cards.
Each figure had a different facial and/or postural expres-
sion. A multiple choice answer format was adopted. Instruc
tions were "This is a play picture of a (boy) (girl) (same
sex as subject)." "Does he feel , , or ?"
Three affect choices were then stated such as "loved, mad,
or scared."
Pilot Study. Four children were pretested with the
stick-figure scale. Some confusion was noted with three of
the affect choices initially selected as correct answers,
so these were revised by the investigator and the co-rater.
Correct choices were randomized between first, second, and
third positions. The test was readministered and was felt
to be acceptable for the final research. (See Appendix C.)
Evaluative Responses of Good and Bad
As was noted previously, the child's ability to
evaluate his experience is loaded with affective meaning
revolving around good and bad acts. This is particularly
true with regard to bad or undesirable behavior iri Negro
children; however, the extent to which deprived Negro
children are reinforced or rewarded for good or positive
32
behavior is questioned in the literature. It was felt,
therefore, that a test designed to measure the child's
ability to evaluate "good" and "bad" acts from a social
standpoint would be extremely important.
Rhine, Hill, and Wandrufs (1967) devised a test mea-
suring the development of these concepts of good and bad
in children age 2 through 6 years which was utilized. The
test is a multiple choice picture test in which a child is
shown four pictures with the following instructions: "In
these pictures somebody is doing something very good" (or
"very bad" if the set contained a "bad" picture). "I want
you to show me the one who is doing something very (good,
bad)." Then, each picture was described according to a
prescribed statement. The child then selected one of the
four pictures depicting good or valued behavior or a bad
or less desirable behavior depending on the instructions.
The other three incorrect pictures were neutral in content,
not having a positive or negative act depicted. There was
a total of 16 sets of four pictures. In eight of the sets
the boy or girl was described as doing something "good,"
and in eight of the sets the boy or girl in the picture
was described as doing something "bad." Three scores were
derived: (1) total number of correct discriminations;
(2) the correct number of "bad" discriminations made cor-
rectly; and (3) the total number of "good" discriminations
made correctly. The test appears in Appendix D.
33
Self-Concept /
A review of the literature suggested that Negro
children have a very poor evaluation and feeling for
themselves as independently worthwhile and valuable
persons; therefore, self-concept was evaluated for change
as a function of participation in the HDP. The authors
of the HDP suggested that children's self-concepts are
changed positively through group stimulation and accep-
tance and through the positive feedback the child receives
from being associated closely with his teacher in an
emotionally warm and reinforcing situation.
Self-concept is a complex multidimensional concept
that is defined in many different ways. The importance of
self-concept in personality development is, however,
demonstrably clear. Rogers (1951) stated that " . . . the
self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an
organized configuration of the perceptions of the self
which are admissible to an awareness [p. 55]." Perceptions
of "self" are felt to be based on feedback obtained from
other people as well as perceptions, thoughts, and feelings
one has about his own unity, integrity, and strengths.
Self-concept is reported to be a developmentally learned
awareness evolving from the evaluations made by significant
others (Mullahy, 1955). Children typically behave in
acceptable ways which parents find rewarding; thus, the
34
child learns that he performs "good" behaviors and that he
is a "good" person. Evaluations of the "good me," a term
coined by Harry Stack Sullivan, are thus internalized or
held to be true by the child. Similarly, "bad me" concepts
are developed as the child is punished for unacceptable
acts and as he encounters aversive or unrewarding situations
and feelings which he defines as "bad." These "good me"
and "bad me" concepts are thus felt to be derived early in
life to form a relatively stable and autonomous set of
feelings, thoughts, motives, and values a person has about
himself regardless of the social context in which he later
finds himself.
Also often included in the definitions of self-concept
is the public or social self (Mead, 1956). This concept
has to do with the more flexibly changing attitudes, feelings
and belief s a person derives about himself as he interacts
in his social environment. These attitudes about self are
derived from social experiences in which other people
respond to the person as desirable, undesirable, socially
acceptable, and relevant or irrelevant to the social norms
of the given group. Attitudes such as these are thought
to be changeable since they are derived through feedback
a person receives from work, in school, and in social
activities.
35
Thus there are two categories of experience related
to self-concept. One refers to rather public information
about self which changes from social context to social
context. The other refers to a more private, early
developed set of feelings, thoughts, attitudes, beliefs,
and values that retain a certain autonomy and integrity
in the personality regardless of the social context.
In a critique of devices which have been used to
measure self-concept, Strong and Feder (1961) found at
least 17 instruments devised within the last few years
to measure some form of self-concept, self-esteem, self-
confidence, etc. The majority of these instruments is
not appropriate for use with children whereas others are
ill-defined or do not yield reliability coefficients on
retest to insure even minimal confidence in results. Some
instruments while having acceptable reliabilities, do not
show enough sensitivity to reflect changes in self-concept
as they occur over time. For these reasons, the selection
of a self-concept scale suitable for use with young children
was extremely important for the research. The Brown IDS
Self-Concept Referents Test (Brown, 1966) was chosen because
it fulfills many of the criteria mentioned above. It was
developed from the Children's Self-Concept Test (Brown,
1966).
36
The Brown IDS Self-Concept R^fg^Gnts Test (Brown)
The theoretical basis for the Brown scale was derived
from Mead's (1934, 1956) theory of self. Mead suggested
that the individual experiences himself indirectly, or as
an object, through the perceptions others in his social
group have of him. The person becomes an "object" to
himself by taking the attitudes of other individuals
toward himself. For instance, the developing child may
have views of himself derived from his perception of how
his parents see him, how his teacher sees him, and how
peers view him. The child then develops attitudes about
himseif based on how he feels others perceive him as a
person.
In contrast to the self as "object," Mead postulated
another portion of the self as "subject." These feelings,
attitudes, beliefs, and characteristic motives are derived
from feelings of self-worth and intrinsic self-regard held
by an individual for himself. They are felt to originate
initially in the child's interactions with "significant
others" such as parents, siblings, and others who directly
interact with the young child as he defines and constructs
his world. In this early social-emotional context the child
develops a frame of reference and continues to use these
"referents" as a part of his definition of reality. It is
this context to which the psychoanalytic writers devote
í
37
their greatest efforts, particularly emphasizing the early
mother-child relationship and this relationship's contri-
bution to the development of characteristics and attitudes
such as trust-nontrust, giving-receiving, assertion-
submission, dependency-autonomy, and other dimensions of
ego development. Mead did not deal directly with intra-
psychic aspects of development, as did the psychoanalytic
and ego-psychologic theorists; however, his conceptual
scheme is useful especially as a basis for the Brown scale.
Payne (1970) , in an unpublished dissertation, reported
that Brown test-retest reliabilities among Negro preschool
children were .71 and with preschool whites .76. He also
reported that an independent criterion rating of self-
concept by teachers of disadvantaged Negro children cor-
related significantly with test scores of self-concept.
Brown (1966) demonstrated the usefulness of the test and
ease of administration with 4- and 5-year-old Negro and
white children.
The Brown test allows a child to verbally describe
himself on 15 bipolar dimensions such as "happy-sad,"
"good looking-ugly," and 13 others using four specific
referents:
(1) The child as he sees himself;
(2) The child as he perceives the way his mother
sees him;
38
(3) The child as he perceives the way his teacher
sees him;
(4) The child as he perceives the way "other kids"
see him.
Sample questions alorig each referent using one of
the 15 descriptive dimensions "happy-sad" follow: . h
(1) Can you tell me, is (child's name) happy or sad: l? ii
(2) Does 's mother think is happy or sad?
(3) Does 's teacher think is happy or sad?
(4) Do other kids think is happy or sad?
The Brown test is presented in Appendix E. Scores
obtained include: (1) "Self as Seen by Self," (2) "Self
as Seen by Mother," (3) "Self as seen by Teacher," (4) "Self
as Seen by Peers," and (5) "Total Self Referent."
Teachers' Behavioral Ratings
External behavioral criteria of change in the experi-
mental and control children over time was considered a
crucial factor. Teachers' ratings of two different types
were utilized to provide data. The experimental and con-
trol children were evaluated by their regular teacher on
the Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Sines, J. 0.,
Parker, J. D. , Sines, L. K., Owen, D. R., 1969) and the
Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale.
. 1
39
Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist
This checklist has been used with mothers to identify
six independent clinical dimensions or scales (1) Aggres-
sion, (2) Inhibition, (3) Activity Level, (4) Sleep Dis-
turbance, (5) Somatization, and (6) Sociability (Sines
et al., 1969). The instructions for the test were modified
slightly so that teachers responded to 70 items in a true- ii >»
false manner.
The Missouri scales were designed to identify signifi-
cant psychopáthological behaviors exhibited by children.
The scales are measures of problem behavior with the
exception of the sociability scale. The scales have been
correlated with actual clinical evaluations in 15 child
guidance centers throughout the United States and Canada.
Seven scores were obtained for each child. Six of
these scores were as listed above, while the seventh scale
was a measure of the total number of problem or pathology
items the teacher checked for each child. Items which
compose each scale are listed in Appendix F.
Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale
A second set of paper and pencil teacher rating scales
was adapted from items appearing on (1) a preschool progress
report used in a private school in Galveston, Texas; and
(2) Gilbert's (1969) analysis of discriminating affect
items on the Teachers Adjective Checklist.
40
Teachers checked whether they strongly agreed, agreed,
were undecided, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each
of the 54 test items (see Appendix G). The test items
contain 25 positive or socially more complimentary items
such as "enters into play with others" and 29 more negative
or socially uncomplimentary items such as "not interested
in learning new things." Four separate measures were
derived based on content of the items. These scales were
labeled as follows: (1) "Affect Awareness" (AA); (2)
"Happiness-Unhappiness" (U); (3) "Mature Controls" (M);
and (4) "Intellectual Attitudes" (I).
The "Affect Awareness" (AA) scale included eight
items which attempted to measure the teacher's opinion of
how well a child could express or make his feelings known
to peers and teachers. It was hypothesized that children
involved in the HDP would become more capable of making
their feelings known to others than would control children.
"Unhappiness-Happiness" (U) contained 11 statements.
The scale purported to measure the teacher's perception of
a child's characteristic mood or emotional state. After
the HDP, experimental subjects were expected to show a
more positive happy outlook and mood compared with the
control subjects.
The third scale, "Mature Controls" (M), contained 26
statements. The statements reflected a child's ability
41
to control unacceptable behavior and produce socially
acceptable behavior primarily in a classroom setting.
Items had to do with control of aggression, ease of moti-
vation of a child toward constructive tasks, impulse
control and ability to avoid over stimulation, and in
general social cooperation in the classroom. The HDP
was hypothesized as potentially having a socializing
effect on experimental children due to the program's
emphasis on the control of "bad" behavior and the devel-
opment of empathetic feelings for others.
"Intellectual Attitudes" (I), the fourth scale,
contained nine items which purported to measure how well
a child involved himself in the learning process, verbalized
his ideas in class, and showed interest in new learning in
the classroom. The authors of the HDP claimed that as a
result of the group procedure children become more in-
terested and verbally involved in more formal school
activities. Experimental subjects thus were expected to
show gains in interest and in verbal expressiveness as
compared to control subjects.
Each of the four scales was scored in such a way so
that the higher a child's score the more positive was the
teacher's evaluation.
42
Procedures
Subjects in each of the four groups were pretested
and posttested. Psychometric tests and teacher's rating
yielded the research data. Children in the two experi-
mental groups, EI and EII, received the HDP spread over
a 12 school week period. Children in Control Groups CI
and CII were involved in their normal curriculum while
the experimental children were receiving the HDP.
A female Negro teacher was selected to teach the HDP.
She was involved in teaching 4- and 5-year-old Head Start
children in a day-care center other than the three centers
from which the experimental and control children were
chosen. She was working part-time on an elementary educa-
tion degree at a local predominantly Negro university,
was in her early forties, and had several years experience
working in Head Start. Her selection was made by the
Director of Educational Services in the Head Start Program.
The director attempted to choose a teacher who worked well
with younger children and showed stability, consistency,
and maturity.
The teacher was trained in HDP methods by the inves-
tigator over a period of two weeks. The six, two-hour
sessions with the teacher included instruction in the
philosophy and theory behind the HDP. Additionally, she
was exposed to some of the effects of the program by
43
participating in several classroom demonstrations the author
conducted with her regular class. The actual lessons which
she was to teach also were reviewed. Following the training,
she was instructed to do only the "Magic Circle" during
the time she was with the experimental groups. She also
was instructed not to discuss the group procedure with
any of her colleagues except the Educational Director of
the center. Once the sessions were begun, the investigator
had little or no contact with the teacher, other than an
occasional phone call to confirm that the materials neces-
sary for conducting the groups were being supplied
appropriately.
Since one experimental group was in one center and
the other experimental group was in another center, the
teacher followed a prescribed schedule. The teacher
arrived at the Mainland Center and began Experimental
Group I (EI) at approximately eight-thirty each morning
throughout the experimental period of 12 weeks or 60 days.
Following her 15 minute session with the 10 experimental
children in Experimental Group I (EI), she proceeded to
the Galveston Head Start Center and began the same lesson
with Experimental Group II (EII). The lessons taught were
drawn from the HDP Lesson Guide, Level B, Unit Four -
Communications (1969). This particular unit reflects the
intent of the HDP philosophy and approach most clearly.
si
K' I 1
44
The activities taught involved the following topics:
(1) First week - Pleasant feelings
(2) Second week - Unpleasant feelings
(3) Third week - Pleasant thoughts
(4) Fourth week - Unpleasant thoughts
(5) Fifth week - Positive behavior
(6) Sixth week - Negative behavior |
The seventh through twelfth week followed exactly ^
the same schedule with these six units being repeated. It
should be noted that the repetition of this unit in two
consecutive six weeks departs from the method in which the
regular program is presented. The set of lesson plans
are available through the Human Development Training Insti-
tute (Bessell, 1967).
The experimental and control children's regular
teachers completed the Missouri Children's Behavior Check-
list and a Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale. On pretesting,
the teachers were unaware that impending research on the
HDP was to be conducted in the day-care centers. They were
asked to evaluate their children so that the children's
level of development could be assessed. The test instruc-
tions stressed the necessity for them to be as completely
objective and straight forward in evaluating their children
as they possibly could be.
45
Following pretesting, teacher orientation for those
teachers having experimental and control subjects in their
classes was conducted. The teachers were instructed in a
group meeting not to treat either the experimental or
control group children in any special manner. They were
given no other instruction regarding the experimental
program other than that it was a developmental program for ij
the enrichment of desirable strengths which would later
help their children cope better in public school. They also
were instructed that control group children would receive
the same program following the experimental group children's
experience. The teachers were instructed to tell any of
the children in the control groups who wished to go to the
experimental group sessions that they would be included
later on.
Pre- and post-psychometric tests measuring receptive
vocabulary, four affect dimensions, and self-concept were
administered by an experienced female examiner. The sub-
jects were tested on a randomized schedule in each day-care
center. The examiner had no knowledge of experimental or
control subjects or from which centers they were chosen.
The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1959) was
administered to all subjects immediately after they were
selected for inclusion in an experimental or control group.
Results were used to obtain an initial impression of how
similar each group selected was compared to the others.
46
The groups were not significantly different in Peabody raw
scores. The examiner then was instructed to proceed with
the rest of the pretesting battery. Each child was admin-
istered individually the following tests in two sessions
of approximately 30 to 45 minutes:
1. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test (Brown,
1966)
2. Stick-Figure Affect Awareness Test
3. Affect Acknowledgement
4. Knowledge of Affect Words
5. Evaluation Responses Inventory (Rhine, Hill, , I
Wandruff, 1967). -i
Posttesting differed from pretesting in one respect.
The Peabody was not administered to all subjects prior to
the remainder of the battery but was administered at the
same time the psychometric battery was administered to
each individual child.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis la
After covariate adjustment there are significant
differences between mean posttest experimental group scores
and mean posttest control group scores on the following
dependent variables:
Brown IDS Self Referents Test (Total Scores)
1. Self as Seen by Self
47
2, Self as Seen by Mother
3, Self as Seen by Teacher
4. Self as Seen by Peers
5. Total Self Referent - Global Self-Concept
Evaluative Responses Inventory
1. Total "Good" responses correct
2. Total "Bad" responses correct
3. Total "Good" plus total "Bad" responses correct
Knowledge of Affect Words
1, Total number correctly defined
Stick Figure Affect Discrimination Scale
1, Total number correctly discriminated
Affect Acknowledgment Scale
1, Total number of correct choices
Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale (Total Scores)
1, Affect Awareness (AA)
2, Unhappiness - Happiness (U)
3, Mature Controls (M)
4, Intellectual Attitudes (lA)
Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Total Score)
1, Sociability (So)
More specifically it is hypothesized that children in Experi-
mental Group I (EI) will score significantly higher than
children in Control Group I (CI), Likewise, children in
Experimental Group II (EII) will score significantly
48
higher than children in Control Group II (CII). Addition-
ally, children in Experimental Group I (EI) will score
significantly higher than children in Control Group CII
(distal control group) on the above listed dependent
variables (CRAC-4).
Hypothesis Ib
After covariate adjustment, experimental subjects will
achieve significantly lower mean posttest scores than control
subjects on group comparisons presented above in Hypothesis
la (EI vs CI; EII vs CII; EI vs CII) on the following
variables:
Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Total Scores)
1. Aggression (A)
2. Inhibition (I)
3. Activity Level (H)
4. Sleep Disturbance (SL)
5. Somatization (Ps)
6. Total number of pathogenic items checked (Tp)
Hypothesis 2
There is a significant difference in gain scores from
pretest to posttest for experimental over control subjects
on Peabody Picture Vocabulary raw scores with experimentals
predicted to show a larger gain (t test).
:i
49
Hypothesis 3
After covariate adjustment, there are significant
differences between mean posttest scores of experimental
females taken as a group over experimental males taken as
a group. Female experimentals are expected to score signif-
icantly higher than males on variables measuring positive
or desired personality characteristics as was detailed in
Hypothesis la and significantly lower than males on vari-
ables measuring negative or undesirable characteristics
as was detailed in Hypothesis Ib (CRAC-2).
Hypothesis 4
After covariate adjustment, there are no significant
differences between mean posttest scores of control males
taken as a group and control females taken as a group along
the above listed dependent variables as outlined in Hypoth-
eses la and Ib (CRAC-2).
Hypothesis 5
After covariate adjustment, there are significant
differences between mean posttest scores of experimental
males taken as a group and control males taken as a group
along the above listed 22 dependent variables. Experimen-
tal males are expected to score significantly higher on
variables measuring positive or desirable characteristics
as outlined in Hypothesis la and significantly lower on
K.' t-i I I '
50
negative or undesirable characteristics as noted in
Hypothesis Ib (CRAC-2).
Hypothesis 6
After covariate adjustment, there are significant
differences between mean posttest scores of experimental
females taken as a group and control females taken as a
group along the above listed dependent variables. Experi-
mental females are predicted to score significantly higher
on dependent variables measuring desirable characteristics
(Hypothesis la) and significantly lower on undesirable
characteristics (Hypothesis Ib) (CRAC-2).
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
General Summary of Collected Data and Q^g^riization of Results Presented
During the course of the experimental period several
children were lost from the experimental and control groups.
A complete set of posttest psychometric data was not col-
lected for one subject in Group EI, one subject in Group CI,
two subjects in Group EII, and two subjects in Group CII.
However, due to the small numbers of subjects in each group
teacher rating data were obtained during the posttesting
procedure on each child that dropped out. Six subjects,
therefore, have no psychometric posttest scores, but all
of the teachers' rating data are reported. Table 1 displays
mean pretest and posttest scores calculated by groups on
all dependent variables utilized in the research.
The analysis of results are presented in the following
order: (1) characteristics of the children studied; (2)
results of data analysis revealing differences between
experimental and control groups; (3) changes in intelli-
gence as a function of participation in the HDP; (4) Dif-
ferential responses of boys and girls to the HDP; (5) Post-
hoc analysis of collapsed experimental and control group
data.
