Citation
A group counseling intervention for children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Material Information

Title:
A group counseling intervention for children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Creator:
Webb, Linda DeJong,
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 136 leaves ;29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Locus of control ( jstor )
Medications ( jstor )
School counseling ( jstor )
School counselors ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Alachua County ( local )

Notes

General Note:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-134) Counselor Education thesis, Ph.D.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution.
Resource Identifier:
30481673 ( ALEPH )
43460718 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

AA00012792_00001.pdf

00006.txt

AA00012792_00001_0034.txt

AA00012792_00001_0121.txt

AA00012792_00001_0033.txt

00026.txt

AA00012792_00001_0026.txt

00047.txt

00080.txt

00058.txt

00105.txt

00060.txt

AA00012792_00001_0106.txt

00054.txt

00092.txt

AA00012792_00001_0124.txt

AA00012792_00001_0056.txt

00051.txt

AA00012792_00001_0086.txt

AA00012792_00001_0128.txt

AA00012792_00001_0125.txt

AA00012792_00001_0043.txt

AA00012792_00001_0006.txt

00055.txt

00061.txt

AA00012792_00001_0005.txt

00137.txt

AA00012792_00001_0132.txt

00067.txt

AA00012792_00001_0017.txt

00142.txt

AA00012792_00001_0062.txt

00037.txt

AA00012792_00001_0028.txt

AA00012792_00001_0084.txt

AA00012792_00001_0082.txt

00033.txt

00100.txt

AA00012792_00001_0066.txt

AA00012792_00001_0047.txt

00096.txt

00145.txt

AA00012792_00001_0078.txt

00108.txt

AA00012792_00001_0069.txt

AA00012792_00001_0009.txt

AA00012792_00001_pdf.txt

AA00012792_00001_0080.txt

AA00012792_00001_0153.txt

AA00012792_00001_0013.txt

AA00012792_00001_0110.txt

00062.txt

AA00012792_00001_0050.txt

00002.txt

AA00012792_00001_0085.txt

AA00012792_00001_0011.txt

00112.txt

00146.txt

00076.txt

00057.txt

AA00012792_00001_0010.txt

00148.txt

AA00012792_00001_0077.txt

AA00012792_00001_0020.txt

AA00012792_00001_0008.txt

00087.txt

AA00012792_00001_0046.txt

00066.txt

00073.txt

00075.txt

AA00012792_00001_0004.txt

AA00012792_00001_0113.txt

AA00012792_00001_0142.txt

00007.txt

AA00012792_00001_0074.txt

00127.txt

AA00012792_00001_0030.txt

00027.txt

00063.txt

AA00012792_00001_0072.txt

00114.txt

00091.txt

00071.txt

00120.txt

00059.txt

00136.txt

AA00012792_00001_0152.txt

AA00012792_00001_0081.txt

AA00012792_00001_0002.txt

AA00012792_00001_0147.txt

AA00012792_00001_0143.txt

00042.txt

AA00012792_00001_0095.txt

AA00012792_00001_0018.txt

AA00012792_00001_0031.txt

00012.txt

AA00012792_00001_0109.txt

AA00012792_00001_0098.txt

AA00012792_00001_0090.txt

00125.txt

00023.txt

00039.txt

00122.txt

AA00012792_00001_0068.txt

AA00012792_00001_0108.txt

00133.txt

AA00012792_00001_0041.txt

00072.txt

00081.txt

00020.txt

AA00012792_00001_0014.txt

00038.txt

AA00012792_00001_0073.txt

AA00012792_00001_0076.txt

AA00012792_00001_0075.txt

AA00012792_00001_0099.txt

AA00012792_00001_0131.txt

AA00012792_00001_0048.txt

AA00012792_00001_0129.txt

AA00012792_00001_0037.txt

AA00012792_00001_0022.txt

00101.txt

00011.txt

AA00012792_00001_0088.txt

AA00012792_00001_0021.txt

00034.txt

AA00012792_00001_0116.txt

00010.txt

AA00012792_00001_0057.txt

00083.txt

00143.txt

00024.txt

00110.txt

00093.txt

00117.txt

AA00012792_00001_0036.txt

AA00012792_00001_0063.txt

00022.txt

00119.txt

00111.txt

00154.txt

AA00012792_00001_0025.txt

AA00012792_00001_0023.txt

00019.txt

AA00012792_00001_0135.txt

00126.txt

AA00012792_00001_0130.txt

00135.txt

AA00012792_00001_0118.txt

AA00012792_00001_0061.txt

AA00012792_00001_0042.txt

00070.txt

00032.txt

AA00012792_00001_0060.txt

00138.txt

00068.txt

AA00012792_00001_0003.txt

00107.txt

AA00012792_00001_0058.txt

AA00012792_00001_0126.txt

AA00012792_00001_0039.txt

00128.txt

AA00012792_00001_0150.txt

AA00012792_00001_0001.txt

00140.txt

00064.txt

00008.txt

AA00012792_00001_0123.txt

AA00012792_00001_0035.txt

AA00012792_00001_0093.txt

AA00012792_00001_0134.txt

00035.txt

00095.txt

AA00012792_00001_0012.txt

AA00012792_00001_0154.txt

AA00012792_00001_0091.txt

00090.txt

00016.txt

AA00012792_00001_0049.txt

AA00012792_00001_0101.txt

AA00012792_00001_0103.txt

AA00012792_00001_0102.txt

AA00012792_00001_0133.txt

00116.txt

AA00012792_00001_0119.txt

AA00012792_00001_0117.txt

00118.txt

AA00012792_00001_0053.txt

00005.txt

00103.txt

AA00012792_00001_0079.txt

AA00012792_00001_0096.txt

00017.txt

00139.txt

00097.txt

00050.txt

00121.txt

00085.txt

00018.txt

00098.txt

00113.txt

00052.txt

00144.txt

00084.txt

AA00012792_00001_0127.txt

00069.txt

00134.txt

AA00012792_00001_0114.txt

00004.txt

AA00012792_00001_0138.txt

AA00012792_00001_0045.txt

AA00012792_00001_0089.txt

AA00012792_00001_0094.txt

00088.txt

AA00012792_00001_0139.txt

00029.txt

AA00012792_00001_0055.txt

00074.txt

00132.txt

AA00012792_00001_0065.txt

AA00012792_00001_0083.txt

00077.txt

AA00012792_00001_0044.txt

AA00012792_00001_0064.txt

00041.txt

00053.txt

AA00012792_00001_0067.txt

AA00012792_00001_0107.txt

AA00012792_00001_0137.txt

00104.txt

00115.txt

00078.txt

00149.txt

00141.txt

00131.txt

AA00012792_00001_0016.txt

AA00012792_00001_0145.txt

00021.txt

AA00012792_00001_0140.txt

00028.txt

00031.txt

00009.txt

AA00012792_00001_0141.txt

AA00012792_00001_0015.txt

00046.txt

AA00012792_00001_0040.txt

AA00012792_00001_0149.txt

00147.txt

AA00012792_00001_0007.txt

AA00012792_00001_0097.txt

00044.txt

AA00012792_00001_0105.txt

00013.txt

AA00012792_00001_0070.txt

AA00012792_00001_0112.txt

AA00012792_00001_0111.txt

AA00012792_00001_0051.txt

00001.txt

00109.txt

00099.txt

AA00012792_00001_0054.txt

00102.txt

00040.txt

00129.txt

AA00012792_00001_0122.txt

00094.txt

00014.txt

AA00012792_00001_0092.txt

00086.txt

AA00012792_00001_0148.txt

AA00012792_00001_0059.txt

00130.txt

00049.txt

AA00012792_00001_0120.txt

AA00012792_00001_0024.txt

00079.txt

AA00012792_00001_0032.txt

AA00012792_00001_0100.txt

00048.txt

AA00012792_00001_0144.txt

00123.txt

00065.txt

00106.txt

00015.txt

AA00012792_00001_0136.txt

00056.txt

AA00012792_00001_0052.txt

00045.txt

AA00012792_00001_0146.txt

AA00012792_00001_0038.txt

AA00012792_00001_0104.txt

00030.txt

AA00012792_00001_0115.txt

AA00012792_00001_0019.txt

00089.txt

AA00012792_00001_0027.txt

AA00012792_00001_0071.txt

AA00012792_00001_0029.txt

00082.txt

00036.txt

AA00012792_00001_0151.txt

00124.txt

AA00012792_00001_0087.txt

00043.txt

00025.txt

00003.txt


Full Text



m m














A GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION
FOR CHILDREN WITH
ATTENTION-DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER













By

LINDA DEJONG WEBB


I
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1999




















LD
1780
199Sl








UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
11II I1111111111111 11111 I 11111 11111
3 1262 08555 1645














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend sincere thanks to Dr. Robert Myrick for serving as

chairman of my committee. His professional suggestions and personal encouragement

were invaluable to me and are greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. David

Miller for serving on my committee. His patient attention while providing support during

the statistical analysis of data and throughout the process was assuring. Thanks are also

extended to Dr. Harry Daniels and Dr. Edward Turner for serving on the committee.

Special thanks are in order for the Alachua County, Florida, elementary school

counselors who delivered the counseling intervention and patiently carried out the

research procedures. The completion of this study depended on them, and they did not let

me down.

I would also like to thank Dan and Michelle at Office Automation in Gainesville

for the willingness to make all my copying a priority with little notice. Thanks also to Liz

at the Institutional Review Board for her personal attention. Specials thanks to Stephanie

Wehery for her help with the statistical analysis.

Additional thanks are extended (a) to my husband, John, for his love and support

throughout the entire doctoral process; (b) to my daughters, Pam and Christa, for

understanding my need to become obsessive and "snappy" at crunch times; (c) to my

sister, Rene6, for her help with data entry; (d) to my late mother for her strong directive

that I not ever become a "fluffy" school counselor; (e) to my father for his continued

support of everything I do; and (f) to my mother-in law for her support and help with the

girls during the last two years.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................. ii

ABSTRACT .......................................................... v

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

Theoretical Perspective ................................ ............. 3
Statement of the Problem ............................................ 7
Purpose of the Study ..................................... ........... 8
Research Q questions .................................................. 9
Definition of Terms ............................................... 9
Overview of the Remainder of the Study ................................ 10

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............................. 12

Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ............. 12
The History ofADHD .............................................. 15
ADHD Students in Schools ......................................... 19
ADHD in the School Counseling Literature ..............................21
Small Group Counseling Interventions ................ ................ 25


Dependent Variables ............
Sum m ary .....................


. . 2 8
. . 3 3


3 METHODOLOGY .............................................. 35


Population ....................
Sampling Procedure ............
Resultant Sample ..............
Research Design ...............
School Counselor Training .......
Treatment Description ..........
Assessment Techniques .........
Hypotheses ...................
Data Analysis .................
Research Procedures ............


. . 3 5
. . 3 7
. .. 3 8
.................... ............. 40
. .4 1
. .4 3
. .4 6
.......................... ....... 52
.......................... ....... 52
................................. 54






4 R E SU LT S ........................................................ 56

Data Analysis .................................................... 57
Summary of Results ............................................... 67

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 69

Summary ....................................................... 69
Conclusions .................................... ................ 71
Discussion .............................................. ......... 73
Limitations ...................................................... 76
Implications .................................... ................... 78
Recommendations ................. ............................... 80

APPENDICES


A CONSENT LETTERS FOR PARTICIPATION ........................83

B RESEARCH PROCEDURES ...................................... 90

C RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ........................................96

D GROUP FACILITATOR'S MANUAL .............................. 103

E SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS ................................... 122

REFERENCES ...................................................... 124

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................ 135














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION
FOR CHILDREN WITH
ATTENTION-DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER

By

Linda DeJong Webb

August 1999

Chairman: Dr. Robert Myrick
Major Department: Counselor Education

A group counseling intervention for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD) was evaluated for its effects on classroom behavior (Teacher Report

Form, TRF), on students' perceptions of locus of control (Children's Nowicki-Strickland

Internal External Locus of Control Scale, CNSIE), and on students' perceptions of school

success behaviors (School Success Inventory, SSI-SF). The intervention was delivered

by 13 certified school counselors to ADHD students in grades 3, 4, and 5 in 12 public

elementary schools (n = 93).

A randomized prepost control group design was used to assess the effects of the

dependent variables. ADHD students in the treatment group participated in six small

group sessions that focused on increased awareness of the disorder as it relates to school

performance and on student perceptions of control related to school success. Control

group students maintained their regular school routine during the intervention period.






A mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on locus of control scores

yielded significant treatment effects ( = .0021). Significant treatment interactions were

found between sex (p = .0047) and whether a student was taking medication during the

intervention period (p = .0019). In each of the above CNSIE analysis, the shift was

towards a more external locus of control for students participating in the counseling

intervention. No significant treatment or interaction effects were found during the

ANCOVA analysis of TRF or SSI-SF scores.

Results suggested that a brief group counseling intervention for ADHD students

has the potential to increase awareness of ADHD characteristics as they affect school

performance. However, this increased awareness can leave students feeling less in

control of daily occurrences. The brevity and independence of the intervention were

considered when discussing these results.

It was suggested that follow-up and teacher collaboration be used in conjunction

with the counseling intervention for ADHD students. This type of intervention may be an

important adjunct in preparing ADHD students to accept the need for support and

alternative strategies as they strive to become successful students.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly

diagnosed and studied disorders among children (Barkley, 1998; Shaywitz & Shaywitz,

1992). An estimated 3% to 5% of the school age population has ADHD, defined as

persistent patterns of developmentally inappropriate inattention, impulsivity, and/or

hyperactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) with boys outnumbering girls

(Kauffman, 1993; Barkley, 1990). Recent research (Barkley, 1998) is leaning towards

impulsivity as a hallmark of the disorder.

Although the onset of ADHD for most children is prior to age 4, it is most often

diagnosed when a child is in elementary school (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1993).

This is the time when children are introduced to the demands of the educational system.

Problems with impulsivity, inattention, or hyperactivity, often resulting in

underachievement, put these students at risk for a variety of problems related to school

performance. Zentall (1995) suggests that ADHD children likely exhibit their greatest

problems in the classroom. As many as 56% of ADHD students may require academic

tutoring, up to 30% may repeat a grade, and 30-40% may be placed in special education

programs. As many as 46% of ADHD students may be suspended from school with up to

35% dropping out completely and not finishing high school (Barkley, DuPaul, &

McMurry, 1990; Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990; Brown & Borden, 1986;

Weiss & Hechtman, 1993). In addition, without assistance students may develop








emotional problems with anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety (McKinney,

Montague, & Hocutt, 1993; Reeve, 1990), which can lead to oppositional defiant and

conduct disorders (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992).

Elementary school counselors, as behavior and relationship experts in their

schools (Myrick, 1997), are in a position to provide support and intervention for ADHD

students, their teachers and families. A position statement on ADHD, published by the

American School Counselor Association (ASCA) in 1994, strongly encourages the

involvement of school counselors in the multidimensional treatment of ADHD students.

This statement is supported by professionals in the field (Erk, 1995; Lavin, 1997;

Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995;) who see school counselor involvement with

ADHD children as an essential component in enhancing their school performance.

Myrick (1997) sees the role of the school counselor as helping all students to become

more effective and efficient learners. This would include ADHD students, suggesting

school counselors be aware of counselor interventions for ADHD students that could

contribute to the goal of effective learning.

One type of counselor intervention in schools involves small group counseling.

Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) suggest group counseling as opposed to individual

counseling for most ADHD children. Group sessions more closely approximate real life

peer relationship situations and have the potential to enhance skill acquisition and

generalization. For ADHD children, interventions applied consistently within the school

setting at the point of performance are the most effective in improving social and

academic performance. Providing counseling activities that will elicit the behaviors and








feelings that create difficulties with peers and school performance, allows the school

counselor to apply intervention at the point of performance.

This study examines the effects of a small group counseling intervention designed

to help ADHD students increase knowledge and control of their disorder, leading to

improved perceptions of self as a student, a more internal locus of control, and improved

classroom behavior. Cognitive behavioral strategies will be used.

Theoretical Perspective

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is the most recent diagnostic label for

children displaying significant problems with attention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity.

During this decade a shift has been underway to view the cause of ADHD as more

influenced by neurological and genetic factors than by social or environmental ones, and

as treatable but not curable (Barkley, 1998; Teeter & Semrud-Clikeman, 1995).

Problems typically presented by school children with ADHD include completing

academic work, acting-out behavior problems, low self-esteem, and inappropriate

interactions with peers, parents and teachers (Reeve, 1990; Zentall, 1993). These children

can not sustain concentration and are easily distracted. Additional difficulties noted by

DuPaul and Stoner (1994) include struggles with consistent school performance; low test

performance; disorganized desks, backpacks, and reports; and disruptions caused as

ADHD students call out or impulsively express anger and frustration.

The most common treatment for ADHD is medication (Epstein, Singh, Luebke, &

Stout, 1991). Sixty to ninety percent of children diagnosed with the disorder receive

stimulant medication for prolonged periods during their school careers (Whalen &

Henker, 1991). Short-term enhancements in behavioral functioning have been found in








about 75% of those being treated with stimulant medication (DuPaul & Rapport, 1993;

Kavale, 1982; Whalen & Henker, 1991). Even though stimulant medication has no effect

on academic performance, per se, productivity may improve as a result of controlling the

interfering behaviors (Montague & Warger, 1997). In addition, researchers (Weiss &

Hechtman, 1986) have found the long-term prognosis for ADHD children treated with

stimulant medication alone to be the same as those receiving no treatment. Therefore,

maximizing the effects of psychosocial and educational treatments may be the greatest

benefit. Stimulants do not teach appropriate behavior but do increase the probability of a

child displaying appropriate behaviors that are already in their repertoire (Barkley, 1998).

It helps children to show what they know but does not alter the child's knowledge of what

needs to be done (Werry, 1978). According to Barkley (1998) the difficulty for ADHD

students is not knowing what to do, but doing what they know. This then makes ADHD

more a disorder of performance than a disorder of skill and not a learning disability.

