<%BANNER%>

Relations between Parenting Behaviors and Family SES

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022027/00001

Material Information

Title: Relations between Parenting Behaviors and Family SES An Examination in Families Referred for Preschool ODD
Physical Description: 1 online resource (42 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: hollingshead, observational, odd, parent, preschool, ses
Clinical and Health Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Family socioeconomic status (SES) has long been an area of focus for researchers in fields of psychology, sociology, public health, epidemiology, and economics. In addition to its relationship with income and social capital, SES has been linked to factors such as parenting practices, neighborhood and school stability, and exposure to violence. Past research has suggested causal relationships between the above-mentioned factors and child behavior problems, particularly in early childhood. One of the most studied mediators between SES and childhood behavior problems is parenting practices. However, what remains unclear is how family SES is related to parenting practices of parents with children who already exhibit behavior problems. The relationship between family SES and observed parenting behaviors was examined for 89 families with children between 3 and 6 years of age. Families were 74% Caucasian, 9% African American, 5% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 11% Biracial. Most of the children were boys (75%). Parenting behaviors were examined using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS) composite categories of total verbalizations, prosocial talk, demandingness, and negative talk. Analyses were conducted with SES measured two ways. First, Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status (HI) was correlated parenting behaviors. For the second set of analyses, family income, parent education (5 categories), and parent occupation (5 categories) were used to predict parent behavior. SES was significantly related to mother and father prosocial talk, such that as SES increased, prosocial talk also increased. In addition, when SES was operationalized as income, occupation, and education, the model predicted three times as much variance in mother prosocial talk than HI alone. For fathers, the relationship between HI and prosocial talk was much stronger than for mothers, which is likely due to biases towards fathers in calculating HI. This study emphasizes that relations between SES and parenting behaviors in a clinical sample differ from those relations already established in the general population. High SES parents of children with ODD use more prosocial talk than their lower SES counterparts. This is consistent with past research. However, past research also suggests that higher SES parents use less negative talk than lower SES parents. In this sample of clinic-referred children, no relations were found between SES and negative talk, thus parents were equally critical of their children, regardless of their SES. This study also emphasizes that researchers must carefully consider methodological advantages and disadvantages when deciding how to measure SES.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Eyberg, Sheila M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022027:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022027/00001

Material Information

Title: Relations between Parenting Behaviors and Family SES An Examination in Families Referred for Preschool ODD
Physical Description: 1 online resource (42 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: hollingshead, observational, odd, parent, preschool, ses
Clinical and Health Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Family socioeconomic status (SES) has long been an area of focus for researchers in fields of psychology, sociology, public health, epidemiology, and economics. In addition to its relationship with income and social capital, SES has been linked to factors such as parenting practices, neighborhood and school stability, and exposure to violence. Past research has suggested causal relationships between the above-mentioned factors and child behavior problems, particularly in early childhood. One of the most studied mediators between SES and childhood behavior problems is parenting practices. However, what remains unclear is how family SES is related to parenting practices of parents with children who already exhibit behavior problems. The relationship between family SES and observed parenting behaviors was examined for 89 families with children between 3 and 6 years of age. Families were 74% Caucasian, 9% African American, 5% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 11% Biracial. Most of the children were boys (75%). Parenting behaviors were examined using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS) composite categories of total verbalizations, prosocial talk, demandingness, and negative talk. Analyses were conducted with SES measured two ways. First, Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status (HI) was correlated parenting behaviors. For the second set of analyses, family income, parent education (5 categories), and parent occupation (5 categories) were used to predict parent behavior. SES was significantly related to mother and father prosocial talk, such that as SES increased, prosocial talk also increased. In addition, when SES was operationalized as income, occupation, and education, the model predicted three times as much variance in mother prosocial talk than HI alone. For fathers, the relationship between HI and prosocial talk was much stronger than for mothers, which is likely due to biases towards fathers in calculating HI. This study emphasizes that relations between SES and parenting behaviors in a clinical sample differ from those relations already established in the general population. High SES parents of children with ODD use more prosocial talk than their lower SES counterparts. This is consistent with past research. However, past research also suggests that higher SES parents use less negative talk than lower SES parents. In this sample of clinic-referred children, no relations were found between SES and negative talk, thus parents were equally critical of their children, regardless of their SES. This study also emphasizes that researchers must carefully consider methodological advantages and disadvantages when deciding how to measure SES.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Eyberg, Sheila M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022027:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





RELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING BEHAVIORS AND FAMILY SES:
AN EXAMINATION INT FAMILIES REFERRED FOR PRESCHOOL ODD




















By

CORISSA LYNN CALLAHAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008


































O 2008 Corissa Lynn Callahan





























To my undergraduate mentors: Harry Segal, who encouraged me to pursue my graduate
work in clinical child psychology, and Gary Evans, whose research on poverty
and child development inspired this thesis









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Sheila Eyberg, Ph.D., my chair and research supervisor, for her mentorship, editing

hand, and encouragement as I worked on this thesis. I would also like to thank members of my

master' s committee, William Perlstein, Ph.D., Michael Perri, Ph.D., and Brenda Wiens, Ph.D.,

for the time and energy they devoted to making helpful feedback. In addition, a very special

thank you goes to all of the members of the Child Study Lab, past and present, for their efforts in

data collection, as well as support throughout this thesis. Finally, I want to acknowledge the

National Institute of Mental Health (RO 1 60632) for funding the proj ect from which data for this

thesis were drawn.












TABLE OF CONTENTS




page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES .........__... ......._. ...............6....


LI ST OF AB BREVIAT IONS ........._.__....... .__. ...............7....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........8


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............10.......... ......


2 METHODS ................. ...............16.......... .....


Participants .............. ...............16....
M measures ................. ...............16.......... ......
Procedure ................. ...............19.......... .....


3 RE SULT S .............. ...............22....


Mother-Child Dyads .............. ...............22....
Father-Child Dyads ................. ...............24.................


4 DI SCUS SSION ................. ...............29................


APPENDIX HOLLINGSHEAD INDEX .............. ...............37....


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............38........... ....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............42....










LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Demographics of sample ................. ...............20....____....

2-2 DPICS composite categories............... ...............2

3-1 Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite variables for mother-child dyads
(N=89)................. ...............2

3-2 Regression of mother verbalizations onto income-to-needs, mother education, and
mother occupation............... ...............2

3-3 Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite variables for father-child dyads
(n = 37) ................. ...............28........... ....









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DMG Demandingness

DPICS Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System

HI Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status

NTA Negative Talk

PRO Prosocial Talk

SES Socioeconomic Status

TV Total Verbalizations









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

RELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING BEHAVIORS AND FAMILY SES:
AN EXAMINATION INT FAMILIES REFERRED FOR PRESCHOOL ODD

By

Corissa Lynn Callahan

May 2008

Chair: Sheila M. Eyberg
Major: Psychology

Family socioeconomic status (SES) has long been an area of focus for researchers in fields

of psychology, sociology, public health, epidemiology, and economics. In addition to its

relationship with income and social capital, SES has been linked to factors such as parenting

practices, neighborhood and school stability, and exposure to violence. Past research has

suggested causal relationships between the above-mentioned factors and child behavior

problems, particularly in early childhood. One of the most studied mediators between SES and

childhood behavior problems is parenting practices. However, what remains unclear is how

family SES is related to parenting practices of parents with children who already exhibit

behavior problems.

The relationship between family SES and observed parenting behaviors was examined for

89 families with children between 3 and 6 years of age. Families were 74% Caucasian, 9%

African American, 5% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 11% Biracial. Most of the children were boys

(75%). Parenting behaviors were examined using the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding

System (DPICS) composite categories of total verbalizations, prosocial talk, demandingness, and

negative talk. Analyses were conducted with SES measured two ways. First, Hollingshead Four

Factor Index of Social Status (HI) was correlated parenting behaviors. For the second set of










analyses, family income, parent education (5 categories), and parent occupation (5 categories)

were used to predict parent behavior. SES was significantly related to mother and father

prosocial talk, such that as SES increased, prosocial talk also increased. In addition, when SES

was operationalized as income, occupation, and education, the model predicted three times as

much variance in mother prosocial talk than HI alone. For fathers, the relationship between HI

and prosocial talk was much stronger than for mothers, which is likely due to biases towards

fathers in calculating HI.

This study emphasizes that relations between SES and parenting behaviors in a clinical

sample differ from those relations already established in the general population. High SES

parents of children with ODD use more prosocial talk than their lower SES counterparts. This is

consistent with past research. However, past research also suggests that higher SES parents use

less negative talk than lower SES parents. In this sample of clinic-referred children, no relations

were found between SES and negative talk, thus parents were equally critical of their children,

regardless of their SES. This study also emphasizes that researchers must carefully consider

methodological advantages and disadvantages when deciding how to measure SES.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Family socioeconomic status (SES) has long been a focus for researchers in fields of

psychology, sociology, public health, epidemiology, and economics. It has been considered a

"fundamental determinant of human functioning" across the lifespan, spanning development,

physical and mental health, and quality of life (APA, 2006). Low family SES has been linked to

a higher prevalence of childhood disruptive behavior (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994) and a more

negative parenting style (Barber, 1996; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; Dodge et

al., 1994; Grant et al., 2003).

Disruptive behaviors are the most common reason for referrals to mental health services

for preschool children (Lavigne et al., 1998). These behaviors include, but are not limited to,

aggression, noncompliance, and destructiveness. Although these behaviors occur in childhood,

concern arises when levels become excessive for a child's age and development and cause

significant impairment in child functioning. Research has shown these behaviors worsen over

time and are a considerable risk for adolescent delinquent and antisocial behaviors (Campbell,

1995; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001).

Research emphasizing an ecological model of child development has suggested that

family socioeconomic status impacts child outcome not through one clear path, but through

multiple processes (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). One of the most studied proximal processes between

family SES and child outcome is parenting practices.

Studies have consistently found that socioeconomically disadvantaged families show more

hostile, controlling, and punitive parenting (Barber, 1996; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons,

1994; Dodge et al., 1994; Grant et al., 2003). These parents also tend to be less responsive to

their children (Bradley, Corwyn, Mcadoo, & Coll, 2001) and tend to show less warmth in









interactions than more advantaged families. For example, in a longitudinal study examining K-

3rd graders, significant differences across SES were found in observed mother warmth toward her

child during an interview (Dodge et al., 1994). Lastly, SES has been linked to parent

communication with children, with studies suggesting lower SES families speak less frequently

and in less sophisticated ways to their children (Tulkin & Kagan, 1972). Although these studies

have demonstrated a relationship between SES and parenting, they present methodological

concerns that may limit the generalizability of their findings. These concerns include the

adequacy of measurement of the parenting behaviors and of SES, as well as the typically

nonclinical nature of the samples.

SES has generally been associated with parenting behaviors as measured by parent self-

report. Self-report data are subj ect to social desirability biases (Paulhus, 1984), which includes

both impression management (attempting to portray oneself in a positive light) and self-

deception (a more unconscious process that reflects respondents' beliefs that they are better than

obj ective information suggests). Given the vulnerability of self-report to bias, it is important for

researchers to consider more obj ective measures of parenting. Direct observation of parent

behaviors allows behaviors to be defined more obj ectively by the researcher, rather than the

parent or child.

Some past research on family SES has included observational methods to measure

parenting in relation to SES (Bradley et al., 2001; Conger et al., 1994; Dodge et al., 1994;

Hughes, Deater-Deckard, & Cutting, 1999); however, the observers rated the behaviors

retrospectively, rather than coding them in real time during the observation. For example,

Conger and colleagues (1994) rated each parent's overall hostility, angry coerciveness, and

antisocial behavior toward the target child, based on behaviors observed during a home









interview. Behavior ratings that are completed at the end of an observation period are less

obj ective than when completed in real time. Coding behavior in real time allows the researcher

to quantify behavior by noting its duration or frequency. One prior study examining the

relationship between SES and mother behavior (Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003)

used real time coding of video-taped mother-infant interactions and found a significant

relationship between SES and mother behavior. However, a major limitation of that study was

its use of unstructured home observations.

Use of unstructured, naturalistic observation is a common shortcoming in prior

observational research (Bradley et al., 2001; Dodge et al., 1994). Recording observations in such

naturalistic settings may generate unwanted variability or noise from interruptions such as a

telephone ringing or visitor arriving. Such uncontrolled, unstructured situations also may

provide inadequate opportunity to observe target behaviors. Structured laboratory situations

minimize noise and maximize interactions of interest, such as child responses to parent's

attempts to direct the child's activity. One prior study (Hughes et al., 1999) correlated family

SES with observed parenting behaviors (for example, general negativity, negative/positive

affect) during structured parent-child interactions, but these behaviors were recorded

retrospectively by observer-rated 7-point Likert scales. Thus, prior observational research has

not combined real time coding with structured sessions to evaluate the relationship between SES

and parenting behavior.

This study used the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg,

Nelson, Duke, & Boggs, 2005) to record parent-child interactions on a moment to moment basis

during structured activities. This more obj ective method of recording parent behaviors leaves

less room for bias. In addition, the DPICS has demonstrated strong evidence of discriminative









validity. Studies have shown its ability to discriminate between neglectful and non-neglectful

mothers (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981) and between physically abusive and non-abusive mothers

(Borrego, Timmer, Urquiza, & Follette, 2004; Timmer, Borrego, & Urquiza, 2002). It has also

discriminated between clinic referred and non-referred mother-child dyads in behaviors such as

parent commands, parent and child inappropriate behavior, and child compliance (Bessmer,

Brestan, & Eyberg, 2005) Similarly, referred and non-referred father-child dyads have shown

different levels of child compliance and both father and child inappropriate behavior during

interactions with one another (Brestan, Foote, & Eyberg, 2005).

A second maj or methodological limitation of prior research examining relations between

parenting behavior and SES has been the measurement of SES. This limitation exists despite the

quantity of work that has been done over the last several decades to examine trends in research

on SES and child development (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003; Smith & Graham, 1995). In their

review of articles published in select journals between 1991 and 1993, Smith and Graham (1995)

concluded that most researchers are not concerned with the theoretical and methodological issues

surrounding the measurement of SES. Rather, they noted a "lack of systematic effort to identify

the socioeconomic measures that would be most powerful in accounting for various aspects of

family behavior."

Historically, one particular controversy regarding measurement of SES is whether

individual or composite measures should be used (Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Smith &

Graham, 1995). The current consensus seems to be that multiple components should be

measured, but used in the analyses separately rather than combined into one index of SES

(Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003; Hamil-Luker & O'Rand, 2007;

Lidfeldt, Hu, Manson, & Kawachi, 2007; Yang, Carmichael, Canfield, Song, & Shaw, 2008).









Liberates and colleagues (1988) found that the three most commonly used indicators of SES -

income, education, and occupation are related to health, but not to each other. These indicators

likely have differential effects on family behavior (Smith & Graham, 1995). In addition, they

recommend that family researchers consider female and male sociodemographic characteristics

separately, so that each can be compared independent of the other.

The measurement of SES in articles from three j ournals (ChildDevelopment, Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, Journal of Public Health) over the last decade was recently

reviewed (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003). The review found that when SES was mentioned in an

article, it was most often measured by education, followed by income, and lastly occupation.

Articles found in ChildDevelopment were more likely than articles in the other two journals to

use SES scales, particularly Hollingshead's (1975) Four-Factor Index of Social Status; however,

the maj ority of articles did not use scales. The authors found that most articles reported SES

variables when reporting demographic characteristics, but far fewer articles considered the

potential influence of SES on outcome variables. The review also found that articles contained

little discussion of methodology or standardization of SES measures, despite recommendations

for this in earlier reviews (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003).

This study measures SES with the common indicators of SES education, income, and

occupation, as well as the most common composite index the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index

of Social Status (HI). The reasons for this are two-fold. By including the three most common

individual indicators of SES, this study seeks to quantify the relations that each indicator has

with parenting behaviors. As emphasized in the Smith and Graham review (1995), it is

important to understand the different relationship each indicator has with an outcome variable.

HI was included as well, because it is the most widely used composite scale of SES. In










particular, child development researchers use this scale frequently (Ensminger & Fothergill,

2003), making it important to understand how HI relates to parenting behavior.

A final limitation of prior research examining relations between SES and parenting

behavior is that the samples were not drawn from clinical populations. In these nonclinical

samples, lower SES families have shown more hostile, controlling, and punitive parenting

(Conger et al., 1994; Dodge et al., 1994; Barber, 1996; Grant et al., 2003), less responsiveness to

their children (Bradley et al., 2001), and less warmth when interacting with their children (Dodge

et al., 1994). Parenting styles are different in clinical versus nonclinical families regardless of

SES (Bessmer et al., 2005); however, the question remains as to whether the above-mentioned

patterns of parenting differences due to SES exist in clinical populations, or whether clinical

families show different patterns of parenting as a function of SES.

The purpose of this study was to quantify the relations between family socioeconomic

status and parenting behaviors in families referred for preschool ODD. These relations were

examined separately for mother-child and father-child dyads. Based on findings from

nonclinical populations, we hypothesized that SES would be positively correlated with parental

prosocial talk and total verbalizations, and negatively correlated with negative talk and

demandingness.









CHAPTER 2
IVETHOD S

Participants

Participants were 89 families with 3 to 6-year-old children who had participated in a larger,

treatment outcome study. Although 100 families participated in the larger study, 11 of these

families had missing demographic data, thus reducing the sample size. The inclusion and

exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) the child met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ODD; (b) the

child's hyperactivity medication status and dosage, if any, were stable for at least one month

prior to the pre-treatment assessment; (c) the child obtained a standard score equivalent of 70 or

higher on a cognitive screening measure; and (d) the child's parents obtained standard score

equivalents of 75 or higher on a cognitive screening measure. Children with a history of severe

sensory or mental impairment or an immediate crisis requiring out-of-home placement were not

included. Table 2.1 shows demographic characteristics of the families.

Measures

Diagnostic hIterview Schedule for Children-IV-PPa~rent (DISC-IV-P; Shaffer, Fisher, &

Lucas, 2000). The DISC-IV-P is a structured diagnostic interview that was administered to

mothers to determine whether a child met diagnostic criteria for oppositional defiant disorder. In

a sample of parents of 9- to 17-year-old children, 1- week test-retest reliability was reported at

.54 for ODD (Shaffer et al., 2000).

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Tird Edition (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 198 1; 1997).

The PPVT was used as a cognitive screening measure for children. It is a well-standardized test

of receptive language in children as young as 2.6 years old. Each item consists of four pictures

and requires that the child indicate which picture represents the stimulus word given by the

examiner. This measure has a strong correlation with the WISC-III Full Scale IQ (Altepter,









1989), test-retest reliabilities ranging from .91 to .94, and high split half reliability coefficients

for children (.86 to .97).

Wonderlic Personnel Test (Dodrill, 1981). The Wonderlic Personnel test is a 50-item test

designed as a cognitive screening measure for adults. The test score is the number of items

answered correctly in a 12 minute period. In a sample of 120 normal adults, the Wonderlic

correlated .93 with the WAIS Full Scale IQ and was within 10 points of WAIS Full Scale IQ

score for 90% of subjects (Dodrill, 1981). These findings were replicated and extended to

psychiatric settings (Dodrill & Warner, 1988). It has also shown high (.94) test-retest reliability

(Dodrill, 1983).