;i
51
tn (U
iH JQ (d
• H
>
c: <D
c (U
<u Q
>1 JQ
CU 13 O
o >1
(0 (U }^ o u w • p CQ Q) - P •M (Q O CU
4J CQ O - P (U
C (d (U
(U
iH H 0 H M •P O, C 13 0 0 U U
0
iH H 0 U Q, •P :3
c 0 0 u u 0
i H <d 4J H p: H (U
e a •H 0 u 0 (U }-l cuo X PL)
H rd -P H c: (U a g Í3
•H 0 }^ u (u 0 C14 X f^
c 1 -
^ f
•r » f
z
Q w
IX
s
Q w
IX
2;
Q æ
IX
^
"
Q w
IX
u H 3 d H -1 d >
0 00 i H
(N 10 ro cr>
• • 0 0 r H i H
0 i n 10 ro t ^ ^
. • • LO cy> ' îT
ro n
0 <y> r-\
ro CN i H ON
• • i H - ^ H
0 CN CN ^ CN 00
• . . ro cT LO ro ro
0 00 H
ro "^ <y» vo
• • r^ 0
H
, 0 ro ro 0 0 V û CXD
. • • CT\ ^ ^ CN ro
0 <J\ H
00 ^ ro CN
• • 0 00 H
0 H H CJ H CN
• • • ro 0 vo ro ^
fd ^ Û) 0 (d M (U p: CI4 0
1 G . . 1 Q) >1 (0 u
Ti (UÆ (U 0 M -P M-l
^ 0 W H-l íd 0 0 -H (U co ou'd P4
H
0 00 H
0 0 H 0
• • CM CN
0 0 0 0 VO »^
• • • H H 0 H H 1
0 a^ H
VD ^ (j\ <y>
• • H H
0 '^ l ' VO *^ ^ H
• • • H H 0 H H 1
0 00 H
'5Í* r o H cr>
• • H
0 0 cr> CN m ro
• • • CN cs H H
0 cy» H
0 H i n t ^
• • ro
0 0 0 00 0 CNJ
• • • 0 ro CN H H
(U M
m a (U H 1 U 0 1 f^ C/D M-4 (U
H ^ • • (U 0) C! Cn -P ^H ^ (0 «W 0 (0 0 -H M fd cu 'd »
rsi
0 00 H
H (y\ ^ m
• • CNJ CN
0 ro r^ VO H - ^
• • • H H 0 H H 1
0 cr> H
cr> i n 00 H
• • H OJ
0 cr> cj ro 00 10
• • • H H 0 H H
0 00 H
CT ro CT cr>
• •
0 0 0 cr> 0 H
• • • CN ro 0 H H
0 cy> H
0 ro • ^ cs
• • ro H
0 r^ r^ 0 VO VD
• • • H CSl H H H
1+-I <U H }^ U <D Q> C
W Æ (U -P U
„ 0 Q) C S -P M-l 15 (U <n <H 0 CO 5-1 0 -H ^ fd Û4 cu^ CQ
ro
0 00 H
00 <y> r^ 10
• • H r j
0 ro r-VO H ^
• • • H H 0 H H 1
0 cr> H
i n H 0 0
• • ro r j
0 •'í' ^ CN| •«3' CN
• • • H H 0 H H
0 00 H
cr> ^ r- vo
• •
0 ro ro 00 H ro
• • • cvj ro 0 H H
0 <r> H
vo 0 <y> ro
• • ro H
0 r-- r^ CN r^ i n
• • • 0 CN CN H H
M-l ^ <U H (U U <U Æ C æ U <U
fd Ví . . Q) 0) C EH - P U-I
^ <u (0 m 0 <0 >-l 0 •H J-l fd 0:4 a i i 3
m •'T
52
<u }-i o u <0
<u u <u u <u
M-l H-l -H T l
II
-p co <u -p <u
-p <n (U 4-í -p <n o 04
u
-p CQ <u - p - p CO o cu I I
-p <0 <u -p <u }^ CL4 I I fd
,l
(U í3 C
-H -P c o CJ I I
w »J pq
H H O H U -P C o u
04
o
Q C/D
o }-l -p
o O U
U O
IX
Q c/a
fd -P H C H (U e cu
•H ^ M o (U }-l 04 CJ X
IX
Q
(d -p H
(U o e
•H }-l
O }-l
(U o 04
IX
Q cn
IX
(U H XI fd
•H }-l fd >
o 00 H
O 00 O 00
v o cr> ro in
• • CN rvj
r ro o H
• •
r o
ro 00 • •
o ro r-ro H H
• • • H H O H H I
0 0 0 0 0 0
• • • VO 'ií' CN ^ ^ I
o ro r 00 H VO
• • • CVJ CN O
I
o cr> o <r> o <T>
<T> - ^ CT> (y\
• • CS H
H 00
o r--• •
a\ r
r- ro ro ro
o vo vo ^ VO CN
• • • H H O H H
O * * '!* i n ^ <T>
• • • in vo o
o in in cy> in ro
• • • CN CN O
I
O 00 H
O 00 O 00
CN ^ 00 VO
• • o o
cy> vo r^ vo
• • CN OJ
vo ro VO CN
• • H CN
o ro ro r- H ' *
. . . CN ro o
o in in vo r^ H
. • • O H H in in
o ro ro H H o
• • • CN 'iî' CN
o cr> o cy> o cy>
in cr> «^ o
• • ">* H
r vo o o>
• • i n ^ H
H r>j i n ^
• • H H
O 00 00 ro r- 'sr
• • • O CN O
O H H ro H 00
• • • CN o r^ ^ i n
O H H VO * * 00
• • • ro ' r o
o 00
(U U O4
M-l I H I <U CO
CO U <U <U
<U u <u u <u
fd 4-> o EH
<u u 04 I I
<u u
<u u <u
<u >
•H -p
<u u 04 I I
C! P4 -P M-l ^ co i w O CO O -H
u fd O4TJ
in
C M-l +J IH l H co m o <U O •H u cn 04T}
vo
co <u co
fd c TJ í3
<u u j : ; <u u <u
o cr> in ro
o in in VO CN VO
• • • vo r o
o cr»
r*- H 00 o
• • H rvj
o in in 00 in r*
• • • in vo o
o 00
CN O CN ro
• • CN H
o ro ro in vo H
• • • in vo H
o cy> H
i n ro 00 ro
• • H H
O ^ ' ^ <y> - ^ m
• • • vo r> o
O O -P ^ H O4 O w M-l fd <o ci) o -H > <u = O4T5
<u >
•H -P fd
H (d >
00
(D •• M <0 O4 <U I <0 I
c = O TJ O4 fd CO PQ
<u =
<u u c 0 u <u
-P U-l <0 M-l O -H O^TI
53 O 00
CN rsj ro r-
• • CN CN
o 00 rsj ^ ro o
• • • cr> <y> o
o cr> H
vo H ro r
• • CN rvj
o r-- H -^
00 <T> O
O 00 H
^ 00 ro CN
• • ro ro
o in in vo t^ H
• • • r o ro
o cr>
in in in H
• • CN rsj
o <T> cr> i n 00 ro
• • • O H H
<U >
-H -P fd :3
<o
u <u u u o
<u u co c: o fd
<u u c <u u <u
-P IH H O4-P <u co m fd co o }-i O •H > <U EH O4 CUTJ
cr>
i'-
TJ (U
c •H -P
o u I I
H H 0 H }^ -P 04
0 0 u u
o
H H o }^ 04 -P ;3 C 0 O }-i
u a
H fd -P H Jí H (U g 04
•H 3 }-i o (U ^ OiCI} ><; ij^
H fd -P H
c (U 04 e í3
•H O U U
<u o 04
^ ;
Q c/a
IX
IS
Q cn
IX
2;
Q C/3
IX
2:
Q æ
IX
(U H XI fd
•H }-l fd >
0 00 H
i n a\ i n vo
• • H H
0 00 00 00 ro i n
• • • i n vo 0
0 cy> H
ro cy> ro H
• • H CN
0 ^ ' ^ ro - ^ H
• • • i n i n 0
0 00 H
H r>-ro H
• • OJ H
0 i n i n r^ r^ 0
• • • • ^ VO CN
0 cr> H
i n r^ rvi 00
• • H 0
0 r- r--r^ vo cr>
• • • i n vo 0
1 (U •H }-l (U M-l O4 0 (u c: Q •• (U
CO M -P C (U U 0 -P 4-1 <U •H CO «+-l
M-4 -P 0 •H «4-1 -H c u ' d < c 0 H
0 00 H
vo ro ^ r>j
• . r j r j
0 CT\ CT ^ 00 "^
• • • ^ ^ 0
0 cr> H
0 ^ VO "^
• • rsj CN
0 ro ro <y> ro "?r
• • • ro - ^ 0
0 00 H
00 cr> i n vo
• • H H
0 ro ro • ^ vo r j
• • • • 3» ^ 0
0 <y> H
ro ro 0 H
• • CM CN
0 ^ ' ^ <T\ »* i n
• • • ^ i n 0
(U U <D <u ::3 u u cn O4 C
•H <u (X4 • • }-l 1 -P <u
^ U -P U-l U <U <0 M-l
•H *H 0 -H -P M-l O I T J co <C
H H
0 00 H
in 0 in in
• • «tí< r í»
0 0 0 vo i n H
• • • CN CN 0 H H 1
0 a\ H
vo 0 00 H
• • ro i n
0 ^* " r vo ^ 00
• • • CN i n r^ H H
0 00 H
00 CN 00 <r>
• • i n ro
0 0 0 H vo i n
• • • ro vo ro H H
0 cr> H
r^ 00 vo 0
• • ro ro
0 r^ r>-vo vo 0
• • • ^ cr> CN H H
1 H ^ 0 <U C }^ <u
4^ Oi u u c: < .. <u
-P u 4-> C <U U <U -P *H (U g CO ^
4-1 <T» 0 -H 4-4 T í O4TJ < <U
rM H
0 0 H H
r* ro VO CN
• • i n i n
0 0 0 CN vo VO
• • • H 0 0 CNJ CN 1
0 0 H H
cr> i n 00 0
• • i n vo
0 0 0 vo 00 00
• • • H 0 0 CN CN 1
0 0 H H
i n cy> vo i n
• • H ro
0 0 0 vo ro ro
• • • 00 00 0 H H 1
0 0 H H
ro i n <y> H
• • ^ i n
0 0 0 <y> ' ^ i n
• • • CM 0 H H rsj 1
• • tn 1 c: <u
•H ^ -P fd <u fd ^ <u u
H p:í < }^ CJ 0 O4 <u 0 4 -P 1 >-l
x : <u u 1 <u u x : <u <o -P 4-1 CO U 4-4 (0 <0 4-1 <U fd 4-1 <U 0 H }-i <U < j : : O4TJ a* EH
ro H
54 0 0 H H
cr> ro *T> 00
• • ^ ^
0 0 0 vo 00 00
• • • CN 00 ro ro rM
0 0 H H
00 r^ CN 0
• . i n r^
0 0 0 vo ro r^
. . . r^ 00 0 CN CN
0 0 H H
.sr CN ro 00
. . * * 00
0 0 0 CN i n ro
. . • H CN H ro ro
0 0 H H
vo ro M* H
• • i n ^
0 0 0 vo 00 00
• • • cj\ 00 0 rsj rsj 1
• • t n > i C O4
•H O4 -P fd <u td ffi u
H fiî 1 c 0 > i (U 0 V O4 u
x ; (U O4 (U u x ; fd -P iH <o u x ; (u (0 4-1 (u fd c: M 0 •H }^ (U D O4 04^0 Pm H
• ^ H
<u
•H -p C! o u I
i-q
< EH
1
H H O H U -P O4 C 3 0 0 U U
0
H H 0 }H O4 -P ^ c 0 0 U u 0
H fd -P H C H <U B O4
•H íJ ^ 0 <U U O4O X H
H fd -P H c (U O4
•H 0 }^ }-l (U C5 O4 X U
s
Q co
Ix
s
Q w
IX
2;
-
Q C/3
IX
2
Q æ
IX
<u H ^ fd
•H ^ fd >
••
c: •H -p fd
0 0 H H
in H 0 00
• • 00 H
H
0 0 0 cy> vo ro
• • • rsj 0 rvj r^ r^ 1
0 0 H H
0 vo . * in
• • 0 ro CN H
0 0 0 0 r-- r^
• . • * * H r^ vo r^
0 0 H H
in 0 in vo
• • 00 r^
H
0 0 0 r* H VD
• • • CN ^ 00 r- vo 1
0 0 H H
<y> vo r^ as
• • .sr <T> H
0 0 0 CN 0 OJ
• • • vo H in r~ r-> 1
1 c <u <u 0 }-l u
H Oí U OJ C 0 0 V4 x: <u u x: <0 u <u fd
1 (U (U 1 }-l }^ CO <U ;3 H -P 4-4 -P 0 CO 4-1 fd J 0 -H
V4 <u S -P cunj a* EH in H
0 0 H H
r^ ro r* t^
• • in vo
0 0 0 ^ r- r^
• • • in ro H rsj CN 1
0 0 H H
VO H cr> ^
• • 00 r^
0 0 0 cr> in "^
• • • r^ in CN cvj oj 1
0 0 H H
r* ro r^ a\
• • '^i' cr>
0 0 0 H CM cr>
• • • in ro H rvj rsj 1
0 0 H H
<y> vo r^ rg
• • in in
0 0 0 cT cn 0
• • • vo ro ro oj rsj 1
tP <U C'-i u
•H fd O4 -P íJ 1 <u fd -P 1 u
H « U <U C 0 <U 'CJ <u 0 } H :3 }-i
^ <U H 4-» <U U JC (U - H -P 4^ Ul U -P -P (0 4-1 <u fd c -P 0 -H }-l (U H < Oí'CJ CU EH
VD H
CO w • •
•H c: M ^ <U 0 í3 >-l •H 0 TJ > CO H fd CO •H ^
0 0 H H
0 H ' í ' ^
• • vo in
0 0 0 in H . r
• • • vo vo 0
1
0 0 H H
r^ vo 'd' vo
• • ^ in
0 0 0 r^ r^ 0
• • • r j ro H
0 0 H H
cr> ro cr> r-
• • CN ro
0 0 0 in H "^
• • • rsj CN 0
1
0 0 H H
<T> 0 cr> . *
• • ^ -^
0 0 0 ro vo r^
• • • r^ in H
1
^^ < ' ' G <U 0 u
•H C CO <U CO U <U <U U -P 4-1 tJi <U <Q 4-4 Cr» }-i 0 -H
•H Æ: <u < 04 o^TJ S U CQ
r-H
r . r ^ 5 5 0 0 H H
ro vo 00 00
• • CN ro
0 0 0 0 0 0
• • • m ^ H
1
0 0 H H
0 in 00 CN
• • CN ro
0 0 0 in H vo
• • • •^ in 0
0 0 H H
^ 0 r^ H
• • r j CN
0 0 0 00 0 00
• • • ro ro 0
1
0 0 H H
ro 00 'd' H
• • ro CN
0 0 0 0 cri cy>
• • • in in 0
1
^ H
• * — '
c: <u 0 u
. . •H G •H -P (U ^ •H }-| íJ XI <U 0 -H -P 4-1 CO i^ <U <0 4-1 tn C U 0 -rA
•H H O4 O4TJ S 00 H
TJ (U :3
•H 4-)
c 0 u 1 1
H
H i- l
m < EH
1
H H 0 H }^ •P 04
O 0 u u
u
H H
o U O4
Co
nt
Gro
u
H fd •P H C H (U
e 0, •H Í3 U 0 (U }^ 0 . 0 X w
H fd -P H J^ (U O4 e 3
•H 0 }^ }^ (U C!) 0. X w
z
Q co
IX
^:
Q C/3
IX
s
Q cn
IX
2
Q cn
IX
(U H X3 (d
•H
u fd >
0 0 H H
^ VO H ro
• • ro CN
0 0 0 i n r^ CN
• • • ro ro 0
0 0 H H
i n r^ ro H
• • H CN
0 0 0 vo vo 0
• • • OJ CN 0
0 0 H H
0 i n r^ CN
• • H H
0 0 0 ro ro 0
• • • "^ CN CN
1
0 0 H H
H H Ta< r -
• • CN H
0 0 0 i n "" f H
• • • • ^ ro H
1
(U
^ u . . > i f f i j : : •H -P " - ' (U V -H }^ :3 > H (U 0 -H <U -P 4^ CQ -P > <U CO 4-1 CO U <U }H 0 -H
•H < h^ 04 04^3 S cr> H
0 0 H H
ro cr> r^ 00
H H
0 0 0 H ^ 00
• • • OJ H 0
1
0 0 H H
ro 00 CN VO
• • H 0
0 0 0 i n r^ 00
• • • H 0 0
1
0 0 H H
0 ro r - i n
• • 0 0
0 0 0 - ^ i n H
• • • 0 0 0
0 0 H H
vo 0 i n H •
• • H H
0 0 0 ro cr> **
• • • r j 0 H
1
1 <u to ^ u
. . •H ^q G •H Q W <U ^ ^ U :3 04 • <u 0 <U XJ -P 4-1 CO <U }-l <U CO 4-1 tO H :3 }^ 0 -H
•H æ -P Oi O i ' i î
s 0 04
0 0 H H
cr> H cr> r^
• • 0 0
0 0 0 cr> i n ^
• • • 0 0 0
1
0 0 H H
OJ H ro r-
• • 0 0
0 0 0 H i n 'sí'
• • • 0 0 0
0 0 H H
00 CN VO • í'
• • 0 0
0 0 0 ro rg H
• • •
0 0 0 1
0 0 H H
CN 0 •^ r^
• • 0 0
0 0 0 CN VO ^
• • • 0 0 0
<u 1 u
. . fd ' -^ G •H N CO <U M -H CI4 U 0 4^^ 0) 0 fd C -P 4-1 <0 e 0 <U <0 4^ CO 0 -H ^ 0 -H
•H C/3 -p O4 O4T} S H CN
0 0 H H
rsj CN cr> H
• • rvj ro
0 0 0 o^ 00 o>
• • • 'sr i n 0
0 0 H H
' í ' CN ^ VO
• • ro H
0 0 0 ^ 00 - ^
• • • •^ i n H
0 0 H H
r>i vo H r^
• • CN H
0 0 0 ^ 0 VO
• • • r - 00 0
0 0 H H
0 ro rN -"^
• • ro H
0 0 0 vo vo 0
• • • Tj* vo r j
> i -P <u •r^ Q) U
. . H V4 G •H -H O4 <U M ^ 1 }-l í3 fd 1 <u 0 •H ^ -P 4-1 CO U 0 CO 4-1 co 0 cn 0 -H
•H C/3 ^ Oi'C S CN OJ
56
TJ <U 3
c •H •P o u I I
w
<
O H
•P C O u
04
O U U
H H O U O4 -P í3 C O O U u o
H fd •P H c: H <u g 04
•H 3 4 O
<u u 0 4 O
w
fd -P H Cí 0) O4
•H }^
:3 o u
<u u 04 Xî
w
a
Q cn
IX
Q C/D
IX
Q cn
IX
Q
IX
<u H XI fd
•H fd >
o o
H VO ro o j
• • H <r>
0 0 0 o r>- ro
• • • 00 m CN H H I
57
o o
H CN VO 00
• • in 00
0 0 0 ro vo ro
• • • H rvj H
o o H H
» • - ;
CN 00 cr> ro
• • "•vT i n
0 0 0 rsj o rvj
• • . H 00 ro H I
o o H H
<r> 00 r^ vo
• • '^ m
0 0 0 ^ ^ o
• • • H vo m CN H I
u •H ^ •• G O4
•H <U EH Vi C n ^ íJ 0 co 0 X3 g CQ 4-J <U CO fd -P
•H CI4 H
ro CN
<U U
<u u í í <u u <u
-P 4-1 CO 4-1 0 •H
04 04TJ
^ ^
58
Characteristics of the Children Studied
Comparisons in mean chronological ages for the four
groups at the beginning of the research revealed no sig-
nificant differences. Table 2 reports the results of
this analysis.