From this perspective it is clear that additional intervention strategies are needed

to help ADHD students understand their disorder, and learn and practice new behaviors

that can become part of the repertoire of skills that enhances their learning. However, for

ADHD students, there is a difference between possessing a skill and using it effectively

(Stein, Szumowski, Blondis, & Roizen, 1995). Cognitive behavioral therapy provides

one approach to support student need for understanding how ADHD effects school

performance and a vehicle for learning and practicing skills needed to be successful in the

classroom. Providing the opportunity to learn school success skills would be a

prerequisite to demonstrating those skills in the classroom even when other interventions

are in place. An ADHD student can not exhibit a behavior that has not been learned.








A cognitive behavioral approach to intervention emphasizes behavioral change

and self-regulation along with the examination and possible modification of thoughts,

beliefs, and/or expectations. It is a theoretical approach that supports recent treatment

interventions for children with ADHD (Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995). This

theory assumes that while the primary symptoms of the disorder are difficult to

ameliorate, it may be possible to help children develop competencies that lower the risk

for the emergence of serious secondary difficulties related to low self-esteem, poor peer

relations, or conduct problems (Braswell, 1993). According to Myrick (1997), this

approach also lends itself to brief counseling that is so often used in the schools.

What continues to be evaluated is whether cognitive behavioral methods can

promote a shift from caregivers (teachers and parents) taking total control of the learning

conditions for the ADHD student to the students themselves taking responsibility and

making changes that enhance learning. One way to evaluate who the student perceives is

in control of making things happen is to consider the locus of control construct.

The theoretical construct of locus of control has been used to describe whether

students believe that reinforcements such as grades or achievements, are due to their own

actions (i.e., internal locus of control) or due to factors beyond their control (i.e., external

locus of control (Bryan & Pearl, 1979). An internal locus of control indicates that

outcomes are perceived to be the result of one's own ability or effort, whereas an external

locus of control indicates that outcomes are perceived to be the result of luck, the

consequences of actions by others, or other factors beyond the individuals control (Rotter,

1990).








There is general agreement in the literature that successful students tend to have

more of an internal locus of control (Lewis & Lawerence-Patterson, 1989). Additionally,

Adalbjarardottir (1995) has demonstrated that children with an internal locus of control

are better problem solvers than those with an external tendency. Some researchers (Linn

& Hodge, 1982) also suggest that children with attention problems tend to have a more

external locus of control than do normal children. It is not surprising then, that ADHD

students tend to develop a more external locus of control.

How has the widespread use of stimulant medication and the emphasis on

modifications by teachers and parents effected the locus of control frame of reference of

ADHD children? Students who take stimulant medication and are the targets of

numerous interventions may not see themselves as responsible for the outcomes of their

behavior. From this perspective, what happens during the school day is the result of the

effectiveness of their medication and teachers' efforts, not their own choices. This would

reflect an external locus of control.- On the other hand, Barkley (1998) suggests that

ADHD is not an excuse or a reason to dismiss the consequences of one's actions but

rather an explanation as to why it is necessary for those with the disorder to increase

awareness of life's behavioral contingencies. Helping ADHD students understand how

their disorder effects school performance may be one way to enhance a more internal shift

in locus of control perceptions. As this shift takes place, ADHD students can begin to see

themselves as having the capacity to control their environment (Goldstein & Goldstein,

1998).

This study involves the development of a school counseling intervention. It is

based on cognitive behavioral theory, and aimed to help students better understand








ADHD, their own behaviors, and ways to increase control of tasks related to school

performance.

Statement of the Problem

In 1991, the U.S. Department of Education initially recognized that ADHD may

qualify a student for special assistance in general education under Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112). It also supported the consideration of

ADHD as a disabling condition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

also known as IDEA (Public Law 101-476), thereby facilitating eligibility for special

education services (Davila, William, & MacDonald, 1991) under the label of Other

Health Impaired. This has increased the number of ADHD students who are eligible for

special education services.

Special education teachers with training in the use of behavioral techniques and

small class sizes typically implement behavioral interventions with ADHD students.

However, between 85% and 90% percent of ADHD students will still be served in

general education classrooms for all or part of the school day (Montague & Warger,

1997). This means that ADHD students are probably in most schools and regular

education classrooms everyday.

The regular education teacher without specific training in the use of behavioral

interventions, with 30 or more students in a class, may view some strategies as

impractical and too time consuming. Teachers need support in their efforts to work with

ADHD students.

School counselors are in a position to provide support and are increasingly being

asked to intervene directly with ADHD students (Jordan, 1992). According to the ASCA








coordinator of Children with Attention Deficit Disorders Professional Interest Network,

Robert Erk (1995b), these functions are within the realm of typical guidance and

counseling programs and are part of the multidisciplinary treatment necessary to optimize

the learning outcomes of the ADHD student. Designing and providing direct counseling

services and programs for ADHD students are among the activities he encourages for

school counselors.

The question that remains is whether providing direct service through a small

group counseling intervention can improve ADHD student behavior in the classroom.

The school counseling literature has yielded few outcome studies to support such a claim

since 1988 (Sexton, 1996) so we remain unsure. The school counseling literature has

presented implications of clinical and school based investigations for school counselors

working with ADHD students (Bowley & Walther, 1992; Bramlet, Nelson, & Reeves,

1997; Burnley, 1993, Erk, 1995a, 1995b, 1998; Kottman, Robert, & Baker 1995; Lavin,

1991, 1997; Lucker, & Molloy, 1995; Schweibert, Sealander, & Bradshaw, 1998;

Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995). However, there has been no evidence of any

outcome study indicating the effectiveness of any school counselor intervention for

ADHD students in the last decade. There is a need to formally evaluate interventions

provided by the school counselor for ADHD students.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a small group

counseling intervention with ADHD children. More specifically, ADHD students in

grades 3, 4, and 5 in public elementary schools participated in a set of group counseling

activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and their sense of personal control








grades 3, 4, and 5 in public elementary schools participated in a set of group counseling

activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and their sense of personal control

and responsibility for classroom behaviors related to school performance. An

experimental research design, featuring pre- and postmeasures was used to study the

outcomes and test hypotheses.

Research Questions

1. Will the ADHD students' classroom behavior change following the

completion of the small group counseling intervention?

2. Will the ADHD students' perception of locus of control change following

the completion of the counseling intervention?

3. Will ADHD students perceive their skills for school success differently?

4. Do students respond differently to treatment based on their sex, age, ESE

status, or being on or off medication for ADHD symptoms?

Definition of Terms

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) incorporates all of the subtypes

of attention deficit disorders as listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (4th ed., [DSM-IV,] American Psychiatric Association, 1994). These include

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type; attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type; and attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder, combined type.

External locus of control refers to the perception that reinforcement is under the

control of others or subject to forces beyond one's control (Rotter, 1990).








Impulsivity is a deficiency in inhibiting behavior in response to situational

demands (Barkley, 1998).

Inattention refers to a difficulty with attention relative to normal children of the

same age and gender, specifically with reference to alertness, arousal, selectivity,

sustained attention, distractibility, or span of apprehension (Barkley, 1998).

Internal locus of control is the perception that reinforcements are contingent upon

effort, behavior, or personal characteristics such as ability (Rotter, 1990).

Locus of control is the degree to which one believes they are able to influence the

outcome of situation.

School success skills are classroom behaviors (i.e., skills) which help students

perform more effectively in school (Cuthbert, 1987).

Small group counseling in schools is a counselor-led educational experience in

which students can work together to explore their ideas, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors,

especially as related to personal development and progress in school (Myrick, 1997).

Special education services are for students who have been specifically identified

(Public Law 94-142; 1975) for services extending beyond the regular classroom, due to

one or more handicapping condition, as governed by an Individual Educational Plan.

These services have also been referred to as Exceptional Student Education services.

Overview of the Remainder of the Study

The remainder of the study is organized into four additional chapters. A review of

the related literature is presented in Chapter 2 focusing on the history, research, and

treatment of ADHD, ADHD students in the schools, research related to the dependent

variables, and the use of school counseling interventions. Chapter 3 contains the research






11

methodology, where procedures of the study are described. The results will be presented

in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will include a summary, conclusions, discussion, limitations,

implications, and recommendations.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been observed in children

from all racial, cultural, and socioeconomic groups with slightly elevated rates of the

disorder among children with a low socio-economic status (SES). Barkley (1990)

speculates this observed difference among the low SES population could be the result of

different rates of prenatal and perinatal difficulties, family instability, and/or a downward

social shift of ADHD individuals. Nonetheless, ADHD is diagnosed, using a common

criterion, in children from all walks of life.

Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is a prevalent and chronic disorder among

school-aged children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV

(1994) describes the diagnostic criteria as seen in Table 2-1. This criterion includes

symptoms in the areas of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity with at least some of

the symptoms causing impairment before age seven. At the time of diagnosis, the

impairment must be significant in social, academic, or occupational functioning and be

present in two or more settings.

The current terminology for the disorder is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

However, if both the criteria for attention (Al) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2) are met

(see Table 2-1), a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type is

made. If the criterion for attention (Al) is met but criterion for








Table 2-1
Diagnostic Criteria for ADHD (DSM-IV, 1994)


A. Either (1) or (2):
(1) six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted
for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent
with the developmental level:

Inattention
1. often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless
mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
2. often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
3. often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
4. often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish
schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to
oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions)
5. often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
6. often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that
require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or
homework)
7. often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys,
school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
8. is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
9. is often forgetful in daily activities

(2) six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity
have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and
inconsistent with developmental level:

Hyperactivity
(a) often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
(b) often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which
remaining seated is expected
(c) often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is
inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to
subjective feelings of restlessness)
(d) often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities
quietly
(e) is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor"
(f) often talks excessively

Impulsivity
(g) often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
(h) often has difficulty awaiting turn
(i) often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into
conversations or games)








Table 2-1--continued

B. Some hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused
impairment were present before age 7 years.

C. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings
(e.g., at school [or work] and at home).

D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social,
academic, or occupational functioning.

E. The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of a Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder and
are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., Mood
Disorder, nxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality
Disorder) (pp. 83-85).


hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2) has not been met for the past six months, a diagnosis of

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type is made. Finally,

if the criterion for attention (Al) has not been met for the past six months but is met for

hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2), a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,

predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type can be made (American Psychiatric

Association, 1994).

ADHD is increasingly being diagnosed among children in the schools. Students

who are unable to follow rules, who are often out of their seats, unable to complete class

work, and are frequently referred for discipline do not learn well and are a concern to

their teachers and parents. The presence of ADHD does not mean that students can not

learn. Rather, it is frequently related to inappropriate responses to a structured

environment that does not tolerate impulsive behavior. If ADHD students were less

troublesome and were able to increase the frequency of school success skills, they would

probably not be viewed as such a problem in school.








The History of ADHD

The recognition of ADHD as a disorder may stem back to the early 1900s. Still

(1902) in his published letters to the Royal College of Physicians described a disorder in

which children exhibited deficits of cognitive relation to the environment, moral

consciousness, and inhibitory volition. He noted that children who were punished for

behaviors were exhibiting the same behaviors within a matter of hours. A greater

proportion of Still's cases were males and in most cases the disorder appeared in early

childhood. Many of the cases involved children with a chaotic family life although others

involved children from households that provided adequate upbringing. Still hypothesized

that the disorder had a neurological basis stemming from early, mild, undetected damage

to the brain.

Tredgold (1908) and later Pasamanick, Rogers, and Lilienfeld (1956) would use

this theory to explain developmental behavior and learning deficiencies (Barkley, 1998)

with the term minimal brain dysfunction (MBD) eventually emerging in the 1950s.

However, there were other (Childers, in 1935) who raised questions about a diagnosis

involving brain damage when no history of any such damage existed. Even so, this

theory remained a well-accepted one for many years. Strauss and Lehtinen (1947)

addressed the education of these "brain damaged" children in a classic text. It included

placing students in smaller, more regulated classrooms while reducing distracting stimuli.

In this same era (1937-1941) there was significant research and dialog about the

use of medication therapy for behaviorally disordered children as the effects of its use

were revealed (Barkley, 1998). Laufer, Denhoff, and Solomons (1957), who found

positive drug responses in half or more hospitalized hyperactive children, would later






16

support use of medication. By the 1970s, stimulant medication was a common treatment

for children with characteristics of ADHD.

The 1960s and 1970s

By this time the perspective prevailed that hyperactivity was a brain-dysfunction

syndrome focusing on brain functions as opposed to brain damage (Ross & Ross, 1976).

Excessive activity level was considered its primary characteristic and treatments included

stimulant medication, psychotherapy, and minimum-stimulation classrooms.

More than 2,000 published studies on the disorder existed by the end of the 1970s

(Weiss & Hechtman, 1979). During this time, the characteristics of the disorder were

expanded to include impulsivity, short attention span, low frustration tolerance,

distractibility, and aggressiveness (Safer & Allen, 1976).

The use of stimulant medication with school-aged hyperactive children was

rapidly increasing (Barkley, 1990). Drug therapy studies also increased. Early studies,

led by Keith Connors, paved the way for more rigorous scientific methodology to be used

as over 120 studies involving this treatment approach were published by 1976 and more

than twice that by 1995 (Swanson, McBurnett, Christian, & Wigal, 1995).

Even with extensive research to support the proven efficacy of the use of

stimulant medication as a treatment strategy, public and professional concern began to

arise about its increasingly widespread use with children. This led to claims that

hyperactivity was a "myth" arising from intolerant teachers and parents and an inadequate

educational system (Conrad, 1975). There was a backlash against "drugging" school

children for behavior problems, and a growing belief that hyperactivity was the result of

environmental factors such as reactions to dyes or preservatives in foods (Feingold,








1975). This view gained so much support that a National Advisory Committee on

Hyperkinesis and Food Additives was convened in 1980. The evidence clearly refuted

these claims (Conners, 1980). Nevertheless, it remained popular for almost 10 years only

to be replaced by an equally unsupported hypothesis that sugar was more to blame than

food additives (Wolraich, Wilson, & White, 1995).

Other developments during the 1970s included the notion that an increasing

societal tempo and more rapid cultural change caused increased environmental

stimulation that would interact with a predisposition of some children for hyperactivity

(Block, 1977). Poor child rearing and lack of behavior management skills of parents was

also used to explain behaviors related to hyperactive children (Willis & Lovass, 1977).

As a result, parent training was increasingly recommended.

The passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 mandated special education services

for children with handicapping and behavioral disabilities in addition to those already

available for children with mental retardation (Henker & Whalen, 1980). At that time,

hyperactivity was not considered a disorder that met the criteria for special education

services. However, the law's reinterpretation in 1991 by the Department of Education,

allows ADHD children to receive special education services under the "Other Health

Impaired" category, if the disorder includes a chronic or acute impairment that

significantly effects educational performance (Davila, Williams, & MacDonald, 1991).

During this decade there was also an abundance of research on behavioral

strategies for treatment (Allyon, Layman, & Kandel, 1975). The efficacy of these

strategies was evident but they did not produce the same degree of improvement as

stimulant medication. However, the opinion of the time was that stimulant medication








should not be used alone but should be accompanied by behavioral interventions and

parent training (Barkley, 1998).

The Conners Rating Scale, developed in 1969, was used widely to identify

children with ADHD. This was also the time period that an adult sequel to ADHD was

considered (Morrison & Minkoff, 1975) although it was not until the 1990s that this view

began to receive widespread acceptance.

The 1980s

This was an era in which diagnostic criteria were carefully examined. The

DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) was published and radically re-

conceptualized hyperkinetic reaction to childhood, now called attention-deficit disorder

(with or without hyperactivity) which placed a greater emphasis on impulsivity and

inattention as central features of the disorder. Later in the decade the DSM-III (APA,

1987) was revised resulting in the renaming of the disorder to attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder.

Research during this period began to focus on the social effects of ADHD on

children, their parents (Barkley, 1989), teachers (Whalen, Henker, & Dotemoto, 1980),

siblings (Mash & Johnston, 1982), and peers (Henker & Whalen, 1980). Cognitive-

behavioral therapies (Kendall & Braswell, 1985) and social skills training programs for

ADHD children were also introduced. In addition, medication treatments for ADHD

were expanded beyond the use of stimulants during the 1980s.

The 1990s

Barkley (1998) refers to the decade of the 1990s as the decade of neuro-imaging,

genetics, and adult ADHD. Neuopsychological research has shown developmental delays








and reduced brain metabolic activity in the frontal lobes of those with the disorder

(Zametkin et al., 1990). There has also been further support for the genetic link with

studies (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992; Pauls, 1991) showing between 10% and

35% of immediate family members of those with ADHD also having the disorder with

the risk to siblings being about 31%. This decade has also seen broadening acceptance of

ADHD as a disorder that persists into adulthood.

The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) further specified that

ADHD characteristics must be pervasive across settings and create significant

impairments in life functioning to be diagnosed as a disorder. Behavioral disinhibition is

now seen as the most distinguishing characteristic from other disorders (Barkley, 1997).

However, whatever causes ADHD and no matter what we call it, those who

display its characteristics still sound very similar to those described by Still in 1902

almost a century ago. Since that time, ADHD has become one of the most well studied

childhood disorders of all time.

We continue to look for ways to support academic success for children with

ADHD in our schools. The nature of the disorder, creating academic, behavioral, and

social problems, requires planning and intervention if success is to be achieved. It

involves including ADHD children in their own treatment.

ADHD Students in Schools

School personnel need to be prepared to work with the needs of ADHD students

as they are at risk with respect to social and academic failure in school settings (Weiss &

Hechtman, 1993). Three to five percent of the school age population has ADHD, with

boys outnumbering girls almost 3 to 1 (Kauffman, 1993; Barkley, 1990). Although the








onset of ADHD for most children is prior to age 4, it is most often diagnosed when a

child is in elementary school (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1993) when problems

related to school performance surface. ADHD students are at significant risk when they

are unable to meet the demands of the classroom. Secondary behavioral and adjustment

problems develop in part as a response to frequent and repeated failures (Goldstein &

Goldstein, 1998). Teachers and parents become concerned with the resulting

underachievement and social difficulties. In addition, without assistance, students may

develop emotional problems with anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety (McKinney,

Montague, & Hocutt, 1993; Reeve, 1990), which can lead to oppositional defiant and

conduct disorders (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992) which can become even more

problematic in schools.

Teachers, administrators, and school counselors can not expect medication, parent

training, or family therapy to ameliorate the academic and behavioral difficulties of the

ADHD student (Abramowitz & O'Leary, 1991). Therefore, effective strategies are

needed for managing behavior and enhancing the academic success of students with

ADHD. These strategies are more involved than for normal students. The disorder

increases the complexity of the teaching process because the attentional problems result

in gaps in learning and behaviors that interfere with school performance.