Dyadic Parent-ChildPP~P~~nteractionPP~P Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg, Nelson, Duke, &

Boggs, 2005). The DPICS is a behavioral observation coding system for parent-child social

interactions during three 5-minute standard situations. The three situations, Child Led Play

(CLP), Parent Led Play (PLP), and Clean Up (CU), vary in the amount of parental control

required. Categories that may be coded include 12 verbalization categories (i.e., Praise), 3

vocalization categories (i.e., Yell), and 3 physical behaviors (i.e., Positive Touch). Overall

kappa reliability for all categories used in this study was 0.75. For all but one category, kappa

reliabilities ranged from 0.55 to 0.85. Parent Smart Talk had a kappa reliability of 0.31;

however, a confusion matrix revealed that this was most often being confused with Criticism.

For the purposes of this study, Smart Talk and Criticism were combined into one category

(Negative Talk).

Coders were graduate students and advanced undergraduate students in psychology.

Training involved approximately 3 hours of weekly study for 12 weeks, followed by surpassing

80% accuracy on all categories with a criterion tape. Coders attended weekly training meetings









throughout the study to prevent coder drift. Coders were uninformed of the study hypotheses

and family SES. A second set of codes was produced on 33% of the observations to determine

inter-rater reliability.

Scores for each coded behavior were determined by averaging the frequencies from two

observations 1 week apart. This yielded 1 score for each of 3 different situations (Child Led

Play, Parent Led Play, and Clean Up), but only scores from PLP and CU were used in this study.

The reason for excluding CLP was to ensure that the observed interactions were similar to those

the dyad experienced on a daily basis, i.e. with the parent "in charge." Several composite

variables, based on composites used in previous research, were used in this study: (a) Total

Verbalizations, created by summing all verbalization categories; (b) Prosocial Talk, created by

summing Reflections, Behavior Descriptions, Labeled Praises, and Unlabeled Praises; (c)

Negative Talk, produced by summing Criticism and Smart Talk; (d) Demandingness, created by

summing parent Direct and Indirect Commands. Table 2-2 lists the composite categories used in

this study.

Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status (HI; Hollingshead, 1 975). The

Hollingshead Four-Factor Index is a measure of a family's socioeconomic status. It is based on

the education and occupation of each employed parent living at home. The education and

occupation of homemakers, students and unemployed individuals are not included. However, if

there is no gainfully employed individual at the time of the evaluation, then the scores are

calculated for the person most likely to be head of the household. Thus, the occupation in which

he/she is typically employed is rated. Occupations are rated on a 9-point scale (Appendix A-1),

categorizing approximately 450 titles from the 1970 United States Census. Education is rated on

a 7-point scale (Appendix A-2) based on the number of years of schooling. To calculate HI for a










family, the occupation and education scores are weighted and summed. The occupation score is

multiplied by 5, and the education score is multiplied by 3. For dual-income families, HI is

calculated by averaging the scores for each earner. HI scores range from 8 to 66.

Procedure

The 89 referred families completed pre-treatment assessments. Families arrived at the

Psychology Clinic, were greeted by assessors, and consented to their participation in the study.

During the assessment, they completed a demographic questionnaire, a clinical interview, and a

structured diagnostic interview. To screen for cognitive impairment, the Wonderlic was

administered to each parent and the PPVT-III was administered to each child. Each parent was

then videotaped on two occasions (1 week apart) interacting with his or her child in three

standard situations: 10 minutes of Child Led Play, 10 minutes of Parent Led Play and 5 minutes

of Clean Up. The first 5 minutes of CLP and PLP were used as warm-up periods to allow the

parent and child to adjust to the situation. The second 5 minutes of CLP and PLP and the entire

5 minutes of CU were coded.










Table 2-1. Demographics of sample
(n= 89)
Characteristic % M SD Min Max
Child's Age (in years) 4.40 1.11 3 6
SES 38.38 13.63 11.0 66.0
Income (dollars yearly) 34167 25590 2004 122604
Child's Sex (%male) 74.5
Child's ethnicity/race
% Caucasian 74.2
% African American 9.0
% Hispanic 4.5
% Asian 1.1
% Biracial or Other 11.2
Mother Education
% Less than high school 7.8
% High school 16.9
% Partial college/tech. 40.4
% College 28.1
% Masters and beyond 6.7
Father Education*
% Less than high school 8.1
% High school 29.7
% Partial college, tech. school 18.9
% College 21.6
% Masters and beyond 21.6
Mother Occupation
% Employed 94.4
% Unskilled, Semiskilled 9.0
% Skilled Clerical/Sales 28.1
% Semiprofessional/Managers 24.7
% Professional 5.6
Father Occupation*
% Employed 97.3
% Unskilled, Semiskilled 13.5
% Skilled Clerical/Sales 29.7
% Semiprofessional/Managers 37.8
% Professional 16.2
*Each family did not have a father participate, so father demographic information is based on a
subsample of the original sample (n = 37).









Table 2-2. DPICS composite categories.
Category Equation

Total Verbalizations NTA, + DQ, + IQ, +LP, + UP, + DC, + IC, + RF, + BD, + TA,

% Demandingness (DC, + IC,) / TV,

% Prosocial Talk (BD, + RF, + UP, + LP,) / TV,

% Negative Talk (NTA,) / TV,









CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Initial analyses examined demographic variables across the sample. Father-child DPICS

data existed for only 37 dyads, resulting from both lower father participation and missing data.

The subsample of families with fathers included was demographically different from the entire

sample. Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status was significantly higher in this

sub sample (M~= 43.16, SD = 13.69) than the entire sample, t(36) = 2. 13, p < 0.05. Income was

also significantly higher in the father subsample (M~= 45,058; SD = 24,727) than it was in the

entire sample, t(36) = 2.68, p < 0.05.

To test the hypothesis that SES would be related to parenting behaviors, analyses were

conducted separately for mother-child and father-child dyads, but due to the small subsample

with father participation, analyses were limited for father behaviors. Mother behaviors were first

correlated with a composite measure of SES (HI), and then regressions were used to determine

the relations between separate indices of SES (education, income, and occupation) and parenting

behaviors. Father behaviors were correlated only. Each set of analyses appears below.

Mother-Child Dyads

First, we examined the descriptive statistics of each composite DPICS category used in

this study. Composite categories of parental Demandingness, Prosocial Talk, and Negative Talk

were examined as percentages of parent Total Verbalizations. Total Verbalizations (TV; M~=

154, SD = 44) and percent Demandingness (DMG; M~= 0.31, SD = 0. 10) were normally

distributed. Values of skewness and kurtosis did not indicate non-normality, and the

Kolmogorov- Smirnov(a) and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated nonsignificant deviances from

normality. However, percent Prosocial Talk (PRO; M~= 0.05, SD = 0.04) and percent Negative

Talk (NTA; M~= 0.09, SD = 0.06) were skewed. To normalize the distributions, square-root









transformation were made on PRO (M~= 0.20, SD = 0.08) and NTA (M~= 0.28, SD = 0. 10).

Distributions of transformed variables did not deviate significantly from normality.

Pearson correlations between the parent categories and HI showed that HI was

minimally, but significantly related to maternal PRO (r = .24, p < .05) and DMG (r = -.27, p <

.01). As hypothesized, mothers used more positive verbalizations and fewer commands as

family SES increased. Mother TV and NTA were not significantly correlated with HI. Analyses

were conducted to test if the significant correlations were significantly different from the

nonsignificant ones, results suggested they were not significantly different. Thus, the relations

between SES and PRO and between SES and DMG must be interpreted with caution, since they

were not significantly different from the other, non-significant correlations. See Table 3-1 for all

correlations.

To quantify the relations between the separate indices of SES and parenting behaviors, four

multiple regression were used. To correct for family-wise alpha inflation models needed to be

significant at p < .0125. For these regressions, categorical variables were dummy coded.

Education was dummy coded into five variables: (1) Less than high school, (2) High school, (3)

Partial college or technical school, (4) College, (5) Masters and beyond. Four of these dummy

variables were included in the regression. The middle education level was chosen as the

reference group because more participants were in this category than other categories.

Occupation was also coded into five categories: (1) Unemployed/homemaker; (2) Unskilled or

semi-skilled workers; (3) Skilled workers, sales, and clerical workers; (4) Semi-professional; (5)

Professional. Again, the middle category was chosen as the reference group.

Lastly, to control for family size when considering income, family income was divided by

the US Census poverty threshold for a given size family. A ratio less than 1.0 is regarded as









'poor' while ratios around 3.0 or 4.0 are considered middle-class. The income-to-needs ratios

for this sample ranged between 0. 1 and 7.9. Because the distribution of income-to-needs was

significantly non-normal, a logarithmic transformation of the data was conducted.

Mother Prosocial Talk was significantly predicted by the multiple regression model, R2

.23, F(9,79) = 2.60 (p = .011). Table 3-2 shows that the main effect of this model was mother

education. Mothers with a graduate degree (P = .409, p < .01) had a significantly higher

proportion of Prosocial talk than the reference category (Partial college or technical school).

When this model was rerun using "Masters or higher" as the reference category, mothers in this

category had significantly higher percentages (M~= .32, SD = 09) of Prosocial Talk than all

other education categories.

The multiple regression model did not significantly predict Total Verbalizations, R2 = .140,

F(9,79) = 1.429 (p = .19), Demandingness, R2 = .168, F(9, 79) = 1.775 (p = .086) and Negative

Talk, R2 = .175, F(9, 79) = 1.857 (p = .071). However, within NTA a main effect was observed.

The main effect for this model was mother occupation. The model showed that mothers who

were unemployed (P = -.372, p < .01) or semiprofessionals (P = -.285, p < .05) had a

significantly lower percentage NTA compared to mothers with jobs in the skilled worker

category. These main effects must be interpreted cautiously, however, because the overall model

was non-significant.

Father-Child Dyads

Descriptive statistics were examined for each composite DPICS father category. As with

mother analyses, composite categories of parental Demandingness, Prosocial Talk, and Negative

Talk were examined as percentages of parent Total Verbalizations. All four composite

categories appeared normal: Total Verbalizations (M~= 152, SD = 46.1), Demandingness (M =

0.32, SD = 0. 11), Prosocial Talk after removal of one outlier (M~= .05, SD = .03), and Negative









Talk (M~= 0.08, SD = 0.04). Values of skewness and kurtosis did not indicate non-normality, and

the Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated nonsignificant deviances from

normality .

To examine the relations between father parenting behaviors and SES, correlations were

conducted among the DPICS composites, HI, and income to needs. Because of the small sample

size, regressions including education and occupation were not conducted. Table 3-3 displays

correlations. Father PRO was significantly related to HI, r = .524 (p < .01), and Income to needs,

r = .412 (p < .05). Of note, HI and income to needs were moderately correlated with each other,

r = .661 (p < .001).










Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite variables for mother-child dyads
(N= 89)
Range M SD 1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Total 67 154 44
Verbalization 297
2. Percent 0. 10 0.31 0.29 .274**
Demandingness 0.60 p =.009
3. Percent 0.05 0.20 0.08 -.055 -.374**
Prosocial Talkt 0.44 p = ns p = .000
4. Percent 0.07 0.28 0.10 .245* .279** -.365**
Negative Talkt 0.53 p = .021 p = .008 p = .000
5. Hollingshead 11.0 38.4 13.6 -.046 -.272** .246* -.127
SES 66.0 p = ns p = .010 p = .020 p = ns
* p < 0.05 1evel ** p < .01
Jf Percent Prosocial Talk and Percent Negative Talk were square root transformations of the
original value.










Table 3-2. Regression of mother verbalizations onto income-to-needs, mother education, and mother occupation
Socioeconomic Status Percent Total Percent Percent
Prosocial Talkt Verbalizations Demandingness Negative Talkt
B P B P B P B P
(SE) p (SE) p (SE) p (SE) p


.186
(.024) p = .
.015.
(.026) p = .
-.002 -
(.035) p = .
-.025 -
(.027) p = .
.011.
(.021) p = .
.129.
(.040) p = .
.014.
(.022) p = .
-.032 -
(.031) p = .
.004.
(.024) p = .
-.013 -
(.043) p= .


.342
(032) p = .
-.041 -
(.035) p = .
.022.
(.045) p = .
.002.
(.035) p = .
-.011 -
(.028) p = .
-.081 -
(.052) p =.
-.079 -
(.028) p = .
-.075 -
(.041) p = .
-.066 -
(.032) p = .
.005.
(.056) p = .


174.06
(14.16)
15.47
(15.47)
-10.20
(20.23)
2.017
(15.67)
-25.39
(12.29)
-8.845
(23.37)
-5.325
(12.64)
-17.98
(18.31)
-21.35
(14.07)
-30.99
(25.14)


.326
(.033)
-.061
(.036)
.077
(.046)
.030
(.036)
-.013
(.028)
.018
(.054)
-.022
(.029)
.016
(.042)
-.033
(.032)
-.017
(.058)


(Constant)


3000
071
568
008
945
119
350
067
610
409
002
084
514
115
314
022
867
039
759


p =.000
.131
p =.320
-.063
p =.616
.017
p =.898
-.285
p =.042
-.051
p =.706
-.057
p =.675
-.117
p =.329
-.210
p =.133
-.163
p =.221


p =.000
-.220
p =.091
.204
p =.099
.111
p =.400
-.062
p =.646
.045
p =.733
-.103
p =.443
.045
p =.700
-.138
p =.315
-.039
p =.763


3000
150
244
058
633
007
960
055
684
204
125
372
006
214
072
285
039
011
934


Income to needs

Less than H.S. vs
Partial college / tech. school
H.S. vs
Partial college / tech. school
College vs
Partial college / tech. school
Masters or beyond vs
Partial college / tech. school
Homemaker vs
Skilled worker
Unskilled worker vs
Skilled worker
Semi-professional vs
Skilled worker
Professional vs
Skilled worker


Jf Percent Prosocial Talk and Percent Negative Talk were square root transformations of the original value.










Table 3-3. Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite variables for father-child dyads
(n = 37)
Range M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Total 89.0 152 46.1
Verbalization 280
2. Percent 0.13 0.32 0.11 .190
Demandingness 0.52 p = ns
3. Percent 0.01 .05 .04 -.166 -.336*
Prosocial Talk~ 0.20 p = ns p = .045
4. Percent 0.01 .08 .04 .096 .063 -.395*
Negative Talk 0.19 p = ns p = ns p = .017
5. Hollingshead 20.0 43.5 13.0 -.110 -.241 .524** -.159 -.159
SES 66.0 p ns p ns p =.001 p ns p ns
6. Income to needs -0.32 .30 .27 .043 -.188 .412* -.054 .661**
0.88 p = ns p = ns p = .012 p = ns p < .001
* p < 0.05 level ** p < .01
8 One outlier was removed when analyzing Prosocial Talk (n = 36).
SIncome to needs was a logarithmic transformation of family income divided by US poverty threshold
for a given size family.









CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine how various measures of SES influenced the

relations between SES and parent behaviors in a clinical sample. First, we hypothesized that

SES would be positively related to parent Prosocial Talk. Prosocial Talk includes praising the

child, describing what he is doing, and reflecting, or repeating, what he is saying. We found that

as HI increased, positive parent verbalizations increased for both mother- and father-child dyads.

In addition, the three separate indices of SES income, education and occupation accounted

for three times the observed differences in mother Prosocial Talk than accounted for by HI.. We

found maternal education, specifically, was strongly related to Prosocial Talk. .

Our overall findings concur with results found in general population studies which

suggests less responsiveness and warmth among lower SES mothers with their children (Dodge

et al., 1994; Hart & Risley, 1995). Although past research has focused almost exclusively on

mother-child interactions, we found that the relationship between warmth and SES was stronger

in father-child than mother-child dyads. However, relations may have appeared stronger in

father-child dyads due to the method of measuring SES than to a true phenomenon. Mothers are

not always included in the calculation of HI. Instead, HI relies more strongly on the education

and occupation of the primary earner in each family, often excluding mother education and

occupation. By examining income, education, and occupation in the same model, we

demonstrated the large role of maternal education in in relations between SES and mother

Prosocial Talk. Our results suggest that any measure of SES that does not include mother

education is unlikely to relate strongly to parental warmth and responsivity.

Despite HI' s inconsistent considering of maternal education, these findings are important

for parent training programs for preschoolers that focus on reducing negative and increasing










positive interactions. Of note, the relationship between family SES and parent Prosocial Talk

was found in standardized situations in which parents have more control, which are the times that

children with ODD exhibit greater defiance and noncompliance. Although higher SES families

also engage in more maladaptive coercive family processes during parent controlled situations,

higher SES families make more positive statements than lower SES families do. If clinicians are

knowledgeable about the relationship between SES and parenting skills, they may better

recognize when they need to introduce treatment in a sensitive manner. Such sensitivity is

particularly important considering Fernandez and Eyberg's (in press) finding suggesting that low

Prosocial Talk is a predictor of treatment dropout in families with a preschooler with ODD.

The present study also sought to examine the way SES is related to parent Total

Verbalizations, Demandingness, and Negative Talk. Findings for mother-child and father-child

dyads did not support the hypothesis that SES would be positively related to Total

Verbalizations. This negative finding is inconsistent with past research, which has established a

strong relationship between family's social class and both the quantity and quality of parent

speech to children (Hart & Risley, 1995).

Although mother Demandingness was significantly related to HI, this relationship was not

significantly different from the other nonsignificant relationships. Mother demandingness was

also not related to SES using the three separate indices of SES (income, education, occupation).

No relationship was found between father demandingness and SES.

Negative Talk was not significantly related to SES, measured with HI or 3 separate

indicators, as hypothesized. Past research has demonstrated that among non-clinic-referred

mothers, those with lower SES are more critical and harsh to their children and that lower SES

children are more likely to have disruptive behavior disorders. The absence of relations between









SES and NTA in our clinical suggests that parent NTA may mediate relations between SES and

child disruptive behavior disorders. Our results emphasize that SES may be related to positive

parent verbalizations, but not negative verbalizations, in clinical families in treatment for

preschool ODD.

Our use of a clinical sample may be the strongest reason that our results diverge from

earlier studies examining relations between SES and parenting. Future research utilizing

standardized methods of parent-child observation should include families from the general

population to determine if the population under study accounts for divergent results. Clinicians

must be careful to dismiss any previous assumptions about the association between parenting

styles and SES, and recognize that clinic families from both low and high SES show similar

levels of criticism while interacting with their children.

Another possible reason for lack of significant is the measurement of SES. Hollingshead

(1975) argued reasons for deriving the social status of a family from the breadwinner. Although

some strengths for HI have been acknowledged, continued use is problematic in psychological

research, particularly child research, because nonemployed mother education is not part of the

score. Because many educated mothers self-select out of the workforce once they have children,

it is important to consider maternal education when researching child outcomes. Early studies of

social class were conducted by sociologists who focused on how families were evaluated by

others in their community. Developmental researchers have continued to use HI, even though

their focus is no longer on social status per se, but on the access to resources and on the home

environment, both of which have direct implications for child development (Hoffman, 2003).

Although income, education and occupation, were used as different measures of SES in

this study, problems associated with each of these indices of SES may have contributed to









nonsignificant findings. First, to control for family size when considering income, this study

used an income-to-needs ratio as a measure of economic resources, but as with most SES

measures, there are trade-offs. Income is quite volatile over the course of a child's life (Duncan

& Magnuson, 2003). In addition, it is often difficult to obtain accurate self-report of household

income. The demographic form had a list of various types of income for the participant to

complete; however, there were 10 cases for which an additional working adult (ie. not mother or

father) resided in the home. Income data were not given for these workers, although their

incomes are considered household income. Future research can attempt to ameliorate this

difficulty by clearly asking the parent to report all sources of income in the home (ie all working

adults).