TABLE 2.—Summary of t Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Chronological Ages of Experimental and Control Subjects
Groups Compared
EI, EII
EI, CI
EI, CII
EII, CI
EII, CII
CI, CII
Means and standard deviations in chronological ages
were respectively: EI, 58.10 + 5.19; EII, 57.80 + 3.49;
CI, 55.30 + 5.52; CII, 56.60 + 5.08. Thus, the groups
contained subjects whose average age fell between approxi-
mately 55 months and 58 months.
Group comparisons of mean pretest Peabody Picture
Vocabulary raw scores are presented in Table 3. Results
indicate that there were no significant differences between
the four groups.
0 . 0 5
0 . 3 8
0 . 2 1
0 . 4 0
0 . 2 0
0 . 1 8
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
t •
! ,: I •
59
TABLE 3.—Summary of t Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Raw Scores of Experimental and Control Subjects
Groups Compared
EI, EII
EI, CI
0 . 3 3
0 . 0 3
0 . 1 0
0 . 2 8
0 . 4 4
0 . 1 3
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Table 4 displays means and standard deviations of
raw scores on the Peabody by group. Mean group raw scores
fell between 29.80 and 35.30. These raw scores correspond
to mental ages of approximately 36 months to 41 months
and place the subjects approximately 16 months to 22 months
below the expected mean for children their chronological
age (see Table 4). Intellectually the children thus
scored well below average. The above data suggest that
the four groups did not differ substantially in chronolog-
ical age or intelligence as measured by receptive vocabu-
lary at the outset of the research.
t-'
EI, CII -0.10 NS l
EII, CI " ^" "'" ^
EII, CII
CI, CII
60
> i TJ o XI fd Q)
íd Q)
(d
Q) t; <
(d u
•H tn O H O
O }-i x: u
(d (U
CO Q) U O U CO
O4 0 O U
^ u fd
« > i XI
> i TJ CO O Q)
XI tn (d < CU
fd Cí +» (d fí (U o I I
i-q CQ < E H
(U u
. ^ ^ < (U (U
I s M M (U 0
1 4-1 U . 4-1 CO < H
l U Q
> i 'd (u 0 t n - ^
Æ < co (d Æ ^ <U H 4Jl< 04 td G I ; ^
-P o ^ c c: g fd <u " ^ OJ S S
H fd
u •H t J i - -0 co
-H Æ 0 -P G C . - -0 0 <
u gju Xí ^ ^ u
<u C tn fd < (U s
G TJ 0 U •H (d 4J
TJ fd c: •H fd > •P Q) C/3 Q
> 1 13 CQ 0 (U
XI u fd 0 (U u Oí cn
Jí ^ fd (d (u 0:;
s
Q* 0 0 >i u
0 H
. 00 rH
0
0 H
• 00 m
00 ro
• 0 H
0 cr>
• ro ro
H W
0 00
• H r j
vo ro
0 00
• r-m
ro cr>
• r
0 00
• cr> o j
H H W
0 ro
0
vo H
cr> ro
0 ro
• m m
ro H
• H H
0 •^
• ro ro
H U
0 vo
m H
H
0 vo
• vo m
rN ro
• 0 H
0 ro
• m ro
H H U
h
>
îi
61
Since an effort was made to obtain essentially equiv-
alent experimental and control groups, several pretest
scores on pretest data were compared. Among the com-
parisons made it was particularly apparent that the two
Experimental Groups EI and EII differed from one another
initially, especially on teacher's ratings; therefore, a l\
post hoc comparison of the two experimental groups on 1»
pretest Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist scores
appears in Table 5.
TABLE 5.—Summary of t. Tests Comparing Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II on Pretest i Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist i Teacher Ratings
Dimension t df
Aggression (A)
Inhibition (I)
Activity Level (H)
Sleep Disturbance (SL)
Somatization (Ps)
Sociability (So)
Total Pathology Items (Tp)
2.609
0.892
0.214
3.502
0.581
-2.305
4.699
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
<.01
NS
NS
<.005
NS
<.025
<.0005
Experimental Group I was rated by their regular
teacher as was Experimental Group II. The Experimental
Group I teacher compared with the Experimental Group II
62
teacher rated her children as significantly more aggressive
("Aggression," £ < .01), as exhibiting significantly more
"Sleep Disturbance" (£ < .005), as significantly less
socially interactive "Sociability" (£ < .025) and as
displaying more pathological behavior ("Total Pathology
Items," p < .005). u
Results of Data Analysis Revealing Differences >
JBetween Experimental and Control Grou]p¥
Research Hypotheses la and Ib predicted that after
covariate adjustment of posttest scores significant dif-
ferences would be found between: (1) Experimental Group I i 1
(EI) and Control Group I (CI, Mainland subjects); (2) ""
Experimental Group II (EII) and Control Group II (CII,
composed of children drawn from single intact classrooms);
and (3) Experimental Group I (EI) and Control Group II
(CII, the distal control group). Various measures of self-
concept, emotional awareness, and teacher's behavioral
ratings were predicted to be different. Peabody raw scores
and pretest scores on respective dependent variables were
utilized as covariates in the analysis of multiple covari-
ance statistical treatment; t tests adjusted for multiple
comparisons were performed to indicate group differences
on each respective dependent variable. Table 6 is a
sxommary of significant results of this analysis.
CQ (U
H X3 (d
•H V4 fd >
•p G Q)
TJ Jí (U O4 Q) Q
H H <
U 0
IW
co C 0 co
•H }-l
. - co C (d (U Ê
-P (0 (U -p •p co 0 04
(d t J O4 (U g -p 0
u co 0
• r i 0 4 T } í3 0 u 0
H 0 u 4-» C 0 u H (d
(d
(U -p (d
•H }^ (d > 0 u
e 0 }^
•p m C <U 73 g
•H }^ Q)
Q) -p (d
H O 4 : 3 X U W H
M-l 0
(d u co
> i ^ P ^ fd ^
co (U -P
:3 - P l
co "^
vo
W 1-1
<
I
Q)
u
(d
O4
e o u
co
O4
0
O
U
o
CQ H o u -p
o
co H (d -p c: Q)
e H -H H }-l U U (U
O, H CO X (d > W -P
CO h-{ n:3 -rA W í5 Q
(d H Æ C -P •H (d
•H
co (U
H CO H CO U fd
H CO U >
•P H U H fd W -P
H
H ^ U TJ
c: co (d > n-l
Jí H -H w fd
Q) H XJ (d
•H U (d >
O4I
4-4 TJ
+>l
oj
4-1 73
+íl
OJ
4-1 73
+»l
m o o
m o
m CN o
m CN o
63 co 2
cn
rsj (N o j o j r j CN CN rsj
00 • « *
00 o
vo r>-H ro
cr> o m m
o a\ 00
r -r>-• ^
r^
cr>
ro rM rsj CN CN
m CN
vo 00
ro
r-00 m vo
o I
2 æ 2;
w U) :2: 2
rsj H
rs rN rsj CN CN CN CN
m 00 r j H
H 00 r » H
r -0 H OJ
m cr> CN ro
vo 00 m r^
vo vo r^ cr>
rN r^ r i ro
CN
00 H 00
• CN
m CN 0
cn ^
m 0
m 0
cn !3
m 0
cn S
cn
CN rsj CN CN CN CN rM CN
ro cr> m vo
rsj
4-1 H Q) C/3 4-1
H . . 0) G co l 0 (0 }-i (d CQ
H vo 0 cr>
m H U Q) Q)
u) x: -p
. . 0 G S ^ 0 co }-i (d PQ
r-vo ro 0
CN
4-1 U H (U (u x: co u
fd . . 0) C tH ^ 0 cn M (d ffl
4-1 H 0 cn • •
rM 0 ^ 0
rsj
(0 U (U (U
a ÍU ^ 0 u ffl
co fd
4-1 H (U U)
• • c
0 H 0 r^
H
H fd
^ -p 0 u rø
0 H
r-m 0 H
rsj
• • co
«1 (U >
-H -P = fd TJ 3 0
H 0 (d ( J > = w
0 cr\ r -H
0 1
• • co ffíl
(U >
-H -P (d = 0 TJ
H (d (d m > = w
H cr> H ro
H
• • CO ctíl
(U >
-H = -P +J H U (d fd (U :3 4-í }^
H 0 }-l (d EH 0
> = u w
rM ro m vo 00
TJ Q) 0
•H -P
O U I I
vo
W
<
n3
(U
}-i
(d
04
e O
U
(0
04
í3
0
}^
C3
co ^ H CO (d H -P O C U Q) -P Ê C
H -H 0 H }-l U U CU
O 4 H co ><: (d > W -P
co i-in:) -r^ W C Q
(d •H ^ j : : -P
•H •H (d ^ 5
(0 (U
H CO H CO U (d
H CO U >
-P H U H fd W -P
c H * — •
H ^ U 73
co fd > r H
c: H -H w fd
s
(U H XI fd
•H }q fd >
OJ
4- l | TJI
-Pl
OJ
4- l | TJl
-Pl
OJ
4- l |
'dl
•Pl
C/3 2
rsj H
00 vo r>-ro
. 0
m 0
.
rN H
m 00 CN CN
« CN
æ s
CN H
m 0 m ' ^
• H
1 •H 4-1 (U Q
CO -P C u 0 (U •H
IW 4-» 4-1 •H < c: cr>
cn ^
rM H
m vo r-H
• 0
co s
rsj H
H 00 00 CN
« 0 1
Ui s
CN H
0 vo • ^ ro
• 0
Q)
u 0 tn
•H W 1 -P
^ U U (U
•H 4- -P 4-1 c/a <
0 H
CO !3
rvj H
cy> ^ r-m
• ro
cn Z
rM H
CN H cr> m
• 0
cn 13
rsj H
0 rsj m m
• H
1 H ^ 0 c ,i4 U -P < J^
(U -P B U (U (U Cn 4-1 TJ 4-1 (U <
H H
• • Cn a •H -p fd Pí
u Q) x:
cn S
m H
m 00 H ^
• 0 1
æ a
m H
m m 0 r~-
• 0 1
U) ^
m H
rM rvi vo rM
• 0 1
co (0 Q)
-P C U (U (U U
u 4-1 fd fd 4-1 ^ Q) < < EH
rM H
U) 2:
m H
ro 00 0 CM
• 0
C/3 13
m H
00 m ro H
• H
cn :3
m H
r-vo CN 0
• 0
• • tJ^ >1 J3 O4
•H Oi -P fd fd K P 1
> i U Oi (U O4
x : (d u x: (d c: 0) D EH
ro H
U) 2:
m H
0 vo ^ rM
• 0 1
m rsj 0
•
m H
vo m rsj rM
• CN
1
cn S
m H
(r> 00 ^ 0
• H
1 • • tn C
•H -P (d p:: co
H }-l (U 0 (U ^ }-i ^ 0 -P U -P j:: fd fd 0 (U S u EH
• ^ H
C/D
s
m H
cr> 0 0 ' í *
• 0 1
C/D 2
m H
^ 00 vo r
• 0 1
U} 2:
m H
cr> ^ 0 0
• 0
• • C7> C H
•H fd -P 0 fd -P « U (U
(U 'd }-i H :3 (U H ^J x: (u -H U -P -P (d j : ; -p (U H < E
m H
co 13
m H
00 • " ^
ro m
• 0 1
cn iz;
m H
rN ro H 00
• 0 1
Ui ^
m H
00 00 H ' í '
• 0 1
^-^ < '—
c 0 . . -H
-H CO U CO í3 (U 0 U co cn CO tT>
-H < s vo H
64
M-
'O Q) 0
•H -P
o u I I
vo w
l
< EH
'O (U
}^
(d
cu
g o u
co
O4
0
0
u iD
\
co ^ H CO (d H •P 0 C U Q) -P
e c H -H 0 H ^ U U (U
O 4 H CO X (d > W -P
CO H f d •H w a Q
(d H Æ Jí -p
•H •H (d ^ 5
(0 (U
H CO H CO
u (d H CO U
> -P
H U H fd W -P
J^ H —
H - -N U TJ
j : : co fd > H
c: H -H w fd 5
(U H XI fd
•H }-l fd >
OJ
itJl T J I
•Pl
oJ
4 - l | 'C^I
-Pl
OJ
I H |
'dl
-Pl
C/D
m H
ro ^* r« m
• H
CO 2:
m H
H cr> CN
• H 1
cn S
m H
m 0 r^
• 0
^_^
H — J3 0
. . -1-1
•H -P M-H 13 XI O^H (0 Æ CO C
•H H
r^ H
*• •H }-4 :3 0 co co
•H
00 H
CO
m H
r-» 0 H <T>
• 0
1
CO 12:
m H
* * r^ m rsj
• H 1
C/D S
m H
vo m 0
• 0
> i - ^ -P ffi •H ^ > H
•H (U •P > U Q) < .-q
• • •H h í3 0 CO (0
•H
2 cr> H
co 2 :
m H
cr> r^ r^ ro
• H i
co s
m H
ro vo 0 0
• 0
1
æ ^
m H
VO ro <T> 0
• 0
1
^-» l-q
1 U) co ^
•H (U Q U
c: O4 (d (U X I (U }-l
H í3 C/D -P
• • •H }-l :3 0 co co
•H
0 CN
U)
m H
m 00 H ^
• 0
æ ^ ;
m H
m H m 00
• 0 1
Ui S
m H
CN m H ro
• 0
1 -^ (d (0 N Pn
•H '*-' -P fd c:
e 0 0 -H C/3 -P
• • •H
U) 2
m H
0 m cr> ro
• H
m 0
•
m H
m CN r^ 00
• H
Ui S
m H
H ro
<y> •
0
> i -P •H H •H
U XI í3 0 co co
•H
H CN
fd • H ^ U 0 0 c/3 w ^
• • •H V 3
U) :2
m ,—1
^ ro H "^
t
0 1
Ui ^
m H
rNj H 0 vo
• H 1
W Z
m H
cr>
H m
• 0 1
u ^ •H O4 G EH Q) ^ t7> 0 (0
0 x: e co co
•H
rM rM
-P (U fd -P 04 H
65
I D!
66
EI vs CI
Four predicted significant mean group differences
between experimental subjects and control subjects were
noted in the EI vs CI group comparisons^ They were as
follows:
l^ Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test: "Self as j II
Seen by Self," t = 2.6593, p < .025. ll "" . ' >
2. "Self as Seen by Teacher," t = 2.0367, £ < .05.
3. "Self as Seen by Peers," t = 2.0402, £ < .05.
4. Evaluative Responses: "Good" Correct, t = 2.1057,
p < .05. '
These results partially supported Hypotheses la and Ib with
regard to self-concept and affect awareness. Hypothesized
differences in teacher rating data were not supported,
however.
EII vs CII
Five significant mean group differences between
experimental and control subjects emerged. Four were
predicted differences and one was not. The differences
occurred on the variables:
1. Evaluative Responses: "Good" Correct, t = 2.9766,
£ < .01.
2. Evaluative Responses: Total "Good + Bad" Correct,
t = 2. 8181, £ < .01.
3. Affect Definitions, t = 2.2285, £ < .05.
K J
1 R 1 ',,
67
4. Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale, "Mature Con-
trols," t = -2.2256, £ < .025. Unexpectedly,
control subjects were rated by their teachers as
more mature in their classroom behavior than were
the experimental subjects.
5. Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist, "Socia-
bility," t = 1.8725, p < .05. i';
Hypotheses la and Ib were thus partially supported with
regard to emotional awareness and teachers ratings. However,
hypotheses predicting differences in the self-concept data
were not supported.
EI vs CII (Distal Control Group)
Results of the comparison of the experimental children
in the Mainland Center (EI) with distal controls in the
Dickinson Center (EI vs CII) revealed six mean group
differences in the predicted direction. These occurred
on the following dependent measures:
1. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test: "Self as
Seen by Self," t = 3.0848, £ < .005.
2. "Self as Seen by Mother," t = 2.5509, £ < .025.
3. "Self as Seen by Teacher," t = 2.5509, £ < .025.
4. "Self as Seen by Peers," t = 2.8901, £ < .01.
5. "Total Self-Concept," t = 2.7477, £ < .01.
6. Evaluative Responses: "Good" Correct, t = 2.5149,
£ < .025.
68
Again, Hypotheses la and Ib were partially supported with
regard to self-concept and emotional awareness. Hypoth-
eses predicting differences in teacher ratings were not
supported.
Changes in Intelligence as a Function of P "< icipation in the HDP
Hypothesis 2 asserted that there were significant
differences in gain scores from pretest to posttest on
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test raw scores with experi-
mental subjects expected to show larger gains than did
control subjects. Table 7 summarizes t tests comparing , ' .1
experimental and control groups. All possible comparisons -»
are presented. There were no significant differences in
the groups. Thus, while all groups showed gain in Peabody
raw scores, the experimental group subjects did not show
any significantly different gain as a function of their
participation in the HDP. Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
TABLE 7.—Summary of t Tests Comparing Experimental and Control Groups on Gain Scores on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Scores—Pretest to Posttest
r'vi (jroupa Compared
EI, EI,; EI, EII EII ci.
CI EII CII , CI , CII CII
First
X
6. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8.
,00 00 ,00 ,00 00 00
Group
SD
5. 5, 5, 3. 3. 9.
.92 ,92 ,92 ,96 ,96 ,05
Second
X
8. 7. 6. 8. 6. 6.
,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 00
Group
SD
9. 3, 3, 9, 3. 3,
,05 .96 ,80 ,05 ,80 ,80
+-V
-0. -0. 0.
-0. 0. 0.
18 14 00 ,10 18 20
E
NS NS NS NS NS NS
69
Differential Responses of Boys and "" Girls to the HPF
Hypotheses 3 through 6 were proposed to test the
assertion that the HDP might have differential effects on
boys and girls. These hypotheses were deemed crucial con-
sidering the suggestions in the literature that male Negroes t ..•
have a greater difficulty in establishing positive feelings f!
for themselves and profit less from traditional attempts « %
at psychotherapy and educational remediation than do female
Negroes.
Due to the small numbers of males and females in each
original control and experimental group the data were
collapsed so that all males in experimental groups were
considered a treatment group to be compared with all
females in experimental groups. Additionally, all controls
were combined by sex so that a total of four new groups
were created based on sex and treatment. Thus, there were
male experimental (ME) and control (MC) groups and female
experimental (FE) and control (FC) groups. An analysis
of multiple covariance (CRAC-2) was performed for all
possible group comparisons using Peabody raw scores and
respective pretest scores on dependent variables as co-
variates with which to adjust posttest means. F ratios
tested differences among adjusted means between all
possible experimental and control male and female group
combinations for all dependent variables. Table 8
70
summarizes F tests performed with significant differences
indicated. These data answer research hypotheses regard-
ing differences in responses by boys and girls to the HDP.
Male Experimentals (ME) vs Female Experimentals (FE)
There were no significant differences between male
experimental and female experimental subjects on adjusted \Í
group mean scores along all 22 dependent variables.
Hypothesis 3 was thus not supported.
Male Controls (MC) vs Female Controls (FC)
There were no significant differences between male
control and female control subjects after covariate adjust-
ment of group mean scores along all 22 dependent variables;
therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Male Experimentals (ME) vs Male Controls (MC)
There were two variables that showed differences in
adjusted group mean scores between males in experimental
groups and males in control groups. The first occurred
on the Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale, "Mature Controls."
