relationships between the schenectady kindergarten rating scales and first grade achievement and...

USE OF NEGATIVE INSTANCES I N THE LEARNING OF GRAMMATICAL CONCEPTS 29

may be sufficient to present only positive instances. Negative instances, either related or unrelated, may produce more efficient learning when only one type of positive instance is used.

REFERENCES AUSUBEL, DAVXD. Mear ingful reception learning and the acquisition of mnce ts. In H. Klausmeier

and C. Harris (Eds), Analyses of m e p t learning. New York: Academic Ikm, 1966. BRALEY, LOY 5. Strategy selection and negative instances in concept learning. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 1963, 64, 154159. BRUNER, JEROME, GOODNOW, JACQUELINE, & AUSTIN, GEORQE. A study of thinking. New York:

Wiley, 1956 CARROLL, JonN B. Words, meanings, and concepts. Harvard Educational Review, 1964, 34, 178-202. GAQNE, ROBERT. The condition of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. HUTTENMCHER, JANELLEN. Some effects of negative instances on the formation of simple concepts.

Psychological Reports, 1962,l I , 35-42.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SCHENECTADY KINDERGARTEN RATING SCALES AND FIRST GRADE ACHIEVEMENT AND ADJUSTMENT’

JON TOBIESSEN, BARBARA DUCKWORTH, AND W. GLENN CONRAD

Schenectady County Child C4uidanee Center, Iw.

The Schenectady Kindergarten Rating Scales (SKRS) are a battery of teacher- administered behavior rating scales that have been developed as an economical means of screening large numbers of children in kindergarten so that preventive or remedial programs can be provided for those who are deficient in language, motor, cognitive, or social development (Conrad & Tobiessen, 1967). The present report is a summary of an evaluation of the predictive efficacy of empirically- derived SKRS profiles. Two general questions were considered: Do children with different diagnoses in first grade have SKRS profiles corresponding to their first- grade problems; if so, can first-grade diagnoses be predicted on the basis of SKRS profiles? For convenience, the scales are listed and briefly described below in the order in which they appear in the rater’s booklet.2

1. Waiting and Sharing (WS), a 7-point scale measuring the child’s ability to wait for things, to share possessions, and to take turns.

2. Level of Organization of Play (LOP), a 5-point scale concerning the degree to which a child organizes the play material a t hid disposal.

3. CZarity of Speech (CS), a &point scale involving the clarity of a child’s apeech and how easily it can be understood.

4. Use of Materials (UM), a 5-point scale concerning the child’s ability to represent reality using art materials,

1This invwtigation was supported by P. H. S. Research Grant No. MH16367-01 from the Na-

3A User’s Manual containina the final version of the SKRS and answer sheet is available from the tional Institute of Mental Health.

authors at 821 Union Street, ScEenectady, New York, 12308.

30 JON TOBIESSEN, BARBARA DUCKWORTH AND W. GLENN CONRAD

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Restraint of Motor Activity (RMA), a 7-point scale involving the length of time a child can engage in a quiet, subdued activity.

Cooperation with Adults (CoA), a 5-point scale involving the child’s willingness to comply with requests by adults.

Verbal Skill (VS), a 5-point scale regarding the complexity of a child’s vocabulary and sentence structure.

Fearfulness (Fr), a 5-point scale involving the extent to which a child seems apprehensive.

Frequency of Anger Toward Adults (FAA), a 7-point scale concerning the frequency of physical and verbal expressions of anger toward adults in the classroom.

Use of Scissors (US), a 5-point scale involving the child’s ability to manipulate scissors.

Type of Motor Activity (TMA), a 7-point scale regarding the degree to which a child engages in large muscle as opposed to small muscle activities.

Activity us. Passivity of Speech (APS), a 5-point scale involving the amount of speaking done by a child.

Frequency of Anger Toward Children (FAC), a 7-point scale concerning the frequency of physical and verbal expressions of anger toward peers.

METHOD Procedure

All children from the 1967-68 first-grade class who had been rated on the SKRS in January 1967, were diagnosed on the basis of first-grade teachers’ ratings of behavior and achievement and scores on the New York State Readiness Tests. Children were assigned to seven diagnostic categories for which early identification might facilitate prevention or remediation. After the entire class was diagnosed, each diagnostic group was randomly divided in half. Distributions of SKRS raw scores were obtained for one-half the sam le (criterion group), while the remaining half was reserved for cross-validating the profiles obtaineffrom the criterion group. The SKRS ratings of the cross-validation group then were categorized according to predictive profiles (patterns of ratings resembling the patterm obtained by the various first-grade diagnostic groups withn the criterion group). After children were assigned to predictive categories, relationships between predictjive categories and first- grade diagnoses were examined.