The measurement of occupation also presents problems as a measure of SES. Occupation

was categorized occupation into four categories, a category was added for homemakers and

unemployed. Occupation is meant to measure a broader set of skills than those learned through

formal education. Occupations with higher status are linked to higher earnings, more control,

and more prestige for workers (Jencks, Perman, & Rainwater, 1988). However, occupation is

also volatile across the life span. As our sample demonstrated (22 of 89 mothers categorized

themselves as homemakers), many women self-select out of the workforce, thus creating a fifth

category of women with different skill sets. Although the correlations between maternal

occupation and maternal NTA showed close to a statistically significant values, the inclusion of

homemaker category may have eradicated a true association.

Our results have several important implications. First, it is likely that the relations

previously documented between family SES and parenting styles may be different in clinic-

referred and general population samples. Theories explaining the relations between SES and










parenting must be expanded to accommodate current findings. Second, our Eindings have

clinical implications, as well. As stated, clinicians need to be cognizant that SES is significantly

related to positive verbalizations rather than negative ones. Positive verbalizations, like praise,

increase with SES, but criticisms remain the same while SES increases. For treatments of ODD,

such as parent management training, this distinction may help clinicians introduce and frame

therapy to families considering treatment for their children.

Lastly, the largest implications of this study are for research. When choosing a measure of

SES, researchers need to consider carefully the theoretical foundations each measure. Young

children today are more likely to have highly educated parents, come from families with incomes

either below or well above the poverty line, and live in single parent households than children

from previous generations (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Thus, it is crucial for researchers to

continue to seek understanding of how these different SES indicators fit together to produce risk

or resiliency in children.

Our Einding showing that HI relates differentially to parenting behaviors for mothers and

fathers was largely due to the HI reliance on the primary breadwinner's education and

occupation. To understand fully the complex interactions between SES and parenting,

researchers must consider the entire context in which the child resides, not just the context of one

parent. It is important to consider resources of both parents. Researchers must not only avoid

bias toward one parent, but also refrain from condensing SES to a single component, such as

education, because no single indicator can adequately cover the entire context of socioeconomic

status.

Our study also had several limitations. First, the study is correlational, so causation

cannot be inferred. It cannot be concluded that low SES causes parents to give fewer praises and










other prosocial verbalizations, nor can we conclude that higher SES families are better parents

for praising their children more. Instead, we must be careful to interpret these differences within

the context of culture and remain sensitive to the varying stresses and demands that lower SES

parents endure.

In addition, the sample consists of families who have a preschool-aged child with

oppositional defiant disorder, thus the Eindings may not be generalizable to families who have

children with other diagnoses. Another aspect that limits generalizability is that the sample

resides in north central Florida. This area is mainly rural, and family SES, in rural versus urban

settings, likely has different pathways to child disruptive disorders and different barriers to

treatment (Evans, 2003). Parenting practices that "work" in one environment may actually prove

to be detrimental in the other. Future research should attempt to compare the parenting

differences in families who seek treatment for preschool ODD in rural versus urban areas. Such

differences could impact the success of intervention programs for young children with behavior

di orders.

Categorization of education can also be considered a limitation of this study. In

hindsight, asking parents to report number of years of formal schooling, would have provided

richer information and possibly strengthened the Eindings. This study divided education into

categories that Hollingshead (1975) used. Thus, a respondent with one semester of college

would be placed in the same category as a respondent who had seven semesters of college. It

would be useful for education to be expressed continuously to permit differentiation among

"partial college" respondents.

Lastly, the small sample of fathers in the study limited statistical power to examine father

occupation, education, and income simultaneously. Using both HI and 3 indices of SES for









fathers, as well as mothers, could have added additional findings of interest. Future research

should attempt to include more fathers.

Future research should also strive to include self-report measures of parent behavior and

parent-report measures of child behavior. If perceptions of parent and child behavior were

compared to obj ective measures of the same behavior, researchers could estimate the degree to

which a discrepancy may exist. Parental psychological distress should also be taken into account

because it could be associated with both parental self-report and observed behavior. Such

research could help clarify the divergence of results from past research on SES and parenting -

were current findings nonsignificant because of the clinical nature of the sample or because of

the use of observational methods?

It would also be useful for future research to examine discrepancies between parents' self-

reported behaviors and observed behaviors in structured play situations. It is possible that the

relationship between parent self-report and observed behaviors differs as a function of SES.

Such an interaction would have clinical utility because therapists often rely on parents to

describe the home environment.

The current study is just one step towards understanding the relations between a

complicated SES and presentations of parents with children diagnosed with ODD. Although

future research will be needed to further elucidate this relationship, clinicians can begin to keep

in mind the possible association between SES (particularly mother education) and positive parent

verbalizations. Researchers should continue to conceptualize SES as a multidimensional

construct, without collapsing the dimensions into one composite score. It is especially important

for psychologists and other social science researchers to continue to tease apart the various

dimensions of SES particularly in a time when young children are more likely to have highly









educated parents, come from families with incomes either below or well above the poverty line,

and live in single parent households (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).









APPENDIX
HOLLINGSHEAD INDEX

A-1. Hollingshead Index Occupational Status Scale
(1) Farm Laborers / Menial Service Workers
(2) Unskilled Workers
(3) Machine Operators and Semiskilled Workers
(4) Smaller Business Owners, Skilled Manual Workers, Craftsmen, and Tenant Farmers
(5) Clerical and Sales Workers, Small Farm and Business Owners
(6) Technicians, Semiprofessionals, and Small Business Owners
(7) Smaller Business Owners, Farm Owners, Managers, and Minor Professionals
(8) Administrators, Lesser Professionals, and Proprietors of Medium-Sized Businesses
(9) Higher Executives, Proprietors of Large Businesses, and Maj or Professionals


A-2. Hollingshead Index Education Scale.
(1) Less than 7th grade
(2) 7th, 8th, or 9th grade
(3) 10th Of 1 Ith grade
(4) High school graduate or GED
(5) Partial college or technical/specialized training
(6) Standard college or university
(7) Graduate professional training










LIST OF REFERENCES


Altepter, T.S. (1989). The PPVT-R as a measure of psycholinguistic functioning: A caution.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 935-941.

APA. (2006). The Report of the APA task force on socioeconomic status. Retrieved February 7,
2007 from http://www2.apa.org,/pi/SES task force_ report.pdf.

Aragona, J. A., & Eyberg, S. M. (1981) Neglected children Mothers' report of child behavior
problems and observed verbal behavior. ChildDevelopnzent, 52: 596-602.

Barber, B.K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child
Development, 67, 3296-3319.

Bessmer, J.L., Brestan, E.V., & Eyberg, S.M. (2005). The dyadic parent-child interaction coding
system II (DPICS II): Reliability and validity with mother child dyads. Manuscript in
preparation.

Bornstein, M.H., Hahn, C., Suwalsky, J.T.D., & Haynes, O.M. (2003). Socioeconomic Status,
Parenting, and Child Development: The Four-Factor Index of Social Status and the
Socioeconomic Index of Occupations. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.),
Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 29 82). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Borrego, J., Timmer, S. G., Urquiza, A. J., & Follette, W. C. (2004). Physically abusive mothers'
responses following episodes of child noncompliance and compliance. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 897-903.

Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Mcadoo, H. P., & Coll, C. G. (2001). The home environments of
children in the United States part I: Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child
Development, 72, 844-1867.

Brestan, E.V., Foote, R.C., & Eyber, S.M. (2005). The dyadic parent-child interaction coding
system II (DPICS II): Reliability and validity with father child dyads. Manuscript in
preparation.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology ofhuntan development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 36, 113-149.

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress,
coercive family process and developmental problems of adolescents. ChildDevelopnzent,
65, 541-561.

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. 1994. Socialization mediators of the relation between
socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. ChildDevelopnzent 65, 649-665.










Dodrill, C.B. (1981). An economical method for the evaluation of general intelligence in adults.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 668-673 .

Dodrill, C.B. (1983). Long-term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 3 16-3 17.

Dodrill, C. B. & Warner, M.H. (1988). Further studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a
brief measure of intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 145- 147.

Duncan, G.J., & Magnusson, K. (2003). Off with Hollingshead: Socioeconomic resources,
parenting, and child development. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.),
Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 83- 106). Mahwah,NJ:
Erlbaum.

Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: Manual. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition: Manual.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Ensminger, M.E., & Fothergill, K.E. (2003). A Decade of Measuring SES: What it Tells Us and
Where to go From Here. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status,
parenting, and child development (pp. 13 27). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Evans, G.W. (2003). A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load
among rural children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 924-933.

Eyberg, S.M., Nelson, M.M., Duke, M., & Boggs, S.R. (2005). Manual for the Dyadic Parent-
Child Interaction Coding System (3rd Edition). Retrieved April 23, 2006, from
http://pcit. phhp.ufl.edu/DPIC Sfil es/DPIC S%20Draft%203 .03 .pdf.

Fernandez, M.A., & Eyberg, S.M. (2007). Predicting Treatment and Follow-up Attrition in
Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Manuscript in preparation.

Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Stuhlmacher, A., Thurm, A., McMahon, S., & Halpert, J. (2003).
Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Moving from markers to mechanisms
of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447-466.

Hamil-Luker, J., O'Rand, A.M. (2007). Gender Differences in the Link Between Childhood
Socioeconomic Conditions and Heart Attack Risk in Adulthood. Demography, 44, 137-
158.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995)., Meanringfidl differences in the everyday experiences of young
American children. Baltimore: Brookes.

Haug, M. R. (1977). Measurement in social stratification. Annual Review ofSociology, 3, 51-77.










Hoffman, L.W. (2003) Methodological Issues in Studies of SES, Parenting, and Child
Development. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting,
and child development (pp. 125 143). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript. Yale
University, New Haven, CT.

Hughes, C., Deater-Deckard, K., Cutting, A.L. (1999). Speak roughly to your little boy'? Sex
Differences in the Relations Between Parenting and Preschoolers' Understanding of Mind.
Social Development 8, 143-160.

Jencks, C., Perman, L., & Rainwater, L. (1988). What is a good job? A new measure of labor
market success. The American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1322-1357.

Lavigne, J. V., Arend, R., Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H. J., Christoffel, K. K., & Gibbons, R. D.
(1998). Psychiatric disorders with onset in the preschool years, I: stability of diagnoses.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 3 7, 1 246- 1254.

Liberates, P., Link, B.G., & Kelsey, J.L. (1988). The measurement of social class in
epidemiology. Epidentiological Reviews, 10, 87-121.

Lidfeldt, J., Li, T.Y., Hu, F.B., Manson, J.E., & Kawachi, I.. (2007). A Prospective Study of
Childhood and Adult Socioeconomic Status and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Women.
American Journal ofEpidentiology,1~65, 882 889.

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and
adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development &
Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.

Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., & Lucas, C. P. (2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for
Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions,
and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28-38.

Shonkoff, J. P. and Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early
childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Smith, T.E., & Graham, P.B. (1995). Socioeconomic Stratification in Family Research. Journal
of2arriage and the FamFFFFFFFF~~~~~~~~~ily, 57, 930-940.

Timmer, S. G., Borrego, J., & Urquiza, A. J. (2002). Antecedents of coercive interactions in
physically abusive mother-child dyads. Journal oflnterpersonal Violence, 17, 836-853.

Tulkin, S. R., & Kagan, J. (1972). Mother-child interaction in the first year of life. Child
Development, 43, 3 1-41.










Yang, J., Carmichael S.L., Canfield, M., Song, J., & Shaw, G.M. (2008). Socioeconomic Status
in Relation to Selected Birth Defects in a Large Multicentered US Case-Control Study.
American Journal ofEpidemiology, 167, 145-154.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Corissa Callahan was born in Denville, New Jersey, on December 1, 1982. The oldest of

five children, she was primarily raised in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and she graduated from

Bishop Hoban High School in 2000. In 2004, she obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in

human development from Cornell University, where she completed an honors thesis under the

mentorship of Gary Evans, Ph.D.

After graduation from Cornell, Corissa worked at the University of California-Los

Angeles as a research assistant for Michelle Craske, Ph.D., in the Anxiety Disorders Behavioral

Research Program. There, she coordinated an NI1VH-funded study of risk factors for developing

mood and anxiety disorders in late adolescence. In August 2006, Corissa entered the doctoral

training program in Clinical and Health Psychology, in the Clinical Child Psychology track, at

the University of Florida. At Florida, she is research assistant for Sheila Eyberg, Ph.D., on an

NI1VH-funded study examining group versus individual parent-child interaction therapy for

preschoolers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Corissa plans to focus her research and clinical work on the psychological needs of United

States military service members and their families, a passion she has already begun to pursue.





PAGE 1

RELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING BEHAVIORS AND FAMILY SES: AN EXAMINATION IN FAMILIES REFERRED FOR PRESCHOOL ODD By CORISSA LYNN CALLAHAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Corissa Lynn Callahan 2

PAGE 3

To my undergraduate mentors: Harry Segal, who encour aged me to pursue my graduate work in clinical child psychology, and Gary Evans, whose research on poverty and child development inspired this thesis 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Sheila Eyberg, Ph.D., my chair and re search supervisor, for her mentorship, editing hand, and encouragement as I worked on this thesis I would also like to thank members of my masters committee, William Perlstein, Ph.D., Mi chael Perri, Ph.D., and Brenda Wiens, Ph.D., for the time and energy they devoted to making helpful feedback. In addition, a very special thank you goes to all of the members of the Child Study Lab, past and present, for their efforts in data collection, as well as support throughout this thesis. Finally, I want to acknowledge the National Institute of Mental Health (RO1 60632) fo r funding the project from which data for this thesis were drawn. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 7 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 2 METHODS...................................................................................................................... .......16 Participants.............................................................................................................................16 Measures.................................................................................................................................16 Procedure................................................................................................................................19 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........22 Mother-Child Dyads...............................................................................................................22 Father-Child Dyads.................................................................................................................24 4 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......29 APPENDIX HOLLINGSHEAD INDEX ..................................................................................37 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................38 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................42 5

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Demographics of sample....................................................................................................2 0 2-2 DPICS composite categories..............................................................................................21 3-1 Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite vari ables for mother-child dyads (N=89)................................................................................................................................26 3-2 Regression of mother verbalizations ont o income-to-needs, mother education, and mother occupation..............................................................................................................27 3-3 Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite variab les for father-child dyads (n = 37)...............................................................................................................................28 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS DMG Demandingness DPICS Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System HI Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status NTA Negative Talk PRO Prosocial Talk SES Socioeconomic Status TV Total Verbalizations 7

PAGE 8

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science RELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTING BEHAVIORS AND FAMILY SES: AN EXAMINATION IN FAMILIES REFERRED FOR PRESCHOOL ODD By Corissa Lynn Callahan May 2008 Chair: Sheila M. Eyberg Major: Psychology Family socioeconomic status (SES) has long been an area of focus for researchers in fields of psychology, sociology, public health, epidem iology, and economics. In addition to its relationship with income and social capital, SES has been linked to factors such as parenting practices, neighborhood and school stability, and exposure to violence. Past research has suggested causal relationships between the above-mentioned factors and child behavior problems, particularly in early childhood. One of the most studied mediators between SES and childhood behavior problems is parenting practic es. However, what remains unclear is how family SES is related to parenting practices of parents with children who already exhibit behavior problems. The relationship between family SES and obser ved parenting behaviors was examined for 89 families with children between 3 and 6 years of age. Families were 74% Caucasian, 9% African American, 5% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 11% Biracial. Most of the children were boys (75%). Parenting behaviors were examined us ing the Dyadic Parent-C hild Interaction Coding System (DPICS) composite categories of total ve rbalizations, prosocial talk, demandingness, and negative talk. Analyses were c onducted with SES measured two ways. First, Hollingshead Four Factor Index of Social Status (HI) was correla ted parenting behaviors. For the second set of 8

PAGE 9

analyses, family income, parent education (5 ca tegories), and parent oc cupation (5 categories) were used to predict parent behavior. SES was significantly related to mother and father prosocial talk, such that as SES increased, prosoc ial talk also increased. In addition, when SES was operationalized as income, occupation, and education, the model pred icted three times as much variance in mother prosocial talk than HI alone. For fathers, the relationship between HI and prosocial talk was much stronger than for mo thers, which is likely due to biases towards fathers in calculating HI. This study emphasizes that relations between SES and parenting behaviors in a clinical sample differ from those relations already es tablished in the general population. High SES parents of children with ODD use mo re prosocial talk than their lower SES counterparts. This is consistent with past research. However, past research also suggests th at higher SES parents use less negative talk than lower SES parents. In th is sample of clinic-ref erred children, no relations were found between SES and negative talk, thus parents were equa lly critical of their children, regardless of their SES. This study also emphasizes that researchers must carefully consider methodological advantages and disadvantages when deciding how to measure SES. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Family socioeconomic status (SES) has long be en a focus for researchers in fields of psychology, sociology, public health, epidemiology, and economics. It has been considered a fundamental determinant of human functioning across the lifespan, spanning development, physical and mental health, and quality of life (APA, 2006). Low family SES has been linked to a higher prevalence of childhood disruptive behavior (Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994) and a more negative parenting style (Barber, 1996; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lo renz, & Simons, 1994; Dodge et al., 1994; Grant et al., 2003). Disruptive behaviors are the most common reason for referrals to mental health services for preschool children (Lavigne et al., 1998). These behaviors include but are not limited to, aggression, noncompliance, and destructiveness. Although these behaviors occur in childhood, concern arises when levels become excessive for a childs age and development and cause significant impairment in child functioning. Res earch has shown these behaviors worsen over time and are a considerable risk for adolescen t delinquent and antisocial behaviors (Campbell, 1995; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Research emphasizing an ecological model of child development has suggested that family socioeconomic status impacts child outcome not through one clear path, but through multiple processes (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). One of the most studied proximal processes between family SES and child outcome is parenting practices. Studies have consistently found that socioeconomically disadvantaged families show more hostile, controlling, and punitive pa renting (Barber, 1996; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994; Dodge et al., 1994; Grant et al., 2003). Thes e parents also tend to be less responsive to their children (Bradley, Corwyn, Mcadoo, & Co ll, 2001) and tend to show less warmth in 10

PAGE 11

interactions than more advantaged families. For example, in a longitudinal study examining K3rd graders, significant differences across SES were found in observed mother warmth toward her child during an interview (Dodge et al., 1994). Lastly, SES has been linked to parent communication with children, with studies sugges ting lower SES families speak less frequently and in less sophisticated ways to their children (Tulkin & Ka gan, 1972). Although these studies have demonstrated a relationship between SE S and parenting, they present methodological concerns that may limit the generalizability of their findings. These concerns include the adequacy of measurement of the parenting beha viors and of SES, as well as the typically nonclinical nature of the samples. SES has generally been associated with paren ting behaviors as measured by parent selfreport. Self-report data are s ubject to social desirability biases (Paulhus, 1984), which includes both impression management (attempting to port ray oneself in a posit ive light) and selfdeception (a more unconscious process that reflects respondents' beliefs that they are better than objective information suggests). Given the vulnerabi lity of self-report to bias it is important for researchers to consider more objective measures of parenting. Direct observation of parent behaviors allows behaviors to be defined more objectively by the researcher, rather than the parent or child. Some past research on family SES has included observational methods to measure parenting in relation to SES (Bradley et al., 2001; Conger et al., 1994; Dodge et al., 1994; Hughes, Deater-Deckard, & Cutting, 1999); howev er, the observers rated the behaviors retrospectively, rather than c oding them in real time during the observation. For example, Conger and colleagues (1994) rated each parent's overall hostility, angry coerciveness, and antisocial behavior toward the target ch ild, based on behaviors observed during a home 11