The F test was significant beyond the .05 level. Unex-
pectedly, however, teachers rated males in control groups
as significantly more mature in classroom behavior than
experimental males. The second significant relationship
I k
x: -p •H ^
'd Q) -p co í3
• í - i T) < :
co
co (U u 0 (U Q) u Æ x: cn -p CO Q) • p (U ^ P4
C TJ (d (U
S ^
X (U co > 1
XJ
• p
c • H
CO (U
H (d g (U
-P
C •H
(0 Q)
H (d g (U
c M-i m (d
co o u 0 u
T } 'CJ C (d
co (U
c (d
co (U
C/D H H
(d (U Ctí
u
(d
e II
fí -P w (d
•H co (U
w
fd Ê
II
u w
}^ Ê TJ TJ (d > 0 u Q)
c > i (d
u (d H :3
H XI O4 fd
•H •P H rJ S
»w
u
w
c fd
u ss •*—'
co • ^
> i (U H
0 H > X 3
0 M 0
(d •H }-l (d
0 -P >
co •H CQ
U -H PU
• P
c Q) > i > i T {
H 'O fd 0 C XI < (d
(U CO fl4 Q)
H XI (d H
• • co (U -p
> i fd
u (d g E 3
•H }-l
G (U
(U >
•H -P
.—x
> 1 U H Q) 0 O4 > CO (U U
co
-H -P U Q) O4 CO
O4 (U O4 í3 Q) Q
Q)
0 U
^
V
Cr> co
> H •H -P U (U
fd -P C (U
04 e co (U
(d Pí > 0
C/3 U 1
1 •
0 0
W h^
m <: H
a 0
•H }^ (U
O4 0 0 u D
H 0 M -P
O4 c X (U
0 U
(0
0
co
•H
}-l
fd
O4
g 0
u
T l
(U
u • H
fd
Oí
1
u w co >
W W
u s co >
w S
u w CQ >
, U
w w (0 >
w s
(U H XI (d
•H u íd >
— •
w l
rsj
!t!! T l j
H M-ll
TJI
' •
w l
r\j M-lj 'dl
H m| ^\
Wl
og IHJ T3|
H M-lj
w l
CsJ U- l | TJI
H m| 'ol
H i n ^
ro
^ H
H
H 0 0 0
ro
C J H
H
^ 0 0
ro H
H
00 H 00
r^j
ro H
H
CO (d
«+-i H (U cn • •
C M-l ^ M 0 (U ^ co CQ
H
cr> H 0
^ H
H
r-cr> rNj
H
rsj H
H
r--10 0
ro H
H
i n r--rsj
r o
r o H
H
CO (d
u-j H (U cn
u • • d)
c x: ^ -p 0 0 M s m r^j
ro i n ro
ro
' î r H
H
ro vo rsj
r^j
rvj H
H
r^ cr> ro
ro H
H
r^ (N LO
H
ro H
H
CO (d
iw H (U U) u
Q) •• x: c u ^ fd 0 (U ^ EH m ro
CQ fd
M-l H (U CO
• • c: ^ 0 u «
^
* ^ \D ro
Ȯ
•^ H
H
r^ vo 0
H
(N H
H
ro i n 0
ro H
H
r -cs rsj
r o H
H
co U Q) Q)
&4
r^ ^* ro
H
^ H
H
0 00 0
(N
CN H
H
0 0 0
ro H
H
VO rs 00
rvj
r o H
H
-P H O i (d (U -P U 0 C EH 0
U •• I C M-l ^ r H 0 Q) U U) CQ
i n
• * * 0 vo ro
i n CM
' í ' H
H
VO 00 i n
OJ H
H
VO ro cr>
ro H
H
0 vo vo
^
ro H
H
CO O í l
(U >
•H - P -1-(d :3 T î
H 0 fd 0 > 0 W
vo
H ^* 0
•^ H
H
H 0 0
rsi H
H
VJD rvj 0
ro H
H
00 i n 0
ro H
H
co
«1 (U >
•H -p fd - f 0
H TJ (d fd > CQ w
r-
• * • r^ r^ 0
H H
^ H
H
H 00 <T>
rvj H
H
r^j 0 ro
H
ro H
H
vo i n 0
rsj
ro H
H
CO
Píl
(U >
• H - f -P fd H 0 fd
H 4J (d 0 > EH
w æ
7 1
cr> vo vo
' í' H
H
i n ro H
CN
r>j H
H
•íí* cr> •«*
ro
ro H
H
^* r» 0
ro H
H
CO G 0
•H -p •H
•P c U • H (U M-l
U-l (U M-l Q <
cr>
'O Q) 0 •H -p c: o u I I
00
W tA CQ <
co
j : :
o co
•H
V
fd
O4
B 0
u
'CÍ
(U
u •H
(d
P4
u w co >
W W
u s co >
g
u w co >
U
w w co >
w s
(U H X i (d
• H }.l (d >
wl
rsj I H l TJI
H M-l| TJI
wl
OJ IHJ TJI
H M - l | TJI
wl
CN M-ij
Tll H
Tll
wl
rsj i w | TJI
H U - l |
'al
00 rvj H
"^ H
H
cr> r^ 0
rsj H
H
'^r 00 0
ro H
H
vo 00 cr>
ro H
H
(U }-4 3
CP •H W -P 1 u
M Q) U M-i
•H ^ •P < CO
0 H
* •K
0 vo t ^
r^
• ^ H
H
00 ^ VO
rvj H
H
H 0 rg
r j
ro H
H
CN rsj 0
ro H
H
1 H ^ 0 G M u < -p
G +J Q)
u g (U Cn
M-l T} -1 (U
<
H H
rvj ro ro
H
r^ H
H
00 "«* H
vo H
H
r -00 0
vo H
H
r^ 00 vo
H
vo H
H
CO CO
. . 0)
Cn c C (U
•H }^ -P (d (d ^
cí < U -P (U u
x : Q) U IH fd M-i Q) < ÊH
rsj H
00 i n vo
r» H
H
ro vo H
cs
vo H
H
r^ vo 0
CNJ
vo H
H
cr> 0 cr>
vo H
H
• • CP > i C O4
•H O4 -P fd (d ffi fií 1
> 1 U O4 (U O4
x : fd U Æ
<d c Q) D EH
ro H
vo 0 0
r H
H
•K r^ ' i *
H
i n
vo H
H
cr> a\ a\
vo H
H
0 H 0
CVJ
vo H
H
CO . . H cn 0 c u •H -P -P C fd 0
s^ u }-l (U (U u
x : :3 U -P (d íd
(u S EH
^ H
0 0 0
•
r^ H
H
VO ro cy\
• H
VO H
H
H ^ VO
•
vo H
H
ro ' î l '
0 •
vo H
H
• • tJi C <H
•H fd -P 13 (d -P Pi 0 Q)
Q) T l }-l H í3 (U H -P
x : (U •H U •P -P (d c -p (U H <
EH
i n H
i n vo 0
•
r H
H
00 0 H
• ' í '
vo H
H
<r> 00 ro
• H
VD H
H
VO 0 0
•
VD H
H
- — N
< '
G 0
. . -H •H (0 ^ CO î3 Q) 0 }^ co Cr> co CP
•H <
S vo H
^ r- > H
•
r>« H
H
CNJ rsj 0
•
vo H
H
VO cr> ro
•
vo H
H
00 ^ rvj
•
vo H
H
-—«• H "^^
j : : 0
. . • H •H -P }-l •H í3 X I 0 •H (0 ^ co c:
•H H
S r^ H
t ^ cr> CNJ
•
r^ H
H
r^ cr\ CNJ
• cs
vo H
H
* * r^ 0
•
vo H
H
cr> 00 H
•
vo H
H
' - * ' •• > i K
•H -P ^ U •H íJ > H 0 -H (U CO +J > CO U (U
•H < ,J1
S 00 H
72
> -!
'CJ Q) 0 C
-H 4J
O U I I
00
W
<
co
c:
o co
•H
U
(d
O4
e 0
u
TJ
(U
U
•H
(d
Oí
u w co >
w w
u s co >
w s
u w co >
u
w w co >
w s
(U H X3 (d
•H }-i (d >
wl
rsj i w l TJI
H
ml 'dl
wl
r j »H | 1 J |
H M-l| 'C!
wl
CVJ «H|
'dl H
TJI
wl
cs IW|
'Ol H
T3l
1
cr> H 0
•
r-H
H
CT H
r •
vo H
H
00 ro 0
•
vo H
H
00 H cr>
• H
vo H
H
>- 0 4 » ^ (U C/3 QJ - ^
H (U CO U
(^ . . (d
•H X5 }-l U 0 0 0 -P co co CO -H
•H Q S cr> H
0 i n H
•
r>-H
H
0 0 0
•
vo H
H
CN i n i n
•
vo H
H
00 0 i n
•
vo H
H
1 •H -P (d
g 0 æ • •
•H
^ c: íJ 0 0 •H CO -P co (d
•H N
S 0 r>j
00 ^ t ^
•
r H
H
cr> rg <r>
• ro
vo H
H
rvj 0 0
•
vo H
H
i n CNJ H
• ro
vo H
H
<-^ 0 C/3 — > i
-P •H
• • H •H •H }^ X I :3 td 0 -H CO U CQ 0
•H CO
S H CN
• • •H ^ 0
ro cr> H
•
c H
H
•K rvj ro cr>
• • ^
vo H
H
VO 0 vo
•
vo H
H
00 H 0
•
vo H
H
U ^ •H O4
íí ^ (U - '
Cn 0 co
0 x: e co co
•H
S r j rsj
-P Q) (d -P O H
73
..'
• • i n •
i n cvj H 0 0 0
V V V
OJOJOJ
• - • • •
•
74
occurred on the teacher's rating scale "Total Pathogenic
Items (Tp)," which appears in the Missouri Children's
Behavior Checklist. Teachers rated males in experimental
groups as exhibiting fewer pathological characteristics
than males in control groups. The F test was significant
beyond the .05 level. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was not
supported with regard to changes in self-concept data or
affect awareness data. Minimal support for predicted
differences on behavioral rating data was obtained.
Female Experimentals (FE) vs Female Controls (FC)
Females in experimental groups were compared with
females in control groups. Three significant differences
in mean posttest scores were found after covariate adjust-
ment. The first occurred on the Brown IDS Scale, "Self as
Seen by Peers." An F test was significant beyond the .05
level. Experimental females rated themselves as signifi-
cantly more acceptable to peers than did female control
children. Experimental girls also showed a significantly
better ability to discriminate "good" activities than
control girls on the Evaluative Responses, "Good" variable.
The F ratio was significant beyond the .01 level. Addi-
tionally, an F test performed on the Evaluative Responses,
"Total 'Good + Bad' Correct" revealed that experimental
girls were far superior to control girls in judging "good"
\ ,-• I •
M-
75
and "bad" acts in line with acceptable standards for these
behaviors (£ < .01). Hypothesis 6 was thus minimally
supported on variables measuring one aspect of self-
concept and on two variables reflecting emotional aware-
ness. Hypotheses regarding teacher rating data were not
supported. h.,,
\%
Post hoc Results Obtained After Collapsing of the Four Groups into One Experimental Group
and One Control Group
As a further post hoc analysis of posttest results
the two experimental groups were collapsed into one group ;i
and compared to a similarly collapsed control group. The .1
analysis of multiple covariance which utilized pretest
Peabody raw scores and respective pretest scores on each
dependent variable as covariates is summarized in Table 9.
Significantly different relationships found between
EI vs CI, EI vs CII, and EII vs CII all remained signifi-
cant beyond the .10 level of significance.
• »
TABLE 9.—Analysis of Multiple Covariance on Collapsed Data: EI + EII Compared with CI + CII on Posttest Results
76
Variable Mi df,
1 Brown: Self as Self
2 Brown: Self as Mother
3 Brown: Self as Teacher
4 Brown: Self as Peer
5 Brown: Total Self
6 Evaluative Responses: "Good"
7 Evaluative Responses: "Bad"
8 Evaluative Responses:
Total Correct
9 Affect Definitions
10 Stick-Figure Affect
11 Affect Acknowledgment
12 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Affect Awareness
13 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Unhappy-Happy
14 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Mature Controls
15 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Intellectual Attitude
16 Missouri
17 Missouri
18 Missouri
19 Missouri
20 Missouri
21 Missouri
22 Missouri
Aggression
Inhibition
Activity Level
Sleep Disturbance
Somatization
Sociability
Pathogenic Items
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
9.325
3.075
7.805
9.312
6.394
15.701
0.007
9.864
3.475
0.001
7.208
<.01
<.05
<.01
<.01
<.05
<.01
NS
<.01
<.10
NS
<.05
36 0.637 NS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
0.924
-2.963
0.708
0.951
0.021
2.266
0.890
0.088
5.137
2.152
NS
<.10
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
<.05
NS
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Characteristics of the Children Studied
The experimental and control children involved in
the research were chosen as representative of culturally
deprived Negro children attending full year Head Start
day-care programs. The four groups selected each con-
tained five boys and five girls. The mean ages of the
four groups at the time of pretesting were respectively:
Experimental Group I, 58.10; Experimental Group II, 57.80;
Control Group I, 55.30; and Control Group II, 56.60 months.
Results presented in Table 2 indicated that there were no
significant differences in mean ages among the four groups.
An examination of Table 4 shows that the children
were below average in intelligence. Mean pretest Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test mental ages (MA) in months compared
with mean chronological ages (CA) in months for each group
were:
Experimental Group I, MA= 40, CA= 58.10;
Experimental Group II, MA = 36, CA = 57.80;
Control Group I, MA = 40, CA = 55.30;
Control Group II, MA = 41, CA = 56.60.
These data indicate that the children scored respectively
18, 22, 15, and 16 months below average on the Peabody,
77
1 ^
78
thus reflecting their disadvantaged backgrounds. There
were no significant differences found in mean pretest Pea-
body raw scores among experimental and control groups
(Table 2). The Negro children chosen for experimental
and control groups thus were not significantly different
in mean age and intelligence.
The Mainland Center Comparisons on Posttest Data: Significant Findmgs and Implica-
tions: Experimental Group vs Control Group I
The experimental and control children chosen from the
Mainland center were selected from two different classes.
Hypothesis la stated that Experimental Group I (EI) would
be significantly different on posttest from Control Group
I (CI) on dependent variables measuring self-concept,
affect awareness, and on teacher's ratings.
Hypothesis la was partially supported in that the EI
group children showed a significantly higher mean posttest
self-concept rating on the Brown: "Self as Seen by Self"
(ib = 2.6593, £ < .025). The experimental children were
significantly more capable than control children in
focusing on the positive aspects of their experience of
self. The authors of the HDP clearly state that the
enhancement of positive self-concept is the chief and
primary goal; therefore, the data lend support to Bessell
and Palomares' (1968) assertions.
79
Children in Experimental Group I also obtained
significantly higher mean scores on the Brown: "Self as
Seen by Teacher" (t = 2.0367, £ < .05). Thus, experimental
subjects reported seeing themselves as more positive and
valuable in the eyes of their teacher than did control
subjects. The HDPthus may be interpreted as increasing . I i i
participant children's belief that their teachers like ['
and value them as persons.
Additionally, Experimental Group I children scored
significantly higher on the variable Brown: "Self as Seen
by Peers" (Jt = 2.0402, £ < .05). This self-concept score
is based on the children's self-report of their attitudes
and feelings about being acceptable and valuable in the
eyes of peers at school. Perhaps the HDP can be identified
as one technique which aids disadvantaged Negro children
in the development of feelings of social acceptance.
Hypothesis la predicted that Experimental Group I
children would be significantly more able to label, define,
and evaluate emotional experiences than Control Group I
due to their participation in the HDP. The hypothesis was
supported only minimally. Experimental Group I scored
significantly higher on the variable Evaluative Responses,
"Good" (;t = 2.1057, £ < .05). The children were thus more
readily able to identify "good" pictures depicting socially
constructive and adaptive behaviors in comparison to the
80
controls. Examples of the "good" behaviors as presented
in the Evaluative Responses instrument were as follows:
(1) "This little boy is going to the bathroom in the
toilet, not in his pants"; (2) "This little boy is hugging
his sister because her teddy bear is torn"; (3) "This
little girl is holding the door open for her mommy." If
this knowledge of socially "good" behaviors leads to the
choice of more socially acceptable behaviors, then the
HDP may be seen as a very useful program especially for
the often untrained, poorly socialized, deprived youngsters
attending Head Start centers. The present data do not,
however, support this hypothesis.
Hypotheses la and Ib further asserted that Experimental
Group I and Control Group I children would differ signifi-
cantly on teachers' behavioral ratings. No significant
differences were found between the two groups, however.
Thus, the hypotheses regarding various aspects of the
experimental and control children's behavior as rated by
their regular teachers must be rejected. The experimental
group neither significantly increased positive behaviors
nor significantly decreased negative or undesirable class-
room behavior.
81
Mainland Groups:
Experimental Significant
Experimental Group
Compa: red Findings ) I vs
to Distal and
Control
Control Implications: Group II
The distal Control Group II was compared with the
Mainland Experimental Group I. Distal controls attended
a day-care center which did not provide experimental
subjects or groups for the HDP research. As noted in the
preceding section, Hypothesis la predicted that EI chil-
dren would differ significantly from CII children in self-
concept, emotional awareness, and on teacher rating data.
The results revealed six significant group differences,
partially supporting Hypothesis la. Experimental Group I
differed significantly from the distal control group on
the Brown: "Self as Seen by Self" (£ < .005), "Self as
Seen by Teacher" (£ < .025), "Self as Seen by Peers"
(£ < .01). These self-concept referent scores also were
found to be significant in the EI, CI comparisons and were
discussed in the preceding section of this chapter. These
data lend even more support to the interpretation made
earlier that the HDP has a significant effect on deprived
Negro children's self-concept.
In addition to these relationships two other signif-
icant differences in Brown self-concept referents were
found. EI children scored significantly higher on the
Brown: "Self as Seen by Mother" (£ < .025) and on "Total
Self-Concept" (£ < .01). The Mainland Negro children
1 I
' It
82
compared to distal controls thus reported having a more
positive total perception of self as a function of their
participation in the HDP. The fact that "Self as Seen by
Mother" also was significant is interesting. One inter-
pretation of the result may be that the positive response
the Negro children received from their HDP teacher encour-
\K I Ji
aged them to see their own mothers' or mother figures away
from the school in a more emotionally positive and accepting
manner. Therefore, the children rated themselves as being
more acceptable to their mothers than did controls. Further
research studies testing the hypothesis that actual emotional
contact is enhanced between children and their mothers as a *
function of the child's participation or nonparticipation
in the HDP would be extremely interesting.
Experimental Group II children also were noted to
differ on the affect awareness dimension Evaluative Re-
sponses "Good" (£ < .025). Hypothesis la as it related
to emotional awareness was thus minimally supported. This
finding was noted in comparisons made between Experimental
Group I and Control Group I discussed in the preceding
section of this chapter.
Teachers' behavioral ratings were predicted to differ
significantly for Experimental Group I children compared to
distal controls (CII) in Hypotheses la and Ib. No differ-
ences were obtained. Teachers did not, for example, rate
83
experimental children either as exhibiting more "Mature
Controls" and "Emotional Awareness" on the Preschool Rating
Scale or as exhibiting fewer pathological behaviors on the
Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist dimensions such as
"Aggression" or "Activity Level." Therefore, Hypotheses la
and Ib as they related to teacher rating data were not
supported.
The lack of corroboration of the positive self-concept
findings noted above with teachers' behavioral ratings is
disturbing. It was anticipated that after the HDP the
Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale would reflect positive
changes in experimental children's affect awareness, level
of subjective happiness, maturity in increasing controls
over aggressive and inappropriate behavior, and increases
in academic readiness and cooperation. The instrument
proved to be somewhat unsatisfactory, however, in that the
teachers were reluctant to score children in the extreme
directions on the one to five scale. The scale, therefore,
lacked discrimination power and perhaps did not reflect a
good test of changes in children's ongoing classroom
behavior.
Further, after the HDP, pathological behaviors rated
by teachers on the Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist
were not significantly lower in the Experimental Group I
vs Control Group I and Experimental Group I vs Control
84
Group II comparisons as had been predicted in Hypothesis Ib.
The teachers subjectively reported positive results in
experimental children in informal post experiment inter-
views, but their ratings did not reflect significant
changes.