First-Grade h p s e s Children who received ratings of “no progress” or “below grade level” in reading and arithmetic

“retarded” or “below average” in intelligence, and had scores below the 25th percentile on loca! norms of the New York State Readiness Tests were included in a Low Ability category. All Low Ability chldren were low achievers, but the reasons for poor achievement ranged from mental retarda- tion to s ecific learning disabilities. Regardless of the reason, they were academically unsuccessful first grders for whom early identification might facilitate assignment to appropriate remedial or specialeducation programs.

Children who received four or more points of a possible eight on activity items of an adjective checklist (active, noisy, talkative restless) and low scores on readiness subtests involving perceptual- motor functionin were classified as Hyperkinetic. Early identification is regarded as particularly beneficial to chiljren in this category since chemotherapy early in the H erkinetic child’s school career often permits successful achievement instead of continued failure anflrustration.

Children scoring 4 or more points out of a possible 12 on hostility items included in an adjective checklist (boastful, disobedient, jealous, rough, rude, stubborn, uncooperative) were classified as Hostile. Children so classified were assumed to have behavior problems resulting from social or emotional factors in contrast to Hyperkinetic children, who displayed disruptive behavior but without excessive anger.

Children scoring 4 or more points out of a possible 10 on withdrawal items included in an adjective checklist (worried, tense, fearful, sad, shy) were classified as Withdrawn. As w-th Hostile children] Withdrawn children were felt to be manifesting symptoms of emotional origin.

Three additional categories were obtained by various combinations of the four primary categories: Low Ability-Hyperkinetic, Low Ability-Withdrawn, and Low Ability-Mmed Emotional Problems. The cut-off scores for the adjective checklist and the New York State Readiness Tests were based on a pretest of 200 children randomly selected from the 1967-68 first-grade class. Scores obtained by the

SCHENECTADY KINDERGARTEN RATING SCALES AND FIRST GRADE ACHIEVEMENT 31

least mature 25% of the sample were used to define “problems” operationally. Children who did not fit in? any of the seven diagnostic groups were classified as “no-problem” or “miscellaneous problems. Defining SKRS Profiles

Norms for all no-problem Ss from the criterion group and cross-valication group are presented in Table 1. Raw scores obtained by less than 25y0 of the no- roblem group were defined &s Deviant Scores. Differences in percentage of Deviant Scores between t i e no-problem group and each diagnostic group served as the basis for evaluating patterns of scores. Differences of more than 40 percentage points were used to define the predictive profilea that were used for cross-validation.

TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE OF OCCURRENCE OF SKRS RAW SCORES FOR 1967 KINDEROARTEN STUDENTS WITH No ACHIEVEMENT OR A D J U S ~ N T PROBLEMS IN FIRST GRADE, BY SEX

Raw Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 WS Boys (N = 96) Girls (N = 135)

2 LOP Boys Girls

Zz 3 cs 4 UM Boys

Girls 5 RMA Boys

Girls 6 CoA Boys

Girls 7 VS Boys

Girls 8 Fr Boys

Girls 9 FAA Boys

Girls 10 US Boys

Girls 11 TMA Boys

Girls 12 APS ZE 13 FAC Boys

Girls

0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 4 1 2 0 4 1 4 0 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 7 0 2 1 8 1 5 2 4 0 7

3 0 10 10 8 4 7 6 17 7 4 6 16 12 20 19 6 5 18 10 11 24 11 13 14 8

5 2 44 45 8 11 45 36 22 24 40 29 50 52 36 33 6 5 46 39 30 27 30 36 9 6

15 32 45 8 29 60 45 44 45 38 39 44 47 57 29 26 5 24 30 13 51 62 30 31 40 45 9 16 62 7 12 69 33 49 44 4 4 29 14 4 50 45 25 19 27 9 21 49

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Identification of Profiles

Table 2 presents the percentages of Deviant Scores for the no-problem group and the seven diagnostic groups. On all scales, the 81 children categorized as “miscellaneous problems” received about the same proportion of Deviant Scores (within 15 percentage points) as the no-problem group. Differences of more than 40 percentage points between the no-problem group and the diagnostic group are shown in italics.