Multimodal treatment for ADHD includes classroom modifications and

interventions; parent training; pharmacotherapy when appropriate; and other strategies

such as counseling, social skills training, problem solving, or anger management training

as needed (Abramowitz & O'Leary, 1991). This would put school counselors in a key

role helping teachers design and implement classroom modifications and interventions,








providing parent training, and developing small group counseling interventions geared

towards teaching skills that enhance school performance.

ADHD in the School Counseling Literature

Working with ADHD students in our schools has been a significant long-term

problem that has received sparse attention by school counseling articles published in

recognized professional journals. However, attempts have been made over the last 10

years by those contributing to the school counseling literature to synthesize clinical

reviews of the history, causes, and treatments of ADHD students. Their goals have been

to provide knowledge and implications for the practicing school counselor.

Elementary School Guidance and Counseling

As the decade began, Gomez and Cole (1991) presented a review of treatment

alternatives for ADHD students which included discussion of stimulant medication,

antidepressant medication, behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral strategies. Implications

were for school counselors to gain increased knowledge of the appropriate use of

medication as one method of treatment and to provide a research base for the planning of

classroom and counseling strategies.

In 1992 (Bowley & Walther) the role of the elementary school counselor was

discussed implying that the knowledgeable school counselor could play a number of vital

roles for children with ADHD, their families, and their teachers. Robert Erk, Coordinator

of the Children with Attention-Deficit Disorders Professional Interest Network, wrote

about the evolution of attention-deficit terminology while others (Schweibert, Sealander,

Tollerud, 1995) provided a current overview of ADHD for school counselors.

Schweibert et al. (1995) also wrote about treatments that included medication, behavioral,








and cognitive-behavioral interventions. During this same period, Lucker and Malloy

(1995) made an extensive list of resources for working with ADHD children, their

teachers, and their families available.

The most recent article appearing in this journal (Bramlett, Nelson, & Reeves,

1997) involved the implications for school counselors of stimulant drug treatment for

elementary school counselors. This was an outcome based study attempting to determine

the percentage of elementary children in the United States who are receiving stimulant

medication at school and offer suggestions to school counselors as to ways to support

these students. This study of 246,707 school children across 46 states (53% return)

concluded that 2.7% of school children were receiving stimulant medication with boys

outnumbering girls four to one. Of all children receiving stimulant medication, 93%

received Ritalin. The article suggested that school counselors may be able to assist in

monitoring the effectiveness of medication as it is often difficult for parents and teachers

to offer objective evaluations.

The School Counselor

In the 1990s The School Counselor also gave attention to the need for counselor

intervention of ADHD students. Burnley (1993) presented a team approach to identifying

and treating children with ADHD using a four-step plan. He developed a plan for

identifying ADHD students in schools, a system to use for delivering instructional

strategies to teachers and information to parents, and a system for follow-up with both

teachers and parents.

Parental perspectives of the support being provided their ADHD children in the

schools was examined by Kottman, Tobert, & Baker (1995). While the sample of parents








returning the survey in this study was low (22% return rate) and those returning (94%

white with an average family income of $57,000) not being representative of the ADHD

population, the results were interesting. The parents in this study reported that their least

useful resource for their ADHD child was school system personnel. Even with the

external validity problems, this can not be ignored as it represents the population who did

return the surveys, and they do not see school personnel as helpful.

Erk (1995b) again looked unique opportunities for the school counselor after a

review of the causes and diagnosis of ADHD. His implications supported the

multidisciplinary approach to treating students with ADHD, while suggesting social skills

training, behavioral techniques, and cognitive behavioral strategies among others.

Paul Lavin (1997), provided indicators of the efficacy of using a daily classroom

checklist for communicating with parents of children with ADHD. This was based on

behavioral interventions as a proven treatment modality (Barkley, 1990; Gomez & Cole,

1991; Lavin, 1991).

Professional School Counseling

As a new journal, Professional School Counseling now serves the needs of all

levels of school counselors (neither Elementary School Guidance and Counseling or The

School Counselor will continued to be published). Immediate attention was given to

counseling children and adolescents with disabilities in the October, 1998 special issue.

This issue included articles that generally discussed the needs of all students with

disabilities. Of particular significance to the ADHD literature was the article by

Schweibert, Sealander, and Bradshaw (1998) involving the preparation of ADHD

students for the workplace. They recognized that some symptoms persist into adulthood,








along with the related problems that emerge during adolescence, and discussed

implications for vocational and post secondary entry.

Robert Erk continues to address the topic of ADHD in the most recent issue of the

Professional School Counselor (Erk, 1999). This time he examines the legal implications

for school counselors as related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990. These federal acts provide an outline of the rights belonging to children with

ADHD. Erk (1999) outlines interventions and services that can be provided by school

counselors to help meet the needs of ADHD as well as satisfying the requirements of the

law.

The Journal of Counseling and Development

The Journal of Counseling and Development published an article (Jackson &

Farrugia, 1997) addressing the diagnosis and treatment of adults with ADHD. This was

significant as it was the only article published this decade specifically addressing the

disorder. It discussed making the adult diagnosis, other associated disorders, and

counseling strategies to be considered.

Overview of the School Counseling Literature

The review of the related school counseling literature over the past 10 years

indicates that counseling professionals recognize the need to address the concerns of

ADHD students. School counselors are becoming knowledgeable about their role in the

identification and treatment of the disorder as well as the legal implications of federal

statues. This review also suggests that the implications of clinical research have been

reported fairly consistently in the school counseling literature over the past ten years.






25

These implications include supporting the use of stimulant medication when appropriate,

coordinating multidisciplinary interventions, consulting with parents and teachers with

regard to modifications and behavioral intervention, being advocates for ADHD students,

and providing direct counseling intervention. However, at this time, there has been a lack

of published research in the school counseling literature to support the efficacy of direct

school counselor intervention for ADHD students.

Other counseling related literature such as The Journal of Counseling Psychology

and School Psychology have also published articles recognizing the need for

identification and intervention of ADHD. The focus of these articles tends to be on

accurate identification of ADHD symptoms, measuring related problems and creating

profiles that can be used to guide treatment planning.

Small Group Counseling Interventions

Small groups are frequently used to address the special needs and problems of

children (Corey & Corey, 1997). It is a valid counselor intervention in the schools that

can meet the needs of many students (Bowman, 1987; Brown, 1994). It can be a more

efficient and effective method for working with ADHD students as more than one student

can be seen at one time, students can support each others efforts, learn from each other,

and practice behaviors in a less intense setting than meeting with the school counselor

one on one (Myrick, 1997). Others concur (Schweibert et al., 1995), suggesting that

opportunities to work with ADHD students in groups may assist students to work more

appropriately with peers while using the counselor's time more effectively. However,

Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) caution that with one leader, the groups should be

limited to four students as behaviors associated with ADHD require attention.








Behavioral strategies have been found to be highly effective in altering the

behavior of ADHD students, especially when used in conjunction with stimulant

medication (Barkley, 1998). Many of the behavioral strategies stem from the work of B.

F. Skinner, spanning over 60 years. His theory contends that children choose behavior

based on anticipated consequences and that it is the things that happen to children that

influence and change them. Children are born neutral with the potential for either good

or evil, developing as a product of their environment. Because human behavior is

learned, any or all behavior can be unlearned and new behavior learned to take its place

(Skinner, 1971).

This concept is particularly important in treatment planning for the ADHD child.

While stimulant medication can improve impulsiveness and inattention, it does not

provide the repertoire of new behaviors necessary for the child to function successfully at

school. Small group counseling can provide a relatively safe setting for the ADHD child

to practice new behaviors before acting them out in the classroom. These small groups

are also helpful in reinforcing children as they attempt new behaviors. Thompson and

Rudolph (1996) suggest a format of tell me, show me, let me try.

Present day behaviorists generally combine behavioral approaches with cognitive

ones to attend to the child's thoughts as well as their behaviors (Sharf, 1996). Helping

ADHD children understand their disorder and how it effects their performance would be a

cognitive compliment aimed at improving the child's perception of self as new behaviors

are learned and practiced. Accepting appropriate responsibility for behavior and

recognizing the need to make behavioral changes are also important cognitive concepts.








Yet, highly cognitive strategies have not consistently proven successful for the

ADHD child. While researchers have found some success (Abramowitz & O'Leary,

1991; Schweibert et al., 1995) with cognitive strategies with this population, other studies

(Abikoff, 1987; Abikoff& Gittelman, 1985; Brown, Wynne, & Medenis, 1985).

examining the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral strategies have not produced

significant effects at a level that could be detected in parent or teacher ratings. Braswell

and Bloomquist (1991), in their review of cognitive-behavioral studies, found that

successful cognitive-behavioral interventions for this population are more behavioral than

cognitive. These strategies emphasize group training for behavioral skill practice with

peers and maintain a focus on specific skills as well as the problem-solving process.

Students with ADHD often have difficulty even recognizing when they are involved in a

problematic situation. After additional study and research, Braswell (1998) has

concluded that while cognitive behavioral approaches provide viable strategies for

intervening with coexisting problems like aggression or peer difficulties, they will not

alleviate primary symptoms of ADHD.

Braswell and Bloomciuist (1991) also note that when a cognitive component is

added to a behavioral treatment approach, the child should be at least third grade level or

8 years old. Children at this age are moving through a concrete operational stage of

cognitive development (Piaget, 1967) and are showing a greater capacity for logical

reasoning. They are making progress towards extending their thoughts from the actual to

the potential (Elkind, 1970) but the starting point must still be what is real and what has

been experienced. These concepts must underlie the use of cognitive components used to

supplement behavioral techniques for treating ADHD children.








Dependent Variables

Three dependent variables have been chosen for this study. They include

classroom behavior, locus of control, and school success skills. It is hypothesized that the

effects of a small group counseling intervention for ADHD students can be detected using

measures of these constructs. The intervention focuses on increased knowledge and

awareness of the disorder, coupled with the introduction and practice of specific

behavioral skills aimed at improving a student's perception of self and shifting the

student towards a more internal locus of control. While these outcomes are perceptions

of students, classroom behavior followed eventually by improved academic success, are

the real targets.

Due to the short duration of this study (6 weeks), academic gains that would

follow behavioral improvements would not necessarily be expected and, therefore, will

not be assessed. It should be noted that Myrick and Dixon (1985) found that teachers

rated their students more positively after intervention. However, there will be no

expectations for teachers during this study other than completing the pre and posttest

measures. Teacher's will have this task for both treatment and control group students and

will not be involved in the actual intervention for any students.

School Success Skills

Cartledge and Milburn (1978), after reviewing the literature on behavioral skills in

the classroom setting, found certain skills linked to academic success and to school

success. From these, Cuthbert (1987) identified six specific task oriented skills and

developed a six-week school counseling intervention designed to improve student self-

perception as related to school success. Among the school success skills targeted were








paying attention in school, listening to teachers and peers, volunteering appropriately in

school, using self-control, interacting with teachers and peers, and utilizing self-

assessment.

Classroom attending refers to orienting towards the teacher or to stimuli defined

by the teacher, under conditions specified by the teacher (Cartledge & Milburn, 1978).

Another definition involves attending as doing what is appropriate in an academic

situation such as looking at the teacher when they present material or writing responses to

questions. This definition was used by Cobb (1972) in a study of classroom behavior and

academic achievement in fourth graders. Results found attending to be the most powerful

of eight behavioral categories examined as related to achievement.

Listening is also an important skill linked to school success. McGinnis and

Goldstein (1984) pointed out the importance of teaching students how to show that they

are listening in the classroom. This included, looking at the person who is talking, sitting

quietly, thinking about what is being said, acknowledging ideas, and asking questions.

Others (Myrick & Bowman, 1991; Foster, 1983) have also recognized the link between

listening and school success.

Volunteering (e.g., participating in classroom discussions appropriately) has been

positively correlated with academic achievement (Hops & Cobb, 1973). Wittmer and

Myrick (1989) spoke about this relationship as they believed asking questions and

contributing answers was a reflection of listening and active processing of material just

presented.

Interacting with teachers and peers has also been reported to have positive

relationship with successful learning. Cartledge and Milburn (1978), in their review of








selected studies, found a growing recognition of the reciprocal nature of interactions

between teachers and students. Research has shown that changes in student behavior can

bring about changes in teacher behavior. Klein (1971) also found support for this idea in

her study finding positive student behavior influencing teachers to use positive behaviors.

Teachers and counselors have long been concerned with finding ways to help

reduce aggressive behavior by teaching self-control and self-assessment skills. Kaufman

and O'Leary found that self-evaluation was effective in maintaining a lower level of

disruptive behavior in students who were deficient in reading and showed high rates of

disruptive behavior. Cox and Gunn (1980) have noted that the social skills of students

within the school setting has direct impact on their academic performance. They further

point out that the lack of appropriate social skills may be the result of not knowing what

to do, not having the skills (physical or cognitive) to execute the known behavior, or not

being able to deal with the emotional response (such as anger or anxiety) which inhibits

the skill performance.

Using these skills as a guide, it is not hard to understand why ADHD children

have so much difficulty in school. These are the very skills that ADHD students have

difficulty accessing, even if they are in their repertoire of known behaviors. These are

classroom skills that must continue to be the target of planning and intervention for

ADHD children.

Locus of Control

The literature on locus of control repeatedly identifies contrasting characteristics

of internal and external locus of control. According to Rotter (1966), this distinction

depends on whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his or her






31

behavior and what happens to them. He saw this as a particularly important influence as

the growing child learns appropriate social and personal behavior.

Evidence of the importance of locus of control in achievement was reported by

Coleman et al. (1966) in a study, Equality of Educational Opportunity, which included

information on over 645,000 students. It was concluded that students who assumed they

could affect their environment were higher achievers than those who felt that luck, fate,

or other uncontrollable factors were responsible for what happened to them. These

researchers reported that students' locus of control orientations appeared to have a

stronger relationship to achievement than all school factors combined.

Nowicki and Duke (1983) went on to review several studies confirming that an

internal locus of control is related to greater achievement in academic settings. Theory

suggests that students with an internal locus of control are differentially sensitive to task

structure when compared to those with an external locus of control.

Sandler, Reese, Spencer, and Harpin (1983), in their review of person-by-

environment interaction research, suggest that students with an internal locus of control

adapt better in low than high controlling environments. They concluded that this was due

to their activity preferences, self-control skills, reactance against loss of freedom, and

effective use of situational clues. Students with an external locus of control, on the other

hand, adapt better in high controlling situations as a result of their activity preference,

need for explicit cues, low reactance to loss of personal freedom, and poor internal self-

regulation skills.

It has also been suggested (Searcy & Hawkins-Searcy, 1979) that those with an

internal locus of control are better adjusted. Adalbjamardottir (1995) has demonstrated






32

that children with a more internal locus of control are better problem solvers than children

with an external orientation.

According to Linn and Hodge (1982), ADHD students tend to have a more

external locus of control with poor internal self-regulation skills and the need for explicit

cues. Tarnowski and Nay (1989) administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control

Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) to a group of boys and found that those with no

diagnosed difficulties were measured to have the least external locus of control while

those boys with attention-deficit who were also learning disabled demonstrated the most

external locus of control.

Goldstein and Goldstein (1998) find it no surprise that given the nature of the

lives of ADHD children, they are at risk for developing an external locus of control.

Modifications are made by parents and teachers, medications is frequently given, and

children begin to see themselves as "recipients" of an intervention out of their control

One aim of the small group counseling intervention designed for this study was to shift a

presumably external locus of control in the direction of a more internal one. This was to

be done through increasing student knowledge and awareness of the disorder, helping

students to understand how the disorders effects their school performance, as well as

teaching skills the student could use to effect school outcomes.

Classroom Behavior

Teachers are usually involved in the assessment of children's behavior regarding

school-based interventions. Their reports are a prime source of baseline data with which

to compare outcomes (Achenbach, 1991). Other variables, including self-reports can be

used to augment outcomes as we develop better ways of helping children.






33

The Teacher Report Form (TRF) is a rating scale designed to capture descriptive

distinctions in classroom behavior without specialized training. Like other rating scales,

the intention is not to produce a diagnosis but to describe behavior in an organized,

statistical fashion. The TRF attempts to provide a profile of behavior as it is actually seen

by the classroom teacher. Profiles are provided in eight subscales and include: (1)

withdrawn; (2) somatic complaints; (3) anxious/depressed; (4) social problems; (5)

thought problems; (6) attention problems; (7) delinquent behavior; and (8) aggressive

behavior. Unlike the Connors Revised Teacher Rating Scale (Goyette, Conners, &

Ulrich, 1978) that was designed primarily for assessing hyperactivity, the TRF can obtain

a more differentiated picture of classroom behavior and the degree of deviance in each

area. This is important in assessing classroom behavior as the pupil may not really be

deviant in the area of the referral complaint, because terms like "hyperactivity" tend to

serve as euphemisms for a wide range of nuisance behaviors (Achenbach, 1991).

Since the TRF is not confined to any theoretical view or topic in its use, it can be

used as an outcome measure for a wide range of constructs. In this study, the TRF will be

used to detect changes in classroom behavior of ADHD students after an intervention

focusing on the constructs of locus of control and school success skills. This seems to be

an appropriate use.

Summary

A review of the related literature has (a) provided a historical context for

considering diagnosis and treatment of ADHD; (b) shown that characteristics of ADHD

interfere with school outcomes; (c) shown that frequent prevalence of the disorder in

schools necessitates school-based intervention; (d) demonstrated the effective use of








behavioral and cognitive methods; (e) supported the use of small group counseling as a

vehicle for intervention delivery; and (f) demonstrated that self-report and teachers

ratings of perceptions and behavior can be used to assess treatment.

There is abundant clinical ADHD literature and general agreement as to the nature

of the disorder. The literature is fairly consistent with its implications for intervention

with ADHD students. Many roles, including co-ordinator, consultant, and direct service

provider, have been identified for the school counselor all within the guidance and

counseling framework.