While the above findings relating to self-concept
can be interpreted as positive results, it is somewhat
disturbing to find that the measures of affect awareness
(with the exception of the "Good" evaluative dimension)
did not reveal significant differehces between the Main-
land experimental and control groups. Verbal knowledge
of affect words and experiences as defined and measured
in this research were not significantly higher in experi-
mental subjects even though various aspects of self-concept
did show significant differences. Perhaps the experimental
program needs to be conducted over a longer period of time
for preschool Negro children to adequately learn to con-
ceptualize or verbalize their emotional experiences. There
also is the possibility that the Negro children represented
in the Mainland group were simply too immature verbally to
make the semantic connections between internal emotional
states and affect words. The subjective evidence cited in
Chapter II regarding the children's lack of understanding
of the concept of "feeling" suggests this. Results sug-
gest that the children's level of emotional awareness was
I I I,
85
much more confined to "good-bad" distinctions rather than
to more subtle nuances in feelings or intent. The possi-
bility exists that the particular verbal labels of "mad,"
"sad," "angry," "lonely," etc. are not truly representative
of the real affect words that emotionally aware and healthy
Negro children use to express their internal feelings.
Recently, linguists such as Stroyfe (1970) have asserted
that Negro English is a different language—not a deficient
English—suggesting that other affect words than the ones
chosen may have more emotional meaning in the Negro child's
experience. 1
Other implications may be drawn from the Mainland *l
results. Conceivably for deprived 4- and 5-year-old Negro
children the ability to talk about feelings is not an ade-
quate representation of internal emotional change and
growth. The skill of being able to talk about feelings
may be more valuable and related to emotional health for
older Negro children. For this reason a longitudinal
study of children enrolled in the HDP needs to be conducted.
If in fact Negro children who had the HDP experience in
Head Start could speak more meaningfully than controls of
their feelings in first or second grade, the use of the
HDP in public schools and day-care centers would be
justified. However, results of the Mainland experimental,
control group affect awareness data were inconclusive on
86
this point even though self-concepts were found to be
significantly higher for the experimental group. It is
also possible that the HDP creates generalized positive
feelings in groups and this positive experience may account
more for the program's success in increasing self-concept
than the actual "feeling" content of the group discussions. , ,
Further research is indicated utilizing other "special f^í ' >
group" programs such as language development programs or
play therapy groups as comparison treatment modalities.
Intact Experimental (EII) and Control Groups (CII) Chosen from Two Different Day-Care Centers:
FJ- < ii gs ^^^ Implications'
As a second test of the effectiveness of the HDP two
new groups, one control (CII), one experimental (EII) were
chosen from intact classes in two different day-care centers.
Four significant differences between the groups in the
predicted directions were found. These results duplicated
the differences found between the Mainland EI vs CI and
EI vs CII comparisons on the variable Evaluative Responses
"Good" (t = 2.9766, £ < .01). Children in both EI and EII
were significantly more capable than controls in selecting
pictures describing socially "good" behaviors. The experi-
mental children, EII, also scored significantly higher on
the Evaluative Responses: Total "Good + Bad" Correct (t
= 2.8181, £ < .01) indicating that they were significantly
87
more aware of both positive and negative social behaviors
than were control children. These findings are consistent
with Bessell's (1969) assertion that children involved with
the HDP show an increased degree of comprehension of social
interaction. Significant also is the fact that the children
responded to the "good" social acts depicted on the Evalua-
tive scale. Focusing on the discussion of "good" feelings , f ' î
thoughts, and behaviors thus was suggested to enhance 4- to ,
5-year-old Negro children's awareness of good and acceptable
social behaviors. The finding also may indicate that the
children particularly responded positively to the HDP group -J
method and technique due to the added reinforcement, praise i
and acceptance, they received in the program. Thus, feeling
accepted and praised for their "good" behavior the experi-
mental children were perhaps encouraged to see "good"
behaviors in others more readily than were the control
children.
It is extremely interesting also to note that the
Knowledge of Affect Words Test discriminated experimental
from control children (t = 2.2285, £ < .05). The object
of the test primarily was to measure the children's
experiential understanding of affect words. The children
were allowed a wide range of ways to demonstrate their
knowledge both verbally and nonverbally. The experimental
children having the HDP scored significantly higher than
Jj
' ri
88
controls. These results suggest that Experimental Group II
children involved in the HDP were aided in getting in touch
with and understanding their internal subjective feelings
by attaching verbal labels to these subjective feelings.
Experimental Group II children thus responded to the HDP
by becoming more aware of feeling words and in items of
increased social comprehension of "good" social behaviors. M'
Thus, Hypothesis la which predicted changes in affect
awareness was partially supported.
Hypotheses la and Ib predicted that the posttest
teacher ratings of the EII children would be more positive
and reflect fewer pathological characteristics than would
ratings obtained on Control Group II children. Hypotheses
la and Ib were minimally supported in that EII children
were rated significantly higher by their teacher on one
of the five clinical scales which comprise the Missouri
Children's Behavior Checklist. Experimental Group II
scored significantly higher than Control Group II on the
"Sociability" dimension (t = 1.8725, £ < .05). Data
reported in Table 5 also suggested that on pretest the
EII children were rated significantly higher on "soci-
ability" by their teacher in comparison to similar ratings
completed by the teacher of the EI children. Implications
of these data may be integrated with the findings noted in
affect awareness measures discussed earlier. Assuming
89
that Experimental Group II was initially a socially respon-
sive, cohesive intact group, then it follows that the
children may have shown a better verbal response to the
HDP than Experimental Group I. The EI group, it will be
recalled, was not an intact classroom group as was the EII
group. Perhaps the EI children were not as familiar with
one another as were the EII children and, therefore, found [*
it more difficult to verbalize their feelings. The verbal
discussion of affect or emotional content in groups is
often noted in the group psychotherapy literature to be
enhanced by familiarity of group members with one another |
(Mullen & Rosenbaum, 1962). i
An unexpected significant difference between the EII
and CII groups was found. The control children (CII) were
rated significantly higher by their regular teachers on
the Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale: "Mature Controls"
than were the experimental children (EII) ( = -2.2256,
£ < .025). This unpredicted result could be due to the
experimental nature of the rating scale. One hypothesis
to account for the finding is that the differences were due
to chance. An inspection of all the data reported on the
Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale presented in Table 1
reveals, however, that there were few changes in teachers'
ratings from pretest to posttest except on the "Mature
Controls" scale. While scores on other scales did decrease
90
in several of the experimental and control groups, none of
the differences approached statistical significance except
those noted on the "Mature Controls" scale. The possi-
bility that the result was a chance finding was rejected;
however, if the scale measured the child's ability to
control aggressive, destructive, and antisocial acts then
perhaps the HDP had the function of upsetting the Experi-
mental Group II children's habitual methods of coping with
stress which in turn decreased their emotional and be-
havioral controls. Thus, as is often seen in initial
stages of group psychotherapy with children (Ginnott, 1961),
initial exposure to the HDP for some children may be marked
by regression, acting out of unacceptable feelings, and
increases in aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Teachers
might tend to evaluate the children's behavior as less
mature, harder to control, and more demanding and difficult
to teach. In personal communications with Charlot Dunn,
Director of an Early Childhood Education program in
Hitchcock, Texas, she reported similar findings in the
initial stages of group counseling with disadvantaged
Negro and Mexican-American children in the fourth to the
sixth grades. She reported that teachers initially were noted
to be upset, critical, and overreactive due to the increased
demands the experimental children placed on them for more
personal attention and supervision in the classroom.
91
The apparent contradiction in teachers' ratings on
"Mature Controls" and "Sociability" requires brief mention.
For some groups of children perhaps the HDP had the effect
of increasing the intensity of all emotional behavior and,
therefore, the teacher rated her children both as more
socially alive and responsive and also as more difficult
thus may create changes in children's behavior which in
time may present additional problems to teachers. In
order to insure the maximization of affective and emo-
tional experience for each child, the Head Start teacher
should be well informed of possible negative changes in
children's behavior which might occur as a function of the
HDP.
In summary, results of posttest comparisons made
between Galveston experimentals (EII) and distal controls
(CII) revealed several significant differences partially
supporting Hypotheses la and Ib. Experimental children
were significantly better in discriminating positive and
negative social acts, thus supporting the hypothesis that
the HDP helped Negro preschoolers to focus on their affec-
tive knowledge and experience of "good" and "bad." Further,
the experimental Negro preschoolers were rated by their
teacher as significantly more socially approachable and
responsive than were control subjects. The experimental
t
I •i
to control and manage in a classroom situation. The HDP [J I >k
92
children's self-reports also were superior to controls in
defining or showing awareness of internal feeling states.
On the other hand, teachers rated children involved in the
HDP as less mature in controlling aggressive and disrup-
tive classroom behavior. The data were interpreted as
indicating that the HDP had a disrupting effect on certain
groups of Negro preschoolers due to the disruption of the
children's emotional controls. Perhaps in the initial
stages of the HDP, increases in extremes of children's
positive and negative emotionally toned behavior occur.
Longitudinal studies investigating changes in children's ;| ' :i
emotional controls are indicated. Such studies might '*
provide significant information on the developmental
sequences involved in the acquisition of internal and
external affective controls.
The self-concept predictions presented in Hypothesis
la were not supported. Inspection of the raw data (Table
1) shows that on pretest the Galveston experimentals (EII)
earned a Brown IDS Self-Concept Referent total mean score
of 50.60 + 2.79, while the Distal Controls (CII) earned a
mean total of 46.00 + 7.07. On posttest the EII group
score increased to 51.75 + 2.66, while the CII group score
remained the same or deteriorated slightly (mean score
of 44.00 + 10.13). Consequently, there were slight
93
gains in self-concept in experimental children compared to
control children but the differences were not significant.
The EII group also appeared to be very homogeneous on the
self-concept measure with very little variance noted in
the scores. In contrast (see Table 1) the EI group showed
a greater amount of variance in scores, especially on
pretest measures. These results suggest that ideally, the
most positive enhancement of self-concept can be achieved
by selecting groups for the HDP which include children with
heterogeneous self-concept scores with some members having
very good self-concepts and some having very poor self-
concepts.
Human Development Program and Intelligence
Results reported on Table 5 suggested that the
children in experimental groups did not show significant
gains from pretest to posttest in Peabody Picture Vocabu-
lary Intelligence raw scores; therefore, Hypothesis 2 was
not supported. The HDP as utilized in this research thus
could not be relied upon as a method for increasing intel-
lectual skills in culturally deprived Negro preschoolers.
In line with Bereiter and Engleman's assertions in their
book, Teaching the Disadvantaged Child in the Preschool
(1966) it is concluded that deprived Negro children need
specially programmed and systematic training in specific
cognitive skills in order to achieve in school. The HDP,
i I I
• '
t '
I %
94
while having a definite value in the preschool, conse-
quently should not be thought of as a panacea to enhance
all good characteristics, including cognitive functions,
in preschool children.
Results discussed earlier do suggest, however, that
as a function of the, HDP Experimental Group I children's
attitudes were modified so that they saw peers, teachers,
and themselves as significantly more acceptable than
nontreatment controls saw themselves. Also Experimental
Group I children's ability to see positive and valued
social actions was significantly different from control | ' :i
Group I. Assuming these attitudes are carried out be- '»
haviorally, it is surmised that children having the HDP
might be more prone to seek out and receive positive
interpersonal experiences at school. The HDP may be
viewed as a supportive program which may help some groups
of disadvantaged preschool Negro children establish a
positive attitude toward significant persons encountered
in school. A possible exception to this assertion should
be posited, however. As was noted in the Experimental
Group II results, there is the possibility that the HDP
may disrupt some children's emotional control by increasing
the intensity of their emotional responses. Such increases
in emotionality may increase the possibility of negative
consequences occurring in the classroom. For example.
95
untrained but well intentioned teachers or aides may
misinterpret and respond incorrectly to increases in
children's aggression when in fact such changes for some
children may be necessary before the children develop
better methods of expressing assertive feelings. Such
increases in emotionality handled incorrectly might disrupt
learning capacities which may not have been affected other-
wise. In this case it becomes clearer that the HDP should
be carefully conducted, supervised, and coordinated with a
child's total social, emotional, and cognitive development
in the preschool context.
Differences in Response to the Human Development Program Between Girls and Boys
on Posttestir g
Hypotheses 3 through 6 predicted that the HDP might
have differential effects on boys and girls. These
hypotheses were thought to be crucial in light of research
that suggests that male Negroes compared to female Negroes
have greater difficulty in establishing and maintaining
positive feelings for themselves and others and profit
less from traditional methods of psychotherapy and educa-
tional remediation.
Negro girls of preschool age are often seen as more
verbal, mature, responsive, and as having better self-
concepts than Negro boys of the same age. Conversely,
Negro boys are often seen as more explosive, immature.
96
nonverbal, and lacking in social skills, so it was predicted
in Hypothesis 3 that in contrast to boys the more mature
Negro girls would respond more quickly and positively to
the HDP. Experimental girls were expected to show more
gains than experimental boys in personality traits of self-
concept and emotional awareness and were expected to be
rated by their regular teachers as more mature and socially
aware. Experimental boys were predicted to be too immature
to truly profit from the more verbal, less action oriented
techniques which comprised the HDP.
Results comparing experimental boys with experimental
girls indicated, however, that experimental boys and girls
were not significantly different on dependent measures.
Assuming there were treatment effects, these results were
interpreted to mean that such effects were not signifi-
cantly different for the treated children whether male or
female. Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Male and female control groups were not significantly
different on dependent measures on posttests. These results
were interpreted to indicate that the untreated 4- to 5-
year-old girls and boys were for all practical purposes
equivalent, showing no unique sex factor to be operating
with regard to dependent variables chosen. Hypothesis 4
was thus not supported.
97
Hypothesis 5 predicted that experimental group boys
involved in the HDP should show significantly higher post-
test scores than control boys on measures of self-concept
and emotional awareness and on teachers' ratings of posi-
tive classroom behavior. After covariate adjustment of
means, two significant differences in dependent variables
were discovered between groups. One unpredicted difference
appeared on the variable "Mature Controls" of the Preschool
Teacher's Rating Scale (£ < .05). Control group boys were
rated by their teachers as significantly lower in the
ability to control aggressive and uncooperative classroom
behaviors as compared to experimental group boys. This
result, as was discussed in preceding sections of this
chapter, may be due to a disruptive effect the HDP has on
some groups of children with regard to the children's
emotional controls. Perhaps 4- to 5-year-old Negro boys
are especially prone to become somewhat more emotionally
upset and labile after participation in the HDP.
A second significant group difference on teacher
rating data was discovered. Teachers who rated male
experimental boys as less mature than control boys also
rated experimental boys as exhibiting significantly fewer
pathological behaviors than control boys as measured by
the Missouri scale (£ < .05). Seemingly these results
support the hypothesis that some groups involved in the
, 'j n 11
98
HDP become much more emotionally spontaneous both in posi-
tive and negative social behaviors. Assuming such increases
occur it may be assumed that the HDP has the potential of
helping children reduce psychopathological behaviors over
the long term. While it cannot be asserted that the HDP
caused pathogenic behaviors to decrease in boys, an alter- ^^]
h
native view may be stressed that teachers of experimental \\
group boys became less critical raters than did teachers
of control boys. This finding may reflect better rapport,
increased give and take, and more positive feelings between
the teachers and the boys. Hypothesis 5, then, was minimally
supported with regard to teachers' ratings. Predictions
regarding differences in self-concept and emotional aware-
ness were not supported.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that experimental females
would score significantly higher than female control
subjects on measures of self-concept, emotional awareness,
and on teachers' ratings of positive classroom attitudes
and behavior. Experimental girls scored significantly
higher on the Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test "Self
as Seen by Peers" (£ < .05), on the variable, Evaluative
Responses "Good" (£ < .01), and on the variable, Evalua-
tive Responses Total "Good" + "Bad" (£ < .01). Experi-
mental girls rated themselves as significantly more
acceptable and positive in the eyes of their peer group
..I
99
than did controls. They were additionally more capable
of discriminating "good" and "bad" social behaviors than
control girls, thus suggesting that Negro experimental
girls utilized more fully the HDP experience in learning
acceptable and unacceptable standards in social interaction
with others. They apparently were aided in developing con- ^ r-1
cepts of good and bad, one aspect of social comprehension, M;
through the HDP group experiences.
Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in that one
predicted significant difference in self-concept occurred.
Changes in two variables which assessed emotional awareness ::|
also were found to be significant, partially supporting '»
Hypothesis 5, but significant differences were not found
on the teacher rating data. A corroboration of the
hypothesis that Negro girls could behaviorally utilize
their enhanced knowledge of themselves and increased
understanding of positive social behaviors would have been
quite significant. Further research studies might reveal
more significant information if measurements were taken on
actual behavioral tasks which were correlated with chil-
dren's day by day ongoing social interactional skills and
social understanding. A situational test rather than
teachers' ratings might be a more reliable and valid pre-
dictor of actual changes in children's social behavior as
they occur over a period of time.
100
Overview of Major Experimental Effects for the Two Experimental Groups'
One of the limitations of this study which merits
some consideration is the fact that significant results
from comparisons made between EI vs CI and EII vs CII
were not the same. Several factors may have accounted
for the differences. Factors relating to the HDP teacher,
to the method of grouping experimental children, and to
the characteristics of the children in each group are
discussed below.
One possibility may be that in some manner the HDP .1
teacher presented the program differently or more effec- ' i
tively in one experimental group as compared to the other.
Since she presented the same lesson to each class each day,
however, differences which may have occurred in presenta-
tions most probably would be naturally occurring differences
based on the teachers' and/or the children's unique response
to one another. No hard data was collected to negate or
substantiate this hypothesis regarding "naturally" occur-
ring differences, however. In an informal discussion with
the teacher she reported no particular "favorite" group.
Additionally, since she followed a reasonably straight
forward and objective lesson plan, this possible explana-
tion for differences in results is considered less tenable
than other possible explanations.
101
A second feasible explanation for the differences
in results may lie in the differences between the manner
in which the experimental groups were formed. EI was
composed of children taken from two different classes.
Especially at the outset of the program, these children
may have experienced more threat and uneasiness or inhibi-
tion simply because they were being placed into a group
different from their regular class. Conversely, children
in CII did not experience this radical change in their
class composition. Children in EII were chosen from an
intact class which stayed together all day; therefore,
before the group experience the children had some history
of belonging to the same classroom unit. In addition they
remained together after the HDP was conducted each day,
potentially giving them the opportunity to practice what
they had mastered in the HDP with other 'class members who
shared the same set of experiences. As a result of this
grouping one would have predicted an overwhelmingly positive
response in ELI children as compared to EI children due to
the added chances given the children to relate to one
another; however, the data did not support such a strong
assertion. Earlier it was speculated that the EII children
in comparison to the EI children may have had more oppor-
tunity to verbalize their feelings since they were signifi-
cantly more able to define affective words than controls.
102
Also, EII was found to be rated by their regular teacher
as significantly more socially responsive than the controls.
The result may be tentatively explained in terms of the
familiarity or class membership factor noted with respect
to the EII group. In contrast, on posttest results EI
children were not rated by their teachers as significantly
different from control subjects on a single teacher rating
scale. In summary, the data offer limited support to the
hypothesis that EII children in the intact classroom group
responded better to the HDP than the specially formed
EI group.
A final hypothesis is offered to explain the differ- i
ences in results. Differences in EI, CI and EII, CII
results may have been due to individual differences in the
children who comprised the EI and EII groups. An attempt
was made to equate the groups as nearly as possible at the
beginning of the research. Pretest comparisons on mean
chronological ages revealed no significant mean group
differences (Table 2). Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary
scores also were not significantly different for the four
groups (Table 3). Each group contained an equal number of
boys and girls. Even though these factors were equated at
the beginning of the experiment, data presented in Table 1
indicate pretest differences between the two experimental
groups on a number of the dependent variables. Post hoc t_
103
tests between the two experimental groups were calculated
for several of these variables which appeared to be signif-
icantly different. Variables containing significant dif-
ferences between experimental groups representing both the
experimental children's self-reports and reports based on
their teachers' ratings are discussed as follows. The
Brown scale required children to verbally report on their
feelings and perceptions of themselves. Referring to
Table 1, on pretest it was noted that EII children scored f
somewhat higher, though not significantly so, on each self-
concept referent including "Self as Seen by Self," "Self as
seen by Mother," "Self as Seen by Teacher," and "Self as
Seen by Peers." A t_ test was calculated for pretest "Total
Self-Concept" scores to detect any total or global self-
concept differences in experimental groups. The t value
was -1.712 with 18 degrees of freedom and attained statis-
tical significance beyond the .10 level. Thus, a trend in
the data was suggested 'leading one to believe that on
pretest EII was significantly higher in self-concept than
was EI.