Table 2 shows that the Low Ability-Mixed Emotional Problems first graders seemed angry in their social relations (CoA, FAA, FAC), limited in some ability areas (US, VS), and reluctant to attempt new learning tasks (Fr) when they were


TABLE 2. P~RCENTAQE OF DEVIANT SKRS RATINGS FOR EACH DIAGNOSTIC CRITERION GROUP (BOYS AND GIRLS COMBINED)

Deviance = CoA FAA FAC WS RMA TMA US UM LOP VS CS APS Fr scorebelow: 4 6 5 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4

No Problem 9 15 18 20 13 24 17 8 9 18 18 20 24 N = 321

Low Ability & MixedEmot. 60 90 60 50 40 60 80 30 40 60 50 30 ro

N = 10 LOW Ability 29 24 18 53 35 47 71 r1 69 ri 69 47 n

N = 17 Low Ability H rkinetic 67 50 57 79 64 86 7’1 60 64 71 71 50 3 r= 14 Low Ability Withdrawn 63 50 50 38 38 25 63 60 63 63 76 63 88

N = 8 H erkinetic ‘YO 48 56 74 69 88 6’7 41 41 63 48 30 59

g = 2 7 Hostile 88 73 88 82 27 82 45 27 64 36 27 36 54

N = 11 Withdrawn 17 6 22 0 33 33 39 28 39 50 39 61 61

N = 18

in kindergarten. Low Ability first graders seemed immature in all ability areas (US, UM, LOP, VS), speech (CS), and willingness to attempt new learning tasks (Fr) when in kindergarten. Low Ability-Hyperkinetic first graders were uncooperative (CoA), impulsive (WS, RMA, TMA), limited in ability (US, UM, LOP, VS) , and difficult to understand (CS) in kindergarten. Low Ability-Withdrawn first graders were uncooperative (CoA) and limited in ability (US, UM, LOP, VS) and speech (CS), but were also passive (APS) and quite inclined to be hesitant about new experiences (Fr). Hyperkinetic first graders received kindergarten ratings reflecting lack of cooperation (CoA) , impulsiveness (WS, RMA, TMA), and limited ability in some areas (US, VS). Hostile first graders received kindergarten ratings reflecting poor social adjustment (CoA, FAA, FAC) and immaturity in some aspects of impulse control (WS, TMA) and intellectual development (LOP). Withdrawn first graders received fewer Deviant Scores than did the no- problem group on two conduct scales (FAA, WS) and relatively few Deviant Scores on other scales except the inhibition scales (APS, Fr). Thus, with a few exceptions, areas of deviance in kindergarten were consistent with areas of deviance in first grade.

Cross-validation of Profiles The usefulness of the SKRS profiles as predictors of first-grade achievement

and adjustment was investigated by having two clinical psychologists interpret the profiles of all children who had been designated as cross-validation cases after their first-grade diagnoses were established. Without knowledge of their first- grade diagnoses, the judges assigned Ss to a “no-problem” category, an (‘unclassifiable” category, or one of the seven diagnostic categories for which profiles had


been obtained. For the many profiles that did not fit perfectly into any category, the judges decided jointly upon the most appropriate category.

The definitions used as the basis for categorizing profiles are given below. To simplify discussion of groups of scales, CoA, FAA, and FAC will be referred to as Social Adjustment scales; WS, RMA, and TMA as Impulse Control scales; US, UM, LOP, and VS as Ability scales; and APS and Fr as Inhibition scales.

No-problem. No more than five Deviant Scores, no more than one raw score below 3.

Unclassijable. A profile with few if any raw scores below 3 and no clearly definable pattern of Deviant Scores.

Low Ability and Mixed Emotional Problems. Deviant Scores on a t least two Ability scales, all Social Adjustment scales, and the Fr scale.

Low Ability. Deviant Scores on all Ability scales and the CS and Fr scales. Low Ability-Hyperkinetic. Deviant Scores on the Impulse Control, Ability,

CS, and CoA scales. Low Ability-Withdrawn. Deviant Scores on the Ability, CS, Inhibition, and

CoA scales. Hyperkinetic. Deviant Scores on the Impulse Control, CoA, and on some but

not all Ability scales. Hostile. Deviant Scores on the Social Adjustment, WS, and TMA scales. Withdrawn. Deviant Scores on the Inhibition scales.

Interpretation generally was based on the most deviant of the Deviant Scores in a child’s profile. Children with several raw scores of 1 or 2 often had other borderline Deviant Scores that were not used to diagnose their profiles. Conse- quently, the total number of Deviant Scores varied among cases having predictive profiles that were similar in nature but not degree.