However, how effective are school counselors in these roles with regard to the

ADHD population? Can brief direct counseling services make a difference in classroom

behavior? What student variables effect the outcome of treatment? A void remains when

it comes to examining the efficacy of school counselor involvement with the school-aged

ADHD population. Such research becomes the focus of this study.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of a small group

counseling intervention on the classroom behavior, locus of control, and school success

skills of third, fourth and fifth grade ADHD students in the Alachua County, Florida

Public Schools. The intervention focused on helping students decrease their problem

behaviors in school through increasing their sense of personal control and responsibility

for school success skills. Further, this intervention involved helping students identify,

learn, and practice using skills and external resources to supplement the internal resources

that are often ineffective in allowing ADHD children to control and sustain behavior.

Pre- and postmeasures of locus of control and school success skills were

completed by treatment and control group students. The teacher of each participating

student completed a pre- and postmeasure of classroom behavior.

Population

The population of interest was third, fourth, and fifth grade students previously

diagnosed as ADHD in the 23 public elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida.

This included ADHD students who ranged in ages from 8-12 from five north central

Florida communities.

In 1997, the population of Alachua County was 208,145 including 44,000

University of Florida students. In the academic year 1996-1997, the Florida Department

of Education (1997) reported the Alachua County Public Schools having approximately








12,792 students attending 23 elementary schools. The racial and ethnic make-up of the

elementary school students included 52% white, 40% black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and

1% American Indian/Alaskan native students. The gender breakdown was 49% male and

51% female. Free or reduced lunch was received by 56% of the elementary aged students

in Alachua County during this same period.

The demographic statistics for Alachua County are similar to those statewide with

the exception of the black and Hispanic populations. The state average for black students

in a district was 26% while the state average for Hispanic students in a district was 17 %.

The increased mean in Hispanic students could be due to the high concentration of

Hispanic students in some south Florida districts.

At the time of the study, 342 students were identified as ADHD in grades three,

four, and five in Alachua County. The list of ADHD students was generated from the

School Board of Alachua County (SBAC) data base and confirmed in each of the 19

schools volunteering participation in the study. Students diagnosed as ADHD per parent

report to school staff or who were taking medication at school for ADHD symptoms but

were not in the data base, were added to the identified data base population yielding a

total of 342 students. Omission from the SBAC data base was the result of the parent not

writing ADHD on the enrollment or data cards even though they had alerted school staff.

The demographic make-up of ADHD students in grades 3, 4, and 5 in Alachua

County included 68% white, 28% black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% Indian/Alaskan

native students. In addition, 73% were male and 27% were female. Comparing the

demographics of race and sex of the ADHD population to those for the elementary school

population of Alachua County suggests that white students are more likely to be








identified ADHD than black or Hispanic students. It also suggests that males are more

likely than females to be diagnosed with the disorder at a rate of three to one, a finding

consistent with the ADHD literature.

Sampling Procedure

Upon approval of the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board,

permission to conduct the study was sought from the Alachua County, Florida Public

Schools' Department of Research and Evaluation. Next, the principals and counselors of

the 23 public elementary schools were informed of the nature of the study and invited to

volunteer their schools for participation. Each principal received a copy of the

Application for Research in Alachua County Public Schools form explaining the purpose

of the research, giving a brief summary of the research design, describing the population,

and delineating the amount of time involved to complete the study. An accompanying

letter (Appendix A) was sent to principals. Principals and counselors of schools decided

to volunteer the participation of their school. One of the non-participating schools was

not eligible for the study serving only students in grades K-2. A second non-participating

school did not have a school counselor at the time of the intervention.

Within each school choosing to participate, the names of all students in grades

three, four, and five who had been diagnosed and identified by school personnel as

ADHD were placed on a list. School counselors followed instructions for random

selection of students (Appendix B) and assigned numbers beginning with 00. Eight

names were chosen and recorded on a student information sheet using a table of random

numbers. Alternates were also selected using this method. In schools with eight or fewer

ADHD students identified, all ADHD students were selected. A letter (Appendix A) was






38

sent to the parents of the selected students about the research, the nature of the counseling

intervention, and asking permission to include their child in the study. From the list of

ADHD students whose parents gave permission, students were randomly assigned, again

using a table of random numbers, to either a treatment or a control group for the duration

of the study.

Resultant Sample

Of the 19 Alachua County, Florida school counselors agreeing to participate in the

study, 13 were able to complete the intervention and posttests within the time frame

necessary to be included in the study. The resultant sample was composed of 93 students

from 12 elementary schools. Demographics of the participating schools can be found in

tables 3-1 and 3-2. It should be noted that a large school with two certified counselors

ran two groups, resulting in 13 small groups.


Table 3-1
Total Enrollment and Lunch Status by Participating School

School # Enrollment % Free/Reduced Lunch
1 575 52%
3 521 75%
4 404 80%
5 574 54%
7 569 45%
10 657 79%
11 554 62%
12 661 26%
13 446 83%
16 255 72%
17 958 38%
18 471 87%








Table 3-2
Students by Race for Participating Schools

School # % of Students by Race
White Black Hispanic Asian Indian
1 69% 27% 3% 1%* 1%*
3 52% 45% 2% 0% 1%
4 48% 48% 3% 1% 0%
5 52% 44% 3% 1% 1%*
7 80% 17% 2% 1%* 1%*
10 30% 67% 2% 1% 0%
11 72% 24% 2% 1%* 1%*
12 70% 20% 7% 3% 1%*
13 22% 71% 2% 5% 0%
16 79% 19% 1% 1%* 1%*
17 68% 25% 4% 3% 1%*
18 15% 74% 4% 7% 1%*
Notes less than 1%

Ninety-six students were selected and agreed to participate in the study. Three

moved during the study resulting in 93 student participants. Of those students, 47 were

assigned to treatment and 46 to control groups. The size of each group varied from three

(42% of the groups) to four (58% of the groups) students. The demographic make-up of

the total sample as well as treatment and control groups can be found in Table 3-3 and

Table 3.4.


Table 3-3
Demographic Characteristics of Sample by Sex and Race

Demographics
Groupings Male Female W B H
Total Sample n = 93 74% 26% 82% 18% 1%*
Treatment n = 47 70% 30% 87% 13% 0%

Control n = 46 83% 17% 72% 23% 4%
*Notes less than 1%








Table 3-4
Demographic Characteristics of Sample by Age, Medication, and ESE Status

Demographics

Age Group On Medication* ESE Program**

Groupings 8-9 yrs. 10-12 yrs. Yes No Yes No

Total Sample, n = 93 44% 66% 86% 14% 51% 49%

Treatment, n = 47 48% 52% 87% 13% 54% 46%

Control, n = 46 40% 60% 85% 15% 47% 53%
*On Medication--refers to whether or not the participating ADHD student was on
medication for ADHD symptoms during the study.
**In ESE Program--refers to ADHD students who are in an Exceptional Student
Education program other than speech, language, or gifted.


Research Design

The research design used in this study was a prepost control group design as seen

in Table 3-5. Following random assignment of students to treatment and control groups,

students completed the Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control

Scale (CNSIE) and the School Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF) both found in

Appendix C. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form (TRF) for students in

treatment and control groups. Following the small group counseling intervention for the

treatment group, all measures were administered again. The combination of random

assignment of subjects to groups and the presence of a pretest and control group served to

control for most sources of internal validity (Gay, 1996).

School counselors delivered the small group counseling intervention. An attempt

to make the treatment uniform and consistent was made through a workshop presented by

the researcher that included review of the Group Facilitator's Manual (Appendix D).








Table 3-5
Prepost Control Group Design

Conditions Pre Post
Treatment R O1 02 03 X 01 02 03
Control R 01 02 03 01 02 03

R = Random assignment of subjects to groups
X = Group counseling for ADHD students
01 = Teacher Report Form (TRF)
02 = Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale (CNSIE)
03 = School Success Inventory--Student Form (SSI-SF)


School Counselor Training

The participating Alachua County, Florida Public School counselors were trained

by the researcher. All participating counselors were certified school counselors earning at

least a masters degree with 54% earning at least a specialists degree. Years of experience

ranged from 1-27 years with an average of 12 years as a school counselor. State

certification status, highest degree earned and years of experience are seen in

Table 3-6 for each participating counselor by school.

Each counselor took part in a workshop led by the researcher. A package of

materials was presented at the workshop that contained a brief description of the project,

research procedures, and timelines to be followed. The package also contained copies of

the dependent measures and instructions on how to present them. As the materials were

reviewed, information regarding experimental conditions was discussed in an attempt to

control for differences in delivery of the intervention or data gathering across schools.

The researcher was available to consult with any counselor who was unsure of the

research procedures. A workshop outline follows.








Table 3-6
Levels of Experience and Education of Participating Counselors by School

Counselor Demographics
Certified School Counselor Highest Degree Experience


School Number
1
3
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
16
17 (01-04)*
17 (05-08)*
18


Yes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


B M Sp. Doc. Years
X 14
X 7
X 5
X 20
X 2
X 15
X 27
X 12
X 13
X 12
X 10
X 1
X 16


Note: Two groups were run by in school 17, each by a different counselor.


Counselor Workshop Outline

I. Nature of the Study

II. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
A. History
B. Characteristics
C. Extent of the problem in schools
D. Interventions (including medication)
E. Meeting ADHD student needs in Developmental Guidance
Programs

III. Research Procedures
A. Overview of Design
B. Randomization
C. Informed consent
D. Collecting pre- and posttest data

IV. Delivery of the Counseling Intervention

V. Return of Materials


VI. Questions








The researcher supervised the random selection of ADHD students and several

alternates for each school. This was done at the workshop, where the lists of ADHD

students at each school were available.

Upon completion of review and questions about research procedures, the

workshop focus shifted to ADHD and included the treatment intervention and its

delivery. Tasks included talking about problems facing ADHD children, reviewing

teacher concerns, and studying the Group Facilitator's Manual. The participants

examined session content and discussed the activities in terms of objectives and

procedures. Counselors were encouraged to follow the counseling manual so the

treatment would be relatively consistent across counselors and schools.

Brief notices were sent to all counselors at two-week intervals with reminders

about important procedures and clarification reflecting any questions that had been raised

by any of the counselors. This was also an attempt to increase the uniformity of the

intervention delivery. The researcher remained available by phone throughout the

duration of the study.

Treatment Description

A small group format was used to deliver the counseling intervention to third,

fourth, and fifth grade ADHD students. The six counseling sessions took place in

approximately once a week sessions for a period of six weeks during the spring semester.

Each session lasted approximately 30-40 minutes. Counselors followed the agreed upon

guidelines described in the manual and implemented group counseling activities

accordingly.








The intervention followed the theme of a journey. During the small group

counseling intervention, ADHD students were encouraged to continue to set their sights

on "school success" as a destination while recognizing the need to consider "alternate

paths, detours, or the need for roadside assistance" as strategies to keep them on their

way. These metaphors were linked to specific skills that were taught and practiced during

the intervention.

Initially, each school counselor helped group members get acquainted, clarified

their reasons for being in the group, and began building a climate of trust and acceptance

through involvement in introductory activities. Thereafter, each session featured

activities and discussions that focused on helping students learn more about their disorder

as reflected in school performance. ADHD students were given an opportunity to explore

their own diagnosis and express feelings associated with that knowledge. A brief

discussion of the use of medication for ADHD symptoms was included.

Students participated in tasks and activities allowing them to identify behaviors

that support school success. The group format provided a setting in which students were

able to practice new behaviors while among their peers. Among the behaviors targeted

for this intervention were: paying attention, listening, organizing materials, recognizing,

creating, and using external cues in the classroom, handling frustration and anger, and

using available supports in the classroom to increase success in school. Students were

encouraged to take responsibility for their actions by recognizing the need for

modification and intervention in their daily routine.

The counseling intervention ended with a summary of what had been done,

allowing students to talk about their experience and describe their next steps. A brief








overview of the content sessions is outlined in Table 3.7. The complete intervention can

be found in the Group Facilitator's Manual in Appendix D.


Small Groun


Table 3-7
Counseling Intervention


Session # Title of Session Content Objectives
Session #1 Our Journey 1. Students will gain increased knowledge of
ADHD.
2. Students will identify behaviors
associated with ADHD and how those
behaviors effect school success.
3. Students will be given an opportunity to
discuss their own ADHD diagnosis and
express associated feelings.
Session #2 Pack It Up 1. Students will learn and practice strategies
to support the need for better organization
as related to school success.
Session #3 Stop Lights & Traffic 1. Students will learn and practice behaviors
Cops associated with attending.
2. Students will identify school situations in
which attending is important.
3. Students will identify school situations in
which attending is difficult.
Session #4 Using Road Signs As a 1. Students will learn to recognize, create
Guide and use external cues in the classroom.
2. Students will gain increased awareness of
the need for strategies to support school
success.
Session #5 Road Holes and Detours 1. Students will identify school situations
that are particularly difficult.
2. Students will identify ways to improve
school situations that are difficult.
Session #6 Roadside Assistance & 1. Students will identify sources of support
Becoming Your Own at school.
Mechanic 2. Students will be given the opportunity to
experience the feelings of "being in
control."
3. Students will associate increased practice
of a skill with improvement of that skill.
4. Students will gain increased knowledge of
the use of medication in treating ADHD.


Counselng Inteventio






46

Students who participated in the groups were compared to ADHD students in the

control groups on the dependent measures. Students in the control group continued with

their regular school routine during this period. They responded to the measures of locus

of control and school success at the same eight-week interval as the treatment group.

Teachers also completed the classroom behavior measure for the control group students at

the designated intervals.

Assessment Techniques

In order to assess the effects of the treatment, the following measures will be used:

Teacher Report Form (TRF); Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of

Control Scale (CNSIE); and School Success Inventory--Student Form (SSI-SF).

Teacher Report Form (TRF)

The Teacher Report Form was designed in 1986 by Achenbach and Edelbrock to

provide standardized descriptions of social-emotional development for students, by

gender, ranging in age from 6-16. The effects of race and SES were examined but the

authors found that differences were too small to warrant separate norms (Achenbach &

Edelbrock, 1986). The scoring profiles were derived using factor analyses of TRF's

completed on 1,800 children referred to mental health services in the eastern United

States. According to Christenson, in her 1992 review of the TRF, the norming

procedures were "impeccable."

The TRF includes 118 items on a 3-step response scale (0 = Not True, 1 =

Somewhat or Sometimes True, and 2 = Very True or Often True). It is designed to be

completed by teachers who have known a student in a school setting for at least 2 months.






47

It is self-administered and requires no special training. Teachers can complete the scale

in about 20 minutes.

The TRF was designed to provide standardized descriptions of students' behavior.

It does so by identifying behaviors that occur together and refers to these groupings as

syndromes. The syndromes were derived from TRF items identified by teachers for

children who were referred for special services (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986). The

following eight syndromes are displayed in the 1991 TRF profile: withdrawn, somatic

complaints, anxious/depressed, social problems, thought problems, attention problems,

delinquent behavior, and aggressive behavior (Achenbach, 1991).

Internalizing and externalizing groupings of behavior were also identified for each

age/sex group (Achenbach, 1991). The internalizing grouping is the sum of scores on the

withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed scales. The externalizing

grouping is comprised of the items on the delinquent and aggressive behavior scales.

These scales are not mutually exclusive. According to Achenbach (1991), students who

score high on one grouping tend to have at least above average scores in the other area as

well. Worth special consideration are students who have a much higher score in one

grouping than the other. A total sum score (TSS) of the internalizing and externalizing

behaviors can be derived as a measure of classroom problems exhibited by the student.

The behavior problems scale is comprehensive and is conceptually consistent with

other problem-oriented behavior rating scales ( Elliott & Busse, 1992). Construct validity

data is derived from factor analysis and concurrent validity with the Conners Revised

Teacher Rating Scale (r = .85) which also looks at children's problem behaviors. In

addition, Achenbach and Edelbrock (1986) found for all ages and both sexes that referral






48

status consistently accounted for the largest percent of the variance in ratings on the TRF.

One example was students whose diagnosis was made independently of the TRF.

Researchers (Edelbrock, Costello, & Kessler, 1984) found that students with ADHD

scored higher on the inattentive scale than a control group of referred students having

other diagnosis.

Test-retest reliability was reported by Achenbach in 1991. The correlation of test-

retest reliability of the TRF was r = .92 over a 15 day interval for problem behavior

scores. Inter-rater agreement was similar for teachers seeing students under different

conditions (r = .54) and teachers seeing students under more similar conditions (r = .55)

with respect to problem behaviors.

The TRF lends itself to statistical analysis done on samples that include children

of both sexes and different age ranges (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1986). T scores, as

opposed to raw scores, can be used for the respective sex/age groups. The T score reflects

each subject's deviation from the mean of his/her normative group. Therefore, while a

raw score of 29 is in the borderline clinical range for boys age 12-18, it is well above the

clinical range for girls 12-18 resulting in a lower T score for boys.

Several hundred references to the Child Behavior Checklist in the Eleventh

Mental Measurements Yearbook (Christenson,1992) suggest its widespread acceptance

and use. However, it is recognized that the TRF not be used in isolation but in

combination with other methodologies to identify behavioral difficulties in school-aged

children.








Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE)

The Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale

(Appendix C) is a pencil paper self-report measure developed in 1969 consisting of 40

questions that are answered either yes or no. It was constructed on the basis of Rotter's

(1966) definition of the internal-external control of reinforcement dimension as an

attempt to measure locus of control in children. The items describe a variety of

reinforcement situations across interpersonal and motivational areas such as affiliation,

achievement, and dependency (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).

Scores were based on the number of responses that indicated an external locus of

control orientation to the statement; therefore, scores could range from 0-40. Higher

scores indicate a more external locus of control than lower scores.

Upon testing 1,017 students in grades three through 12 twelve, Nowicki and

Strickland (1973) reported test-retest reliabilities that ranged from .66 to .71 after a six-

week period. All socioeconomic groups were included in this sample and all subjects had

intelligence tests scores in the average range.

Estimates of internal consistency using the split half method, corrected by the

Spearman Brown formula, were correlated by grade levels (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)

and range from .63 (for grades 3, 4, and 5) to .81 (for grade 12). Since the CNSIE scale is

additive and the test items are not arranged sequentially according to difficulty and are

not comparable, the split-half reliabilities may underestimate the internal-consistency of

the scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).