PAGE 12

interview. Behavior ratings that are comple ted at the end of an observation period are less objective than when completed in real time. Codi ng behavior in real time allows the researcher to quantify behavior by noting its duration or frequency. One prior study examining the relationship between SES and mother behavi or (Bornstein, Hahn, Suwalsky, & Haynes, 2003) used real time coding of video-taped mother-infant interactions and found a significant relationship between SES and mother behavior. However, a major limitation of that study was its use of unstructured home observations. Use of unstructured, naturalistic observation is a common shortcoming in prior observational research (Bradley et al., 2001; Dodge et al., 1994). Recording observations in such naturalistic settings may generate unwanted variability or noise from interruptions such as a telephone ringing or visitor arriving. Such unc ontrolled, unstructured situations also may provide inadequate opportunity to observe target behaviors. St ructured laboratory situations minimize noise and maximize interactions of inte rest, such as child responses to parents attempts to direct the childs activity. One pr ior study (Hughes et al., 199 9) correlated family SES with observed parenting behaviors (for example, general nega tivity, negative/positive affect) during structured pare nt-child interactions, but th ese behaviors were recorded retrospectively by observer-rated 7point Likert scales. Thus, pr ior observationa l research has not combined real time coding with structured se ssions to evaluate the relationship between SES and parenting behavior. This study used the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg, Nelson, Duke, & Boggs, 2005) to record parent-child interactions on a moment to moment basis during structured activities. This more objectiv e method of recording parent behaviors leaves less room for bias. In addition, the DPICS has demonstrated strong evid ence of discriminative 12

PAGE 13

validity. Studies have shown its ability to disc riminate between neglectful and non-neglectful mothers (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981) and between physically abusive and non-abusive mothers (Borrego, Timmer, Urquiza, & Follette, 2004; Timmer, Borrego, & Urquiza, 2002). It has also discriminated between clinic referred and non-refe rred mother-child dyads in behaviors such as parent commands, parent and child inappropriate behavior, and child compliance (Bessmer, Brestan, & Eyberg, 2005) Similarly, referred an d non-referred father-child dyads have shown different levels of child compliance and both fa ther and child inappropriate behavior during interactions with one another (B restan, Foote, & Eyberg, 2005). A second major methodological limitation of pr ior research examining relations between parenting behavior and SES has been the measurem ent of SES. This limitation exists despite the quantity of work that has been done over the last several decades to examine trends in research on SES and child development (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003; Smith & Graham, 1995). In their review of articles published in select journals between 1991 and 1993, Smith and Graham (1995) concluded that most researchers are not concerned with the theo retical and methodological issues surrounding the measurement of SES. Rather, they noted a lack of systematic effort to identify the socioeconomic measures that would be most powerful in accounting for various aspects of family behavior. Historically, one particular controversy regarding measurement of SES is whether individual or composite measures shoul d be used (Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Smith & Graham, 1995). The current consensus seems to be that multiple components should be measured, but used in the analyses separately rather than combined into one index of SES (Duncan & Magnuson, 2003; Ensminger & Fother gill, 2003; Hamil-Luker & O'Rand, 2007; Lidfeldt, Hu, Manson, & Kawachi, 2007; Yang, Carmichael, Canfield, Song, & Shaw, 2008). 13

PAGE 14

Liberatos and colleagues (1988) f ound that the three most commonl y used indicators of SES income, education, and occupation are related to health, but not to each other. These indicators likely have differential effects on family behavi or (Smith & Graham, 1995). In addition, they recommend that family researchers consider fe male and male sociodemographic characteristics separately, so that each can be comp ared independent of the other. The measurement of SES in arti cles from three journals ( Child Development, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, J ournal of Public Health) over the last decade was recently reviewed (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003). The review found that when SES was mentioned in an article, it was most often measured by educat ion, followed by income, and lastly occupation. Articles found in Child Developmen t were more likely than articles in the other two journals to use SES scales, particularly Hollingsheads (1975) Four-Factor Index of Social Status ; however, the majority of articles did not use scales. The authors found th at most articles reported SES variables when reporting demogra phic characteristics, but far fewer articles considered the potential influence of SES on outcome variables. The review also found that articles contained little discussion of methodology or standardization of SES measures, despite recommendations for this in earlier reviews (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003). This study measures SES with the common indicators of SES education, income, and occupation, as well as the most common composite index the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status (HI). The reasons for this are two-fold. By including the three most common individual indicators of SES, this study seeks to quantify the relations that each indicator has with parenting behaviors. As emphasized in the Smith and Graham review (1995), it is important to understand the different relationship each indicator has with an outcome variable. HI was included as well, because it is the most widely used composite scale of SES. In 14

PAGE 15

15 particular, child development researchers use th is scale frequently (Ensminger & Fothergill, 2003), making it important to understand how HI relates to parenting behavior. A final limitation of prior research exam ining relations between SES and parenting behavior is that the samples we re not drawn from clinical pop ulations. In these nonclinical samples, lower SES families have shown more hostile, controlling, and punitive parenting (Conger et al., 1994; Dodge et al., 1994; Barber, 1996; Grant et al ., 2003), less responsiveness to their children (Bradley et al., 2001), and less warmth when intera cting with their children (Dodge et al., 1994). Parenting styles are different in clinical versus nonclinical families regardless of SES (Bessmer et al., 2005); however, the questio n remains as to whether the above-mentioned patterns of parenting differences due to SES exis t in clinical populations, or whether clinical families show different patterns of parenting as a function of SES. The purpose of this study was to quantify the relations between family socioeconomic status and parenting behaviors in families referred for presc hool ODD. These relations were examined separately for mother-child and father-child dyads. Based on findings from nonclinical populations, we hypothesized that SES would be positively correlated with parental prosocial talk and total verbalizations, and negatively correlated with negative talk and demandingness.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER 2 METHODS Participants Participants were 89 families w ith 3 to 6-year-old children who had partic ipated in a larger, treatment outcome study. Although 100 families part icipated in the larger study, 11 of these families had missing demographic data, thus reducing the sample size. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were as follows : (a) the child met DSM-IV dia gnostic criteria for ODD; (b) the childs hyperactivity medication st atus and dosage, if any, were stable for at least one month prior to the pre-treatment assessment; (c) the chil d obtained a standard scor e equivalent of 70 or higher on a cognitive screening m easure; and (d) the childs pare nts obtained standard score equivalents of 75 or higher on a cognitive screening measure. Children with a history of severe sensory or mental impairment or an immediate crisis requiring out-of-ho me placement were not included. Table 2.1 shows demographic characteristics of the families. Measures Diagnostic Interview Schedul e for Children-IV-Parent (DISC-IV-P; Shaffer, Fisher, & Lucas, 2000). The DISC-IV-P is a structured dia gnostic interview that was administered to mothers to determine whether a child met diagnostic criteria for oppositional defiant disorder. In a sample of parents of 9to 17-year-old children 1week test-retest reliability was reported at .54 for ODD (Shaffer et al., 2000). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Third Edition (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1981; 1997). The PPVT was used as a cognitive screening measure for children. It is a well-standardized test of receptive language in children as young as 2.6 years old. Each item consists of four pictures and requires that the child indica te which picture represents th e stimulus word given by the examiner. This measure has a strong correlati on with the WISC-III Full Scale IQ (Altepter, 16

PAGE 17

1989), test-retest reliabilities ranging from .91 to .94, and high split half reliability coefficients for children (.86 to .97). Wonderlic Personnel Test (Dodrill, 1981). The Wonderlic Pe rsonnel test is a 50-item test designed as a cognitive screening measure for adults. The test score is the number of items answered correctly in a 12 minute period. In a sample of 120 normal adults, the Wonderlic correlated .93 with the WAIS Fu ll Scale IQ and was within 10 points of WAIS Full Scale IQ score for 90% of subjects (Dodril l, 1981). These findings were replicated and extended to psychiatric settings (Dodrill & Warner, 1988). It has also shown high (.94) test-retest reliability (Dodrill, 1983). Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg, Nelson, Duke, & Boggs, 2005). The DPICS is a behavioral observa tion coding system for parent-child social interactions during three 5-minut e standard situations. The th ree situations, Child Led Play (CLP), Parent Led Play (PLP), and Clean Up (CU), vary in the amount of parental control required. Categories that may be coded includ e 12 verbalization categor ies (i.e., Praise), 3 vocalization categories (i.e., Yell), and 3 physical behaviors (i.e., Positive Touch). Overall kappa reliability for all categor ies used in this study was 0.75. For all but one category, kappa reliabilities ranged from 0.55 to 0.85. Parent Smart Talk had a kappa reliability of 0.31; however, a confusion matrix reveal ed that this was most often be ing confused with Criticism. For the purposes of this study, Smart Talk and Criticism were combined into one category (Negative Talk). Coders were graduate students and ad vanced undergraduate students in psychology. Training involved approximately 3 hours of w eekly study for 12 weeks, followed by surpassing 80% accuracy on all categories with a criterion tape Coders attended weekly training meetings 17

PAGE 18

throughout the study to prevent coder drift. Co ders were uninformed of the study hypotheses and family SES. A second set of codes was pr oduced on 33% of the observations to determine inter-rater reliability. Scores for each coded behavior were dete rmined by averaging the frequencies from two observations 1 week apart. This yielded 1 score for each of 3 different situations (Child Led Play, Parent Led Play, and Clean Up), but only scores from PLP and CU were used in this study. The reason for excluding CLP was to ensure that the observed interactions were similar to those the dyad experienced on a daily basis, i.e. with the parent in charge. Several composite variables, based on composites used in previous research, were used in this study: (a) Total Verbalizations, created by summing all verbalization categories; (b) Prosocial Talk, created by summing Reflections, Behavior Descriptions, Labeled Praises, and Unlabeled Praises; (c) Negative Talk, produced by summing Criticism and Smart Talk; (d) Demandingness, created by summing parent Direct and Indirect Commands. Table 22 lists the composite categories used in this study. Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Social Status (HI; Hollingshead, 1975). The Hollingshead Four-Factor Index is a measure of a familys socioeconomic status. It is based on the education and occupation of each employed parent living at home. The education and occupation of homemakers, students and unemployed individuals are not included. However, if there is no gainfully employed individual at th e time of the evaluation, then the scores are calculated for the person most likely to be head of the household. Thus, the occupation in which he/she is typically employed is rated. Occupations are rated on a 9-poi nt scale (Appendix A-1), categorizing approximately 450 titles from the 1970 United States Census. Education is rated on a 7-point scale (Appendix A-2) based on the number of years of schooling. To calculate HI for a 18

PAGE 19

family, the occupation and education scores are weighted and summed. The occupation score is multiplied by 5, and the education score is multiplied by 3. For dual-income families, HI is calculated by averaging the scores for each earner. HI scores range from 8 to 66. Procedure The 89 referred families completed pre-treatment assessments. Families arrived at the Psychology Clinic, were greeted by assessors, and consented to thei r participation in the study. During the assessment, they completed a demogra phic questionnaire, a clin ical interview, and a structured diagnostic interview. To screen for cognitive impairment, the Wonderlic was administered to each parent and the PPVT-III was ad ministered to each child. Each parent was then videotaped on two occasions (1 week apart) interacting with his or her child in three standard situations: 10 minutes of Child Led Play, 10 minutes of Parent Led Play and 5 minutes of Clean Up. The first 5 minutes of CLP and PL P were used as warm-up periods to allow the parent and child to adjust to the situation. The second 5 minute s of CLP and PLP and the entire 5 minutes of CU were coded. 19

PAGE 20

Table 2-1. Demographics of sample (n= 89) Characteristic % M SD Min Max Childs Age (in years) 4.40 1.11 3 6 SES 38.38 13.63 11.0 66.0 Income (dollars yearly) 34167 25590 2004 122604 Childs Sex (%male) 74.5 Childs ethnicity/race % Caucasian % African American % Hispanic % Asian % Biracial or Other 74.2 9.0 4.5 1.1 11.2 Mother Education % Less than high school % High school % Partial college/tech. % College % Masters and beyond 7.8 16.9 40.4 28.1 6.7 Father Education* % Less than high school % High school % Partial college, tech. school % College % Masters and beyond 8.1 29.7 18.9 21.6 21.6 Mother Occupation % Employed % Unskilled, Semiskilled % Skilled Clerical/Sales % Semiprofessional/Managers % Professional 94.4 9.0 28.1 24.7 5.6 Father Occupation* % Employed % Unskilled, Semiskilled % Skilled Clerical/Sales % Semiprofessional/Managers % Professional 97.3 13.5 29.7 37.8 16.2 *Each family did not have a father participate, so father demographic information is based on a subsample of the original sample (n = 37). 20

PAGE 21

21 Table 2-2. DPICS composite categories. Category Equation Total Verbalizations NTAp + DQp + IQp +LPp + UPp + DCp + ICp + RFp + BDp + TAp % Demandingness (DCp + ICp) / TVp % Prosocial Talk (BDp + RFp + UPp + LPp) / TVp % Negative Talk (NTAp) / TVp

PAGE 22

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Initial analyses examined demographic variab les across the sample. Father-child DPICS data existed for only 37 dyads, resulting from bot h lower father participation and missing data. The subsample of families with fathers included was demographically different from the entire sample. Hollingshead Four-Factor Index of Soci al Status was significa ntly higher in this subsample (M = 43.16, SD = 13.69) than the entire sample, t(36) = 2.13, p < 0.05. Income was also significantly higher in the father subsample ( M = 45,058; SD = 24,727) than it was in the entire sample, t(36) = 2.68, p < 0.05. To test the hypothesis that SES would be related to parenting behaviors, analyses were conducted separately for mother-child and father -child dyads, but due to the small subsample with father participation, analyses were limited fo r father behaviors. Mother behaviors were first correlated with a composite measure of SES (HI), and then regressions were used to determine the relations between separate indices of SES (education, income, and occupation) and parenting behaviors. Father behaviors we re correlated only. Each set of analyses appears below. Mother-Child Dyads First, we examined the descriptive statisti cs of each composite DPICS category used in this study. Composite categories of parental Demandingness, Prosocial Talk, and Negative Talk were examined as percentages of parent Total Verbalizations. Total Verbalizations (TV; M = 154, SD = 44) and percent Demandingness (DMG; M = 0.31, SD = 0.10) were normally distributed. Values of skewness and kur tosis did not indicate non-normality, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated nonsignifi cant deviances from normality. However, percent Prosocial Talk (PRO; M = 0.05, SD = 0.04) and percent Negative Talk (NTA; M = 0.09, SD = 0.06) were skewed. To normali ze the distributions, square-root 22

PAGE 23

transformation were made on PRO ( M = 0.20, SD = 0.08) and NTA ( M = 0.28, SD = 0.10). Distributions of transformed variables di d not deviate significantly from normality. Pearson correlations between the parent categories and HI showed that HI was minimally, but significantly rela ted to maternal PRO (r = .24, p < .05) and DMG (r = -.27, p < .01). As hypothesized, mothers used more posit ive verbalizations and fewer commands as family SES increased. Mother TV and NTA were not significantly correlated with HI. Analyses were conducted to test if the si gnificant correlations were significantly different from the nonsignificant ones, results suggested they were not significantly different. Thus, the relations between SES and PRO and between SES and DMG mu st be interpreted with caution, since they were not significantly different from the other, non-significant correlations. See Table 3-1 for all correlations. To quantify the relations between the separate indices of SES and pare nting behaviors, four multiple regression were used. To correct for family-wise alpha inflation models needed to be significant at p < .0125. For thes e regressions, categorical va riables were dummy coded. Education was dummy coded into five variables: (1) Less than high school, (2) High school, (3) Partial college or technical sc hool, (4) College, (5) Masters a nd beyond. Four of these dummy variables were included in the regression. Th e middle education level was chosen as the reference group because more participants were in this category than other categories. Occupation was also coded into five categories: (1) Unemployed /homemaker; (2) Unskilled or semi-skilled workers; (3) Skilled workers, sales, and clerical workers; (4) Semi-professional; (5) Professional. Again, the middle category wa s chosen as the reference group. Lastly, to control for family size when cons idering income, family income was divided by the US Census poverty threshold for a given size family. A ratio less than 1.0 is regarded as 23

PAGE 24

poor while ratios around 3.0 or 4.0 are considered middle-class. The income-to-needs ratios for this sample ranged between 0.1 and 7.9. Becau se the distribution of income-to-needs was significantly non-normal, a logarithmic transformation of the data was conducted. Mother Prosocial Talk was significantly predicted by the multiple regression model, R2 = .23, F(9,79) = 2.60 (p = .011). Table 3-2 shows that the main effect of this model was mother education. Mothers with a graduate degree ( = .409, p < .01) had a significantly higher proportion of Prosocial talk than the reference category (Partial college or technical school). When this model was rerun using Masters or higher as the reference category, mothers in this category had significantl y higher percentages ( M = .32, SD = .09) of Prosocial Talk than all other education categories. The multiple regression model did not significantly predict Total Verbalizations, R2 = .140, F(9,79) = 1.429 (p = .19), Demandingness, R2 = .168, F(9, 79) = 1.775 (p = .086) and Negative Talk, R2 = .175, F(9, 79) = 1.857 (p = .071). However, within NTA a main effect was observed. The main effect for this model was mother occupation. The model showed that mothers who were unemployed ( = -.372, p < .01) or semiprofessionals ( = -.285, p < .05) had a significantly lower percentage NTA compared to mothers with jobs in the skilled worker category. These main effects must be interpre ted cautiously, however, because the overall model was non-significant. Father-Child Dyads Descriptive statistics were examined for each composite DPICS father category. As with mother analyses, composite categories of parental Demandingness, Prosocial Talk, and Negative Talk were examined as percentages of parent Total Verbalizations. All four composite categories appeared normal: Total Verbalizations (M = 152, SD = 46.1), Demandingness (M = 0.32, SD = 0.11), Prosocial Talk after removal of one outlier ( M = .05, SD = .03), and Negative 24

PAGE 25

Talk ( M = 0.08, SD = 0.04). Values of skewness and kurtosi s did not indicate non-normality, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov(a) and Shapiro-Wilk te sts indicated nonsignificant deviances from normality. To examine the relations between father parenting behaviors and SES, correlations were conducted among the DPICS composites, HI, and income to needs. Because of the small sample size, regressions including education and occupa tion were not conducted. Table 3-3 displays correlations. Father PRO was significantly related to HI, r = .524 (p < .01), and Income to needs, r = .412 (p < .05). Of note, HI and income to need s were moderately correlated with each other, r = .661 (p < .001). 25

PAGE 26

26 Table 3-1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite va riables for mother-child dyads (N=89) Range M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Total Verbalization 67 297 154 44 2. Percent Demandingness 0.10 0.60 0.31 0.29 .274** p = .009 3. Percent Prosocial Talk 0.05 0.44 0.20 0.08 -.055 p = ns -.374** p = .000 4. Percent Negative Talk 0.07 0.53 0.28 0.10 .245* p = .021 .279** p = .008 -.365** p = .000 5. Hollingshead SES 11.0 66.0 38.4 13.6 -.046 p = ns -.272** p = .010 .246* p = .020 -.127 p = ns p < 0.05 level ** p < .01 Percent Prosocial Talk and Percent Negative Ta lk were square root transformations of the original value.