Table 3 presents the relationships between SKRS profiles and first-grade diagnoses for the 294 classifiable cases. Of the 332 children in the cross-validation sample, 38 (1 1%) had unclassifiable profiles. No-problem profiles accurately predicted 135 (82y0) of the 165 children who had no problems in first grade.

Eight,een of the 41 first graders diagnosed as Hyperkinetic were accurately predicted and another 12 had Low Ability-Hyperkinetic profiles. Thus, 41oj, of the boys and 50% of the girls were predicted with complete accuracy, while 79% of the boys and 59y0 of the girls were identified accurately by either the Hyper- kinetic or Low Ability-Hyperkinetic profile. Only 1 child with a Hyperkinetic profile had a completely unrelated first-grade diagnosis. Ten Hyperkinetic first graders (%yo) did not appear to have problems in kindergarten, while 6 hyperkinetic kindergarteners (22oj,) presented no significant problems in first grade.

Twenty-three of 25 Low Ability-Hyperkinetic first graders were accurately predicted by their kindergarten profiles: 1 0 0 ~ o accuracy for boys, 77% for girls, In addition to predicting accurately almost all of the Low Ability-Hyperkinetic first graders, this profile was common among children in the two first-grade diag-


TABLE 3. CROSS CATEGORIZATION OF KINDERGARTEN PREDICTIVE CATEGORIES AND FIRST-GRADE DIAGNOSES, FREQUENCIES BY SEX

Kindergarten Categories First-Grade Xi0 L.A. Low L.A. LA. 1st Gr.

Diagnoses Prob. Hyper. Hyper. Abil. Mixed Wit.h. With. Host. Total -

No Prob. 60 75 6 4

4 2

12 6

4 2

11 1

16 7

3 4

1 4

5 1

77 88 29 12 16 9

14 7 3 2

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Hyper.

Low Abil. Hyper.

Low Abil.

0 1

0 2

1 1

6 2

0 2

0 1

0 1

7 0

Low Abil. Mixed Emot.

3 1

0 1

Low Abil. With.

Boys Girls Boys Girls

0 1

2 7

1 0

3 8 7

11 3 5

With-

Hostile drawn

3 4 1 2

0 1

2 1

1 4

Boys Girls

2 2

14 Kinder-

garten Boys 71 16 39 0 3 6 3 152

Total Girls 86 9 14 2 4 14 10 3 142

nostic groups that were to be identified by either a Low Ability or a Hyperkinetic profile. Only 6 of 53 children (11%) with Low Ability-Hyperkinetic profiles had no problems in first grade, and 4 (7%) had incongruous first-grade diagnoses.

The Low Ability profile without additional problems was obtained by 2 girls and no boys. Thus only 2 of 21 Low Ability first graders were accurately predicted. An additional 10 Low Ability first graders received profiles involving low ability plus adjustment or impulse control problems. Only 2 (10%) Low Ability first graders had no-problem profiles. Seven children with Hostile profiles were diagnosed as Low Ability first graders. There is no obvious explanation for this incongruity between kindergarten and first-grade diagnoses. Overall, 6 of 7 Low Ability first- grade girls had profiles with deviant ratings on Ability scales, while 6 of 14 boys had such ratings.

The Low Ability-Mixed Emotional Problem diagnosis occurred in few kindergarteners and even fewer first graders. However, 4 of the 5 first graders with the diagnosis were accurately identified.

Nine of 11 Low Ability-Withdrawn first graders were accurately predicted and the 2 remaining cases were either LOW Ability or Withdrawn in kindergarten. Of the 20 Low Ability-Withdrawn kindergarteners, 7 (35%) had no problems in first grade, 3 were either Low Ability or Withdrawn, and 1 fell in a totally incongruous category.

The Hostile and Withdrawn profiles were less reliable predictors of first- grade functioning than were most other profiles. Only 5 of 18 Withdrawn first


graders had Withdrawn profiles. Seven Withdrawn first graders had no-problem profiles and 4 had totally unrelated profiles. Of the 13 children who were withdrawn in kindergarten, 7 presented withdrawn symptoms in first grade, 5 had no problems, and 1 was overactive. While 4 of 8 Hostile first graders were accurately predicted, the Hostile profile inaccurately predicted 7 children in an unrelated category.