Construct validity was established (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) comparing the

CNSIE to other locus of control measures. Significant (p < .01) but not high correlations






50

were found when comparisons were made to the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility

scale (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965) with correlations of .31 and .51 for black

third (N = 182) and seventh graders (N = 171). A correlation of .41 with the Bialer-

Cromwell (Bialer, 1961) was also significant (p < .05) for 26 white students ages 9-11.

Additionally, the relationship between the Rotter (1966) and the CNSIE adult scale was

significant (p < .01) in two studies with college students yielding correlations of .61 (N

76) and .38 (N = 46) (Nowicki-Strickland, 1973).

Correlations of the CNSIE with the Children's Social Desirability Scale (Crandall,

Crandall, & Katkowsky, 1965) were computed. For males and females within each

grade level, locus of control scores were not significantly related to social desirability.

The CNSIE has been used to compare internal-external locus of control with

ADHD and control groups (Linn & Hodge, 1982). The effects of cognitive strategies on

locus of control for learning disabled students (Morin, 1993) has also been measured

using this instrument.

School Success Inventory--Teacher Form (SSI-TF)

The School Success Inventory--Student Form (Appendix C) is a paper and pencil

measure containing 12 items, 2 items to represent each of the six classroom behaviors of

attending, listening, volunteering, using self-control, interacting, and assessing self. The

items comprise behaviors related to school success (Cuthbert, 1987).

The student marks each item in terms of perceived frequency of occurrence on a

5-point scale of very often, often, sometimes, seldom, and very seldom. Students

indicated their choices by marking with an X or a check mark. Each of these categories

was assigned a numerical score, with one indicating the "desired behavior and








corresponding to Very Often. The total score over the 12 items ranges from 12

(behaviors occurring very often) to 60 (very seldom). A total frequency score was

recorded for each student. A lower score was more indicative of self-perceived desired

behaviors than was a higher score.

Cuthbert (1987) measured test-retest reliability for the SSI-SF yielding a

coefficient of stability of .79 during a pilot study. In this pilot, the SSI-SF was

administered to 49 students in two third-grade classrooms. Two weeks later, the students

rated themselves again on the same instrument. Cuthbert (1987) used this scale to

measure the effectiveness of a classroom guidance intervention aimed at teaching skills

for school success.

Both the CNSIE and the SSI-SF were developed to be completed by school-aged

children. Each instrument has a third grade reading level making them appropriate for

self-reporting. The students in the current study were in grades three, four, and five.

However, due to the possibility of ADHD students having reading abilities below grade

three, the counselor read the items on the instruments as the student followed along and

marked responses.

School Counselor Survey

School counselors, postintervention, completed a survey. The survey contained

11 items with a five point Likert-type scale. School counselors were asked to respond to

each statement on the survey by marking either Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain,

Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. Items focused on the counselor's perceptions of the unit,

the experience of participating students, the counselor's own experience, and

recommendations.








Hypotheses

The following hypotheses will be evaluated at the .05 level of significance in this

study:

1. There will be no significant difference between the classroom behavior

adjusted means of students in the treatment and control group, as measured by

the Teacher Report Form (TRF).

2. There will be no significant difference between treatment and control group

students' locus of control adjusted means, as measured by the Children's

Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control scale (CNSIE).

3. There will be no significant difference between treatment and control group

students' adjusted mean perception of school success skills, as measured by

the School Success Inventory--Student Form (SSI-SF).

4. There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex, ESE

status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, and SSI-SF.

Data Analysis

Pre- and posttreatment data were initially analyzed using a hierarchical linear

model. This analysis was appropriate since each group of students receiving treatment

belonged to an intact school group that volunteered participation in the study (Patterson &

Goldstein, 1991; Raudenbush, 1988). The intact school groups participating could

influence the scores on dependent measures as a result of interaction with a particular set

of individuals or occurrences. In this analysis, the effects due to group membership

(school) were separated from the within-group residual error term. However, pooling the

error term and using a mixed effects model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was






53

considered appropriate in this case, as there was not a significant between school variance

on any of the dependent variables. Mixed effects models are used when the classification

of variables are a mixture of random and fixed effects (Agresti & Finlay, 1997), as was

the case in this study.

ANCOVA assumptions were checked and provided support for use of the

ANCOVA model. Assumptions of normality, equal variances, and linearity were

checked by plotting the data. The equal slopes assumption was checked through

statistical analysis. Independence was considered prior to the study through random

assignment of students. Measures that were appropriately reliable for social science

research were used to satisfy the measurement error assumption.

The mixed model ANCOVA was then performed on all measures for treatment

and control groups. The purpose of the ANCOVA to is determine whether the observed

differences between means are due to chance or to systematic differences among

treatment populations (Shavelson, 1996). It does so by statistically removing predictable

individual differences from the dependent variable, thereby providing a more precise

estimate of experimental error and a more powerful test of the null hypothesis. The

pretest score served as the covariate to adjust posttest scores. Random assignment of

subjects to treatment and control groups increased the validity for using the ANCOVA

(Gay, 1996).

The mixed effects ANCOVA model (Table 3-5) examined five main effects and

four two-way interactions. The main effects included treatment, age, sex, ESE

placement, and whether the student was taking medication for ADHD symptoms. The

two-way interactions looked at how treatment interacted with each of the other variables








(age, sex, ESE, and medication). The two-way interactions were introduced into the

ANCOVA model one at a time while holding the model constant. School was treated as

a random effect while age, sex, medication, and ESE status were treated as fixed effects.


Table 3-8
Mixed Effects ANCOVA Model

Y (X X)= p + a + Y7 + ay, + 2 +
post covariate = grand mean + treatment + school + school by treatment + age +
test

3+ + Ys + +
sex + meds + ese + error
Note: This is the portion of the model that was held constant as the two-way interactions
were introduced one at a time.


The alpha level for all tests in this study was set at the .05 level. The .05 level of

significance is a reasonable probability level (Gay, 1996) as this study is exploring the

effectiveness of a counselor intervention strategy for ADHD students while producing

implications for further research.

Research Procedures

During the week preceding the intervention, pretreatment measures were

administered. All measures were to be coded by number to ensure confidentiality of

results. Corresponding school, gender, race, age, special education designation, and

whether or not the student was on medication for ADHD symptoms were provided to the

investigator for use in the analysis. The school counselor at each school involved in the

study administered the student assessments in their respective schools.

School counselors were trained in procedures for administration of the Children's

Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control scale and the School Success








Inventory--Student Form. Counselors read all test items to students to help control for

differences in reading abilities. School counselors gave teachers the Teacher Report

during this same pretreatment week and recovered all forms before treatment began.

Counselors planned with teachers to arrange a weekly time for the small group counseling

intervention.

The six treatment sessions took place approximately once per week and took

about 30-40 minutes. At the end of the six-week intervention, the school counselor again

administered the CNSIE and the SSI-SF to students in the treatment and control groups.

The school counselor disseminated the TRF to classroom teachers of students in the

treatment and control groups.

School counselors completed a postintervention questionnaire concerning

counselor demographics and perceptions of the intervention experience (Appendix C).

All data was placed in large envelopes, and collected and analyzed by the investigator.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This study examined the effectiveness of a small group counseling iritervention

for ADHD students. School counselors delivered the intervention to ADHD

students in grades three, four, and five. Counseling activities were designed to increase

the students awareness of ADHD and improve their sense of control for behaviors related

to school success.

To assess the effectiveness of the group counseling intervention, analysis was

performed on pre- and postdata obtained using a mixed effects ANCOVA model. Three

dependent measures were used to gather data related to the effects of the intervention.

These measures included (a) teachers' ratings of student classroom behavior as measured

by the Teacher Report Form, (b) students' perceptions of their locus of control orientation

as measured by the Children's Nowicki Strickland Locus of Control Scale, and (c)

students' perceptions of school success behaviors as measured by the School Success

Inventory-Student Form.

Data on the three dependent measures were collected from 93 students in grades

three, four, and five, attending 13 public elementary schools. An experimental research

design provided for random assignment of students to treatment and control groups for

the duration of the intervention, resulting in 47 treatment and 46 control group

assignments.








Pre- and posttreatment data were initially analyzed using a hierarchical linear

model as each group of students receiving treatment belonged to an intact school group

that volunteered participation in the study. Using this analysis, the effects due to group

membership (school) were separated from the within-group residual error term.

However, pooling the error term and using a mixed effects model analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) was considered appropriate, as there was not a significant between school

variance on any of the dependent variables. Pretest scores were used as covariates in

computing the analysis of covariance to remove the influence of pre-intervention

variation on the scores for each measure.

Assumptions providing support for use of the ANCOVA as an appropriate

statistical analysis, were checked. Results of tests for between school variance and

assumptions may be found in Appendix E. The confidence level was set at .05 for all

statistical tests.

Data Analysis

Four hypotheses were investigated using three targeted dependent variables. The

means and standard deviations for all pre- and postmeasures can be found in

Appendix E.

Teacher Rating of Classroom Behavior

To investigate the effects of treatment on the classroom behavior of ADHD

students, results of the Teacher Report Form (TRF) were subjected to analysis. The TRF

measures problem behaviors in the classroom as observed by the teacher. Higher scores

indicate more problematic behavior than lower scores. These results were then used to

test the stated null hypothesis.






58

Two-way interactions. The effect of treatment by sex, age, medication, and ESE

status, as measured by the Teacher Report Form was examined. Each interaction was

introduced into the ANCOVA model one at a time. The following null hypothesis was

tested.

Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.

None of the variables, age, sex, ESE, or medication status of the ADHD student,

interacted significantly with scores on the TRF. In addition, there was not a significant

school by treatment interaction for this dependent measure. A more detailed statistical

report of the Teacher Report Form results can be found in Table 4-1.


Table 4-1
Statistical Results Mixed Effects Model ANCOVA Teacher Report Form


Source SS df MS F Pr > F

Sch' 676.80 12 56.41 1.56 .4010
Trt' 32.40 1 32.40 .68 .4257
Sch*Trt 582.72 1 48.56 1.78 .0717
Sex 64.61 1 64.61 2.37 .1290
Age 136.39 1 136.39 4.99 .0290*
Meds 2.75 1 2.75 .05 .8252
ESE 64.10 1 64.10 1.15 .2883
Error 3463.93 62 55.87

'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 48.63 (df= 11.95)
For Trt, MS (Err) = 47.79 (df= 12.51)
*Significance at the p < .05 level






59

Main effects of treatment. No significant difference was found when comparing

TRF adjusted posttest means of treatment and control group students (Table 4-1);

therefore, Ho, was not rejected.

Ho : There will be no significant difference between the classroom behavior of
students in the treatment and control groups, as measured by the Teacher
Report Form.

It appears that classroom behavior of ADHD students was not impacted by the treatment

intervention as measured by the TRF. However, teachers rated students in both treatment

and control groups as having slightly improved behavior.

Additionally, age was found to have an effect on TRF scores (F (1,62) = 4.99, p =

.03). The adjusted posttest mean for 8-9-year-old students (M = 59.58), was lower than

that of 10, 11, and 12-year-old students (M = 62.36) participating in the study. Results

did not yield any treatment by age interaction. Age of student effected TRF scores

regardless of group assignment (Table 4-1).

Student Perceived Locus of Control

The effects of treatment on student perceived locus of control was investigated by

analyzing the results of the Children's Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of

Control Scale (CNSIE). The range of possible scores was 0-40, with points assigned for

each response made corresponding to the external choice. The higher the score, the more

external the locus of control orientation.

Two-way interactions. Treatment effect by sex, age, medication, and ESE status

was also examined with the ANCOVA model using adjusted posttest means to test the

null hypothesis (Table 4-2). Each interaction was introduced into the ANCOVA model

one at a time. This hypothesis was previously rejected based on a TRF by age interaction.








Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.

A significant interaction was found between treatment, as measured by the

CNSIE, and the sex of students (F (1,60) = 8.64, p = .005). While both males and

females in the treatment group had higher adjusted posttest means than their counterparts

in the control groups, females scores were significantly higher (Figure 4-1). Males in the

control group had an adjusted posttest mean of 16.58 with adjusted means for males in

the treatment group being reported at 18.10. Females in the control group had an adjusted

posttest mean of 13.99 while adjusted means for females in the treatment group were

reported at 21.63. Females locus of control scores were, on average, almost seven and a

half points higher when receiving treatment, indicating a significantly higher external

locus of control orientation. This treatment by sex interaction would provide additional

support for the rejection of Ho4.

A second two-way interaction was found during the ANCOVA analysis of CNSIE

results (Figure 4-2). Whether or not a student was taking medication during the

intervention period, significantly interacted with treatment results (F (1,60) = 10.51, =

.002).

Students taking medication showed little difference in their adjusted posttest

means regardless of their control group (M = 17.63) or treatment group (M = 17.92)

assignment. However, students not taking medication during the intervention, had

adjusted mean scores that were significantly impacted by group assignment. Control

group students not taking medication had an adjusted mean score of 12.95 while

treatment group students not taking medication had a mean score of 21.81 (Table 4-3).










Treatment*Sex Interaction CNSIE


-*- Seriesl

---- Series2


2

Treatment


Series 1 = Males; Series 2 = Females

Figure 4-1
Treatment by Sex Interaction CNSIE


Treatment*Medication Interaction


---- Seriesl
--- Series2


Control


Treatment


Series 1 = Students not on medication; Series 2 = Students on medication

Figure 4-2
Treatment by Medication Interaction--CNSIE


25
20
15
10
5
0


1

Control


Lr-









Table 4-2
Statistical Results Mixed Effects Model ANCOVA- CNSIE


Source SS df MS F Pr >F

Sch' 194.76 12 16.23 1.06 .4597
Trt1 138.64 1 138.64 10.42 .0021*
Sch*Trt 184.08 12 15.34 1.24 .2787
Trt*Sex 106.97 1 106.97 8.64 .0047*
Trt*Age 13.41 1 13.41 1.08 .3022
Trt*Meds 130.17 1 130.17 10.51 .0019*
Trt*ESE .21 1 .21 .02 .8957
Error 742.80 60 12.38

'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 15.31 (df 12.23).
For Trt, MS (Err) = 13.31 (df= 56.53).
*Significance at the p < .05 level


Table 4-3
Adjusted Post-Test Means of CNSIE


Source


Control Group
Treatment Group

Control Group Males
Treatment Group Males

Control Group Females
Treatment Group Females

Control Group Students on Meds
Treatment Group Students on Meds

Control Group Students Not on Meds
Treatment Group Students Not on Meds


Scores for Significant Variables

Adjusted Post-Test Means


15.29
19.87

16.58
18.10

13.99
21.63

17.63
17.92

12.95
21.81








Students who received the intervention but were not taking medication had the highest

locus of control scores, indicating a significantly higher external locus of control

orientation. Non-medicated treatment group students also showed the greatest variation

in score when compared to their control group counterparts by scoring, on the average,

nine points higher on the CNSIE. This treatment by medication interaction continues to

provide support for the rejection of Ho4.

The remaining variables, age and ESE status, did not interact significantly with

treatment as measured by the CNSIE. Additionally, there was not a significant school by

treatment interaction for this dependent measure.

Main effects of treatment. The following null hypothesis was tested using the

CNSIE results.

Ho2: There will be no significant difference between treatment and control
group students locus of control, as measured by the Children's Nowicki-
Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale.

Results of the ANCOVA revealed a significant difference in the CNSIE posttest scores

for treatment and control groups (F (1, 56) = 10.42, p = .002). Therefore, Ho2 was

rejected. Adjusted posttest means for the control group (M = 15.29) were significantly

lower than the adjusted means for the treatment group (M = 19.87). Students in the

control group rated themselves as having a more internal locus of control than the

students who received treatment (Table 4-2 and 4-3).

Students' Perceptions of School Success Behaviors

Students' perception of School Success Behaviors was measured using the School

Success Inventory--Student Form (SSI-SF). This 10-item Likert-type scale yielded scores








that ranged from 12 to 60. The closer the score was to 12, the more positive the

students' perception regarding their school success behaviors.

Two-way interactions. The effects of treatment by sex, age, medication, and ESE

status, as measured by the SSI-SF showed no interaction effect. The following null

hypothesis was previously rejected based on variable interaction with the TRF and the

CNSIE.

Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.

The analysis of the SSI-SF yields no main or two-way interaction effects. The

previous decision to reject Ho4, stands. In addition, there was not a significant school by

treatment interaction for this dependent measure. A statistical report of the SSI-SF can be

found in Table 4-4.

Main effects of treatment. The following null hypothesis was tested using this

dependent measure.

Ho3: There will be no significant difference between treatment and control
group students perception of school success skills, as measured by the
School Success Inventory--Student Form.

No significant difference was found when comparing SSI-SF adjusted posttest means of

treatment and control group students; therefore, Ho3 was not rejected. Students'

perceptions of their school success skills was not impacted by the treatment intervention

as measured by the SSI-SF. There was less than a one point change in scores for both

treatment and control groups following intervention.








School Counselor Survey

School counselors completed a survey at the conclusion of intervention

implementation. The survey contained 11 items that were answered on a five point

Likert-type scale. There were 14 surveys returned. All counselors (100%) supported the

appropriateness of unit content, sessions, and outline, and would recommend the unit to

other counselors. All counselors (100%) also agreed that the unit contributed to their

own understanding of ADHD students and was an effective strategy for this population.

Increased confidence with regard to teacher consultation (93%) and changed counselor


Table 4-4
Statistical Results Mixed Model ANCOVA--SSI-SF

Source SS df MS F Pr >F
Sch' 583.36 12 48.63 1.27 .3416
Trt1 6.26 1 6.26 .16 .6931
Sch*Trt 458.40 12 38.20 .68 .7605
Sex 1.05 1 1.05 .02 .8913
Age 114.49 1 114.49 2.05 .1573
Meds 2.75 1 2.75 .05 .8252
ESE 64.09 1 64.09 1.15 .2883
Error 3463.94 62 55.87

'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 38.31 (df= 12.23)
For Trt, MS (Err) = 38.34 (df= 12.29)
Significance set at the p < .05 level


perceptions (71%) were reported by most counselors. A large majority (93%) of

counselors also believed that students participating in the unit changed their views of

themselves as students. Table 4-5 shows the results of this survey.