PAGE 27

Table 3-2. Regression of mother verbalizations onto in come-to-needs, mother education, and mother occupation Socioeconomic Status Percent Prosocial Talk Total Verbalizations Percent Demandingness Percent Negative Talk B (SE) p B (SE) p B (SE) p B (SE) p (Constant) .186 (.024) p = .000 174.06 (14.16) p = .000 .326 (.033) p = .000 .342 (032) p = .000 Income to needs .015 (.026) .071 p = .568 15.47 (15.47) .131 p = .320 -.061 (.036) -.220 p = .091 -.041 (.035) -.150 p = .244Less than H.S. vs Partial college / tech. school -.002 (.035) -.008 p = .945 -10.20 (20.23) -.063 p = .616 .077 (.046) .204 p = .099 .022 (.045) .058 p = .633H.S. vs Partial college / tech. school -.025 (.027) -.119 p = .350 2.017 (15.67) .017 p = .898 .030 (.036) .111 p = .400 .002 (.035) .007 p = .960College vs Partial college / tech. school .011 (.021) .067 p = .610 -25.39 (12.29) -.285 p = .042 -.013 (.028) -.062 p = .646 -.011 (.028) -.055 p = .684Masters or beyond vs Partial college / tech. school .129 (.040) .409 p = .002 -8.845 (23.37) -.051 p = .706 .018 (.054) .045 p = .733 -.081 (.052) -.204 p = .125Homemaker vs Skilled worker .014 (.022) .084 p = .514 -5.325 (12.64) -.057 p = .675 -.022 (.029) -.103 p = .443 -.079 (.028) -.372 p = .006Unskilled worker vs Skilled worker -.032 (.031) -.115 p = .314 -17.98 (18.31) -.117 p = .329 .016 (.042) .045 p = .700 -.075 (.041) -.214 p = .072Semi-professional vs Skilled worker .004 (.024) .022 p = .867 -21.35 (14.07) -.210 p = .133 -.033 (.032) -.138 p = .315 -.066 (.032) -.285 p = .039Professional vs Skilled worker -.013 (.043) -.039 p = .759 -30.99 (25.14) -.163 p = .221 -.017 (.058) -.039 p = .763 .005 (.056) .011 p = .93427 Percent Prosocial Talk and Percent Negative Talk were square root transformations of the original value.

PAGE 28

Table 3-3. Descriptive statistics and correlations of composite variab les for father-child dyads (n = 37) Range M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Total Verbalization 89.0 280 152 46.1 2. Percent Demandingness 0.13 0.52 0.32 0.11 .190 p = ns 3. Percent Prosocial Talk 0.01 0.20 .05 .04 -.166 p = ns -.336* p = .045 4. Percent Negative Talk 0.01 0.19 .08 .04 .096 p = ns .063 p = ns -.395* p = .017 5. Hollingshead SES 20.0 66.0 43.5 13.0 -.110 p = ns -.241 p = ns .524** p =.001 -.159 p = ns -.159 p = ns 6. Income to needs -0.32 0.88 .30 .27 .043 p = ns -.188 p = ns .412* p = .012 -.054 p = ns .661** p < .001 p < 0.05 level ** p < .01 One outlier was removed when analyzing Prosocial Talk (n = 36). Income to needs was a logarithmic transformation of family income divided by US poverty threshold for a given size family. 28

PAGE 29

CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to determine how various measures of SES influenced the relations between SES and parent behaviors in a clinical sample. Firs t, we hypothesized that SES would be positively related to parent Prosocial Talk. Pros ocial Talk includes praising the child, describing what he is doing, and reflecting, or repeating, what he is saying. We found that as HI increased, positive parent verbalizations in creased for both motherand father-child dyads. In addition, the three separate indices of SES income, education and occupation accounted for three times the observed differences in mother Prosocial Talk than accounted for by HI.. We found maternal education, speci fically, was strongly relate d to Prosocial Talk. Our overall findings concur with results found in general popul ation studies which suggests less responsiveness and warmth among lower SES mothers with their children (Dodge et al., 1994; Hart & Risley, 1995) Although past research has focused almost exclusively on mother-child interactions, we found that the re lationship between warmth and SES was stronger in father-child than mother-child dyads. Howe ver, relations may have appeared stronger in father-child dyads due to the me thod of measuring SES than to a true phenomenon. Mothers are not always included in the calcula tion of HI. Instead, HI relies more strongly on the education and occupation of the primary earner in each family, often excluding mother education and occupation. By examining income, educati on, and occupation in the same model, we demonstrated the large role of maternal educa tion in in relations between SES and mother Prosocial Talk. Our results s uggest that any measure of SES that does not include mother education is unlikely to relate strongly to parental warmth and responsivity. Despite HIs inconsistent considering of maternal educati on, these findings are important for parent training programs for preschoolers that focus on reducing negative and increasing 29

PAGE 30

positive interactions. Of note, the relationship between family SES and parent Prosocial Talk was found in standardized situations in which parents have more c ontrol, which are the times that children with ODD exhibit greater defiance and noncompliance. Although higher SES families also engage in more maladaptive coercive family processes during parent controlled situations, higher SES families make more positive statements than lower SES families do. If clinicians are knowledgeable about the relationship between SES and parenting skills, they may better recognize when they need to introduce treatment in a sensitive manner. Such sensitivity is particularly important consideri ng Fernandez and Eybergs (in pre ss) finding suggesting that low Prosocial Talk is a predictor of treatment dr opout in families with a preschooler with ODD. The present study also sought to examine the way SES is related to parent Total Verbalizations, Demandingness, and Negative Talk. Findings for mother-child and father-child dyads did not support the hypothesis that SE S would be positively related to Total Verbalizations. This negative finding is inconsis tent with past researc h, which has established a strong relationship between familys social cla ss and both the quantity and quality of parent speech to children (Hart & Risley, 1995). Although mother Demandingness was significantly re lated to HI, this relationship was not significantly different from the other nonsignificant relationshi ps. Mother demandingness was also not related to SES using th e three separate indices of SES (income, education, occupation). No relationship was found between father demandingness and SES. Negative Talk was not significantly related to SES, measured with HI or 3 separate indicators, as hypothesized. Past research ha s demonstrated that among non-clinic-referred mothers, those with lower SES are more critical and harsh to their child ren and that lower SES children are more likely to have disruptive behavior disorders. The absence of relations between 30

PAGE 31

SES and NTA in our clinical s uggests that parent NTA may medi ate relations between SES and child disruptive behavior disorders. Our results emphasize that SES may be related to positive parent verbalizations, but not negative verbaliz ations, in clinical families in treatment for preschool ODD. Our use of a clinical sample may be the st rongest reason that our results diverge from earlier studies examining relations between SE S and parenting. Future research utilizing standardized methods of parent-child observa tion should include families from the general population to determine if the population under st udy accounts for divergent results. Clinicians must be careful to dismiss any previous assu mptions about the associ ation between parenting styles and SES, and recognize that clinic families from both low and high SES show similar levels of criticism while interacting with their children. Another possible reason for lack of significant is the measur ement of SES. Hollingshead (1975) argued reasons for deriving the social status of a family from the breadwinner. Although some strengths for HI have been acknowledged, c ontinued use is problematic in psychological research, particularly child research, because nonemployed mother education is not part of the score. Because many educated mothers self-selec t out of the workforce once they have children, it is important to consider maternal education wh en researching child outc omes. Early studies of social class were conducted by sociologists w ho focused on how families were evaluated by others in their community. Developmental rese archers have continued to use HI, even though their focus is no longer on social status per se, but on the access to resources and on the home environment, both of which have direct imp lications for child deve lopment (Hoffman, 2003). Although income, education and occupation, were used as different measures of SES in this study, problems associated with each of th ese indices of SES may have contributed to 31

PAGE 32

nonsignificant findings. First, to control for family size when considering income, this study used an income-to-needs ratio as a measure of economic resources, but as with most SES measures, there are trade-offs. Income is quite volatile over the course of a childs life (Duncan & Magnuson, 2003). In addition, it is often difficu lt to obtain accurate self-report of household income. The demographic form had a list of va rious types of income for the participant to complete; however, there were 10 cases for which an additional working adu lt (ie. not mother or father) resided in the home. Income data we re not given for these workers, although their incomes are considered household income. Future research can attempt to ameliorate this difficulty by clearly asking the parent to report all sources of income in the home (ie all working adults). The measurement of occupation also presents problems as a measure of SES. Occupation was categorized occupation into four categories, a category was added for homemakers and unemployed. Occupation is meant to measure a broader set of skills than those learned through formal education. Occupations with higher stat us are linked to higher earnings, more control, and more prestige for workers (Jencks, Perma n, & Rainwater, 1988). However, occupation is also volatile across the life spa n. As our sample demonstrated (22 of 89 mothers categorized themselves as homemakers), many women self-selec t out of the workforce, thus creating a fifth category of women with different skill sets. Although the correlations between maternal occupation and maternal NTA showed close to a statistically signi ficant values, the inclusion of homemaker category may have erad icated a true association. Our results have several important implications First, it is likely that the relations previously documented between family SES and parenting styles may be different in clinicreferred and general population samples. Theori es explaining the relations between SES and 32

PAGE 33

parenting must be expanded to accommodate current findings. Second, our findings have clinical implications, as well. As stated, clinicians need to be cognizant that SES is significantly related to positive verbalizations rather than negative ones. Positive verbalizations, like praise, increase with SES, but criticisms remain the sa me while SES increases. For treatments of ODD, such as parent management training, this dist inction may help clinic ians introduce and frame therapy to families considering treatment for their children. Lastly, the largest implications of this study are for research. When choosing a meaure of SES, researchers need to consider carefully the theoretical foundations each measure. Young children today are more likely to have highly edu cated parents, come from families with incomes either below or well above the poverty line, and live in single parent households than children from previous generations (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Thus, it is crucial for researchers to continue to seek understanding of how these different SES indicator s fit together to produce risk or resiliency in children. Our finding showing that HI relates differentia lly to parenting beha viors for mothers and fathers was largely due to the HI reliance on the primary breadwinners education and occupation. To understand fully the complex interactions between SES and parenting, researchers must consider the entire context in wh ich the child resides, not just the context of one parent. It is important to cons ider resources of both parents. Researchers must not only avoid bias toward one parent, but also refrain from condensing SES to a single component, such as education, because no single indicator can adequate ly cover the entire co ntext of socioeconomic status. Our study also had several limitations. Firs t, the study is correlational, so causation cannot be inferred. It cannot be concluded that low SES causes parents to give fewer praises and 33

PAGE 34

other prosocial verbalizations, nor can we conclude that higher SES families are better parents for praising their children more. Instead, we must be careful to interpret these differences within the context of culture and remain sensitive to the varying stresses and demands that lower SES parents endure. In addition, the sample consists of fam ilies who have a preschool-aged child with oppositional defiant disorder, thus the findings ma y not be generalizable to families who have children with other diagnoses. A nother aspect that limits generalizability is that the sample resides in north central Florida. This area is mainly rural, and fa mily SES, in rural versus urban settings, likely has different pathways to child disruptive disorders and different barriers to treatment (Evans, 2003). Parenting practices that work in one environment may actually prove to be detrimental in the other. Future research should attemp t to compare the parenting differences in families who seek treatment for pr eschool ODD in rural versus urban areas. Such differences could impact the success of interv ention programs for young children with behavior disorders. Categorization of education can also be c onsidered a limitation of this study. In hindsight, asking parents to report number of years of formal schooling, would have provided richer information and possibly strengthened th e findings. This study di vided education into categories that Hollingshead (1975) used. Thus a respondent with one semester of college would be placed in the same category as a respo ndent who had seven semesters of college. It would be useful for education to be expressed continuously to permit differentiation among partial college respondents. Lastly, the small sample of fathers in the st udy limited statistical power to examine father occupation, education, and income simultaneousl y. Using both HI and 3 indices of SES for 34

PAGE 35

fathers, as well as mothers, could have added additional findings of interest. Future research should attempt to include more fathers. Future research should also stri ve to include self-report meas ures of parent behavior and parent-report measures of child behavior. If perceptions of parent a nd child behavior were compared to objective measures of the same be havior, researchers coul d estimate the degree to which a discrepancy may exist. Parental psychol ogical distress should also be taken into account because it could be associated with both parental self-report and observed behavior. Such research could help clarify the divergence of re sults from past research on SES and parenting were current findings nonsignificant because of the clinical nature of the sample or because of the use of observational methods? It would also be useful for future research to examine discrepancies between parents selfreported behaviors and observed beha viors in structured play situa tions. It is possible that the relationship between parent self -report and observed behaviors di ffers as a function of SES. Such an interaction would have clinical utility because therap ists often rely on parents to describe the home environment. The current study is just one step towards understandi ng the relations between a complicated SES and presentations of parent s with children diagnosed with ODD. Although future research will be needed to further elucidat e this relationship, clinicians can begin to keep in mind the possible association between SES (parti cularly mother education) and positive parent verbalizations. Researchers should continue to conceptualize SE S as a multidimensional construct, without collapsing the di mensions into one composite score. It is especially important for psychologists and other social science resear chers to continue to tease apart the various dimensions of SES particularly in a time when young children are more likely to have highly 35

PAGE 36

36 educated parents, come from families with income s either below or well above the poverty line, and live in single parent house holds (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

PAGE 37

APPENDIX HOLLINGSHEAD INDEX A-1. Hollingshead Index O ccupational Status Scale (1) Farm Laborers / Menial Service Workers (2) Unskilled Workers (3) Machine Operators and Semiskilled Workers (4) Smaller Business Owners, Skilled Manua l Workers, Craftsmen, and Tenant Farmers (5) Clerical and Sales Worker s, Small Farm and Business Owners (6) Technicians, Semiprofessionals, and Small Business Owners (7) Smaller Business Owners, Farm Own ers, Managers, and Minor Professionals (8) Administrators, Lesser Professionals, and Proprietors of Medium-Sized Businesses (9) Higher Executives, Proprietors of La rge Businesses, and Major Professionals A-2. Hollingshead Index Education Scale. (1) Less than 7th grade (2) 7th, 8th, or 9th grade (3) 10th or 11th grade (4) High school graduate or GED (5) Partial college or te chnical/specialized training (6) Standard college or university (7) Graduate professional training 37

PAGE 38

LIST OF REFERENCES Altepter, T.S. (1989). The PPVT-R as a measur e of psycholinguistic functioning: A caution. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 935-941. APA. (2006). The Report of the APA task force on socioeconomic status. Retrieved February 7, 2007 from http://www2.apa.org/pi/S ES_task_force_report.pdf Aragona, J. A., & Eyberg, S. M. (1981) Neglecte d children Mothers' report of child behavior problems and observed verbal behavior. Child Development, 52 : 596-602. Barber, B.K. (1996). Parental psychological c ontrol: Revisiting a ne glected construct. Child Development, 67 3296-3319. Bessmer, J.L., Brestan, E.V., & Eyberg, S.M. (2005). The dyadic parent-child interaction coding system II (DPICS II): Reliability and validity with mother child dyads. Manuscript in preparation. Bornstein, M.H., Hahn, C., Suwalsky, J.T.D., & Ha ynes, O.M. (2003). Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development: The Four-Factor Index of Social Status and the Socioeconomic Index of Occupations. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 29 82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Borrego, J., Timmer, S. G., Urquiza, A. J., & Follett e, W. C. (2004). Physic ally abusive mothers' responses following episodes of ch ild noncompliance and compliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 897-903. Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Mcadoo, H. P., & Coll, C. G. (2001). The home environments of children in the United States part I: Variat ions by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Development, 72, 844. Brestan, E.V., Foote, R.C., & Eyber, S.M. (2005). The dyadic parent-child interaction coding system II (DPICS II): Reliability and validity with father child dyads. Manuscript in preparation. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 36, 113. Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E.1994. Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development 65, 649-665. 38

PAGE 39

Dodrill, C.B. (1981). An economical method for the ev aluation of general in telligence in adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 668-673. Dodrill, C.B. (1983). Long-term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 316-317. Dodrill, C. B. & Warner, M.H. (1988). Furthe r studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief measure of intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56 145-147. Duncan, G.J., & Magnusson, K. (2003). Off with Hollingshead: Socioeconomic resources, parenting, and child development. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 83106). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Te st-Third Edition: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Ensminger, M.E., & Fothergill, K.E. (2003). A D ecade of Measuring SES: What it Tells Us and Where to go From Here. In M.H. Bornstein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 13 27). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Evans, G.W. (2003). A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load among rural children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 924-933. Eyberg, S.M., Nelson, M.M., Duke, M., & Boggs, S.R. (2005). Manual for the Dyadic ParentChild Interaction Coding System (3rd Edition). Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://pcit.phhp.ufl.edu/DP ICSfiles/DPICS%20Draft%203.03.pdf Fernandez, M.A., & Eyberg, S.M. (2007). Pr edicting Treatment and Follow-up Attrition in Parent-Child Interact ion Therapy. Manuscript in preparation. Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Stuhlmacher, A ., Thurm, A., McMahon, S., & Halpert, J. (2003). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopath ology: Moving from markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447. Hamil-Luker, J., O'Rand, A.M. (2007). Gende r Differences in the Link Between Childhood Socioeconomic Conditions and Hear t Attack Risk in Adulthood. Demography, 44, 137158. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes. Haug, M. R. (1977). Measurement in social stratification. Annual Review of Sociology, 3 51-77. 39

PAGE 40

Hoffman, L.W. (2003) Methodolog ical Issues in Studies of SES, Parenting, and Child Development. In M.H. Born stein & R.H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development (pp. 125 143). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status Unpublished manuscript. Yale University, New Haven, CT. Hughes, C., Deater-Deckard, K., Cutting, A.L. (1999). Speak r oughly to your little boy? Sex Differences in the Relations Between Parent ing and Preschoolers Understanding of Mind. Social Development 8, 143-160. Jencks, C., Perman, L., & Rainwater, L. (1988). What is a good job? A new measure of labor market success. The American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1322-1357. Lavigne, J. V., Arend, R., Rosenbaum, D., Binns, H. J., Christoffel, K. K., & Gibbons, R. D. (1998). Psychiatric disorders with onset in the preschool years, I: stability of diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 37, 1246-1254. Liberatos, P., Link, B.G., & Kelsey, J.L. ( 1988). The measurement of social class in epidemiology. Epidemiological Reviews, 10 87-121. Lidfeldt, J., Li, T.Y., Hu, F.B., Manson, J.E., & Kawachi, I.. (2007). A Prospective Study of Childhood and Adult Socioeconomic Status and In cidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Women. American Journal of Epidemiology,165 882 889. Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predic tors differentiate life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development & Psychopathology, 13, 355. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two component mode ls of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. Shaffer, D., Fisher, P., & Lucas, C. P. ( 2000). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Descript ion, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 28-38. Shonkoff, J. P. and Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Smith, T.E., & Graham, P.B. (1995). Socioec onomic Stratification in Family Research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 930-940. Timmer, S. G., Borrego, J., & Urquiza, A. J. (20 02). Antecedents of coercive interactions in physically abusive mother-child dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 836-853. Tulkin, S. R., & Kagan, J. (1972). Mother-child interaction in the first year of life. Child Development, 43, 31-41. 40

PAGE 41

41 Yang, J., Carmichael S.L., Canfield, M., Song, J., & Shaw, G.M. (2008). Socioeconomic Status in Relation to Selected Birth Defects in a Large Multicentered US Case-Control Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167 145-154.