It should be noted that while there are no significant sex differences within diagnostic groups, sex differences were found between diagnostic groups. In first grade there were higher proportions of girls than boys in the no-problem, Low Ability-Withdrawn, Withdrawn, and Hostile categories. Boys were more prevalent in the Hyperkinetic, Low Ability-Hyperkinetic, and Low Ability categories. The same patterns apply to kindergarten profiles except in the Low Ability and Hostile categories. In essence, boys were more often judged to have problems, and their problems tended to be related to impulse control. Girls tended to receive deviant impulse control ratings about as often M they received overly-withdrawn ratings.

Overall, first-grade diagnoses were predicted accurately for 63% of 152 boys and 73y0 of 142 girls with classifiable SKRS Profiles. Omitting no-problem cases, which were predicted with 82y0 accuracy, specific diagnoses were predicted with complete accuracy for 44% of the boys and 52% of the girls. Certain groups of scales were found to be better predictors of first-grade functioning than others: 6870 of 78 children with deviant ratings on Impulse Control scales (those in the Hyperkinetic and Low Ability-Hyperkinetic categories) had impulse control problems in first grade; 62% of the 82 children with deviant Ability ratings (Low Ability-Hyperkinetic, Low Ability, Low Ability-Mixed Emotional Problems, Low Ability-Withdrawn) were below-average achievers in first grade; 45% of the 33 children with deviant Inhibition ratings (Low Ability-Withdrawn, Withdrawn) were regarded as withdrawn in first grade; and of the 17 children with deviant Social Adjustment ratings (Hostile) were regarded as overly hostile in first grade. About 11% of the classifiable sample appeared to have problems in kindergarten but had no problems in first grade. Another 8% appeared to have no problems in kindergarten but did have problems in first grade. When specific diagnoses are disregarded and kindergarten profiles and first grade diagnoses are categorized simply as problem or no-problem, the predictive accuracy of the SKRS is 7gY0 for boys and 83% for girls.

The results of this study suggest that profiles of SKRS ratings can provide an effective means of identifying children in kindergarten who are likely to have learning and impulse control problems in first grade and also those who will be successful in first grade. However, many questions remain unanswered. Some of the criterion groups from which profiles were obtained were very small: would similar profiles be found if the procedure were repeated on a different kindergarten population? Would the profiles predict as well if first-grade diagnoses were based on clinical appraisal rather than on teachers’ ratings? Would profiles predict as well if intelligence test scores or reading achievement scores were used in place of teachers’ judgments? The no-problem norms that have been presented and the Deviant Scores derived from them provide a means of exploring these questions and examining numerous alternative approaches to defining and evaluating SKRS profiles.

36 J O N TOBIESSEN, BARBARA DUCKWORTH AND W. GLENN CONRAD

SUMMARY

The present study focused on the characteristics of SKRS profiles obtained by seven first-grade diagnostic groups and on the cross-validation of these profiles as predictors of first-grade diagnoses. Over 600 children were diagnosed according to scores on the New Yorlc State Readiness Tests and teachers’ ratings of behavior and achievement. Children from each diagnostic group then were assigned randomly to the criterion group or cross-validation group. Norms based on the kindergarten ratings of 231 children who had no apparent learning or behavior problems in first grade were used to define Deviant Scores for each kindergarten scale, a Deviant Score being any raw score below the level obtained by 75% or more of the no- problem group. Profiles were identified for seven diagnostic groups, using the difference in percentage of Deviant Scores between no-problem and diagnostic group as the basis for defining profiles. The results of the cross-validation of profiles indicate that Deviant Scores on scales involving impulse control and scales involving language and perceptual-motor skills predicted similar problems in first grade with considerable accuracy. Profiles reflecting withdrawn or hostile kindergarten behavior were less accurate predictors of similar behavior in first grade. Overall, the SKRS profiles were only moderately successful as predictors of specific first-grade diagnoses; however, some profiles were identified that provided a very accurate means of screening children who definitely would or definitely would not be impulsive nonlearners in first grade. While the results of the cross-validation of SKRS profiles are encouraging, they require replication with other populations and criterion measures. The Deviant Score scoring procedure based on norms for children without problems in first grade provides a means of using the SKRS for screening purposes that previously has not been available.

REFERENCE CONRAD W. G., & TOB~ESSEN, J. The development of kindergarten behavior rating scales for the

prediction of learning and behavior disorders. Psychology in. the Schools, 1967, 4, 359-363.

relationships between the schenectady kindergarten rating scales and first grade achievement and...

Documents