Teacher rating data collected on the Missouri scales
also supported this hypothesis. Comparisons of pretest
teacher rating data for the two experimental groups were
presented in Table 5. Results suggested that Experimental
Group I was rated by its teacher as significantly higher
11-
I î \% 1 «1
104
on the Missouri clinical dimensions of "Aggression"
(£ < .01), "Sleep Disturbance" (£ < .005), and "Total
Pathogenic Items" checked (£ < .0005). Furthermore, EI
children were rated significantly lower than EII children
on the "Sociability" scale (£ < .025). These results thus
support the hypothesis that initially children in EI were
not as positive about themselves as EII children. EI
children were seen by their teacher as exhibiting more
pathological or problematic behaviors than were EII chil-
dren, but the EII teacher saw her children as significantly
more socially responsive. ' ,1
The finding that EI children profited primarily from •
the HDP in terms of self-concept while EII children did
not is thus perhaps more readily explainable. One explana-
tion offered is that EI children as a group were in greater
need of emotionally positive and mothering experiences
than were the EII children, so they responded to the HDP
teacher and program in such a way that some of these basic
needs were met.
In contrast, EII children, being relatively more
emotionally healthy and secure than EI children, profited
in other ways, i.e., in being able to talk more about their
feelings and in increasing their social comprehension. Of
importance also, as was noted in the discussion earlier in
this chapter, the EI group was found to have a wider
105
pretest variability on the Brown "Self concept" scores as
compared to EII. Since Experimental Group I showed signif-
icant differences from Control Group I in self-concept
scores, perhaps the heterogeneous grouping of children
with varying degree of positive self-concept is the most
effective grouping method to use in selecting children for
the HDP. The more heterogeneous Experimental Group II
thus perhaps profited less from the HDP in terms of self-
concept for lack of sufficient variability and differences
in the children initially. The above presented data and
discussion offer some support, therefore, to the hypothesis
that the different experimental groups profited differently
from the HDP due to the individual personality characteris-
tics of the various members.
Collapsing and Comparing of Results of Experimental Groups I and l witl
Control Groups I and II
As a post hoc "data snooping" procedure dependent
measures obtained on the two groups defined as Mainland
experimental children (EI) and Galveston experimental
children (EII) were collapsed and compared with the simi-
larly collapsed control groups heretofore identified as
Mainland control children (CI) and distal control (CII)
children. The data were combined in order to help explain
the differences in experimental findings for the two
t .•
i i \% 1 m
106
experimental-control group comparisons. A common set of
significant differences between experimental and control
groups consequently were obtained.
Table 9 summarizes the significant findings. All
significant relationships discussed in this chapter to
include the EI vs CI, EI vs CII, and EII vs CII compari-
sons remained significant beyond the . 10 level of signif-
icance. These data lend added support to the hypotheses
that the HDP is an effective program which may be utilized
to enhance Negro preschool children's self-concept,
emotional awareness and social comprehension.
t..'
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of the present research was to evaluate
the effectiveness of the Human Development Program (HDP)
in increasing positive self-concepts, emotional awareness,
positive classroom behavior, and intelligence in 4- to 5-
year-old disadvantaged Negro children attending Head Start
day-care centers.
The HDP is a sequential, developmentally programmed
series of lesson plans designed for use in the classroom
by a regular teacher. Children are placed into groups of
10, five boys and five girls ordinarily, and are guided
by their teacher-facilitator in predominantly verbal games.
The daily 15 to 20 minute games are designed to teach chil-
dren about their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Chil-
dren are encouraged to verbally explore or talk about
positive and negative aspects of their emotional and
behavioral experiences. Acting out of unacceptable
behavior is discouraged. Purportedly, self-concepts,
emotional awareness, social responsibility, and intelli-
gence are enhanced as a result of the experience. The
present study eyaluated one unit of the HDP designed for
preschoolers entitled Human Development Program Lesson
Guide, Level B, Unit Four - Communications (1969). This
107
108
unit, ordinarily conducted in a 6-week period, was repeated
twice over a 12-week period with two groups of 10 Negro
preschool children.
Subjects chosen for the research were 4- to 5-year-old
Negro children attending Head Start centers in Galveston
County, Texas. Forty subjects, half male and half female,
were placed into four groups of 10 children. Each of these
groups contained five girls and five boys. One experimental
group designated EI and one control group (CI) were chosen
from the Mainland day-care center. A second experimental
group designated EII was chosen from the Galveston day-care
center and a distal control group (CII) was chosen from i
the Dickinson day-care center. All children in the study
had a Negro teacher.
A Negro teacher was selected to be the facilitator or
group leader of the two experimental groups. After a brief
orientation and demonstration of the program, the teacher
conducted the HDP each morning for 12 school weeks. The
"communications" unit which is ordinarily programmed for
6 weeks in the regular HDP was repeated over two, 6-week
periods. The control children had no special treatment or
program during the period when the experimental groups were
engaged in their group program.
A pretest-posttest control group experimental design
was utilized to detect differences in experimental and
109
control groups at the end of the research period. Depen-
dent variables included (1) several psychometric tests
and (2) teacher rating data obtained from the children's
regular teachers before and after the HDP. Psychometric
data obtained by an experienced female examiner included:
(1) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1959), a
measure of verbal intelligence; (2) the Brown IDS Self- \ l
Concept Referents Test (Brown, 1966) a measure of self-
concept as a child sees himself, and as he perceives that
his mother, teacher, and peers see him; (3) Knowledge of
Affect Words, an instrument the investigator devised i
following Gilbert's (1969) research purportedly measuring »
children's ability to verbally or nonverbally define or
indicate knowledge of common affect words such as scared,
happy, afraid, etc.; (4) Affect Acknowledgment Scale,
devised by the investigator to measure a child's ability
to recognize personal feelings when given a verbal descrip-
tion of a frustrating or emotionally charged situation;
(5) Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale, a scale
using a stick-figure format as stimulus pictures devised
by the investigator which was hypothesized to measure a
child's ability to identify emotional feelings in other
people; (6) Evaluative Responses of "good" and "bad"; a
measure developed by Rhine, Hill, and Wandrufs (1967) to
measure children's ability to attach verbal labels of
110
"good" and "bad" to pictures depicting various social
behaviors of children.
Teachers' ratings were obtained on two instruments:
(1) the Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Sines, J.,
Pauker, Sines, L. , Owen, 1969), and (2) the Preschool
Teacher's Rating Scale. The Missouri checklist consists ^
of a true-false rating scale of 70 items measuring regular \\
teachers' perceptions of experimental and control children ' !;
along six clinical dimensions including: (a) Aggression,
(b) Inhibition, (c) Sleep Disturbance, (d) Somatization,
(e) Activity Level, and (f) Sociability. Additionally,
the total number of pathogenic statements checked by the
teacher were calculated for each child.
The second teacher rating scale was the Preschool
Teacher's Rating Scale; the test devised by the investi-
gator purported to measure teachers' perceptions of their
children's (a) Affect awareness, or ability of the child
to express and be aware of his feeling states; (b) Unhap-
piness-Happiness, or characteristic mood state of children
in the school situation; (c) Mature Controls, or the child's
ability to control unacceptable behavior such as aggression,
overactivity and ease in producing acceptably controlled
classroom behavior; (d) Intellectual Attitudes, devised
to measure how well children involved themselves in the
learning process, verbalized their ideas, and showed
intellectual interest.
111
The statistical analysis of the data included analysis
of multiple covariance on mean posttest group scores and
jt tests on various pretest and posttest measures. All
analysis of multiple covariance procedures utilized pre-
test Peabody Picture Vocabulary raw scores and pretest
scores on respective dependent variables as covariates.
Results were discussed in five major sections and are
summarized in the same order: (1) characteristics of the
children studied, (2) the Mainland center comparisons on
posttest data: significant findings and implications;
(3) Mainland experimentals compared to distal controls:
significant findings and implications; (4) the HDP and
intelligence; (5) differences in response to the HDP
between girls and boys.
1. Characteristics of the Children Studied. The
average chronological ages of children in the four groups
at the time of pretesting fell between approximately 55 and
58 months. The four groups were not significantly differ-
ent in mean chronological age.
Intellectually the children scored mean Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test raw scores between 29.80 + 7.93
and 35.30 + 10.30. These raw scores placed the subjects
approximately 16 to 22 months below the expected mean for
children of their chronological age. Comparisons between
the four groups revealed no significant differences in
112
mean pretest Peabody raw scores. Thus, the groups were
not significantly different in chronological age and
intelligence at the outset of the research period.
2. The Mainland Experimental Group (E ) Compared
with Mainland Control (CI) and the Distal Control (CII)
Groups. Mainland experimental subjects were compared to
both Mainland control and distal control subjects. Four
significant differences were found in the EI, CI compari-
sons, reflecting significant differences in experimental
children's self-concept and awareness of socially "good"
behaviors. Significant differences were found in the fol-
lowing variables (1) Brown: "Self as Seen by Self"
(£ < .025); (2) "Self as Seen by Teacher" (£ < .05);
(3) "Self as Seen by Peers" (£ < .05); (4) and Evaluative
Responses: "Good" Correct (£ < .05).
The Mainland EI group further differed significantly
from the distal control (CII) group on the following six
dependent variables: ' (1) Brown: "Self as Seen by Self"
(£ < .005); (2) "Self as Seen by Mother" (£ < .025); (3)
"Self as Seen by Teacher (£ < .025); (4) "Self as Seen by
Peers" (£ < .01); (5) "Total Self-Concept (£ < .01); (6)
Evaluative Responses "Good" Correct (£ < .025).
Mainland experimental children thus were shown to
score significantly higher than controls on measures of
self-concept with regard to various referents, and in
i •;
I 1-
113
emotional awareness on variables measuring the recognition
of positive social acts and intentions. Implications were
discussed.
3. As a second test of the HDP two new groups, one
control (CII) and one experimental were chosen from two
different day-care centers. Four significant differences
on mean posttest scores were found. The differences did
not duplicate differences found in the Mainland (EI vs CI)
comparisons except with regard to the variable Evaluative
Responses "Good" (£ < .01). Apparently the HDP teaches
children to focus on positive and approved social behaviors
defined as "good." The positive increases in Self-Concept
noted in the EI vs CI comparisons were not replicated. The
remaining significant differences between Experimental
Group II and Control Group II were found on the following
dependent variables: (1) Evaluative Responses: "Total
'Good + Bad' Correct" (£ < .01); (2) Knowledge of Affect
Words (£ < .05); (3) Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist:
"Sociability" (£ < .05). Experimental children thus became
more emotionally aware of "good" and "bad" social behaviors
and could define common affect words significantly better
than nontreatment control children. Experimental children
were rated by their teacher as more socially responsive
than those in the control group. A last significant differ-
ence unexpectedly was obtained. On the variable "Mature
I 'Ji
114
Controls," control subjects were scored as superior to
experimental subjects (£ < .025). Guardedly, these
results were interpreted to suggest that the HDP may have
the effect of increasing the intensity of emotional be-
havior in participant children. As a result teachers may
experience more difficulty in controlling and managing KJJ
classroom behavior; paradoxically, however, the children ; ^
also may appear to be more socially responsive and alive
to the teacher even though her classroom management
problems may increase.
4. The HDP and Intelligence. Gains in Peabody \
Picture Vocabulary scores from pretest to posttest were '
evaluated. While all groups showed positive changes in
raw scores, experimental groups did not show a signifi-
cantly greater change. The portion of the total HDP as
presented in the described research thus did not show
differential effectiveness in increasing cognitive skills
as measured by the Peabody in 4- to 5-year-old disadvan-«
taged Negro children.
Further perusal of significant findings relating to
positive attitude change of children toward school peers
and teachers in the EI group were viewed as a positive
finding. A caution also was posited regarding EII results.
If indeed the HDP increases overt emotional behavior in
the classroom, the regular teacher's ability to respond
115
correctly to this behavior becomes more and more crucial
if children are to change positively through the HDP.
5. Differences in Response to the HDP Between Girls
and Boys. All boys who participated in experimental groups
were combined as were all experimental group girls. Control
groups similarly were combined to create four new groups t . [•1
based on sex and treatment. Comparisons were made to reveal fy
sex related differences in responses to the HDP. Results
indicated that male and female experimental subjects were
not significantly different on posttest dependent variables.
Male and female control groups similarly were not signifi-' i
cantly different on dependent measures. 4
Nontreatment boys were compared with boys who partici-
pated in the HDP. Two significant differences were obtained.
Experimental boys rather unexpectedly scored significantly
lower than controls on the variable "Mature Controls"
(£ < .05) of the Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale. They
also scored lower on the total number of pathogenic items
checked by their teachers on the Missouri Children's Be-
havior Checklist (£ < .05). These seemingly contradictory
results were interpreted to mean that boys become much more
overtly behaviorally responsive as a result of participa-
tion in the HDP and thus were seen by their teachers as
more difficult to manage in the classroom setting. It was
surmised, however, that the increases in emotional behavior
116
also may have accounted for increased positive relationships
with teachers; thus, the teachers may have rated boys as
both harder to control and at the same time less pathologi-
cal in behavior due to the teacher's feelings of rapport
and understanding with the boys.
Lastly, nontreatment girls were compared with girls
who participated in the HDP. Three differences were found:
(1) Experimental girls scored significantly higher on the
variables (1) Brown: "Self as Seen by Peers" (£ < .05),
(2) Evaluative Responses: "Good" (£ < .01), and (3) Eval-
uative Responses: "Total Correct Discriminations, "good +
bad" (£ < .01). The HDP apparently helped experimental
girls better understand and develop their "self as object"
or helped them become more aware of those behaviors which
would help them become more acceptable in their peer group.
Their understanding of social interactional "good and bad"
as measured by the Evaluative Responses test also reflected
significant differences.
.«
Suggestions for Further Research
1. Replication of this research with different pre-
school Negro groups, a different teacher, and in a different
location is suggested for cross validation purposes.
2. A time-series method experimental design might be
adopted for a longitudinal study of the HDP. Children
initially receiving the HDP in Head Start might be followed
117
through the second grade. The trends noted with regard to
self-concept and emotional awareness might be further
evaluated. The affect awareness dimension, as an indicator
of internal emotional change, might be more systematically
studied in relation to (a) cognitive factors such as
achievement, intelligence, verbal fluency, social compre-
hension; (b) self-concept; (c) extraversion-introversion; Í
(d) anxiety; and (e) competitive behavior.
3. The full HDP including the "Mastery" sections
should be evaluated utilizing a broader definition of intel-
ligence such as is represented in the Wechsler Preschool i ' ,J
and Primary Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1963) or the *
McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (McCarthy, 1970).
4. A comparison of the HDP with other typical pro-
grams found in Head Start would be beneficial. For in-
stance group psychotherapy, language programs such as the
Distar (Engelmann et al., 1968), or the Peabody, Level P
(Dunn, Horton, Smith, 1968) might be utilized as comparison
treatment modalities. Variables measuring both personality
change and cognitive change might reveal that any positive
group experience enhances self-concept, thereby questioning
the usefulness of the HDP.
5. Better and more effective teacher rating scales
need to be developed. Subtle changes often go unnoticed or
unmeasured by many scales, including the ones utilized in
the above research. Actual field observational scales of
118
social behavior might prove to be a better method of
assessing behavioral changes.
6. A number of teacher variables might be investi-
gated. The questions of which sex, or which personality
type or characteristics make a good HDP teacher are cru-
cial. An extraverted, troubled, or "phony" teacher for I
instance may make a very poor HDP teacher. Additionally, ' >
the question of whether it is better to administer the HDP
as a special program by an "outside teacher" as opposed
to the regular day by day teacher needs investigation.
7. All boy and all girl groups might be administered | ' "'\
the HDP to measure effects of segregated vs integrated '»
groups by sex.
8. Other minority groups such as the Mexican-American
and American Indian should be involved in the HDP to see
if their response is different from the responses of Negro
boys and girls.
9. Changes in parents' perceptions of their children <
as a function of the HDP would be extremely interesting to
investigate.
It is concluded that the Human Development Program
has a positive effect on disadvantaged Negro children and
that this program may be used advantageously in other Head
Start and preschool situations.
REFERENCES
Alschuler, A. The origins and nature of psychological education. In D. W. Winkelman (Ed.), Educational opportunity forum: Psychological humanistic educa-tion. Vol. (4). Albany, New York: University of New York, Division of Higher Education, 1969.
Amen, E. Individual differences in apperception reaction: A study of the responses of preschool children to pictures. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1941, 23 (2), 319-385.
Ausubel, D. P. Ego development among segregated Negro children. Mental Hygiene, 1958, £2, 363-369.
Bach, G. R. Father-fantasies and father typing in father separated children. Child Development, 1946, 17, 63-79.
Bacon, M. K., Child, I., & Barry, H., III. A cross-cultural study of correlates of crime. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 291-300.
Ballard, J., & Solomon, L. R. A research proposal inves-tigating HDP. Unpublished research proposal, San Diego, California, 1970.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald, 1959.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.
Barclay, A. , & Cosumano, D. Father absence, cross-sex identity, and field dependent behavior in male adolescents. Child Development, 1967, 38^, 243-250.
Beck, J. M., & Saxe, R. W. (Eds.) Teaching the culturally disadvantaqed pupil. Springfield, 111.: Thomas, 1965.
Bereiter, C. , & Engelmann, S. Teaching the disadvantaged child in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: í>rentice Hall, 1966.
:3
119
120
Bessell, H. The content is the medium: The confidence is the message. Psychology Today, 1968, 1 (8), 32-35,61.
Bessell, H. , & Palomares, U. Methods in human develop-ment. San Diego: Human Development Training Institute, 1967.
Bessell, H. , & Palomares, U. Methods in human development, lesson guide, level B, 1969 revision. San Diego: Harold Bessell and Uvaldo H. Palomares, 1969.
Blau, P. , St Duncan, D. The American occupational struc-ture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967.
Blom, G. E., Waite, R. R. , & Zimet, S. F. Ethnic inte-gration and urbanization of a first grade reading textbook: A research study. Psychology in the Schools, 1967, 4, 176-181.
Bloom, B. S., Davis, A., & Hess, R. Compensatory educa-tion for cultural deprivation. New York: Holt, > \ Rinehart and Winston, 1965. ;{
Borton, T. Reach, touch, and teach. Saturday Review, 1969, January 18, 33-35.
Bronfenbrenner, U. The psychological costs of quality and equality in education. Child Development, 1967, 38, 909-925.
Brown, B. R. The assessment of self concept among four-year-old Negro and white children: A comparative study using the Brown IDS Self Concept Referents Test. New York: Institute for Development Studies, 1566.
Burton, R. V., & Whiting, J. W. The absent father and cross-sex identity. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 2, 85-95.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.
Coleman, J. S. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington: U.S. Office of Education, 1966.
Davis, A. Deep south. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941.
121
Davis, A., & Dolland, J. Children of bondage. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940.
Davis, A., & Havighurst, R. J. Social class and color differences in child-rearing. American Sociological Review, 1946, 11., 698-710.
Deutsch, M. Minority group and class status as related to social and personality factors in scholastic achieve-ment. Monograph of the Society for Applied Anthropol-ogy, 1960, £, 1-32.
Deutsch, M., & Brown, B. Social influences in Negro-white intelligence differences. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 2£ (2), 24-35.
DiVesta, F. J. A developmental study of the semantic structures of children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 249-259.
Dunn, L. M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services, 1959,
Dunn, L. M. , Horton, K. B., Smith, J. O. Peabody Language Development Kit, #P. Circle Pires, Minnesota: Amer-ican Guidance Service, Inc., 1968.
Engelmann, S., Osborn, J., & Engelman, T. Distar language I Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1969.