PAGE 42

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Corissa Callahan was born in Denville, New Jersey, on December 1, 1982. The oldest of five children, she was primarily raised in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and she graduated from Bishop Hoban High School in 2000. In 2004, she obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in human development from Cornell University, where she completed an honors thesis under the mentorship of Gary Evans, Ph.D. After graduation from Cornell, Corissa work ed at the University of CaliforniaLos Angeles as a research assistant for Michelle Cr aske, Ph.D., in the Anxiety Disorders Behavioral Research Program. There, she coordinated an NIMH-funded study of risk factors for developing mood and anxiety disorders in late adolescence. In August 2006, Corissa entered the doctoral training program in Clinical and Health Psycho logy, in the Clinical Child Psychology track, at the University of Florida. At Florida, she is research assistant for Sheila Eyberg, Ph.D., on an NIMH-funded study examining group versus indivi dual parent-child inte raction therapy for preschoolers with attention de ficit hyperactivity disorder. Corissa plans to focus her research and clin ical work on the psychological needs of United States military service members and their families, a passion she has already begun to pursue. 42


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101109_AAAAAL INGEST_TIME 2010-11-09T10:45:04Z PACKAGE UFE0022027_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 9020 DFID F20101109_AAALCD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH callahan_c_Page_31thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
875ad33e87852d806a6416611adcfe44
SHA-1
cd714ce928dc86e145862a9475b768a3b9719ceb
3131 F20101109_AAAKVF callahan_c_Page_06thm.jpg
f345c963697064596a575ccd65ff3fa4
d1897c618be9fe0825c0e4d5bc8c152d8e2b7f24
485 F20101109_AAAKVG callahan_c_Page_01.txt
bc9028687db7da2e96fddf2597bdf539
595ddb3dc82576728d8150986e798ed20c38f68e
34780 F20101109_AAALCE callahan_c_Page_32.QC.jpg
ec0321e3eb3b53cd574167145c989123
c2b58c62fab6ee7b661323c6947b32a393f0be5e
52146 F20101109_AAAKVH UFE0022027_00001.mets FULL
dada5074eea9895aa44cb59e45058a8b
7e0801ddf4f9ea71260f550324917a539bdd52cd
33608 F20101109_AAALCF callahan_c_Page_34.QC.jpg
9a0d8793f679218f2d0d3dafb82209b1
e37de258543b21e2cc3a0af0a89c5eba77383398
8603 F20101109_AAALCG callahan_c_Page_35thm.jpg
71247803bbf2603de4753b5ff1991d2e
902a72f347342bd9153977b318386d99de3d5432
1217 F20101109_AAALCH callahan_c_Page_36thm.jpg
5421a7ddd001b70e8f8252ff776dee17
226cc0d5e1c431feb133fb123ff731fab9e0982b
28354 F20101109_AAAKVK callahan_c_Page_01.jpg
2de553f3542f9b3201e9d1593351f4a7
35d3bea3d62f7808c353d36c1db927fb9df28654
37691 F20101109_AAALCI callahan_c_Page_38.QC.jpg
6633300ccd00e20a36cf23f17bc1b7a1
aff28813367d623f67e84d02fcb186fb8d414012
4201 F20101109_AAAKVL callahan_c_Page_02.jpg
91f5dfaa3e38609a40933932ba67d171
7d798c9ed1b2e2b865c8a1374bb8d7cbb4ac054b
9314 F20101109_AAALCJ callahan_c_Page_39thm.jpg
3d96b3e1c115b957c5b1355e458dca36
549410e0bd826c066ac89b442272d6396abd4501
15247 F20101109_AAAKVM callahan_c_Page_03.jpg
8efc46a10d91ec558ea51379f2546714
0ea6d5e5206645f4c0d97e5cb57f9d962f15b6f5
4910 F20101109_AAALCK callahan_c_Page_41.QC.jpg
22926e68ce769c818b4f829953213493
94cfdb4f4871099d177b41f55c5577616d1fb83e
60960 F20101109_AAAKVN callahan_c_Page_05.jpg
7f1c5336429b94d99cabc7937a9e7a0a
5decae97c72db1c6f811cfbee0e1c5b950903e16
1233 F20101109_AAALCL callahan_c_Page_41thm.jpg
f192ce6d399a806297b1211763c8239d
3e4ab6c575d2f129511569f9ab69db0f81e3a351
42007 F20101109_AAAKVO callahan_c_Page_06.jpg
2c8bf343bbaf3c0c68482dd362a4df65
014bb4fed4e96ebcd99091724cfdf692e7bf1e1e
23757 F20101109_AAALCM callahan_c_Page_42.QC.jpg
e85a3081d3f25333a74137734b552537
620bf8acf8bcbc526415f8c5cdac377cf1abba2f
99358 F20101109_AAAKVP callahan_c_Page_08.jpg
85e9a9ef527430c338ec1eac0f02029d
27c489e2fd49a629f9da7401a1e96261e9e87532
5924 F20101109_AAALCN callahan_c_Page_42thm.jpg
3e35931ebcb53df18e6cb4d74a667579
f727c47c18e0a373c4fd9f4d6689ce4fa9465c1d
103611 F20101109_AAAKVQ callahan_c_Page_10.jpg
c00cf6cd136179eb5fe7d41d9e03e1cc
7e68844035d3230ad2491dd9c57c3fd84b19c977
106425 F20101109_AAAKVR callahan_c_Page_11.jpg
affefd8fdfeed81e0cf16066d6a1794e
37b8027202dd0588c0237a7a8e8fcc2fd7dcc316
106886 F20101109_AAAKVS callahan_c_Page_12.jpg
acdeeba4f0cc7637a80e7083a557e3c8
b206e8fcc399053ce2621d6a48c6f5799b9a2b8f
110148 F20101109_AAAKVT callahan_c_Page_13.jpg
12fcee7796553535e310c6dfabe6bd45
293e9bb40e600f89f1afa03eb47e46b012121b31
112189 F20101109_AAAKVU callahan_c_Page_14.jpg
55d6579d6c5e993deafde59d3fe3a090
127a340f846844ddf06beb207d9ece45afbc72e6
78696 F20101109_AAAKVV callahan_c_Page_15.jpg
f30665aa215cda65e06de20c7a9d7515
021a55725b04930ff35bd6f9754783a9f900e0af
99611 F20101109_AAAKVW callahan_c_Page_16.jpg
054727794677ddb5db2d4a335f8cf23d
df61cfa77bcf526f3a011aba0a7a05b107033592
101834 F20101109_AAAKVX callahan_c_Page_17.jpg
6f4bc08ec827721b13e50631e385bdf7
c9bc2145b53d3641e77aa3f22f7b381feb663aeb
41507 F20101109_AAAKTA callahan_c_Page_04.jpg
d6c173caaea82c8f881535509076035f
a7bca441a2c817e505d40aca9cdf09ed8e861637
61312 F20101109_AAAKVY callahan_c_Page_20.jpg
6be8d5f19661509fd5af7922777f0039
e0867d2400766710ee0e2efb02deeca4911d9195
1019 F20101109_AAAKTB callahan_c_Page_37.txt
a674dddffc8348ab65b6045cd0585b01
16574e52d7a754073a5c65d5819c4a294c008e4c
103318 F20101109_AAAKVZ callahan_c_Page_22.jpg
1c4efa0db5759c29b6cb8b7974de2f93
d2df16695fd51880b21d12e4ee52c199824c24dd
355829 F20101109_AAAKTC callahan_c_Page_26.jp2
e4388e20ba65e12ea4b4ec02cebaaf04
931f07377372d6cd42ad045dfea433171b00611e
2015 F20101109_AAALAA callahan_c_Page_34.txt
f90c6e591d0b73f5a638ebc312524143
e251c4dd00d7ba04dfc75da10896517a38aa2613
975 F20101109_AAAKTD callahan_c_Page_28.txt
b128797a4a657eb1b6d08d35189faa2b
dc8b0103984a463a9fdbff103c0f88a1b653bf9e
8897 F20101109_AAAKYA callahan_c_Page_01.pro
7b06d10c9861571891b9fccb33ede61a
4787a3742f20e5230e8ab63c0574190b831ce6e9
2068 F20101109_AAALAB callahan_c_Page_35.txt
95a35f91507d69177c43ecc59ffcda75
bfc3b08b043c6bb3e52f8eec3f1af185877e8d5e
3393 F20101109_AAAKTE callahan_c_Page_26thm.jpg
3474237b4626e9189a13d6d624ddbaf8
6cf78f72937fdff84412ed94f331d5bae6d36b34
1013 F20101109_AAAKYB callahan_c_Page_02.pro
23de12e2468f283ef035270bae7660f6
e3ecc2c9f26f638075b867fb64614d8b9f474b04
2106 F20101109_AAAKTF callahan_c_Page_23.txt
23ddde461f4a10ed14eacabfe3baa370
009297146953fbce241b230d7c1ff682317840f7
5541 F20101109_AAAKYC callahan_c_Page_03.pro
7d63f698e1779951e4756f232f4eab9a
5fe8ae3f3e80bfb351e94e6e692d90cddb9d9f13
180 F20101109_AAALAC callahan_c_Page_36.txt
3e6cfc3ed6218216933d837f5f90f334
0dcf9899c69be8af9f79ae79c7dc69786389f7c9
107648 F20101109_AAAKTG callahan_c_Page_32.jpg
1506c2ca8a35ec571f1c0d581b7a154e
848382349715823850f16418cdac75a20e86e32e
18605 F20101109_AAAKYD callahan_c_Page_04.pro
44a83830e35371a0cc17044ada616e05
017b4ec52c22580ef0d3dd7fcd0cbdbfe16a2ca2
2572 F20101109_AAALAD callahan_c_Page_39.txt
9561e0a7c8c394224e0e3f1b385f60ca
db044244c5eb73598c42dfc54537be1f88f80553
8345 F20101109_AAAKTH callahan_c_Page_16thm.jpg
b87a236151c4a12c05ded6c146d4190b
78a456927be8908cfecf82423477aa495db25dcf
39160 F20101109_AAAKYE callahan_c_Page_05.pro
31c9b6ddfba9468b2d6ac0769cdd3c1e
abe18a2c96de1f84ab700cf8bc5560c12933ad5c
2778 F20101109_AAALAE callahan_c_Page_40.txt
0cf96e77081ab52f51fa9e52f50cb0d6
b44406c1ab472c3f5e8527d4ce3fc8fe35769f84
135778 F20101109_AAAKTI callahan_c_Page_39.jpg
9a44d40066d2b54236dbc47f80e142bf
319e11ac1fa643a55bfbf574d1367ed963195350
16282 F20101109_AAAKYF callahan_c_Page_06.pro
e0a5e143c365a819872297e4242a9d96
e1353cdfb8597a4c05a3eb47407d3c82fd1ad656
1414 F20101109_AAALAF callahan_c_Page_42.txt
cfea8f5d08f0cc746fdf2d20516d5412
8ad2001eb474f04910c342c1f3c67b98092eefc8
9438 F20101109_AAAKTJ callahan_c_Page_40thm.jpg
a22c76013697a04cf35b2aaa3e2876c3
8010e271f08efd5bd589d17647c7cb023bdc10a4
6317 F20101109_AAAKYG callahan_c_Page_07.pro
0d98a41ef1843fbcaf0c834a72c9788f
6f41489325529740c154bbeab47fef14af7b7319
2041 F20101109_AAALAG callahan_c_Page_01thm.jpg
f017ddcccb56858fa48b69378d73f7f8
e268ab97a95e208a01ce66352bcc5f70bb717ac9
46210 F20101109_AAAKYH callahan_c_Page_08.pro
fde2c77b515b0a2d3583ba135ec25dda
cfc7a768d4d5eb963c15294f2e6dd3ea7bcdc80c
3460 F20101109_AAALAH callahan_c_Page_37thm.jpg
f064c9599f15f8e0de8ddd80c47ad21a
e73325660f6a5f970493f48082d4dfc521e40a57
25271604 F20101109_AAAKTK callahan_c_Page_21.tif
322478c487d5d0efecabdefd3edbe5b4
b1096a42a17d12c4edf28ff202b9b0d756f70e16
34946 F20101109_AAAKYI callahan_c_Page_09.pro
51d777526cb67f22ed5dbcdb9a2f333f
befb2a7a57b3b19a3748b9333d3bd32c42fda495
35600 F20101109_AAALAI callahan_c_Page_30.QC.jpg
3ef0e3f1e676d67f70f92841e5e193f6
5294522de8d35b92ee18bb57bc0b81015b295555
F20101109_AAAKTL callahan_c_Page_07.tif
22736dae9ee6b28fecdead70beda1aff
1b3972ec6cb201e84337d5744d6a44b1633ff640
52616 F20101109_AAAKYJ callahan_c_Page_11.pro
b2710357e6fa83cef7b1ea103faeaf72
dff90105d3ff47df84c9226b08f5e1b7f65a6664
33365 F20101109_AAALAJ callahan_c_Page_10.QC.jpg
9de726b05db408683cfd37fb887495e4
5f2d3476e865b94eaf543d652609c3f27d45d9fd
1051925 F20101109_AAAKTM callahan_c_Page_34.jp2
ef88351dc0c6d8e507b21a14e29e7862
b370ce3e1ff7036e22fc46bdaa3f1100a9c953c3
52941 F20101109_AAAKYK callahan_c_Page_12.pro
fd6887a757c6c089e137898d14afbbe8
28275de34c06b52c8e2879a8423106838e4eb78b
24085 F20101109_AAALAK callahan_c_Page_09.QC.jpg
e90687688a763e75746b0e43a76a90ed
87634e22501b85078554f5ded8f7181abfa1c4dd
34360 F20101109_AAAKTN callahan_c_Page_42.pro
baf3ad6939f902ff81bf534ffaf50ccf
02143a6741e6c05cc1f1ef11f8c585555b62cf01
54915 F20101109_AAAKYL callahan_c_Page_14.pro
605398cd1b9e714569f48d71b25a8916
7b61fa42255e9fa50909786bc32789ad237edd8b
8344 F20101109_AAALAL callahan_c_Page_33thm.jpg
0187286035f75c9bdc6ad2832226964c
3feae371367f600e4982ce8c6787dd1b4a68eb4c
1051971 F20101109_AAAKTO callahan_c_Page_32.jp2
907dca862765525694203336eb9d9412
9b679729720cfe6df1364e6c692f84f89f05d1af
38249 F20101109_AAAKYM callahan_c_Page_15.pro
38cc7197209605acf33e1b4b68036be4
d74e2ebf2941d072ce8b67bf949312a252136b39
33364 F20101109_AAALAM callahan_c_Page_35.QC.jpg
d4de542fdb5e3f171bbaa54a260bbb02
9a93a484dd8d6c0c05b67c49f30f3bad0018b63e
415121 F20101109_AAAKTP callahan_c_Page_25.jp2
27c73c013e450e8fc0c9eb7addb8cd8b
4ccba55dee082292750757d6d76aad261f055998
48938 F20101109_AAAKYN callahan_c_Page_16.pro
b950edf81d77eaafd33601444bda4ec7
07b08b9c0828ea48f6dea4c68899edb87c9c0227
21230 F20101109_AAALAN callahan_c_Page_19.QC.jpg
1761ca492f1fe41662ec3058c66922f8
abf49e6314144b3a7b5724726a772ea87e5ec3f6
52862 F20101109_AAAKTQ callahan_c_Page_13.pro
92ee5c5ad8718e7c1adbac950ee8780d
3ab9d10bd48d41c6c1e8233c5e84b6ef5f90359c
50566 F20101109_AAAKYO callahan_c_Page_17.pro
2096092939a1f63aa2f3c9df817078a5
803c94fe35765251ad8030963b96b431c7fc2a48
8954 F20101109_AAALAO callahan_c_Page_24thm.jpg
1f1e0a733c248d975806b7bef08f8fca
313158a54ab2e11a42a8b5c76fe2dcc4c03f3460
294 F20101109_AAAKTR callahan_c_Page_07.txt
dfbc364b7f3a3b364ca2400be4332ee4
feb95fa2ca815bd39b93bcdc9d30d75ab9f8909b
52642 F20101109_AAAKYP callahan_c_Page_18.pro
b79371c8259950d2079ec8529f53be17
a6e6b0408589d747b7dcd82a35ba8d5852e170bb
8976 F20101109_AAALAP callahan_c_Page_13thm.jpg
e928e0027afaf94feb668b6f05bd7ef0
3478ef10527dafc2e13da47ffab999dd6d806e99
1239 F20101109_AAAKTS callahan_c_Page_19.txt
226ba06d38f64e5f42033999378ed6ba
221e3cc989de7f7a54a081e870ff34ef356f1e21
27810 F20101109_AAAKYQ callahan_c_Page_20.pro
150e406ef2db51a61b830a5591d30c4e
3420c31107aee63e01c73d6dfb3d02ab0d0b051f
3760 F20101109_AAALAQ callahan_c_Page_03.QC.jpg
1d2ac5a7abff4152e12c56b1adfce316
fec53ab12b6c5f0ed0c527df8f5a32d0b2ce52b2
F20101109_AAAKTT callahan_c_Page_14.tif
ad2d58ea85e912d60e859457f9bb29c5
f8d9aebecd929a6e27d8c9e09019587993269976
6730 F20101109_AAAKYR callahan_c_Page_21.pro
191f4e2ea0819a6dbc247c12b27ac01f
af1eacf4306a50e3fdf5dae200173b1c0680c36f
3472 F20101109_AAALAR callahan_c_Page_04thm.jpg
345dfa3c67cd916e58df31384a9b5711
23dc9990c3645e2b7914adebb400dbbcf03f5d05
F20101109_AAAKTU callahan_c_Page_33.tif
ead88e6dea5290e8537cd1c14aca396f
dcfd6d1e4657a133d5dd9607717b8d1ef478da15
50455 F20101109_AAAKYS callahan_c_Page_22.pro
a64d3a59f15f3f4fb2c2477e93faa882
ee26ec7d7037b9cc8ef00018fd8982c0a935ab8a
14972 F20101109_AAALAS callahan_c_Page_05.QC.jpg
889cff77d8708e1332558da0b8b7b2da
fc4d7eb039622918e9ebd549437f76ff9e228f9a