Table 4-5
Counselor Survey Results (Number of Counselors Responding to Each Choice)

Strongly Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
Question 1 11 3 0 0 0
(Unit content appropriate)

Question 2 9 5 0 0 0
(Fun, informative
activities)

Question 3 12 2 0 0 0
(Outlines easy to follow)

Question 4 7 7 0 0 0
(Increased student
awareness of ADHD)

Question 5 8 5 1 0 0
(Increased student's
self-perception)

Question 6 12 2 0 0 0
(Counselor knowledge
and insight)

Question 7 7 6 1 0 0
(Increased counselor
confidence)

Question 8 3 7 2 1 1
(Changed counselor
perceptions of ADHD)

Question 9 7 7 0 0 0
(Effective unit)

Question 10 10 4 0 0 0
(Recommend unit)

Question 11 11 2 1 0 0
(Plan to use again)








Summary of Results

A summary of the results of the mixed effects ANCOVAs for this study are

presented below. The results are organized by dependent variable.

Teacher's Perceptions of Students Classroom Behavior as Measured by the Teacher
Report Form (TRF)

1. There was no significant difference between treatment and control groups in

teachers' perceptions of classroom behavior following the intervention.

2. There was a significant difference between the way 8-9 year old students and 10,

11, 12 year old students were perceived by their teachers following the

intervention regardless of group assignment.


Students' Perception of Locus of Control Orientation as Measured by the Children's
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale

1. There was a significant difference between the way treatment and control group

students rated their own locus of control orientation following the intervention.

2. There was a significant difference between the way males and females rated their

own locus of control orientation that was effected by group assignment.

3. There was a significant difference in the way students on and off medication rated

their own locus of control orientation that was effected by group assignment.

Students' Perceptions of School Success Behaviors as Measured by the School Success
Inventory--Student Form (SSI-SF)

1. There was no significant difference between the way treatment and control group

students rated their own school success behaviors following the intervention.









There were no significant interactions between treatment and age, sex,

medication, or ESE status.

School Counselor Perception as Measured by the School Counselor Survey

1. School counselors perceived the intervention as appropriate for ADHD students.

2. School counselors perceived the intervention as effective in improving students'

perceptions of themselves as students.

3. School counselors perceived increased confidence in working with ADHD

students and their teachers.

In the next chapter, conclusions will be drawn based on results presented in

Chapter 4. Methodological limitations as well as implications and recommendations for

further research will be discussed.














CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a small group

counseling intervention with ADHD students. More specifically, ADHD students

participated in a set of counseling activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and

a personal sense of control and responsibility for classroom behaviors related to school

success. ADHD students from third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms in 12 public

schools participated in the study (n = 93). Students were randomly assigned to treatment

and control groups using a table of random numbers. Group means (n = 13) were used in

the analysis.

Thirteen school counselors delivered the intervention to ADHD students.

Sessions featured activities and discussions that focused on helping students learn more

about their disorder as reflected in school performance. The group format provided a

setting in which students were able to learn and practice new behaviors while among their

peers. Targeted behaviors included paying attention, listening, organizing materials,

recognizing, creating, and using external cues in the classroom, handling frustration and

anger, and using available supports in the classroom to increase success in school.

Students who participated in the groups were compared to ADHD students in the

control groups on three dependent variables. The first dependent variable, classroom








behavior, was measured by the Teacher Report Form (TRF). This instrument asked

teachers to rate the classroom behavior of their students using a 0 (Not True), 1

(Sometimes True), and 2 (Very Often True) rating scale for 118 behaviors. Standardized

T scores are generated, normed for age and sex, with higher scores indicating more

problematic behavior than lower scores. Total scores were used in the mixed model

ANCOVA.

The second dependent variable, locus of control, was measured by the Children's

Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE). Students were

asked to respond to 40 statements by circling yes or no as each response was read by the

counselor. Scores were based on the number of responses that indicated an external locus

of control orientation to the statement; therefore, scores could range from 0 to 40. Higher

scores indicated a more external locus of control than lower scores. The raw number of

external responses was used in the mixed model ANCOVA analysis.

The third dependent variable, students' perceptions of school success behaviors,

was measured by the School Success Inventory Student Form (SSI SF) which asked

students to rate themselves on 12 items related to school success skills in terms of

frequency on a five point Likert-type scale. Scores ranged from 12 (best performance) to

60 (worst performance). Total scores were used in the mixed model ANCOVA.

Descriptive statistics were used to examine the results of a post-intervention

school counselor survey. The focus of the 11 item Likert-type survey was to assess

counselors' perceptions of appropriateness and effectiveness of the intervention as well as

to assess the impact of intervention delivery on the school counselors themselves.








Conclusions

The outcomes of the study were mixed. Results suggested that the small group

counseling activities were not effective in changing classroom behavior or the students'

perceptions of school success behaviors. However, there were changes in locus of control

orientation that were effected by participation in the group activities. The conclusions are

discussed with regard to each of the dependent variables.

Teachers' Ratings of Classroom Behavior

The mixed model ANCOVA showed no significant difference between the

classroom behavior of students in the treatment and control group. Therefore, it was

concluded that the small group counseling intervention did not significantly impact the

classroom behavior of students.

The only variable that significantly effected the TRF scores was the age of student

being rated, not group membership. Teacher ratings of ADHD students in the 8-9 year

old age group were significantly lower as a whole than students who were 10,11, and 12

years old. Teachers perceived younger ADHD students as less problematic than older

students. Their perception was not effected by the group counseling intervention.

Neither sex, being on medication during the study, nor ESE status significantly

impacted the effectiveness of the counseling intervention. Likewise, none of these

variables seemed to effect the way students were rated by teachers on the TRF.

Student Perceived Locus of Control

The mixed model ANCOVA revealed a significant difference between the

perceived locus of control for treatment and control group students. Students in the

treatment group rated themselves as having a more external locus of control than students








in the control group. It was concluded that the small group counseling intervention did

effect perceptions of locus of control for ADHD students by shifting their orientation

towards becoming more external.

Two sub-groups of ADHD students seemed to be most effected by this external

shift. Females and students not on medication during the study were most significantly

effected by inclusion in the counseling intervention.

While both males and females in treatment had a more external locus of control

than students in the control group did, females seemed to be more effected by the

counseling intervention. Females who participated in the small groups rated themselves

as feeling less in control of what happens to them than males, even though females in the

control group felt more in control than their male counterparts. It can be concluded that

the locus of control perception for females was significantly effected by the counseling

intervention and that it became more external with treatment.

A second characteristic that appeared to impact the way locus of control

orientation was effected by the counseling intervention, was whether or not the student

was taking medication for ADHD symptoms during the study. Students who were taking

medication appeared to have their locus of control perceptions unaffected by the

intervention. However, students who were not on medication showed significantly more

external perceptions following treatment even though their control group counterparts had

a more internal locus of control perception than control group students on medication. It

can be concluded that the counseling intervention significantly impacted the locus of

control orientation of students not taking medication for ADHD symptoms during the

study and that it became more external with treatment.









Students' Perceptions of School Success Behaviors

The ANCOVA performed on the students' perceptions of school success

behaviors showed no significant differences between treatment and control groups.

Additionally, scores on the School Success Inventory Student Form were not effected

by age, sex, medication, or ESE status; therefore, it was concluded that these variables

did not seem to effect the way students rated themselves with regard to school success

behaviors.

School Counselor Perceptions

Descriptive statistics were used to examine perceptions of schools counselors

delivering the small group counseling intervention. Based on returned surveys, it can be

concluded that school counselors felt the intervention was appropriate for ADHD

students, that it positively effected student perceptions and knowledge, and that it

improved their own knowledge base and confidence in working with ADHD students and

their teachers.

Discussion

Results of the current study suggest that school counselors consider the

implications of brief group counseling interventions for ADHD students. Results also

suggest a look at variables that may impact the results of treatment and outcome

measures.

The counseling intervention did not appear to significantly impact the classroom

behavior of ADHD students. While school success behaviors were introduced and

practiced in the group, the brevity of the intervention may not have allowed for the

integration of skills that would be evident in teacher ratings of classroom behavior.






74

The only variable that appeared to effect teacher ratings was age. The behavior of

younger students did not seem as problematic to teachers as the behavior of older students

participating in the study. Since TRF results are normed by age and sex of student, this

was not simply an expected developmental increase in problematic behaviors. These

results might suggest that as ADHD students get older, their behaviors become even more

problematic when compared to other students of the same sex and age. This would

support existing literature. This would also support the need for school based

intervention for ADHD students.

There was a significant treatment effect with regard to the locus of control

construct. Locus of control became more external for students receiving treatment. This

may be due to ADHD students increasing awareness of their disorder and how it impacts

their school performance. Students may have begun to understand how ADHD

characteristics can create difficulties for them in the classroom, while not having the

outside or continued support necessary to integrate thoughts and behaviors into the

classroom routine.

Females and students not taking medication were most effected by this external

locus of control shift. It might be noted that only three students in the study fell into both

of these categories, females not taking medication. Non-medicated female control group

students actually felt more in control than males and students on medication. However,

female and medicated treatment groups students felt less in control at the conclusion of

the intervention.

Female students with ADHD frequently exhibit less aggressive characteristics of

the disorder. For this reason, teachers and parents may have felt less urgency to address






75

the disorder with female students. It is not uncommon for teachers and parents to provide

intervention without student collaboration.

Students in treatment and control groups who were taking medication during the

study showed no response to treatment. It may be that if students are on medication that

there is already some level of awareness of the characteristics of ADHD as it impacts

school performance. This awareness would not be the result of the medication itself but

rather the result of another adult taking the time to explain the rationale for treatment. It

is also possible that the results of the medication intervention have previously produced

noticeable behavioral changes in the classroom. Students not taking medication for

ADHD symptoms may be in particular need for understanding how their disorder impacts

their school performance and for follow-up interventions.

There was no treatment or interaction effect found in the ANCOVA analysis of

SSI-SF results even though this was the instrument that was most sensitive to changes in

student perceptions during a previous intervention period. This overall lack of

significance may have been the result of lack of school counselor familiarity with the

instrument. The school success behaviors were directly matched to unit content. While a

workshop and group counseling manual were provided prior to the beginning of the

study, school counselors may not have been familiar enough with the school success

language of the SSI-SF. Additionally, the lack of systematic collaboration with teachers

about ways to follow-up on the group counseling activities may have resulted in

inadequate practice of skills that would support changes in perceptions.

It was interesting to note that none of the dependent measures were effected by

Exceptional Student Education status. While students in ESE programs generally have






76

more complex academic and/or behavioral difficulties, it was somewhat surprising to find

that ADHD students who also had an additional ESE diagnosis showed no significantly

difference response to treatment or to the dependent measures.

Supporting the idea that follow-up, collaboration with teachers, or an extended

intervention may have produced additional results, are the counselor surveys.

School counselors delivering the intervention perceived changes in levels of student

knowledge and awareness of the disorder. They rated the unit as appropriate and

effective for use with ADHD students. While all dependent variable measures may not

have been sensitive to these changes, it was the counselors' perceptions that changes were

taking place that would support ADHD students becoming more effective students.

Limitations

During the six-week intervention, ADHD students explored their diagnosis as it

impacted school performance and identified, learned, and practiced behaviors that are

associated with success in school. The brevity of the intervention may have been a

limitation. While meeting weekly for six-weeks is a common format for group

counseling in elementary schools, it may not be long enough for ADHD students to

practice and integrate new behaviors into their school routine.

An additional limitation involved the independent delivery of the group

counseling intervention. Collaboration with classroom teachers to provide more

structured follow-up in the classroom was not part of the study. Prior research would

suggest that multiple treatment interventions have improved chances of producing results

with ADHD students. Although, when there are several interventions, it becomes more

difficult to assess effective components when they are embedded. This researcher






77

previously delivered the group counseling intervention to ADHD students, however, there

was also collaboration for teacher follow-up, adjusted academic strategies, as well as

smaller class sizes. While there were significant results with regard to students'

perceptions of school success behaviors as well as teacher observed classroom behavior,

it was difficult to assess which intervention may have been responsible for the changes.

Anytime research takes place in school settings there are limitations with regard to

control of outside interventions. As previously mentioned, ADHD students are frequently

involved in multiple interventions. The two intervention strategies that were controlled

for in the current study were whether or not the student was taking medication for ADHD

symptoms and whether or not the student was in an Exceptional Student Education

Program aimed at academic or behavioral support. Other classroom or home based

interventions such as tutors, academic or behavioral modifications taking place in the

classroom, and parent involvement are other possible types of interventions not controlled

for. The current study used random assignment of students to treatment and control

groups as a way to minimize this control of outside intervention limitation.

School principal's volunteered their schools participation in the study. The lack

of random selection of schools presents a limitation in generalization of results as does

using a small number of schools from a single school district. In this study, the

population being studied was schools in a single district and those volunteering

participation were representative of the range of district demographics. However, there

can be no generalization beyond the population outlined in the current study.

Statistical limitations were realized with the assignment of small numbers of

students to each treatment and control group. Due to the nature of the intervention as








well as the nature of the disorder (ADHD), a maximum of four students were

recommended for inclusion in each. Most schools were able to assign four students to the

treatment group while attrition left some schools' groups with three students. While the

adjusted mean score for each small group was reported, the small, unequal numbers

within each group produced estimated error rates and estimated degrees of freedom.

In summary, there were several possible limitations. Limitations included brevity,

the issue of embedded intervention, non-random inclusion of schools in the study, small

and unequal numbers of students in groups, and difficulty in controlling outside

intervention. However, it was felt that most of these limitations were anticipated and that

steps were taken in the design of the research to minimize their effects on the results of

the study.

Implications

The results of this study contribute to the limited information available to school

counselors about the effectiveness of small group counseling as an intervention for

ADHD students. The results also contribute to the growing body of information

concerning ADHD students and locus of control orientation.

The findings suggest that brief group counseling interventions for ADHD students

can effect changes in perceptions. Because of tight scheduling and time restrictions at all

levels of schooling, it is important to identify interventions that can produce effects in

short periods of time. Brief group intervention can help increase awareness of ADHD as

it relates to school behaviors. However, it is also important to recognize that this type of

brief intervention alone may not be enough to produce a sense of control of daily

occurrences or behavioral changes that can be generalized to classroom settings.






79

Counselors are in a position in school settings to offer small group counseling to

ADHD students to increase awareness and knowledge of the disorder as it impacts school

success. This study suggests that this may not be enough. However, school counselors

are in the unique position of being able to collaborate, follow-up, and co-ordinate

treatment interventions that build upon concepts and skills introduced during the group

counseling intervention.

The results of this study also contribute to the already growing body of literature

concerning locus of control and ADHD students. It has been recognized that ADHD

children tend to grow more external in their locus of control orientation with age

(Borden, Brown, Jenkins, & Clingerman, 1987). It has also been suggested that students

with a more internal locus of control tend to do better in school and with peers.

Therefore, it becomes important to continue to explore the locus of control construct for

ADHD students in relation to school success. If increased awareness does in fact begin

an external shift in locus of control perceptions, it is possible that continued and

coordinated intervention for practice and eventual integration of skills may be next.

An additional implication is found in the results of the school counselor survey.

While counselors perceived student growth, it was important to realize that all

participating school counselors agreed that their own knowledge and understanding of

ADHD students was increased through delivery of the intervention. In addition, a large

majority felt reported increased confidence in their abilities to consult with teachers about

the needs of ADHD students. It may be that while professional in-service about ADHD

student need is important, that direct contact with ADHD students through intervention

may better prepare school counselors for collaboration and consultation.








Recommendations

Follow-up and extended intervention, to include collaboration with teachers to

support practice and reinforcement of skills introduced during the intervention, would be

a primary recommendation. This would help counselors gain a clearer picture of the

value of increased awareness and introduction of school success behaviors.

While this study suggests that awareness and introduction of school success

behaviors may produce a more external locus of control, it would be interesting to extend

the study. What would happen to locus of control scores for groups of students who had

participated in small group counseling prior to behavioral intervention strategies being

implemented in the classroom? This could be compared to students involved in the same

behavioral strategies who had not participated in group counseling.

It seems possible that while the shift in brief treatment is towards an external

locus of control, this shift may accompany the understanding needed for ADHD students

to fully embrace the need for alternative strategies to attain school success. The increased

awareness resulting from the counseling intervention may prove to be the catalyst for

accepting modified behavioral and academic intervention. This type of intervention may

be an important adjunct in preparing ADHD students to accept the need for support and

alternative strategies as they strive to become successful students.

An additional recommendation would be to provide a similar intervention to

middle school students with ADHD. The cognitive component of this cognitive-

behavioral strategy may be more easily integrated by older students. The age range of

students in the current study was 8-12 years. Research suggests that cognitive

interventions are most appropriate with students who are at least eight. As this is the







81

bottom of the age range, it is suggested that middle school students might be better able

to embrace awareness concepts and move towards accepting their own role as participants

in achieving school success during the brief intervention.

A final recommendation is to continue to support the need for school counselors

to be advocates for ADHD students. Many school personnel continue to struggle with

acceptance of ADHD as a disorder. School counselors are in a position to provide

awareness activities and behavioral intervention for ADHD students while helping their

teachers' balance the need for structure, alternatives, and acceptance.














APPENDIX A
CONSENT LETTERS FOR PARTICIPATION






Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611


Dear Elementary School Principal;

My name is Linda Webb. I have been a school counselor in Alachua County since
1985 at High Springs Elementary, Wiles Elementary, and most recently the ANCHOR
Center. Currently, I am on leave with the School Board of Alachua County while
finishing my Ph.D. in Counselor Education at the University of Florida.

During my leave I have been working part time with Dr. John Ross and Dr. Ed
Turner and the Multidisciplinary Training Project (MDTP) at UF. The focus of my direct
intervention with students in the project has been the development of school counselor
interventions that provide support to students with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and their teachers.

Attached, you will find a request for your school's voluntary participation in a
study that would allow me to share information and intervention strategies with your
school counselor and at the same time meet UF requirements for completion of my
degree.

The counselor in your school knows this request is coming. Because the attached
request is so brief, I felt the need to alert school counselors as to the nature of their
commitment if your school participates. Additionally, they would be asked to attend a 2
hour workshop that would provide current information about ADHD and its treatment.
We would examine the role of the school counselor with ADHD students and their
teachers. I would then focus on the nature of my own research and provide the specific
information needed to carryout the study.

I will be available to you or your school's counselor throughout the study.
I thank you for taking the time to consider the attached request and look forward to
working with those who choose to participate. If you have any questions, please call me
at 332-2022.