Frazier, E. F. The Negro in the United States. New York: MacMillan, 1957.
Frost, J. L. , & Hawkes, G. R. The disadvantaged child. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co. , 1966.
Gilbert, D. C. The young child's awareness of affect. Child Development, 1969, £0 (2), 629-640.
Ginnott, H. Group psychotherapy with children: The theory and practice of play therapy. New York: McGraw Hill 1961.
Glueck, S. , & Glueck, E. T. Unraveling juvenile delin-quency. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1950.
Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. T. Physique and delinquency. New York: Harper, 1956.
122
Gordon, E. W., & Wilkerson, D. A. Compensatory education for the disadvantaged. Programs and practices: Preschool through college. New York: College En-trance Exammation Board, 19 66.
Greenberg, J. W. , Gerver, J. M., Chall, J., & Davidson, H. H. Attitudes of children from a deprived en-vironment toward achievement-related concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 1965, 5^, 57-62.
Hartmann, H. Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. New York: International Universities Press, 1961.
Hess, R. , & Shipman, V. Early experience and the sociali-zation of cognitive modes in children. Society for Research in Child Development, 1965, _3Í' 869-886.
Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton, 1950.
Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. Crisis in child mental health: Challenge for the 1970's" New York: Harper and Row, 1969, 1970.
Kagan, J. Stylistic variables in fantasy behavior: The ascription of affect states in social stimuli. In J. Kagan & G. Lesser (Eds.), Contemporary issues in thematic apperception methods. Springfield, 111. : Thomas, 1961.
Kagan, J., & Havamann, E. Psychology: An introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1968.
Kagan, J., & Moss, H. Conceptual style and the use of affect labels. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 6_, 40.
Kawi, A. A., & Pasamanick, B. Prenatal and parental factors in the development of childhood reading dis-orders. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Devilopment, 1959, 24, No. 4 (Serial No. 73).
Keller, S. The social world of the urban slum child: Some early findings. American Journal of Ortho-psychiatry, 1963, 32^ 823-831.
Kennedy, W. A., Van de Riet, V., & White, J., Jr. A normative sample of intelligence and achievement of Negro elementary school children in the Southeastern
123
United States. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963, 28, No. 6 (Serial No. 90).
Knobloch, A., Rider, R., Harper, P., & Pasamanick, B. Neural psychiatric sequelqe of prematurity. Journal of American Medical Association, 1956, 161, 581-585.
Lefeure, C. Inner-city school - As the children see it. Elementary School Journal, 1966, , 8-15.
Lindquist, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in ij psychology and education. Cambridge, Mass., 1953.
McCarthy, B. McCarthy scale of children's abilities. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1970.
Mead, G. H. Mind, self, and society. In A. Strauss (Ed.), The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Miller, W. B. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 1958, 1£ (3), 5-19.
Mischel, W. Preference for delayed reinforcement and experimental study of a cultural observation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56_, 57-61.
Mischel, W. Delay of gratification, need for achievement, an(í acquiescence in another culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62 , 543-552. (a)
Mischel, W. Father absence and delay of gratification: Cross cultural comparison. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63./ 116-124. (b)
Mullahy, P. Oedipus: Myth and complex: A review of psychoanalytic theory. New York: Grove Press, 1955.
Mullen, H., Rosenbaum, M. Group psychotherapy: Theory and practice. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.
Mussen, P., Conger, J., & Kagan, J. Child development and personality. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Ojemann, R. Incorporating psychological concepts in the school curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 1967, 10 (3), 238-244.
Mead, G. H. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University ,:;ai of Chicago Press, 1934. ' "'
124
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaninq. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
Pasamanick, B., & Knobloch, H. The contribution of some organic factors to school retardation in Negro children. Journal of Negro Education, 1958, 21_, 4-9.
Pasamanick, B., Knobloch, H., & Lilienfeld, A. M. Socio-economic status and some precursors of neuropsychiatric disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1956, 2^, 594-601. ;j
Payne, Billy Fred. The effects of group counseling upon J the self concept of disadvantaged elementary school students. Houston: University of Houston, 197 0. Unpublished Dissertation, Ed.D.
Pettigrew, T. F. A profile of the Negro American. Prince-ton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964.
:i Polansky, N., Lippitt, R., & Redl, F. An investigation of behavioral contagion in groups. In W. E. Martin & 4 C. B. Stendler (Eds.), Readings in child development. New York: Harcourt Brace, 195 4.
Palomares, U. Desegregating people's minds. Civil Rights Digest, 1969, 2_ (3), 39-43.
Preschool Progress Report. Trinity Episcopal School, Galveston, Texas. Unpublished rating scale for preschool children.
Rainwater, L. Crucible of identity and the Negro lower class family. In the Negro American, T. Parsons & K. Clark (Eds.), Boston: Beacon, Press, 1967.
Reissman, F. The culturally deprived child. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.
Rhine, R. J., Hill, S. J., & Wandruff, S. E. Evaluative responses of preschool children. Child Development, 1967, 38, (10), 35-42.
Rogers, C. R. Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1951.
Rohrer, J. H., & Edmonson, M. S. (Eds.) The eighth c^eneration. New York: Harper, 1960.
125
Sarbin, T. Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MasTT Addi-son-Wesley, 1954.
Scarpitti, C. R., Murray, E., Dintz, S., & Reckless, W. C. The "good" boy in a high delinquency area: Four years later. American Sociological Review, 1960, 25, 555-558. — —
Schacter, S., & Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. •-JJ Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 379-399.
Sears, P. S. Doll play aggression in normal young children: Influence of sex, age, sibling status, father's absence, Psychological Monographs, 1951, 65, No. 6 (Whole No. 373).
Sears, R. R., Pintler, M. H., & Sears, P. S. Effects of father-separation of preschool children's doll play aggression. Child Development, 1946, 17, 219-243.
i:
Shane, M. Some subcultural considerations in the psycho- * therapy of a Negro patient. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1960, 3j4/ 9-27.
Sines, J. 0., Parker, J. D., Sines, L. K., & Owen, D. R. Identification of clinically relevant dimensions of children's behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 13, (6), 728-734.
Sroufe, L. A. A methodological and philosophical critique of intervention-oriented research. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2, 140-145.
Stendler, C. B. Social class differences in parental attitudes toward school at grade 1 level. Child Development, 1951, Z2r 36-46.
Stolz, L. M. Father relations of warborn children. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 1954.
Strong, D. J., & Feder, D. D. Measurement of the self concept: A critique of the literature. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961, £ (2), 170-178.
United States House of Representatives. Subcommittee on the war on poverty program. Hearings held in Wash-ington, D.C., April 12, 13, 14, 15, and 30, 1965.
126
Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rmehart & Winston, 1965
Wechsler, D. Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1963.
Whiteman, M. Childrens conceptions of psychological causality. Child Development, 1967, 38, 143-155.
.:i
APPENDIX
A. Knowledge of Affect Words Test
B. Affect Acknowledgment Scale
C. Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale
D. Evaluative Responses Inventory
E. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test
F. Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist
G. Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale
127
128
APPENDIX A: KNOWLEDGE OF AFFECT WORDS TEST
Instructions: Examiner repeats the following instructions
for each of the words listed below:
"How would you b£ if you were ?"
1. happy 6. loved
2. sad 7. jealous
3. mad 8. lonesome
4. angry 9. tired
5. scared
Probing for elaboration is with the phrases, "(a) Tell me
a time you were ; (b) When were you ; and tell
me about being . "
Scoring: The object of the test is to discriminate
whether a child can define or identify various affect words
within the context of his life experience. Therefore a
child's answer is correct if he can give:
(a) a synonym,
(b) a concrete action or situation, or,
(c) a facial or postural gesture appropriate to the
conventional way in which the described feeling
might be expressed.
•:i
I J
129
APPENDIX B: AFFECT ACKNOWLEDGMENT SCALE
How would you be if:
1. You got a new (doll) bicycle for a surprise.
(1) Sad (2) Happy (3) Scared
2. You lost your shoes on the beach. (1) Mad
(2) Jealous (3) Happy
3. You went out too far in the water and the waves
knocked you down. (1) Angry (2) Scared
(3) Lonesome
4. You were the best singer in the whole world.
(1) Scared (2) Proud (3) Sad
5. You were hit by a boy and your nose started bleeding.
(1) Mad (2) Happy (3) Jealous
6. You are crying. (1) Sad (2) Happy
(3) Surprised
7. You are smiling and laughing and silly. (1) Happy
(2) Scared (3) Proud
8. Your mother spanked you. (1) Proud (2) Happy
(3) Mad
9. Your daddy took you to the circus. (1) Scared
(2) Happy (3) Sad
10. You got lost. (1) Angry (2) Surprised (3) Scared
11. A boy at school steals your crayola. (1) Happy
(2) Mad (3) Lonesome
130
12 . TcHi saw a n o n s t e r
13)
'-—' •*—'r—J '^'
X3. Tomr 'teadiex irirts a i:i.ctr:ire vc::; dr * ** ^ 3ev r c r CÆT C:Î ccje
w a l l . (1) Maâ (2) Sad
14 . Toar X ce s < w ^
p r l s e d (2) cmesGDGe (3) Azcrrv
1 5 .
1 6 .
' l ) P r c c c (2) î ^ '3) Eapcy
Tou
C31 Happy
'2" r i r e s
1 7 . Toi i got. sLdJL znÁ ccc~.cn" w CCTDÊ CC
(2) S ^ (3) Prccic
1«. Toisr besl: f tcy) g o t b r c i e n . (1) 5^d
(3) Proud
1 5 . Toar • o t b e r had a new cairr b r c c c s r . (1) BHCCTT • ^ T . >
(2) I^oved (3) Tired
2 0 . Too cciLLdiL'c f l • w . ~ s CZ.3 s c c r s .
2 1 .
2 2 .
2 3 .
2 4 .
(1) H^ipY (2) Scared (3) l o v e d
Toii have t c get: a s c c r . (1) Scared
(3) Happy
A bjjg gii7 y e l l s bad vords a t yoa .
(2) Scared (3) TrfTnpsoBK
Toar • o t h e r k l s s e s yoa and says sbe
11) Angry (2) Mad (3) ^iapcy
Toa s e e a snake. (1) Proad (2) Am
2) lcnescnie
sbe l o v e s yoo .
(3)
w ? ' •
45
131
25. You win the football game. (1) Mad (2) Sad (basketball)
(3) Proud
26. Tomorrow was Christmas. (1) Happy (2) Lonesome
(3) Angry
u h: m
S
I
' l
,^ '"""""* " ^ ^-T^—- -..'-•^.isat^
132
APPENDIX C: STICK-FIGURE AFFECT DISCRIMINATION SCALE
Instructions:
(1) This is a play picture of a (boy) (girl). Does he feel
loved, mad, or scared? If the child responds correctly,
score a + and continue. If he misses the example,
repeat it. If then he misses the correct response, .^
tell him the correct answer and then proceed.
Move rapidly, repeating the three choices for each ;
stick figure no more than three times. 1 I
Choices and correct responses indicated: .
1. loved mad scared
2. tired angry loved
3. sad happy jealous
4. lonesome angry happy
5. mad happy scared
6. sad loved angry
7. sad jealous loved
8« tired happy loved
9. sad happy tired
10. scared sad mad
Figures 1 - 1 0 follow. (The three choices for each plus
the correct responses for each is indicated. The answers
were not on the original test figures.)
!!1 I
133
->ji
I . 1, l oved 2. mad 3 . s ca red
134
II. 1. tired 2. angry 3 loved
135
I I I . 1. sad 2. happy 3. j ea lous
136
..i'i
IV. 1. lonesome 2. angry 3. happy
...^-^
137
n
V. 1 . mad 2 . happy 3 . s c a r e d
138
I
.1
VI. 1. sad 2 . loved 3. angry
" T i ^
139
V I I . 1 . sad 2. j e a l o u s 3 . loved
140
>
.;i •1»
VIII. 1. tired 2. happy 3. loved
^ j«.iidb
141
IX. 1 . sad 2 . happy 3 . t i r e d
142
.1
.;) '«
X. 1. s c a r e d 2- sad 3. mad
-j...m.vml^
143
APPENDIX D: EVALUATIVE RESPONSES INVENTORY (Rhine, Hill, Wandruff, 1967)
Instructions: E seated on same side of table as child.
"I'm going to show you some pictures of little boys and
little girls. I want you to show me the one who is
doing something very good and very bad."
Example: Set B #1
Let's begin. In these pictures somebody is doing some-
thing very good. Point to the one who is doing some-
thing very good. (Read each description pointing out
each picture as you go.) Then repeat.
"Now point to the one who is doing something very good."
(If the child misses the correct R, explain it and go
on. Do not help on any others.
Encourage the child to guess if he cannot decide on
a response.
Scoring: The number of "good" pictures identified correctly,
the number of "bad" pictures identified correctly, and
the total number of correct responses will be recorded.
Score #1 Set B right or wrong also even though it may be
used as an example.
"good" = possible score of 0 - 8
"bad" = possible score of 0 - 8
total = possible score of 0 - 16
i 1 %
,9 "%
144
1 '•']
X)
lA Neutral. This little girl is walking.
. . - _ . u ^ . — ^
145
IB Set B, good. This little boy is going to the bathroom in the toilet, not in his pants.
146
IC Neutral. This little girl is playing with a kitten.
147
ID Neutral. This little girl is reading a book.
™ ^
148
2A Neutral. This little girl is playing with a doll.
149
iti
I I
í • i " • %
2B Set B, bad. This little boy won't go to bed.
150
m >
2C Neutral. This little boy is watching T.V.
151
2D Neutral. This little girl is playing with a toy,
152
3A Set B, good. This little boy is hugging his sister because her teddy bear is torn,
153
\ '«1
m
3B Neutral. This little girl is pushing a baby carriage.
154
3C Neutral. This little boy is playing ball
B ! ^
155
I I
3D Neutral. This little girl is drinking a soda pop.
•JW^ ^-•.^^í^l^imOTVB^^H
156
'1
4A
V.OV is coming through , This little boy xs
157
4B Neutral. This little girl is playing with her dog.
-, .'«--fjt^
158
'i
4C Set B, good. This little boy is getting dressed all by himself.
níi&^^^^^^S^M
159
4D Neutral. This little boy is cutting out a paper plane from his cutout book with his play scissors.
160
5A Set B, bad. This little boy is taking a toy away from his baby brother.
• • t i i 'MWÍl l i
161
5B Neutral. This little boy is pulling a wagon.
162
5C Neutral. This little girl is walking,
^Æmmatå
163
o o o
5D Neutral. This little boy is blowing bubbles with his bubble pipe.
164
6A Neutral. This little boy is eating a cookie,
d ^
165
6B Neutral. This little girl is playing with her doll house.
mammu^
166
6C Neutral. This little boy is playing with a truck.
, ,1 I — M | k
167
6D Set B, bad. This little boy is tearing up his book.
168
7A Neutral. This little boy is playing with a teddy bear.
'.---•••,«««>i
169
7B Neutral. This little girl is playing ball.
• . iWh
170
7C
..d This little boy is chasing a ball
^^" ' S the street.
171
••*is ; S-£i
7D Neutral. This little girl is riding a tricycle.
172
8A Neutral. This little girl is eating a banana,
173
8B Neutral. This little boy is playing in a wagon,
i ^
174
8C Set B, good. This l i t t l e g i r l i s ho ld ing t h e door open for her mommy.
I \
1 I I MmiiywMnM
175
8D Neutral. This little boy is playing blocks
/ ^
.«£s«l
176
9A Neutral. This little boy is rocking on his rocking horse.
177
9B Neutral. This little boy is playing with a teddy bear.
T ^
1.4 .^
178
9C Set A, good. This little boy is hugging his mommy.
. ti,_»-mm.
179
9D Neutral. This little girl is playing with a doll.
j.^
180
lOA Set A, bad. This little girl is messing up the bathroom.
181
lOB Neutral. This little girl is jumping ropi
í ^
182
lOC Neutral. This little girl is playing tea party.
^
1
183
lOD Neutral. This little girl is playing ball.
'-^^i^^g^
184
IIA Neutral. This little boy is playing in a wagon.
185
IIB Neutral. This little boy is playing ball.
• -^'mtmMm 1
186
IIC Set A, bad. This little boy is kicking his dog.
187
IID Neutral. This little girl is drinking a soda pop,
iɫnr~ l
188
12A Neutral. This little boy is eating dinner.
A
189
12B Set A, good. This little girl is helping her mommy sweep.
-1
190
12C Neutral. This little boy is coloring in his coloring book.
IJ 1
191
12D Neutral. This little boy is sitting in a chair.
A
192
UA/Lj
13A Neutral. This little girl is looking at a butterfly.
. _ £ B 4
193
13B Neutral. This little boy is cutting out a paper plane from his cutout book with his play scissors.
JM—2»»^
-.i^^
194
13C Neutral. This little girl is walking,
o^
tmaÊÊÊÊmt-
13D Set A, bad. This little girl is scribbling on the wall.
Å
196
14A ^^utral. Thi
s little boy i is Playi ^^ i^ a sandbox.
197
o o o
•«
o
14B Neutral. This little boy is blowing bubbles with his bubble pipe.
•ÉIMMMr'fl
198
11
14C Neutral. This little girl is playing with her dog.
£
199
14D Set A, good. This little girl is cleaning up her room.
r--
200
15A Neutral. This little boy is playing blocks
X L • I . f U É M H — t 1
201
15B Set A, bad. This little girl is trying to take the teddy bear away from a friend.
A •imM—nMfi
202
15C Neutral. This little girl is playing with her doll.
203
15D Neutral. This little girl is playing with her doll house.
Å
204
16A Set A, good. This little boy is helping his mommy feed the baby.
imtiÊÊimÍm
205
16B Neutral. This little boy is pulling a wagon.
206
16C Neutral. This little girl is eating an ice cream cone.
207
16D Neutral. This little girl is reading a book.
m M H H H I
208
APPENDIX E: BROWN IDS SELF-CONCEPT REFERENTS TEST
CHILD'S NAME
Examiner: Well, now, we're going to take a picture of you. Get ready now? 1, 2, 3 . . .
Well, look at that picture (pointing to picture).
That's apicture of you. That's a picture of
(child's name) This is really you because
you are and there you are in the
picture.
(jan you tell me who is in the picture?
(Be sure to obtain a statement from the child which indicates
that he recognizes himself.)
(Seat child at a table of suitable height for him. Use tape
to fasten the picture to the table in front of him. Examiner
should sit directly across the table from the child.)
Questions:
1. Now can you tell me, is (child's name) happy or
is he sad?
2. Now can you tell me, is clean or
is he dirty?
3. Now can you tell me, is good looking
or is he ugly?
4. Now can you tell me, does like to play
with other kids or doesn't he like to play with other
kids?
i ^m't\
209
5. Now can you tell me, does like to have his
own things or does he like to have other kids' things?
6. Now can you tell me, is ^ good or is he bad?
7. Now can you tell me, does like to talk a lot
or doesn't he like to talk a lot?
8. Now can you tell me, is smart or is he stupid?
9. Now can you tell me, is scared of a lot of
things or not scared of a lot of things?
10. Now can you tell me, is scared of a lot of
people or not scared of a lot of people?
11. Now can you tell me, does like the way his
clothes look or not like the way his clothes look?
12. Now can you tell me, is strong or is he weak?
13. Now can you tell me, is healthy or is he sick?
14. Now can you tell me, does like the way his
face looks or not like the way his face looks?
Examiner: Now that was very good, . I'd like to
ask you a few more questions. This time, I'd like to ask
you a few questions about (child's name)'s mother. Can
you tell me?
1. Does 's mother think is happy or sad?
2. Does 's mother think is clean or dirty?
3. Does 's mother think is good looking or ugly?
4. Does 's mother think likes to play with
other kids or doesn't like to play with other kids?
5. Does
6.
7.
's mother think
210
likes to have his own
things or likes to have other kids' things?
Does 's mother think is good or bad?
Does 's mother think likes to talk a lot
or doesn't like to talk a lot?