108084 F20101109_AAAKTV callahan_c_Page_23.jpg
9ade858c4488f75d628f99589febe7d1
728f49afcef411f3b7e966ae209f30f0282babb7
52939 F20101109_AAAKYT callahan_c_Page_24.pro
77b28cc293b9ab5816bb461cd4d8daaf
468a0921f5de6e1e6b03c9e5ea98b1110781751d
3861 F20101109_AAALAT callahan_c_Page_28thm.jpg
435c82f01552789b83ea6d0d30c79f85
842f3e749796c09f10d874378826040b7674599c
18131 F20101109_AAAKYU callahan_c_Page_25.pro
87f575de1f021712649e982ba4381cce
543e2c7d09e56dea85111ef9c5244f81065af330
8697 F20101109_AAALAU callahan_c_Page_29thm.jpg
1c590877678330857f4fa1ed97a7ff99
28775db7c16bac3209485422a6ea3a2376ea7c05
727 F20101109_AAAKTW callahan_c_Page_06.txt
6a778fcf0ab69f749eb9604a7d2b2ecf
1fd7384418ef4045c2bbaf503f2492b1ccbf7d68
50910 F20101109_AAAKYV callahan_c_Page_27.pro
a7a9379617bdc5a8bc3b938cf81fd153
17395643ff4b8b2218eb76041543d5ccb722e02d
11561 F20101109_AAALAV callahan_c_Page_06.QC.jpg
3e9658606d4c722af2f4bd7b44ae4f12
5ace4484c9edb134e470f53e241479d5c88834d6
63057 F20101109_AAAKTX callahan_c_Page_19.jpg
b601a61f1d87d80040eedd4c6ec0d9ce
dfbe870d8611ce0aa2cb5e12b00e027a1eb8514b
22619 F20101109_AAAKYW callahan_c_Page_28.pro
fc97a203bbd14f674a37ad088d05f7e2
f4b82ddc93d7acedb5416226eff215538bac64f2
17804 F20101109_AAALAW callahan_c_Page_27.QC.jpg
848b5eff09f7f33a5d86a6872e5f944f
5ab07c5869bb25eeb849380739752b07808c820d
108424 F20101109_AAAKTY callahan_c_Page_18.jpg
d73837fcc7b12ea3fb07bb8694d3a1d2
bcffb1daa197a2936139782e36404f3d19d10485
53721 F20101109_AAAKYX callahan_c_Page_29.pro
ced9d7955ee4eb6f8a7c3667e9bb71f1
b8f171f058b66aad1a0ea14f82e5514e12e74702
6369 F20101109_AAALAX callahan_c_Page_07.QC.jpg
86745a8f7a98810a9d153808a18291fa
ab888e056ade658c040083f704c7e2a833012d46
8841 F20101109_AAAKRB callahan_c_Page_11thm.jpg
60e7d925f6925986940dfa9e825790a1
344c5cd2394b9edf97edbf3e28def0e1a513f098
1051968 F20101109_AAAKTZ callahan_c_Page_08.jp2
6ebc542f88eaf9d868e021c569a13f2f
0ee1bf9fc989b5e7f7fcd6d8ee8ff121078cd946
53477 F20101109_AAAKYY callahan_c_Page_31.pro
1286714aaabdfb501f64203e659cb609
3d135a576668ea04cfa8ba17310e1aba722a4f29
8813 F20101109_AAALAY callahan_c_Page_18thm.jpg
dc04202c2f4009eb1e306964daee140e
02efbda62dbe6fc8b19118e288ff073a11965f2f
51993 F20101109_AAAKRC callahan_c_Page_37.jpg
bde24e48c70cddf5fbc3cf9af53b1c56
a17c694f283efa9327323986127647baf9474907
106646 F20101109_AAAKWA callahan_c_Page_24.jpg
ce091993068364baf09e087982a4aa2a
e689755ae2589f765de8e9e77a29675b63f17144
50853 F20101109_AAAKYZ callahan_c_Page_34.pro
45f8a003db43ecf496ba420d74e65a44
f5a1056ce156527923c66dac7a8500f038ae5abc
4533 F20101109_AAALAZ callahan_c_Page_36.QC.jpg
cceabf6e6c2105468a901341954e3e6b
bb4e749ff05a59bc782a059aa2308315e80a54e4
52309 F20101109_AAAKRD callahan_c_Page_33.pro
7995d50e454610e172bf370440f6ab51
07cc8972ad3201bcd367f93daef22c24034ef060
109073 F20101109_AAAKWB callahan_c_Page_29.jpg
75cc6c3c14b075847e3f9a67411c370e
0bfab88a00967f3b5472eb1f784211f7afbcbf10
4600 F20101109_AAAKRE callahan_c_Page_27thm.jpg
6803ea386d81eb3e2a75d16c7036088f
3b28b37c0d60cd6619c8543cd0e81d242e515e2a
110558 F20101109_AAAKWC callahan_c_Page_30.jpg
f6a2ba8cde28574bdca18c5c743e1fed
b02092f2753e333532cda51e76a5adc94a422167
73034 F20101109_AAAKRF callahan_c_Page_09.jpg
5f8c602e2c196986c163756e79c56349
6f09207153154c5b04160e8cb9e57013718348c6
107879 F20101109_AAAKWD callahan_c_Page_31.jpg
7cf9e6573605af0447e43b9ba5c92d91
e814d74a678226fb04709e8489d4d470e74ab4b2
13853 F20101109_AAAKRG callahan_c_Page_25.QC.jpg
69919ab010c7057d232b1fd84d145731
7fa8d18595e4fb5a20b49b08668dac01b0c73357
104378 F20101109_AAAKWE callahan_c_Page_33.jpg
94e30eeec7379f6f59e41eb1ab65f417
f7d5495365cc5572ab5de6cdb06a7d61a1da3e7a
35541 F20101109_AAAKRH callahan_c_Page_18.QC.jpg
7f0916b26b501affddf69b1bf397bd85
349cce91e2256e0c3051f63ee27cc89bf060d2d7
102715 F20101109_AAAKWF callahan_c_Page_34.jpg
e234932308a062359160301aa38b1c44
65e0a3dc34ad3755c463edffe90f654b8de5f5a6
1051978 F20101109_AAAKRI callahan_c_Page_05.jp2
61ab84230bb8c82fb241d81f5921bdea
b5a73cbb72ef6746b4c8ff6e437cfeaa640b7dc7
F20101109_AAAKRJ callahan_c_Page_40.tif
040a1ff748124507a3b55554b92f4144
d19cbfea751dbd6c556e587eee91deef4e710513
133843 F20101109_AAAKWG callahan_c_Page_38.jpg
61d3568008a0c188984914431a2d7836
4a132c97ddb6f1bff4d46602488bac4e78ff74d4
795599 F20101109_AAAKRK callahan_c_Page_09.jp2
b773d5b8e80561c7981953c2a4030aa7
1e7280f8cc234fa6a5a977af37e356f2f92c6976
140473 F20101109_AAAKWH callahan_c_Page_40.jpg
78ff4c0b9b16a6965ab3fd3e40eb75bf
c2a1de019a698ec13bc95714511a96616eeae7e7
F20101109_AAAKRL callahan_c_Page_01.tif
ea38703f7c63f03e60ef7fa2e7b60d3c
01096d8b62c69a3b21472501ce2af1fda215ddcd
16330 F20101109_AAAKWI callahan_c_Page_41.jpg
f6bad3290ed0ea7307947f1c7e5828a3
d38c8387db348f1e6102dcc5e96fbae3c4081447
F20101109_AAAKRM callahan_c_Page_15.tif
7304f0e86c7f0147088ea3386f05bc6d
f662542771ca636288a7550380e267ce13d0c24b
74484 F20101109_AAAKWJ callahan_c_Page_42.jpg
da3879164ba16116272ab7121157d6c7
ab8bbcff02be68688b305237715a8db7ad375d40
40236 F20101109_AAAKRN callahan_c_Page_25.jpg
4ea6ba9a20da81d4803cd2ebdb385f18
bdcc5df783bf743361b607c3fe1f0a660a4a6374
29491 F20101109_AAAKWK callahan_c_Page_02.jp2
dd68546f57ce135986748b67c0dd1fb4
59720f3a2e5c59e5e98398ab0341634029812b4a
1051926 F20101109_AAAKRO callahan_c_Page_16.jp2
70330fbedf3771642471805a7fb3b0a9
ae490449d98804feb9f176ac1138ae6f2b6b55ac
130759 F20101109_AAAKWL callahan_c_Page_03.jp2
4b24497d4055f31c763fdb1b7d458678
72d509a79ce9ee4377ffeb028cdcb95a5d3dc5b0
F20101109_AAAKRP callahan_c_Page_36.tif
57e59a966a71491cb4be8a53ce8ebeba
efd16d2bd32569438ffec960f79c35548249e0e7
707950 F20101109_AAAKWM callahan_c_Page_06.jp2
ada313888768262e96119ff24fd8c3ab
2219231602e498280ce270622ffd238ceec7ca44
25265604 F20101109_AAAKRQ callahan_c_Page_27.tif
706c7361ab5e1e8c0715525c31316f9f
bd90a656467bb5ba4053242a843ad9fcc5260979
167940 F20101109_AAAKWN callahan_c_Page_07.jp2
feb20166c2321ebebf7b551442916e71
696d89af031a3208495574c0c9804db15dbef4e8
14270 F20101109_AAAKRR callahan_c_Page_37.QC.jpg
29acc7430ab1fb0a97ee17cd7e28e747
1e712f9a3329276b0117658dd4888bfc4ddcab43
1051964 F20101109_AAAKWO callahan_c_Page_11.jp2
ac1bbd7f043f9eaaa243dc7f3b1fd5c8
081eb4c5792ac93af185c1c2fc0b70cbfe024bc8
563394 F20101109_AAAKRS callahan_c_Page_37.jp2
7064b0da4a72d9102f49bdca0807036d
32841a4a7c8cf373cbcf2025d24e36775fcdb7b3
1051931 F20101109_AAAKWP callahan_c_Page_14.jp2
ad72b919bebd96a2b6d8a45d767fbbec
c8a101bda749b6433f583a707f4fb468c0fa2cfb
8561 F20101109_AAAKRT callahan_c_Page_17thm.jpg
4a5f63e47aee1afaa979b9ecc04fd0ba
b2bcc403bab0e365bd4cd978509347dd659a25b5
863001 F20101109_AAAKWQ callahan_c_Page_15.jp2
07a4371582f67044948db54ab7edbdfe
b41a3202f9b3d93b7904ea8ed7f5b8a0f3fd90e5
1051974 F20101109_AAAKWR callahan_c_Page_17.jp2
190565a961b5ecc72425f91db207ca7b
896c22141cd34e79e4c386dc87d35039b7270d52
256 F20101109_AAAKRU callahan_c_Page_41.txt
19190b8e90a466834a777b32b7330c46
9bb0c944d7017262e72e462f45f93365e4e62de8
1051976 F20101109_AAAKWS callahan_c_Page_18.jp2
73bf9dc5e873e04852e69760259d8640
8ed54ed78293d4bbfe818688537d967a4103da2d
F20101109_AAAKRV callahan_c_Page_17.tif
dc04642fb97e3a8c833ecdd623d37aca
3f716e2eedf01492dad00a5740267c829949ad3d
647708 F20101109_AAAKWT callahan_c_Page_20.jp2
de42c8ec4d6da472b9baa5f4b5838305
a35937f746ea6b8ec34465516e9f3a47e2e22101
F20101109_AAAKRW callahan_c_Page_24.jp2
bd392831968d686c88714d3bea561694
9a50a2e9a24d1388f8a08e376de189fb81fcabc9
160790 F20101109_AAAKWU callahan_c_Page_21.jp2
e5bece0800026deb698cd3b7392eb94b
9885de52e02c94786ecf58f6c3a6f917917546e8
F20101109_AAAKRX callahan_c_Page_31.jp2
228e20691e9312683b92ef5e1f5e9ca4
c70c37a6c0db1a0df876fbea0c031f27c5456cd0
1051952 F20101109_AAAKWV callahan_c_Page_22.jp2
b27675268ed2af6a802e4188c2b73e3e
e95063848d29d41a1f5c6e2b67706ef56620028f
F20101109_AAAKRY callahan_c_Page_31.tif
1abaf555fd6ed84959fc842ee10a7aea
127a9a5c385eea7941b9a58d0bd29647b55abf19
937591 F20101109_AAAKWW callahan_c_Page_27.jp2
c1f594e3cd941aaa2f549f16afe19a35
77032b8b4e09db77b72f80738f485c5948ca5654
6475 F20101109_AAAKRZ callahan_c_Page_15thm.jpg
a30a43b6df4f74e76c97edd5f1004d9e
126cff9f4f11e75c671549fb7cd2e2b3699fbfb8
464287 F20101109_AAAKWX callahan_c_Page_28.jp2
fc4d25e0f47977cdf52ab720f1997968
599ad333a7e52f9779ab159adfacc2cabc137afc
1051936 F20101109_AAAKWY callahan_c_Page_29.jp2
c10ee1cc0a12913a4895a33ad1547d86
84d3368b6f8673e9e4e1a5dd718c5cdb30e87733
63721 F20101109_AAAKUA callahan_c_Page_39.pro
b3f13fc1462fb9eeb1f87dd582c3dc63
3ad9bec53124d2d1d2250aacb6859126039fb0b8
8908 F20101109_AAAKUB callahan_c_Page_30thm.jpg
b9cbf641f2338a741bc49504174460b0
463efd0743d0af0793defe80a39ea16e380203f4
1051935 F20101109_AAAKWZ callahan_c_Page_30.jp2
dee5801004033bb8dd74dd878afa46c8
1d3c1390969d3a52812cf2ebd7efa2f53c8dfbf9
34203 F20101109_AAALBA callahan_c_Page_33.QC.jpg
e5705362889c24a45476c14825bf05c0
d6d37d09860e7a807ed3441dfd60df14c539de69
30919 F20101109_AAAKUC callahan_c_Page_08.QC.jpg
6ec9456858b12096f2c0ae110b60d4f5
244258f460720e52eea4272b78dbe4a10c7aa7e9
52475 F20101109_AAAKZA callahan_c_Page_35.pro
151b77329cd29514a06bfcdf08817067
93605bf324b44216df07bb8a6b56d411f8e174aa
9281 F20101109_AAALBB callahan_c_Page_38thm.jpg
b1e400132a1210cf82c99adcfe36b674
582c86f4645d3e8a7025429f28c86068811831b2
1531 F20101109_AAAKUD callahan_c_Page_15.txt
b555fd1b0fb242852d176281481ef287
ca06a841dccaed0bb5103435d42303e1b705d52d
4460 F20101109_AAAKZB callahan_c_Page_36.pro
23bff4082efaeaac69fe87a6f026fe19
7a80a410824cb58ecb41b8043540d7911b47bfdc
35399 F20101109_AAALBC callahan_c_Page_31.QC.jpg
b7e232513206acd90db50d3e38c71c76
0e37400183880fb2db9729f41a6aeb582b9280d4
12464 F20101109_AAAKUE callahan_c_Page_26.QC.jpg
e790d254bf5e71e4202ff202bbdfa53b
765d49e025f654204a7399bd87e2d81ced5b6dce
2069 F20101109_AAAKUF callahan_c_Page_11.txt
7689299a1aceab07c7d070a6a69dee78
f2ec09bcd15b17f504bae787653ccc60e6a6547f
24214 F20101109_AAAKZC callahan_c_Page_37.pro
132f59cbfa04184d1aeceeeda2314dea
04075831ba61c7b1213c5b293d7d5500fac135d7
35248 F20101109_AAALBD callahan_c_Page_29.QC.jpg
1b7b9e446733be2fe606386c7cceff9a
22e192d0339918ec8fe2ee04e497f045a8122ec6
59511 F20101109_AAAKUG callahan_c_Page_27.jpg
1546f1c3503e9406a15f64ced73820e3
3dc4900ac6933d40a9cf41ce9a4b534b3c6d5a63
64327 F20101109_AAAKZD callahan_c_Page_38.pro
37fab896d572f88ca7dfb59937f110b2
2a168ebb44e2b2dbcec6f46b8aedbb352ecacdae
8903 F20101109_AAALBE callahan_c_Page_32thm.jpg
940765eacb230bf783b27990d9fe52dc
455417c5349e216a9f00235e6863a3bde3998131
F20101109_AAAKUH callahan_c_Page_35.tif
d8a2de7d48b803cbf836e1fabab1acab
96451993398be2336dc52b17680fc6b4d6e19ea3
69121 F20101109_AAAKZE callahan_c_Page_40.pro
2f6f4d3a3d645de51e716398ca20f1bb
0b3919887974eaa43d9b66da61e6426397a7e44e
8396 F20101109_AAALBF callahan_c_Page_22thm.jpg
48e30a9ede3c1be4d170985932c9ba7d
2b0084a296153869486fa14100707f2ae6b8105a
1051928 F20101109_AAAKUI callahan_c_Page_13.jp2
1ec148b678b5b806b93093ad3e1480c6
5c4ef94599783b5b0151b922d23aec0effcdc313
6165 F20101109_AAAKZF callahan_c_Page_41.pro
053d675c94f8050d1fd2c678ef070820
e2d966f34099723c1e98b92eeb07b0201ccc4e75
26359 F20101109_AAALBG callahan_c_Page_15.QC.jpg
a70ee5c66a9de7bb8964ff2d95206b90
aa3164e2c395c99d1713d3eed485df6506b25839
F20101109_AAAKUJ callahan_c_Page_03.tif
a9100669e535af7a4a1ed72a3a12b14b
7373da19797fd173d3dae45cabb09e5586fc8174
95 F20101109_AAAKZG callahan_c_Page_02.txt
b72d5092396f32a8049f01ef6af83549
174e159e9231fa8c772df751ba6b2a2ec954c25c
8274 F20101109_AAALBH callahan_c_Page_10thm.jpg
a7166848b983897e90eaac78966b9e32
b51d8cd2ea97a4f8e8b98377b74a81efe8d92935
17999 F20101109_AAAKUK callahan_c_Page_20.QC.jpg
bb7353e9645301478b6da358ece84f32
d97aeeb133381350e0c59bfbbf598fe9d7d4e49c
818 F20101109_AAAKZH callahan_c_Page_04.txt
69410fa0c575053ec51d385620936c90
66f135a5aab53a2c64d3d09b564a52ffc027fd64
66922 F20101109_AAALBI UFE0022027_00001.xml
7bc2f13e3d9662d3dd7cfeacfb3d01f6
fd54fbc56895c026240707ec00826fb512bce7c7
50038 F20101109_AAAKUL callahan_c_Page_10.pro
115a7cd46fb124a831b748a505c73915
d35c58837f88e6467625fd5c2553d09a020f0176
1573 F20101109_AAAKZI callahan_c_Page_05.txt
4c62cbb8cff54b8c48d06758025c05bb
587de5a9e6a421697f2d6fe6d41b985d472d6f9b
17994 F20101109_AAAKUM callahan_c_Page_07.jpg
fd689603ed0f7d52cd2f286f0a46d511
0d5e1f9cce203f83397f50e4f10aa833bc0563c3
2005 F20101109_AAAKZJ callahan_c_Page_08.txt
412c558a6b3b726980e543f2c8cec25f
974f849fdbb80b36be078414f0c8243a7433edad
8475 F20101109_AAALBJ callahan_c_Page_01.QC.jpg
7b3ed7cfb8ca8665ba2f4abe81a75457
2d424678c86674a41a847d17f3eac2d1980cf236
13099 F20101109_AAAKUN callahan_c_Page_04.QC.jpg