Sincerely,

Linda Webb
School Counselor








Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611


Dear School Counselor;

My name is Linda Webb. I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida
under the supervision of Dr. Robert Myrick. I am conducting a study that involves
examining the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention for ADHD students.
I am inviting you to participate. While there will be no compensation for your voluntary
participation, benefits would include increased knowledge and resources for working with
ADHD students. There are no known risks associated with your participation. You may
withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.

If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete several tasks that
include attending a two hour workshop, coordinating the study in your school,
administering pre and post test instruments, and delivering the small group counseling
intervention. These activities would take place over an 8 week period with the small
group meeting weekly for a period of six weeks.

Results of the study will be reported in the form of group data only. Individual
data, including names of counselors and schools will be coded by number and kept
confidential to the extent provided by law.

If you have questions, please contact me (332-2022) or my supervisor, Dr. Myrick
(392-0731). Questions about research participants' rights may be directed to the UFIRB
office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433.





I have read the information above and voluntarily agree to participate in Linda
Webb's study. I have received a copy of this information.


Counselor's Signature Date








Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611

Dear Parent/Guardian,

My name is Linda Webb. I am a graduate student in the Department of Counselor
Education at the University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Myrick,
conducting research on the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention for
students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The purpose of this
study is to compare the perceptions and behaviors of ADHD students who take part in a
small group counseling intervention, with ADHD students who do not participate in the
intervention. The results of the study may better help school counselors understand the
types of interventions that can help ADHD students become more effective learners in
their classrooms. The counselor at your child's school will lead the small group
counseling intervention.

Half of the ADHD students who participate will be randomly selected to
participate in the small group counseling intervention which will take place once each
week for six weeks. Each session will last about 30-40 minutes and will meet at a time
and place during the school day, as agreed upon by the counselor and teacher. The
sessions will feature activities and discussions that focus on helping students learn more
about ADHD as it is reflected in their school performance, and learning ways to improve
that performance. ADHD students not receiving the counseling intervention will
maintain their regular school routine, helping to determine the effectiveness of the group
counseling.

All ADHD students who participate, even if they are not selected for participation in the
counseling sessions, will be asked to complete two instruments about how they see
themselves, that will require about 20 minutes of their time prior to the beginning of the
intervention and again at the conclusion of the intervention about 8 weeks later. The
school counselor will read the instruments to students at a time he/she has arranged with
your child's teacher. The students will not have to mark any items they do not want to
answer. Additionally, the teacher will be asked to complete a behavior checklist before
and after the counseling intervention for all ADHD students participating. Although the
children will be asked to write their names on the checklists for matching purposes, their
identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. We will replace their
names with code numbers. Results will only be reported in the form of group data and
will be available upon request in July. Participation or non-participation in this study will
not affect the children's grades or placement in any programs.

You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your child's participation at
any time without consequence. If your child is not aware of his/her ADHD diagnosis,
there may be some risk of uncertainty or anxiety about this new knowledge. Your child's








school counselor if prepared to help your child handle these feelings. If you do not want
your child to have age appropriate information about ADHD as it effects his/her
performance at school, he/she should not participate. Knowledge of the disorder, its
effects on school performance, and improved perceptions and behaviors are potential
benefits for children participating in the study. No compensation is offered for
participation. If you have any questions about this research project please contact me at
332-2022, or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Myrick, at 392-0731. Questions or concerns
about research participants' rights may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of
Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433.




Cut on the dotted line and return this portion of the consent to your child's school

counselor by if you would like your child to participate.

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily give my consent for my child,
to participate in Linda Webb's study involving a small
group counseling intervention for ADHD students. I have received a copy of this
description.

Parent/Guardian Date


2nd Parent/Witness


Date









Assent Script for All ADHD Students
(grades 3, 4, & 5)

The following paragraph is to be read to the students by the school counselor prior to
completion of pre-post test instruments. The name of each school's counselor will go in
the blank.


Hello,

My name is I am the counselor at your school. I am
helping a University of Florida student, Linda Webb, gather information about the way
students your age see themselves. I would like to ask you to complete two checklists with
me today and two again at a later time. I will read them to you. Only myself and the
University of Florida student will see your individual answers.

If you choose to take part, you may stop at any time and you will not have to
answer any questions you do not want to.


Would you like to do this?









Assent Script for ADHD Students Randomly Selected for Small Group Counseling
Intervention (grades 3, 4, & 5)


The following paragraph is to be read by the school counselor to each student prior to
beginning the small group counseling intervention. The name of each school's counselor
will go in the blank.



Hello,

My name is I am the counselor at your school.
I am helping a University of Florida student, Linda Webb, try out some ways school
counselors can help children become better students. Once each week for the next six
weeks, I will be meeting with a group of students for discussions and activities that have
to do with being successful at school. You will have the opportunity to take part in these
groups if you would like to.


If you do choose to participate, you may stop at any time. Would you like to
participate?














APPENDIX B
RESEARCH PROCEDURES














Checklist of Procedures
For ADHD Group Counseling Study

Principal Investigator: Linda Webb (332-2022)

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD children. It involves the following:

(Date Completed)
1. Workshop participation by school
counselor.

2. Random selection of students for
participation in study.

3. Parent permission letters sent.

4. Random assignment to treatment and
control groups.

5. Pre-testing of all students in both groups.

6. Group counseling intervention delivered
for treatment group.

7. Post-testing of students in both groups.

8. Materials returned.








Instructions for Randomization

Sample Selection

1. One the following page you will find the list of ADHD students in your school that
has been computer generated. Please add the names, grade, sex, and race of the other
students you have identified with ADHD in grades 3, 4, and 5.
2. Number the students on the list. The numbering has been started and you should
continue by assigning the next student on the list the next number.
3. Turn to the Table of Random Numbers.
4. Without looking, drop you pencil onto the page. This will be the number of the first
student selected for the study.
(1) If the number of students on your list is less than 10, only pay attention to the
last digit of the random number. For example, you have 9 students on your
list and you drop your pencil on to the number 78. This would mean the
student on your list who is number 08 would be selected to participate.
(2) If you are using both digits because your number of students is greater than 10,
lets say it's 22, and you drop your pencil on 78 you would continue to move
down the list until you come to a number between 00 and 22 and select that
student.
3. Once your first student is selected, continue down the list of random numbers until
the desired number of students has been selected (8 plus alternates).
4. Record these names on the top of page 4.
5. Send parent permission letters home with the first 8 students. If you have parents
who do not want their child to participate or you can't get the form back, go to the
first alternate on the list and continue until you have 8 students (4 minimum).
6. Write the names of the students who have parent consent on the bottom of page four.
Now we will need to randomly assign these students to treatment and control groups.

Random Assignment to Treatment and Control Groups

1. Look at your numbered list of names in the middle of page four.
2. Refer again to your Table of Random Numbers.
3. Drop your pencil (you will only need to use the last digit see 4a above).
4. The first student selected will be placed in the treatment group. Write their name on
the bottom of page 4.
5. Continue down the random numbers list, the next student selected will be placed in
the control group. Record their name and continue this process until all 8 students
have been placed in either the treatment or control group.
6. You are ready to go! Remember all students in both the treatment and control
groups are given pre and post measures.




Full Text
27
Yet, highly cognitive strategies have not consistently proven successful for the
ADHD child. While researchers have found some success (Abramowitz & OLeary,
1991; Schweibert et al., 1995) with cognitive strategies with this population, other studies
(Abikoff, 1987; Abikoff & Gittelman, 1985; Brown, Wynne, & Medenis, 1985).
examining the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral strategies have not produced
significant effects at a level that could be detected in parent or teacher ratings. Braswell
and Bloomquist (1991), in their review of cognitive-behavioral studies, found that
successful cognitive-behavioral interventions for this population are more behavioral than
cognitive. These strategies emphasize group training for behavioral skill practice with
peers and maintain a focus on specific skills as well as the problem-solving process.
Students with ADHD often have difficulty even recognizing when they are involved in a
problematic situation. After additional study and research, Braswell (1998) has
concluded that while cognitive behavioral approaches provide viable strategies for
intervening with coexisting problems like aggression or peer difficulties, they will not
alleviate primary symptoms of ADHD.
Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) also note that when a cognitive component is
added to a behavioral treatment approach, the child should be at least third grade level or
8 years old. Children at this age are moving through a concrete operational stage of
cognitive development (Piaget, 1967) and are showing a greater capacity for logical
reasoning. They are making progress towards extending their thoughts from the actual to
the potential (Elkind, 1970) but the starting point must still be what is real and what has
been experienced. These concepts must underlie the use of cognitive components used to
supplement behavioral techniques for treating ADHD children.


114
SESSION FIVE: ROAD HOLES AND DETOURS
Objectives:
(1) To help students identify situations particularly difficult for students with ADHD.
(2) To help students identify ways to improve the situation when something has not
gone well (to take control of themselves).
Materials:
(1) Problem Solving Cards (included)
(2) Blank paper and markers or crayons
Opening Statement:
Say, For the last several weeks we have talked about ADHD and ways to
help ourselves be more successful students. What are some of the things we can do
to help ourselves be more in control of what happens at school? (Responses)
What things have you tried? How have they worked? (Responses)
Today we are going to talk about times when things just dont seem to work
out.
Activities:
(1) Teach some coping strategies for times when students become upset, frustrated, or
out of control. These will include deep breathing and self talk.
Say, What happens when things dont work out the way you want them to?
How do you feel? (Responses)
What about when the teacher wants you to stop being silly or wants you to
pay attention to her directions but you just cant seem to do it? (Responses)
There are some things we can learn to do in these situations that will help us
to be more successful. First of all, you can take a couple of deep breaths.
Lets all take a couple. (Pause for the group to do this together)
When your teacher gives you the cue that something is not OK, a couple of
deep breaths might give you the time to think about what you should be
doing. They might also help you relax so you can think more clearly. What
other times might a deep breath be good to give you time to think? (When
they are angry or frustrated)
Another things you might do is to say something to yourself like, I can do
this, settle down, what am I supposed to do, or try to do this one more time.


26
Behavioral strategies have been found to be highly effective in altering the
behavior of ADHD students, especially when used in conjunction with stimulant
medication (Barkley, 1998). Many of the behavioral strategies stem from the work of B.
F. Skinner, spanning over 60 years. His theory contends that children choose behavior
based on anticipated consequences and that it is the things that happen to children that
influence and change them. Children are bom neutral with the potential for either good
or evil, developing as a product of their environment. Because human behavior is
learned, any or all behavior can be unlearned and new behavior learned to take its place
(Skinner, 1971).
This concept is particularly important in treatment planning for the ADHD child.
While stimulant medication can improve impulsiveness and inattention, it does not
provide the repertoire of new behaviors necessary for the child to function successfully at
school. Small group counseling can provide a relatively safe setting for the ADHD child
to practice new behaviors before acting them out in the classroom. These small groups
are also helpful in reinforcing children as they attempt new behaviors. Thompson and
Rudolph (1996) suggest a format of tell me, show me, let me try.
Present day behaviorists generally combine behavioral approaches with cognitive
ones to attend to the childs thoughts as well as their behaviors (Sharf, 1996). Helping
ADHD children understand their disorder and how it effects their performance would be a
cognitive compliment aimed at improving the childs perception of self as new behaviors
are learned and practiced. Accepting appropriate responsibility for behavior and
recognizing the need to make behavioral changes are also important cognitive concepts.


19
and reduced brain metabolic activity in the frontal lobes of those with the disorder
(Zametkin et al., 1990). There has also been further support for the genetic link with
studies (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992; Pauls, 1991) showing between 10% and
35% of immediate family members of those with ADHD also having the disorder with
the risk to siblings being about 31%. This decade has also seen broadening acceptance of
ADHD as a disorder that persists into adulthood.
The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) further specified that
ADHD characteristics must be pervasive across settings and create significant
impairments in life functioning to be diagnosed as a disorder. Behavioral disinhibition is
now seen as the most distinguishing characteristic from other disorders (Barkley, 1997).
However, whatever causes ADHD and no matter what we call it, those who
display its characteristics still sound very similar to those described by Still in 1902
almost a century ago. Since that time, ADHD has become one of the most well studied
childhood disorders of all time.
We continue to look for ways to support academic success for children with
ADHD in our schools. The nature of the disorder, creating academic, behavioral, and
social problems, requires planning and intervention if success is to be achieved. It
involves including ADHD children in their own treatment.
ADHD Students in Schools
School personnel need to be prepared to work with the needs of ADHD students
as they are at risk with respect to social and academic failure in school settings (Weiss &
Hechtman, 1993). Three to five percent of the school age population has ADHD, with
boys outnumbering girls almost 3 to 1 (Kauffman, 1993; Barkley, 1990). Although the


99
School Success Inventory Student Form
Very Often Some- Seldom
Often times
1. I look at the
teacher when he/
she is talking to us.
2. I hand in my
assignments on time.
3. I listen carefully
for directions in class.
4. I do what my teacher
suggests to help me
during school.
5. I ask questions in class.
6. I stay on-task on work.
7. I sit up straight when
listening to my teachers.
8. I stay in my seat and
do my assignments.
9. I listen for ideas and
feelings of others in
class discussions.
10.1tell my teacher
thoughts and feelings
about school.
11.1tell my ideas in
class discussions.
12.1work as hard as I can
on all assignments.
Very
Seldom
Permission granted by author. Cuthbert, Marjorie (1987). Student Success Inventory-Student Form. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.


117
SESSION SIX: ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE AND BECOMING YOUR OWN
MECHANIC
Objectives:
(1) To help students identify sources of support at school.
(2) To have students experience the feelings of being in control.
(3) To help students understand that increased practice of a skill increases control
over that skill.
(4) To help students understand the use of medication in treating ADHD.
Materials:
(1) Chart paper and marker
(2) Two decks of cards and instructions for tricks (included)
(3) Juice and snack
Opening Statement:
Say, We have been talking about ADHD and things we can do to help our
selves increase control of our success as students. What are some of those things?
(Reinforce responses that involve the strategies learned and any others the student may be
trying.)
Today will be our last meeting. We will look at some more ways to help
ourselves be better students.
Activities:
1. Provide an experience in which the student feels in control by teaching two
students a magic trick that they can perform. Be sure they have several minutes to
practice. Then swap students and teach a new trick to be performed.
Begin by saying, First, we are going learn to do a magic trick. I bet you are
wondering what this has to do with ADD or being a more successful
student! (Teach 2 students a trick to perform then swap and teach a new trick)
How did you like doing the tricks?
How did practicing help? (Connect responses to the concept that practice
increases control over things turning out the way you want them to.)
How did it feel to be the one who knew how the trick was done?
This is how it feels to be in control. Are there times in your classroom when
you feel like this? What is that like?


49
Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale fCNSIE)
The Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale
(Appendix C) is a pencil paper self-report measure developed in 1969 consisting of 40
questions that are answered either yes or no. It was constructed on the basis of Rotters
(1966) definition of the internal-external control of reinforcement dimension as an
attempt to measure locus of control in children. The items describe a variety of
reinforcement situations across interpersonal and motivational areas such as affiliation,
achievement, and dependency (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).
Scores were based on the number of responses that indicated an external locus of
control orientation to the statement; therefore, scores could range from 0-40. Higher
scores indicate a more external locus of control than lower scores.
Upon testing 1,017 students in grades three through 12 twelve, Nowicki and
Strickland (1973) reported test-retest reliabilities that ranged from .66 to .71 after a six-
week period. All socioeconomic groups were included in this sample and all subjects had
intelligence tests scores in the average range.
Estimates of internal consistency using the split half method, corrected by the
Spearman Brown formula, were correlated by grade levels (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)
and range from .63 (for grades 3,4, and 5) to .81 (for grade 12). Since the CNSIE scale is
additive and the test items are not arranged sequentially according to difficulty and are
not comparable, the split-half reliabilities may underestimate the internal-consistency of
the scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).
Construct validity was established (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) comparing the
CNSIE to other locus of control measures. Significant (p < .01) but not high correlations


79
Counselors are in a position in school settings to offer small group counseling to
ADHD students to increase awareness and knowledge of the disorder as it impacts school
success. This study suggests that this may not be enough. However, school counselors
are in the unique position of being able to collaborate, follow-up, and co-ordinate
treatment interventions that build upon concepts and skills introduced during the group
counseling intervention.
The results of this study also contribute to the already growing body of literature
concerning locus of control and ADHD students. It has been recognized that ADHD
children tend to grow more external in their locus of control orientation with age
(Borden, Brown, Jenkins, & Clingerman, 1987). It has also been suggested that students
with a more internal locus of control tend to do better in school and with peers.
Therefore, it becomes important to continue to explore the locus of control construct for
ADHD students in relation to school success. If increased awareness does in fact begin
an external shift in locus of control perceptions, it is possible that continued and
coordinated intervention for practice and eventual integration of skills may be next.
An additional implication is found in the results of the school counselor survey.
While counselors perceived student growth, it was important to realize that all
participating school counselors agreed that their own knowledge and understanding of
ADHD students was increased through delivery of the intervention. In addition, a large
majority felt reported increased confidence in their abilities to consult with teachers about
the needs of ADHD students. It may be that while professional in-service about ADHD
student need is important, that direct contact with ADHD students through intervention
may better prepare school counselors for collaboration and consultation.