8. Does
9. Does
's mother think
's mother think
is smart or stupid?
is scared of a lot
of people or not scared of a lot of people?
10. Does 's mother think is scared of a lot of t
things or not scared of a lot of things?
11. Does 's mother like the way 's clothes look
pr not like the way ' s clothes look?
12. Does 's mother think is strong or weak?
13. Does 's mother think he is healthy or sick?
14. Does 's mother like the way 's face looks
or not like the way 's face looks?
Examiner: That was very good. I'd like to ask you
a few questions about
1. Does
's teachers. Can you tell me:
's teacher think is happy or sad?
2. Does
3. Does
ugly?
4. Does
's teacher think
's teacher think
's teacher think
is clean or dirty?
is good looking or
likes to play with
other kids or doesn't like to play with other kids?
211
5. Does 's teacher think likes to have his own
things or likes to have other kids' things?
- ^o^s 's teacher think is smart or stupid?
-- ^o^s 's teacher think likes to talk to a
lot of people or does not like to talk to a lot of
people?
' Do^s 's teacher think is smart or stupid?
9* Does 's teacher think is scared of a lot
of things or not scared of a lot of things?
10. Does 's teacher think is scared of a lot of
people or not scared of a lot of people?
11. Does 's teacher like the way 's clothes look
or not like the way his clothes look?
12. Does 's teacher think is strong or weak?
13. Does 's teacher think is healthy or sick?
14. Does 's teacher like the way 's face looks
or not like the way his face looks?
Examiner: That was very good. Now I'd like to ask you a
few questions about other kids. Can you tell me:
1. Do other kids think is happy or sad?
2. Do other kids think is clean or dirty?
3. Do other kids think is good looking or ugly?
4. Do other kids think likes to play with them or
does not like to play with them?
â • ^ ™ j — — — ^ : • «^
212
5. Do other kids think likes to have his own things
or likes to have their things?
6. Do other kids think is good or bad?
7. Do other kids think likes to talk a lot or
doesn't like to talk a lot?
8. Do other kids think is smart or stupid?
9. Do other kids think is scared of a lot of things
or not scared of a lot of things?
10. Do other kids think is scared of a lot of people
or not scared of a lot of people?
11. Do other kids like the way 's clothes look or not
like the way his clothes look?
12. Do other kids think is strong or weak?
13. Do other kids think likes the way his face looks
or does not like the way his face looks?
14. Do other kids think is healthy or sick?
END OF FIRST SESSION
(After the group instructional program, the procedure
for administering the questionnaire was repeated using the
original picture. The examiner concluded with the following
statement.)
Examiner: Well, this picture is for you to keep, just as I
promised. Here it is; remember you can do whatever you like
with it for yourself or show it to your mother or teacher or
whatever you like.
END OF SECOND SESSION
I
I
213
APPENDIX F: MISSOURI CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST (Sines, J., Sines, L., Parker, & Owen)
Directions: Indicate by circling "Yes" or "No" whether or
not has typically and currently shown the behavior
described in each of the following statements. If you are
uncertain about your answer, please make a best guess.
1. (69) Yes No Sought out by others, others say they like
him; among the first selected for teams, etc.
2. (62) Yes No Expresses appreciation for others' acts.
3. (25) Yes No Speaks with weak voice, in a monotone,
voice "trails off" at ends of sentences, or speaks in a
weak, high pitched voice.
4. (40) Yes No Speaks rapidly, words "come tumbling out
fast."
5. (9) Yes No Pulls other children's hair, punches,
steps on toes, etc., annoys children.
6. (47) Yes No Tosses and turns in sleep, rolls, gets up
often at night, etc., (poor or restless sleeping.)
7. (45) Yes No Talks in sleep.
8. (66) Yes No Says "I'm sorry," "Won't you forgive me?"
more than others do (expresses great remorse, apologizes
repeatedly, cries after hurting or telling untruths or
destroying property).
9. (49) Yes No Walks in sleep.
10. (27) Yes No Says "I'm tired," "I want to rest," etc.
(others say that he tires easily or rests often).
-f^!»««l
\ .
214
11. (12) Yes No Plays with matches.
12. (46) Yes No Complains of bad dreams.
13. (41) Yes No Becomes jittery, building up tension,
becomes wound up.
14. (59) Yes No Cries at separation from mother (on going
to school, camp, etc.)
15. (5) Yes No Unscrupulously takes advantage of others.
16. (44) Yes No Cries out in sleep.
17. (52) Yes No Irregular bedtime.
18. (18) Yes No Swears or curses (uses "Hell," "God damn"
or other four letter words.
19. (50) Yes No Sleeps well, awakes very few times at
night (good sleeper).
20. (11) Yes No Destroys or defaces property.
21. (20) Yes No Prefers to be with children younger than
himself.
22. (36) Yes No Stumbles, falls easily, throws clumsily,
is awkward.
23. (63) Yes No Expresses delight over the happiness of
others (e.g. , claps hands, says "That's good!")
24. (10) Yes No Steals.
25. (17) Yes No Threatens to kill someone.
26. (8) Yes No Screams, bangs objects when denied some-
thing, has temper tantrums.
27. (31) Yes No Is seclusive, prefers to be by himself.
215
28. (3) Yes No Says "Others are to blame" for own actions.
29. (24) Yes No Withdraws, remains quiet, does not talk
back when others shove, hit, accuse, or criticize him
(does not stand up for self).
30. (60) Yes No Has physical complaints.
31. (42) Yes No Is said to be distractable, moves away
quickly from what he is doing when something else moves,
when someone speaks, or other sounds are made.
32. (1) Yes No Says as for instance, "I'll get even,"
"You won't get away with that," "I'll show him,"
expresses desire for revenge.
33. (22) Yes No Does not try new situations, "hangs back,"
is considered by others as fearful or shy.
34. (32) Yes No Does not participate in group activities,
stays in background (said to be retiring).
35. (16) Yes No Screams more than others.
36. (53) Yes No Becomes so upset by changes in routine
such as changing residences or schools or when expecting
visitors that the child may vomit or report bodily aches,
headaches, stomach aches, or feelings of nausea.
37. (54) Yes No Worries a great deal, is said to be a
worrier, expresses worry or concern about bad grades,
health, etc.
38. (61) Yes No Expresses or shows concern over the mis-
fortunes of others (e.g., pats shoulder, asks questions
about troubles, says "You feel unhappy, don't you?")
âÃ.
216
39. (56) Yes No Complains of pains in head.
40. (67) Yes No Talks easily with adults, initiates
activities or conversation with adults other than
parents.
41. (33) Yes No Is shy or timid.
42. (37) Yes No Over talkative, chatters, keeps talking
or interrupting conversations.
43. (60) Yes No Asks to be held or hugged, climbs into
lap, etc., (seeks physical expressions of affection.)
44. (70) Yes No Requests praise or approval.
45. (7) Yes No Makes statements contrary to fact (lying,
telling untruths).
46. (26) Yes No Stays largely in room or house.
47. (57) Yes No Complains of pain in limbs or back
(muscle aches and pains.)
48. (29) Yes No Sensitive.
49. (2) Yes No Fights.
50. (15) Yes No Hits smaller children, "picks on" weaker
or smaller children.
51. (28) Yes No Cries easily.
52. (14) Yes No Teases other children.
53. (43) Yes No Falls, cuts, bruises, injures self, has
many accidents.
54. (13) Yes No Hurts other children (pinches, hits,
kicks, or other destructive behavior.)
217
55. (51) Yes No Has difficulty going to sleep.
56. (35) Yes No Jumps from one activity to the next, does
not finish task (others say he has a short attention
span).
57. (58) Yes No Vomits when things do not go his way,
when he shows signs of anger (red face, raised voice,
etc. ) when he says he is worried or when he feels sad
or is emotionally upset.)
58. (21) Yes No Is apathetic or underactive.
59. (39) YeS No Becomes more active or more talkative
in groups; becomes noiser and more excited than usual
when he is in a group.
60. (55) Yes No Clings to mother (stays close to mother,
hands closé onto dress or hand.)
61. (23) Yes No Does not perform before group, refuses
to speak before class when requested, does not volunteer
to speak or act before group or class.
62. (65) Yes No Discusses own problems with others.
63. (19) Yes No Does not answer when spoken to, pouts,
looks mean or sullen.
64. (34) Yes No Moves constantly, "gets into everything,"
"swarms all over," is overactive.
65. (64) Yes No Expresses delight in beauty.
66. (30) Yes No Has few friendships.
67. (4) Yes No Selfish.
68. (6) Yes No Hurts animals.
jT ^
/ ^rA
218
69. (38) Yes No Signs or hums continually (to the ex-
pressed annoyance of others).
70. (48) Yes No Talks about or complains of nightmares
about past serious events (divorce, automobile acci-
dents, fire, loss of loved one, or other "crises" events.
Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist. Items on
each scale are listed as follows: (all items answered yes
are scored with the exception of those listed.)
AGGRESSION (A)
5. Pulls other children's hair, punches, steps on toes,
etc., annoys children.
11. Plays with matches.
15. Unscrupulously takes advantage of others.
18. Swears or curses (uses "Hell," "God damn" or other
four letter words.
20. Destroys or defaces property.
24. Steals
25. Threatens to kill someone.
26. Screams, bangs objects when denied something, has
temper tantrums.
28. Says "Others are to blame" for own actions.
32. Says for instance, "I'H get even," "You won't get
away with that," "I'll show him," expresses desire for
revenge.
219
35. Screams more than others.
45. Makes statements contrary to fact (lying, telling
untruths).
49. Fights.
50. Hits smaller children, "picks on" weaker or smaller
children.
52. Teases other children.
54. Hurts other children (pinches, hits, kicks, or other
destructive behavior).
63. Does not answer when spoken to, pouts, looks mean or
sullen.
67. Selfish.
68. Hurts animals.
INHIBITION (I)
3. Speaks with weak voice, in a monotone, voice "trails
off" at ends of sentences, or speaks in a weak, high
pitched voice.
10. Says, "I'm tired," "I want to rest," etc. (others say
that he tires easily or rests often).
21. Prefers to be with children younger than himself.
27. Is seclusive, prefers to be by himself.
29. Withdraws, remains quiet, does not talk back when
others shove, hit, accuse, or criticize him (does not
stand up for self).
220
33. Does not try new situations, "hangs back," is con-
sidered by others as fearful or shy.
34. Does not participate in group activities, stays in
background (said to be retiring).
41. Is shy or timid.
46. Stays largely ir> room or house.
48. Sensitive.
51. Cries easily.
58. Is apathetic or underactive.
61. Does not' perform before a group, refuses to speak
before class when requested, does not volunteer to
speak or act before group or class.
66. Has few close friendships.
ACTIVITY LEVEL (H)
4. Speaks rapidly, words "come tumbling out fast."
13. Becomes jittery, building up tension, becomes wound up.
22. Stumbles, falls easily, throws clumsily, is awkward.
31. Is said to be distractable, moves away quickly from
what he is doing when something else moves, when
someone speaks, or other sounds are made.
42. Overtalkative, chatters, keeps talking or interrupting
conversations.
53. Falls, cuts, bruises, injures self, has many accidents.
56. Jumps from one activity to the next, does not finish
task (others say he has a short attention span).
:'.' %immm i i i i f fîr l
221
59. Becomes more active or more talkative in groups;
becomes noiser and more excited than usual when he
is in a group.
SLEEP DISTURBANCE (Sl)
6. Tosses and turns in sleep, rolls, gets up often at
night, etc., (poor sleeper or restless sleeper).
7. Talks in sleep.
9. Walks in sleep.
12. Complains of bad dreams.
16. Cries out in sleep.
17. Irregular bedtime.
19. (No) Sleeps well, awakes very few times at night
(good sleeper).
55. Has difficulty going to sleep.
70. Talks about or complains of nightmares about past
serious events (divorce, automobile accidents, fire,
loss of loved one, or other "crises" events).
SOMATIZATION (Ps)
14. Cries at separation from mother (on going to school,
camp, etc.).
30. Has physical complaints.
36. Becomes so upset by changes in routine such as
changing residences or schools or when expecting
visitors that the child may vomit or report bodily
aches, headaches, stomach aches, or feelings of nausea.
222
37. Worries a great deal, is said to be a worrier, expres-
ses worry or concern about bad grades, health, etc.
39. Complains of pains in head.
47. Complains of pains in limbs or back (muscle aches and
pains).
57. Vomits when things do not go his way, when he shows
signs of anger (red face, raised voice, etc. ) when he
says he is worried or when he feels sad or is emotional-
ly upset).
60. Clings to mother (stays close to mother, hands close
onto dress or hand).
SOCIABILITY (So)
1. Sought out by others, others say they like him; among
the first selected for teams, etc.
2. Expresses appreciation for others' acts.
8. Says "I'm sorry," "Won't you forgive me?" more than
others do (expresses great remorse, apologizes repeated-
ly, cries after hurting or telling untruths or destroy-
ing property).
23. Expresses delight over the happiness of others (e.g.,
claps hands, says "That's good."
38. Expresses or shows concern over the misfortunes of
others (e.g., pats shoulder, asks questions about
troubles, says, "You feel unhappy, don't you?"
X
223
40. Talks easily with adults, initiates activities or con-
versation with adults other than parents.
43. Asks to be held or hugged, climbs into lap, etc. ,
(seeks physical expressions of affection) .
44. Requests praise or approval.
62. Discusses own problems with others.
65. Expresses delight in beauty.
"*-"' •'WI-'W' -'-'í'^'^íîJS-''--í3pJH--í--ví-',-rr''• r ^ ÚálrlÚ-~«^W
224
APPENDIX G: PRESCHOOL TEACHER'S RATING SCALE
Child's Name: Date:
Teacher:
In each statement circle the best answer that describes
the above named child at the present time. Your complete
objectivity will be appreciated.
Each statement may be marked on a 1 to 5 scale. These
numbers represent:
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Undecided
4. Disagree
5. Strongly disagree
For example: The statement "has many friends" may be
answered 1 - 5 . The number 1 when circled would indicate
that the described child undoubtedly has many friends,
whereas number 3 would indicate that you are not aware of
this information. If number 5 was circled this would in-
dicate that to your knowledge, the child has no friends.
Remember Complete objectivity is essential so that
each child may benefit fully from this evaluation.
wiååt ^k
225
(1) 1 2 3 4 5 Gets and stays extremely excited to
the distraction of others.
(2) 1 2 3 4 5 Has a small vocabulary compared to
other children his age.
(3) 1 2 3 4 5 Displays leadership.
(4) 1 2 3 4 5 Fights.
(5) 1 2 3 4 5 Follows directions.
(6) 1 2 3 4 5 Cannot control his behavior,
(7) 1 2 3 4 5 Has a "mind of his own" - stubborn.
(8) 1 2 3 4 5 Won't listen when corrected.
(9) 1 2 3 4 5 Sad and disappointed.
(10) 1 2 3 4 5 Dependent - clinging.
(11) 1 2 3 4 5 Speaks in complete sentences.
(12) 1 2 3 4 5 Plays around - hard to get interested.
(13) 1 2 3 4 5 Does not listen attentively.
(14) 1 2 3 4 5 Mature for age (handles himself with
authority - confidence).
(15) 1 2 3 4 5 Popular with peers.
(16) 1 2 3 4 5 Loves to get involved in group discus-
sions.
(17) 1 2 3 4 5 Can talk about what he is feeling.
(18) 1 2 3 4 5 Intellectually superior.
(19) 1 2 3 4 5 Hides his feelings.
(20) 1 2 3 4 5 Cannot get along with the opposite sex.
(21) 1 2 3 4 5 Can understand child's feelings by his
words.
..i J. .- J*»4X« ÉáÉÊm a
226
(22) 1 2 3 4 5 Gets upset often without any apparent
reason.
(23) 1 2 3 4 5 Retells stories, poems, experiences.
(24) 1 2 3 4 5 Slow, resistant, hard to motivate.
(25) 1 2 3 4 5 Cannot be disciplined.
(26) 1 2 3 4 5 Ambitious (likes to get things done,
stay busy).
(27) 1 2 3 4 5 Happy to be alive.
(28) 1 2 3 4 5 Hesitant to initiate play with other
children.
(29) 1 2 3 4 5 Initiates own activities.
(30) 1 2 3 4 5 Impulsively goes from task to task.
(31) 1 2 3 4 5 Listens to constructive criticism.
(32) 1 2 3 4 5 Looks at each day with enthusiasm.
(33) 1 2 3 4 5 Hard to understand what he feels.
(34) 1 2 3 4 5 Handles disappointment well.
(35) 1 2 3 4 5 Jealous of others.
(36) 1 2 3 4 5 Fights.
(37) 1 2 3 4 5 Displays leadership.
(38) 1 2 3 4 5 Short attention span.
(39) 1 2 3 4 5 Other children cannot understand what
he means.
(40) 1 2 3 4 5 Clearly expresses his own thoughts.
(41) 1 2 3 4 5 Expresses feelings so they can be
understood.
"«Cs
dUÊÊÊím
227
(42) 1 2 3 4. 5 Easily upset.
(43) 1 2 3 4 5 Selfish, bossy.
(44) 1 2 3 4 5 Withdraws.
(45) 1 2 3 4 5 Appreciates the rights of others.
(46) 1 2 3 4 5 Avoids fighting, yelling, aggressive-
ness.
(47) 1 2 3 4 5 Does not comprehend the usefulness of
the group.
(4 8) 1 2 3 4 5 Enters into play with others.
(49) 1 2 3' 4 5 Not interested in learning new things.
(50) 1 2 3 4 5 Contributes useful ideas in class.
(51) 1 2 3 4 5 Experiences fears and anxieties.
(52) 1 2 3 4 5 Independent when given the opportunity.
(53) 1 2 3 4 5 Works on tasks to their completion.
(54) 1 2 3 4 5 Plays around - hard to get interested.
X
228
Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale: (Item descriptions
for each pool of items + or - refers to scoring valence).
AFFECT AWARENESS (AA)
17+ Can talk about what he is feeling.
19- Hides his feelings.
21+ Can understand child's feelings by his words.
33- Hard to understand what he feels.
39- Other children cannot understand what he means.
40+ Clearly expresses his own thoughts.
41+ Expresses feelings so they can be understood.
45+ Appreciates rights of others.
UNHAPPINESS - HAPPINESS (U)
9- Sad and disappointed.
10- Dependent - clinging.
22- Gets upset often without any apparent reason.
27+ Happy to be alive.
28- Hesitant to initiate play with other children.
32+ Looks at each day with enthusiasm.
34+ Handles disappointment well.
35- Jealous of others.
42- Easily upset.
44- Withdraws
51- Experiences fears and anxieties.
229
MATURE CONTROLS (M)
1- Gets and stays extremely excited to the distraction
of others.
3+ Displays leadership.
4- Fights.
5+ Follows directions.
6- Cannot control his behavior.
7- Has a "mind of his own" - stubborn.
8- Won't listen when corrected.
12- Plays around - hard to get interested.
13- Does not listen attentively.
14+ Mature for age (handles himself with authority -
confidence).
15+ Popular with peers.
20- Cannot get along with opposite sex.
24- Slow, resistant, hard to motivate.
25- Cannot be disciplined
26+ Ambitious (likes to get things done, stay busy).
29+ Initiates own activities.
30- Impulsively goes from task to task.
31+ Listens to constructive criticism.
36- Fights.
37+ Displays leadership.
43- Selfish, bossy.
46+ Avoids fighting, yelling, aggressiveness.
. • iiii
-J.^
230
48+ Enters into play with others.
52+ Independent when given the opportunity.
53+ Works on tasks to their completion.
54- Plays around - hard to get interested.
INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDES (I)
2- Has a small vocabulary compared to other children
his age.
11+ Speaks in complete sentences.
16+ Loves to get involved in group discussions.
18+ Intellectually superior.
23+ Retells stories, poems, experiences.
38- Short attention span.
47- Does not comprehend the usefulness of the group.
49- Not interested in learning new things.
50+ Contributes useful ideas in class.
% . '
r '.£ I'l:i lrL.t^»I4-l ÚrÍtft t': » &k « r i