24e6feb8a702c9d87938deab94b54e69
79e3a07a44c50a432917d666932e0f4a7eba4681
1393 F20101109_AAAKZK callahan_c_Page_09.txt
464eed1d4638aa19bf34327a5c148c29
8aacabe84cf33485c112e0931b7f4aa1ae1c4790
642 F20101109_AAALBK callahan_c_Page_02thm.jpg
746c4d4f4c7ce5ad6667f24dc7015e54
e7c2e007242840edc73327e22bbd1e7f74561c4e
36964 F20101109_AAAKUO callahan_c_Page_26.jpg
b784e4675858267ca4700f141144a35e
625ff72f29cfe070fb23f164e4da236b420b9868
2052 F20101109_AAAKZL callahan_c_Page_10.txt
1d37c42539671a439ff0e5223f14af6a
176a042e6e3a95140caa7ac944fd2772d79c40a9
4060 F20101109_AAALBL callahan_c_Page_05thm.jpg
3e6ba0822a68052a949a78790c954a80
786b4304dbf1d0ad0d521953f86ac0b0f99f5932
1051951 F20101109_AAAKUP callahan_c_Page_40.jp2
6e1e79c795945091c5ef3faeaff9853c
70994b2fd97c9c68747e3946bcab9f535cd73818
2082 F20101109_AAAKZM callahan_c_Page_12.txt
6d5ca8cf72154a2322bd88cdfa86d996
8482cdcc8f4d088b80b7cd8feccd941c3bc77d1e
1749 F20101109_AAALBM callahan_c_Page_07thm.jpg
f690a1408b7ee38ece0b45673a4a5756
11e897667a0303cfdb38952dc94ea1bc17a1fb47
39320 F20101109_AAAKUQ callahan_c_Page_40.QC.jpg
1b87621ff4e7f17de4945d7aea160f54
93e0c83a753373cfb7b69539d20b5d3f8fb626df
2079 F20101109_AAAKZN callahan_c_Page_13.txt
28d6490b367dc2e7d7afd8b7d6e9fa9f
2a617991b0ed96c5ce8b125099184cb248a8253e
7865 F20101109_AAALBN callahan_c_Page_08thm.jpg
ddf3918110d922e2425268e77f2e73c1
75bf526b5a50494d58ed05b9b737b65800a6c85c
5372 F20101109_AAAKUR callahan_c_Page_19thm.jpg
5c655ce095606c2847309e24d6d0964c
73f2cc3f2f3d0249ef94e5287f534a3a1dc00d5b
2157 F20101109_AAAKZO callahan_c_Page_14.txt
4f102a355d3df1956afd687996abdf32
166692aa71adb027ef1b2f4175446be89b663e78
5872 F20101109_AAALBO callahan_c_Page_09thm.jpg
adda5311a932c2b46a3c3ba53a300511
8460aa665d1fcc2d368ce3c02d98bf63257fda36
8460 F20101109_AAAKUS callahan_c_Page_34thm.jpg
297b85fa3f151e5961cd95d70f312f73
117ade6e210693f0098e84674a7bb3ace1a02703
2086 F20101109_AAAKZP callahan_c_Page_16.txt
7490d0be2128ad31a15a15aa304a7698
4317a7a169972e9177927867b95738123d374aa1
34495 F20101109_AAALBP callahan_c_Page_12.QC.jpg
798fc8118ab8edd59c9cabf026cfad03
68fb614211171f71ccb63e11c1266f920455abb4
53391 F20101109_AAAKUT callahan_c_Page_23.pro
653a47ee0233eb268567621f4852bc3a
d59461e5017e966db0d9f73cccd6c7e2a8b7513f
2003 F20101109_AAAKZQ callahan_c_Page_17.txt
7262ff850009fb5b3d25fb4510513f92
54df7611d00c5bd6d07a1df16d1810481ca32bfa
8483 F20101109_AAALBQ callahan_c_Page_12thm.jpg
d30687868e46f63866753f9264593f03
9d1e1ab78ede9561a68129218ed8d1c1b18be4c6
1051969 F20101109_AAAKUU callahan_c_Page_12.jp2
caf806d9b0c1e0da09ea4dbfd4577f32
04068b78da67aef8d5d0491e5ba1f67a9fcd8c34
1195 F20101109_AAAKZR callahan_c_Page_20.txt
a35d21259c236f159a9be8d637d4eb7e
c8a28532e84e149463f29779cdfdcec2ade63739
36093 F20101109_AAALBR callahan_c_Page_14.QC.jpg
c55a954b11a0c4dd13fa28d8191eab69
6fbe507d0d6977ea395ca1587a03baabf9ea6ab2
54353 F20101109_AAAKUV callahan_c_Page_30.pro
f9795ad0128c526e54f7cf0514a77ccc
9028bed0433cf1170a8b1952c925a40e6d98788b
275 F20101109_AAAKZS callahan_c_Page_21.txt
7c90ae41d31a12cc5810434ca40ab2c3
cd3942efca5bd05521abd19de1babf8ee27c1e17
9056 F20101109_AAALBS callahan_c_Page_14thm.jpg
607c5dcb580f7e257e3b66f5b8fffe76
2f00b24cd8c88ec74313b2a5ff41014b801b8a35
1051970 F20101109_AAAKUW callahan_c_Page_33.jp2
2b000d9903329528a34ff0a8753caae6
df0452ac186106848b5f1315fcfb2c3986e6defb
2103 F20101109_AAAKZT callahan_c_Page_22.txt
c8ef032e328d8f49c1894ac2ffb24e60
ee125d4fb5c8b6d10b9ea3e6838a9275febfe74b
31608 F20101109_AAALBT callahan_c_Page_16.QC.jpg
e7b9c4085b2a7315925b2ff1f67d8833
76acc00739f8162344c2b57e47fc5f4a89557756
2118 F20101109_AAAKZU callahan_c_Page_24.txt
9b9cb742768c62e694de7cd04e8803c7
0caee5f8aa0e55176eb8a2911aebdc53806912e7
33237 F20101109_AAALBU callahan_c_Page_17.QC.jpg
9880f55e20493987884fa044f6cb797f
2e02a57ea5d791efb4290605b73c1f39dc955eef
18905 F20101109_AAAKUX callahan_c_Page_21.jpg
d880667da0e58dd777dfa712e5abf325
f201b0c3f9400dcf211041cb0a32848cba65df8f
728 F20101109_AAAKZV callahan_c_Page_25.txt
778b1aac7948eed0e326706bf224ac41
5cae27abf71e9afb9437a1340258f3a6217e7a74
4590 F20101109_AAALBV callahan_c_Page_20thm.jpg
59c5d3ac63959d070b1e675751029419
ea9402100ba8df5e8bcd1ad2d8e3c56b0e4062f3
F20101109_AAAKUY callahan_c_Page_32.tif
e44f52ca97bf364db39be64b2a9e17e5
5144ec9e89f97465fbca378a79b037a07154adfd
2235 F20101109_AAAKZW callahan_c_Page_27.txt
6127921ab9a66570d66fef78138b11f5
02ac57279144e72424cbe9895673338559257113
6336 F20101109_AAALBW callahan_c_Page_21.QC.jpg
da80b20b36e6bf2bf3c7c8f71e64385f
49de4f2af7a1ec3b39f64f2cc6b4c67c2331c401
47429 F20101109_AAAKSA callahan_c_Page_28.jpg
8f0109c336f057034ec499a1fec1d283
246e63fa9bd0963c72fc732215fd759727ab45bf
F20101109_AAAKUZ callahan_c_Page_02.tif
51ae431b87c751d2e4dd4fbf41a55a1e
3cab62664e37409c3dd8c82f99dfca2e0bf3c931
2192 F20101109_AAAKZX callahan_c_Page_29.txt
1d3fc965b0a6a16fec178fa26cd95a61
fab19a94e9e771936c6c6c9baea4e131e13d1a67
1853 F20101109_AAALBX callahan_c_Page_21thm.jpg
c3b68fb2197f768f0d9b5676f61c43d2
b3f72daa692346ae2671f7b16cfca37fa5070707
673782 F20101109_AAAKSB callahan_c_Page_19.jp2
cffee48594990bff0d7b870ed2bc6853
ceafa5add27aa8cf697bcf4f2c71b41880754ed8
2098 F20101109_AAAKZY callahan_c_Page_32.txt
e7b087db2b27ff1ec8078fdf41d22a82
e7707c3ef62ba44cf5d0f236fbbf022c8e0267f8
34216 F20101109_AAALBY callahan_c_Page_22.QC.jpg
28d9b1c7a5ad9b209268183878791839
56a6f37d2235f50b0fc7dfbfcffba0a3012cc7ea
53337 F20101109_AAAKSC callahan_c_Page_32.pro
563ddf3b508af0ec0af747254dcc8dc2
30be9b4c2e76e7eaa0096109a40d61bebf766741
1051986 F20101109_AAAKXA callahan_c_Page_35.jp2
68a35d1f84f1c3e97372ac8bef010b0f
7dd5c3664aacd540bb4ad18d394e8b351c6ceb8b
2071 F20101109_AAAKZZ callahan_c_Page_33.txt
56f7a99b9a55975f755db5717af44798
cd25fd2aa0b3f80742feaeb41fea9004416b67ca
35200 F20101109_AAALBZ callahan_c_Page_23.QC.jpg
e0d717e29c947607cb5add5c4be86b3d
232af8e49df20bec9b2b5f0b6558befe35c40255
F20101109_AAAKSD callahan_c_Page_12.tif
a3ef6a9d8f06ea76b0fe934602116981
86639e0ca3234fe0e5699f1afcc6d0705a3bf856
107519 F20101109_AAAKXB callahan_c_Page_36.jp2
b0fed43811e93ee3e15a80106f616b90
7c2a9edfc1bbcdfdd670cdb74ab32ca1d5d045e7
F20101109_AAAKSE callahan_c_Page_38.tif
37d3d62cb748349ebc1c329bb5cee6b7
9b5fd46239b2a762bdceb9830a512348e13908ef
1051956 F20101109_AAAKXC callahan_c_Page_38.jp2
2246ba94b18e1ae41d1b4d0f98201e2b
0aa6ba20dc5a5f62828e05df64d2452614ccef7c
35611 F20101109_AAAKSF callahan_c_Page_24.QC.jpg
36bec4eb245344bfeb563eba9e5fb846
97726cc27350ecdf61ef3106ba895f73dcf05a19
1051966 F20101109_AAAKXD callahan_c_Page_39.jp2
000ce83fe65a62ebb3a22cab10c347e3
796808a27c904c52945f3f206146e4b343012184
268490 F20101109_AAAKSG callahan_c_Page_01.jp2
88de9a51159f1fd4a17541dfd9356a4b
723daf50b2834665424adde57a717a2877b02607
794594 F20101109_AAAKXE callahan_c_Page_42.jp2
113b8822e0ac79b048a1031b80d1c9a8
e24af2813641cda6d544d69e3af36439eb1a850d
104382 F20101109_AAAKSH callahan_c_Page_35.jpg
f19d7b7aded457931201fff9a95479e0
a52b2faae0b60a460ce6067f4e1c43ba69a3e86d
F20101109_AAAKXF callahan_c_Page_04.tif
0863d4f33fcd0c35975a8394e7b280cb
ccd5d88890f7993e594705efcee8bc17da055d8f
1274 F20101109_AAAKSI callahan_c_Page_03thm.jpg
760114bf35a9d8b94ec67634508dd174
9e5334416de5a26066f5117956c6f4954ad40983
F20101109_AAAKXG callahan_c_Page_05.tif
8ae6735f5fb8075f479e43a01569c25c
17256bcedf5afc6df47bfd2825e049cc34966a7b
38902 F20101109_AAAKSJ callahan_c_Page_39.QC.jpg
62d7cb9f618b584e323407fe8ba1b996
5218e0e75fe0630cbf0838cf356561ba04f04f2f
F20101109_AAAKXH callahan_c_Page_08.tif
ae4209c83ab50642610fdea6aa7938e6
394c2a030f4c4df6ff3b757ee3dd1c36a878fd78
F20101109_AAAKSK callahan_c_Page_09.tif
fc049a5c8a20edb8f5482b9469028c28
541b60f719e5558a9361baf9c64ba3636ecfcaa6
F20101109_AAAKXI callahan_c_Page_10.tif
20804f73ec8fa2e63b10212520d377f0
e7123a70169ba74b55497a14fa617688215a864f
17150 F20101109_AAAKSL callahan_c_Page_26.pro
c508dd5266ced3ff3979075664ec8020
a7a5ab0d93775b6408564e4346f6e13d7de65704
F20101109_AAAKXJ callahan_c_Page_11.tif
eeeac58cd9bd461f338ae4f2cdc3c4f5
87cdf9436002e51f3dd0a88461ca43cf796a3a27
2142 F20101109_AAAKSM callahan_c_Page_30.txt
73e9b1d0884501356a9cb36cdb27b225
0d579b7bab1233870a6bf3a4e545a36688da07e5
F20101109_AAAKXK callahan_c_Page_13.tif
3878e98f6f5732a42bf8467ef8c02411
a41116052bb82b0f7e86b5204bb218abc5f372bf
29991 F20101109_AAAKSN callahan_c_Page_19.pro
8f5ea50c25b82e8fd50c14be5b1b6ca8
936ae8ad05e056380b9cf485d11a1fa12a9e6088
F20101109_AAAKXL callahan_c_Page_16.tif
fce4968ee5b3371468d2a145da47c7fa
c41794c8529fd9e7e8af1461b6a88964a50c91b2
F20101109_AAAKSO callahan_c_Page_22.tif
e17e43f313c0757fb160419751644f4e
462cef79cd71cfa13c96496d3cbbd6eba094f13b
F20101109_AAAKXM callahan_c_Page_18.tif
fbe02ae23b2c452d6e788d04615590ed
6d5bc551eb52588f177e0702ea33627a71987f7c
147929 F20101109_AAAKSP callahan_c_Page_41.jp2
ae5d76201107c5a775a7c442da2023d2
91f152e5bfa35578ff3e2e1af15fe7bacdaa3f71
F20101109_AAAKXN callahan_c_Page_19.tif
3f30ad6f85614447a747c0a3390a96d7
70178b550bf69a01933aefdd78d3d7d95ee30e55
F20101109_AAAKSQ callahan_c_Page_18.txt
5ab8119766cefcb7b8ddcea344b8bf81
b0d7e4ed1d3934695c9e885766775672ca8bee31
F20101109_AAAKXO callahan_c_Page_20.tif
415263b1de0526d4ee4b7153e9d9880f
fddb88b828d15cda75a4d3279d093bf3860ca793
336556 F20101109_AAAKSR callahan_c.pdf
d5e6c2155be0e95f87f74bbfe4d0181a
541719ad4748feafcf7a46e9adcec21d196ddd03
F20101109_AAAKXP callahan_c_Page_23.tif
b19a1da6311ca3767aab28821ccaaf30
86e71cf5e1b33cf74eb77253541b57b0061b6a31
2107 F20101109_AAAKSS callahan_c_Page_31.txt
ecd1055c458ee4792650aa7c71cad7b6
b3c909afe3dde12607c2d8766822fb0c17a44dd0
F20101109_AAAKXQ callahan_c_Page_24.tif
ee88994de3bdee2ae61ef184cc22913c
87e347bc69194a2081f4f7d5b1413fd204d27f9f
F20101109_AAAKST callahan_c_Page_06.tif
4d4e9be261b9f0bd85347c2fba06f19c
74c51b1b3d78452dd94352494b8115d29ad8a850
F20101109_AAAKXR callahan_c_Page_25.tif
f54ee162bb8602c45a9d99547ed4f1f5
12f579723498656afb4ce8d47772c7c225326436
F20101109_AAAKSU callahan_c_Page_28.tif
c01957782abd6cfef0a712375e5b3762
6e8afc4f566c9d87f3463aba38b95b63dbb13bea
F20101109_AAAKXS callahan_c_Page_26.tif
fc6baeb87b08320e0d75cbe28acc9084
7fce5fa58e58070c9a8fe42cd4387e17c279992e
F20101109_AAAKXT callahan_c_Page_29.tif
7fa39f56e409f99ef386ede37c65ddbd
6a1543dc4fd496a943a1da2224ad8291f1520cb5
2593 F20101109_AAAKSV callahan_c_Page_38.txt
2f87d1f0305abc2a19a064ecc11cdbfe
6592d024de75bcf6be43e22d0b397020ce57403b
F20101109_AAAKXU callahan_c_Page_30.tif
47249f02862fe96dafd1b79fe49876e0
f8a3bd8f6c9a3a4d289270b1d2baeaee45daf625
714 F20101109_AAAKSW callahan_c_Page_26.txt
e9614c9adbde81a18731f990a0caef26
f396a5ad67386aaa6bb0a0caedae5ee03bbfbbc1
F20101109_AAAKXV callahan_c_Page_34.tif
0f180e1f8c77d0e92b7a19183c200352
8645c4fe9ff259d2e9b344b89d2c2b10030e1394
284 F20101109_AAAKSX callahan_c_Page_03.txt
e1e2a913ab0750d3b48b8f7b7086c0d4
6d279f3c3bf59b60aa38526fb0b96459bc5550a7
F20101109_AAAKXW callahan_c_Page_37.tif
e19e79b7da85b6b718e84c340cdc9409
fa4127bf39a5d01313ead82d4dd2090946d27321
12022 F20101109_AAAKSY callahan_c_Page_36.jpg
fb25fa2e867240d99418f9f48474aa6c
421d4f90a5a3c8d0ecd9e1513787907794422810
F20101109_AAAKXX callahan_c_Page_39.tif
6bb4b3f342d97a70ad2d080997a17f89
3bae62ebb2fc6a50c99576fe4b7d1be734163170
36325 F20101109_AAAKSZ callahan_c_Page_13.QC.jpg
908a45a6ec362163fbc7932435c20777
0b6d285a4c57d2812aaed8d5fb3727d80ed277ae
F20101109_AAAKXY callahan_c_Page_41.tif
fa7981e907034e1497f67b737a01d782
750c871fd8b1340d40f1fedbea286e4a316a0342
F20101109_AAAKXZ callahan_c_Page_42.tif
443ffc3c6a6f7e972ec7414e0aa13684
1ce82a536edc5ea525b90aac3250dd8bcf344d73
35369 F20101109_AAAKVA callahan_c_Page_11.QC.jpg
f9c5ea8346c87d0c960ef23259bf7360
357c0d58fb7cdf56698d29653d1288d9944dadcd
1261 F20101109_AAAKVB callahan_c_Page_02.QC.jpg
47ee1b51c5bd89ebd78739c87e364e73
b2302dbd7eddd6ecd4f3afcfb14a7d1bb020c13e
9032 F20101109_AAALCA callahan_c_Page_23thm.jpg
e1d42fd369d65322bd6790847409a507
b0f088720e293ca4b105ad9cd14d3ef4cb7f2839
1051921 F20101109_AAAKVC callahan_c_Page_10.jp2
86f3ee618376f08404c2828dd272f43d
0360af6a1c0eb30608f98ae20a8da147b17db001
3604 F20101109_AAALCB callahan_c_Page_25thm.jpg
e21218bf4832dd7742c65e1f5e7b59fa
118379b16198ff3c9da075f3fcf9c7d6aa4e5a8b
F20101109_AAAKVD callahan_c_Page_23.jp2
7f1d3e59c472c02bd88fb03923fe8839
8fcc1def45503618d5bc0e2f5369b5e828386156
15413 F20101109_AAALCC callahan_c_Page_28.QC.jpg
b950857b9ec4e9156fbc015b64abfbed
1ff904ec0248647110c1708d71e2d7232aefd326
423927 F20101109_AAAKVE callahan_c_Page_04.jp2
bf72dce2e2a29a7fd1f0fc18ac0024d9
912a69e18f1526e9cfed429200ac7c361e7f0a4f