APPENDIX E
SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS


118
What was it like not to know how to do the trick? Who was in control
then? What was that like?
Sometimes, students with ADHD do not feel like they are in control of what
happens in the classroom. This may be because other people are trying make
things go well for them. Who else tries to make things go well for you at
school? (Responses to be charted)
What can each do to help you become more successful?
Having others help us is OK. Most students need some help at school. For
ADHD students, allowing others to help us is like getting roadside assistance
if we were having car trouble on our trip. We would welcome the help so we
could be on our way.
2. Serve juice and snack as you finish the unit with a discussion of medication.
Begin by saying, While you are eating, I am going to tell you a little more
about ADHD. Some students with ADHD also get help from medication.
The medication can help by giving you time to think about what to do before
- not after you do it. The medicine does not teach you how to behave. For
example, if you take medication, that doesnt mean you will know how to use
the SLANT strategies for paying attention. However, if you have learned
how to use SLANT, the medication can help you to do it. It can help make it
easier to get school work and even homework done by helping you to focus.
Not all students with ADHD take medication. Your doctor and parents
usually decide if you can be helped with medication. If they have decided it
will help you, you can help yourself by taking it and working on the
strategies we have been learning. Once more, this is like putting on your
glasses to focus more clearly. If they have decided that medication is not for
you, you can still focus on the kinds of strategies we have been learning.
Have students share their experiences and feelings about taking medication.
Answer any questions they might have.
Summary Statement:
We know that all students need to work hard to be successful students. We
also know that each of you in the group has ADHD. That means you have to pay
particular attention to the ways to be a more successful student. During our group
sessions we have learned about being organized, cues that help us remember things,
SLANT that helps us to pay attention, about taking deep breaths and telling
ourselves things that will help us to slow down, about practicing skills, and about


36
12,792 students attending 23 elementary schools. The racial and ethnic make-up of the
elementary school students included 52% white, 40% black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and
1% American Indian/Alaskan native students. The gender breakdown was 49% male and
51% female. Free or reduced lunch was received by 56% of the elementary aged students
in Alachua County during this same period.
The demographic statistics for Alachua County are similar to those statewide with
the exception of the black and Hispanic populations. The state average for black students
in a district was 26% while the state average for Hispanic students in a district was 17 %.
The increased mean in Hispanic students could be due to the high concentration of
Hispanic students in some south Florida districts.
At the time of the study, 342 students were identified as ADHD in grades three,
four, and five in Alachua County. The list of ADHD students was generated from the
School Board of Alachua County (SBAC) data base and confirmed in each of the 19
schools volunteering participation in the study. Students diagnosed as ADHD per parent
report to school staff or who were taking medication at school for ADHD symptoms but
were not in the data base, were added to the identified data base population yielding a
total of 342 students. Omission from the SBAC data base was the result of the parent not
writing ADHD on the enrollment or data cards even though they had alerted school staff.
The demographic make-up of ADHD students in grades 3,4, and 5 in Alachua
County included 68% white, 28% black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% Indian/Alaskan
native students. In addition, 73% were male and 27% were female. Comparing the
demographics of race and sex of the ADHD population to those for the elementary school
population of Alachua County suggests that white students are more likely to be


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION
FOR CHILDREN WITH
ATTENTION-DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
By
Linda DeJong Webb
August 1999
Chairman: Dr. Robert Myrick
Major Department: Counselor Education
A group counseling intervention for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) was evaluated for its effects on classroom behavior (Teacher Report
Form, TRF), on students perceptions of locus of control (Childrens Nowicki-Strickland
Internal External Locus of Control Scale, CNSIE), and on students perceptions of school
success behaviors (School Success Inventory, SSI-SF). The intervention was delivered
by 13 certified school counselors to ADHD students in grades 3, 4, and 5 in 12 public
elementary schools (n = 93).
A randomized prepost control group design was used to assess the effects of the
dependent variables. ADHD students in the treatment group participated in six small
group sessions that focused on increased awareness of the disorder as it relates to school
performance and on student perceptions of control related to school success. Control
group students maintained their regular school routine during the intervention period.
v


4 RESULTS 56
Data Analysis 57
Summary of Results 67
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69
Summary 69
Conclusions 71
Discussion 73
Limitations 76
Implications 78
Recommendations 80
APPENDICES
A CONSENT LETTERS FOR PARTICIPATION 83
B RESEARCH PROCEDURES 90
C RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 96
D GROUP FACILITATORS MANUAL 103
E SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS 122
REFERENCES 124
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 135
IV


125
American School Counselor Association (1994). Position statement: Attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Barkley, R. A. (1989). Hyperactive boys and girls: Stimulant drug effects on
mother-child interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30. 379-390.
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for
diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York:
Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for
diagnosis and treatment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., & McMurray, M. B. (1990). A comprehensive
evaluation of attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 58. 775-789.
Barkey, R. A., Fischer, M., Edelbrock, C. S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The
adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8 year
prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. 29. 546-557.
Bialer, I. (1961). Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded
and normal children. Journal of Personality. 29. 303-320.
Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., & Lapey, K. (1992). Comorbidity of diagnosis in
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. In G. Weiss (Ed), Child and adolescent
psychiatric clinics of North American: Attention-deficit hvperactibitv disorder (pp. 335-
360). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Block, J. H. (1977). Hyperactivity: A cultural perspective. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 10.235-240.
Borden, K. A., Brown, R. T., Jenkins, P., & Clingerman, S. R. (1987).
Achievement attributions and depressive symptoms in attention-deficit disordered and
normal children. Journal of School Psychology. 25.399-404.
Bowley, B. B., & Walther, E. (1992). Attention deficit disorders and the role of
the elementary school counselor. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 27. 39-46.


10
Impulsivity is a deficiency in inhibiting behavior in response to situational
demands (Barkley, 1998).
Inattention refers to a difficulty with attention relative to normal children of the
same age and gender, specifically with reference to alertness, arousal, selectivity,
sustained attention, distractibility, or span of apprehension (Barkley, 1998).
Internal locus of control is the perception that reinforcements are contingent upon
effort, behavior, or personal characteristics such as ability (Rotter, 1990).
Locus of control is the degree to which one believes they are able to influence the
outcome of situation.
School success skills are classroom behaviors (i.e., skills) which help students
perform more effectively in school (Cuthbert, 1987).
Small group counseling in schools is a counselor-led educational experience in
which students can work together to explore their ideas, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors,
especially as related to personal development and progress in school (Myrick, 1997).
Special education services are for students who have been specifically identified
(Public Law 94-142; 1975) for services extending beyond the regular classroom, due to
one or more handicapping condition, as governed by an Individual Educational Plan.
These services have also been referred to as Exceptional Student Education services.
Overview of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the study is organized into four additional chapters. A review of
the related literature is presented in Chapter 2 focusing on the history, research, and
treatment of ADHD, ADHD students in the schools, research related to the dependent
variables, and the use of school counseling interventions. Chapter 3 contains the research


55
Inventory-Student Form. Counselors read all test items to students to help control for
differences in reading abilities. School counselors gave teachers the Teacher Report
during this same pretreatment week and recovered all forms before treatment began.
Counselors planned with teachers to arrange a weekly time for the small group counseling
intervention.
The six treatment sessions took place approximately once per week and took
about 30-40 minutes. At the end of the six-week intervention, the school counselor again
administered the CNSIE and the SSI-SF to students in the treatment and control groups.
The school counselor disseminated the TRF to classroom teachers of students in the
treatment and control groups.
School counselors completed a postintervention questionnaire concerning
counselor demographics and perceptions of the intervention experience (Appendix C).
All data was placed in large envelopes, and collected and analyzed by the investigator.


21
providing parent training, and developing small group counseling interventions geared
towards teaching skills that enhance school performance.
ADHD in the School Counseling Literature
Working with ADHD students in our schools has been a significant long-term
problem that has received sparse attention by school counseling articles published in
recognized professional journals. However, attempts have been made over the last 10
years by those contributing to the school counseling literature to synthesize clinical
reviews of the history, causes, and treatments of ADHD students. Their goals have been
to provide knowledge and implications for the practicing school counselor.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling
As the decade began, Gomez and Cole (1991) presented a review of treatment
alternatives for ADHD students which included discussion of stimulant medication,
antidepressant medication, behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral strategies. Implications
were for school counselors to gain increased knowledge of the appropriate use of
medication as one method of treatment and to provide a research base for the planning of
classroom and counseling strategies.
In 1992 (Bowley & Walther) the role of the elementary school counselor was
discussed implying that the knowledgeable school counselor could play a number of vital
roles for children with ADHD, their families, and their teachers. Robert Erk, Coordinator
of the Children with Attention-Deficit Disorders Professional Interest Network, wrote
about the evolution of attention-deficit terminology while others (Schweibert, Sealander,
Tollerud, 1995) provided a current overview of ADHD for school counselors.
Schweibert et al. (1995) also wrote about treatments that included medication, behavioral,


77
previously delivered the group counseling intervention to ADHD students, however, there
was also collaboration for teacher follow-up, adjusted academic strategies, as well as
smaller class sizes. While there were significant results with regard to students
perceptions of school success behaviors as well as teacher observed classroom behavior,
it was difficult to assess which intervention may have been responsible for the changes.
Anytime research takes place in school settings there are limitations with regard to
control of outside interventions. As previously mentioned, ADHD students are frequently
involved in multiple interventions. The two intervention strategies that were controlled
for in the current study were whether or not the student was taking medication for ADHD
symptoms and whether or not the student was in an Exceptional Student Education
Program aimed at academic or behavioral support. Other classroom or home based
interventions such as tutors, academic or behavioral modifications taking place in the
classroom, and parent involvement are other possible types of interventions not controlled
for. The current study used random assignment of students to treatment and control
groups as a way to minimize this control of outside intervention limitation.
School principals volunteered their schools participation in the study. The lack
of random selection of schools presents a limitation in generalization of results as does
using a small number of schools from a single school district. In this study, the
population being studied was schools in a single district and those volunteering
participation were representative of the range of district demographics. However, there
can be no generalization beyond the population outlined in the current study.
Statistical limitations were realized with the assignment of small numbers of
students to each treatment and control group. Due to the nature of the intervention as


75
the disorder with female students. It is not uncommon for teachers and parents to provide
intervention without student collaboration.
Students in treatment and control groups who were taking medication during the
study showed no response to treatment. It may be that if students are on medication that
there is already some level of awareness of the characteristics of ADHD as it impacts
school performance. This awareness would not be the result of the medication itself but
rather the result of another adult taking the time to explain the rationale for treatment. It
is also possible that the results of the medication intervention have previously produced
noticeable behavioral changes in the classroom. Students not taking medication for
ADHD symptoms may be in particular need for understanding how their disorder impacts
their school performance and for follow-up interventions.
There was no treatment or interaction effect found in the ANCOVA analysis of
SSI-SF results even though this was the instrument that was most sensitive to changes in
student perceptions during a previous intervention period. This overall lack of
significance may have been the result of lack of school counselor familiarity with the
instrument. The school success behaviors were directly matched to unit content. While a
workshop and group counseling manual were provided prior to the beginning of the
study, school counselors may not have been familiar enough with the school success
language of the SSI-SF. Additionally, the lack of systematic collaboration with teachers
about ways to follow-up on the group counseling activities may have resulted in
inadequate practice of skills that would support changes in perceptions.
It was interesting to note that none of the dependent measures were effected by
Exceptional Student Education status. While students in ESE programs generally have


59
Main effects of treatment. No significant difference was found when comparing
TRF adjusted posttest means of treatment and control group students (Table 4-1);
therefore, Ho, was not rejected.
Ho,: There will be no significant difference between the classroom behavior of
students in the treatment and control groups, as measured by the Teacher
Report Form.
It appears that classroom behavior of ADHD students was not impacted by the treatment
intervention as measured by the TRF. However, teachers rated students in both treatment
and control groups as having slightly improved behavior.
Additionally, age was found to have an effect on TRF scores (F (1,62) = 4.99, p =
.03). The adjusted posttest mean for 8-9-year-old students (M = 59.58), was lower than
that of 10, 11, and 12-year-old students (M = 62.36) participating in the study. Results
did not yield any treatment by age interaction. Age of student effected TRF scores
regardless of group assignment (Table 4-1).
Student Perceived Locus of Control
The effects of treatment on student perceived locus of control was investigated by
analyzing the results of the Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of
Control Scale (CNSIE). The range of possible scores was 0-40, with points assigned for
each response made corresponding to the external choice. The higher the score, the more
external the locus of control orientation.
Two-way interactions. Treatment effect by sex, age, medication, and ESE status
was also examined with the ANCOVA model using adjusted posttest means to test the
null hypothesis (Table 4-2). Each interaction was introduced into the ANCOVA model
one at a time. This hypothesis was previously rejected based on a TRF by age interaction.


Table 3-4
Demographic Characteristics of Sample bv Age. Medication, and ESE Status
40
Demographics
Age Group
On Medication*
ESE Program**
Groupings
8-9 yrs.
10-12 yrs.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total Sample, n = 93
44%
66%
86%
14%
51%
49%
Treatment, n = 47
48%
52%
87%
13%
54%
46%
Control, n = 46
40%
60%
85%
15%
47%
53%
*On Medication-refers to whether or not the participating ADHD student was on
medication for ADHD symptoms during the study.
**In ESE Program-refers to ADHD students who are in an Exceptional Student
Education program other than speech, language, or gifted.
Research Design
The research design used in this study was a prepost control group design as seen
in Table 3-5. Following random assignment of students to treatment and control groups,
students completed the Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale (CNSIE) and the School Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF) both found in
Appendix C. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form (TRF) for students in
treatment and control groups. Following the small group counseling intervention for the
treatment group, all measures were administered again. The combination of random
assignment of subjects to groups and the presence of a pretest and control group served to
control for most sources of internal validity (Gay, 1996).
School counselors delivered the small group counseling intervention. An attempt
to make the treatment uniform and consistent was made through a workshop presented by
the researcher that included review of the Group Facilitators Manual (Appendix D).


71
Conclusions
The outcomes of the study were mixed. Results suggested that the small group
counseling activities were not effective in changing classroom behavior or the students
perceptions of school success behaviors. However, there were changes in locus of control
orientation that were effected by participation in the group activities. The conclusions are
discussed with regard to each of the dependent variables.
Teachers Ratines of Classroom Behavior
The mixed model ANCOVA showed no significant difference between the
classroom behavior of students in the treatment and control group. Therefore, it was
concluded that the small group counseling intervention did not significantly impact the
classroom behavior of students.
The only variable that significantly effected the TRF scores was the age of student
being rated, not group membership. Teacher ratings of ADHD students in the 8-9 year
old age group were significantly lower as a whole than students who were 10,11, and 12
years old. Teachers perceived younger ADHD students as less problematic than older
students. Their perception was not effected by the group counseling intervention.
Neither sex, being on medication during the study, nor ESE status significantly
impacted the effectiveness of the counseling intervention. Likewise, none of these
variables seemed to effect the way students were rated by teachers on the TRF.
Student Perceived Locus of Control
The mixed model ANCOVA revealed a significant difference between the
perceived locus of control for treatment and control group students. Students in the
treatment group rated themselves as having a more external locus of control than students


Table 4-2
Statistical Results Mixed Effects Model ANCOVA- CNSIE
62
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Pr >F
Sch1
194.76
12
16.23
1.06
.4597
Trt1
138.64
1
138.64
10.42
.0021*
Sch*Trt
184.08
12
15.34
1.24
.2787
Trt* Sex
106.97
1
106.97
8.64
.0047*
Trt* Age
13.41
1
13.41
1.08
.3022
Trt* Meds
130.17
1
130.17
10.51
.0019*
Trt*ESE
.21
1
.21
.02
.8957
Error
742.80
60
12.38
'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 15.31 (df 12.23).
For Trt, MS (Err) = 13.31 (df= 56.53).
* Significance at the 2 < -05 level
Table 4-3
Adjusted Post-Test Means of CNSIE Scores for Significant Variables
Source Adjusted Post-Test Means
Control Group 15.29
Treatment Group 19.87
Control Group Males 16.58
Treatment Group Males 18.10
Control Group Females 13.99
Treatment Group Females 21.63
Control Group Students on Meds 17.63
Treatment Group Students on Meds 17.92
Control Group Students Not on Meds 12.95
Treatment Group Students Not on Meds 21.81


2
emotional problems with anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety (McKinney,
Montague, & Hocutt, 1993; Reeve, 1990), which can lead to oppositional defiant and
conduct disorders (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992).
Elementary school counselors, as behavior and relationship experts in their
schools (Myrick, 1997), are in a position to provide support and intervention for ADHD
students, their teachers and families. A position statement on ADHD, published by the
American School Counselor Association (ASCA) in 1994, strongly encourages the
involvement of school counselors in the multidimensional treatment of ADHD students.
This statement is supported by professionals in the field (Erk, 1995; Lavin, 1997;
Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995;) who see school counselor involvement with
ADHD children as an essential component in enhancing their school performance.
Myrick (1997) sees the role of the school counselor as helping all students to become
more effective and efficient learners. This would include ADHD students, suggesting
school counselors be aware of counselor interventions for ADHD students that could
contribute to the goal of effective learning.
One type of counselor intervention in schools involves small group counseling.
Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) suggest group counseling as opposed to individual
counseling for most ADHD children. Group sessions more closely approximate real life
peer relationship situations and have the potential to enhance skill acquisition and
generalization. For ADHD children, interventions applied consistently within the school
setting at the point of performance are the most effective in improving social and
academic performance. Providing counseling activities that will elicit the behaviors and


A GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION
FOR CHILDREN WITH
ATTENTION-DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
By
LINDA DEJONG WEBB
I
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999

1780
199i
• k}3c?íp
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08555 1645

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend sincere thanks to Dr. Robert Myrick for serving as
chairman of my committee. His professional suggestions and personal encouragement
were invaluable to me and are greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. David
Miller for serving on my committee. His patient attention while providing support during
the statistical analysis of data and throughout the process was assuring. Thanks are also
extended to Dr. Harry Daniels and Dr. Edward Turner for serving on the committee.
Special thanks are in order for the Alachua County, Florida, elementary school
counselors who delivered the counseling intervention and patiently carried out the
research procedures. The completion of this study depended on them, and they did not let
me down.
I would also like to thank Dan and Michelle at Office Automation in Gainesville
for the willingness to make all my copying a priority with little notice. Thanks also to Liz
at the Institutional Review Board for her personal attention. Specials thanks to Stephanie
Wehery for her help with the statistical analysis.
Additional thanks are extended (a) to my husband, John, for his love and support
throughout the entire doctoral process; (b) to my daughters, Pam and Christa, for
understanding my need to become obsessive and “snappy” at crunch times; (c) to my
sister, Reneé, for her help with data entry; (d) to my late mother for her strong directive
that I not ever become a “fluffy” school counselor; (e) to my father for his continued
support of everything I do; and (f) to my mother-in law for her support and help with the
girls during the last two years.
n

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Theoretical Perspective 3
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Definition of Terms 9
Overview of the Remainder of the Study 10
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12
Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 12
The History of ADHD 15
ADHD Students in Schools 19
ADHD in the School Counseling Literature 21
Small Group Counseling Interventions 25
Dependent Variables 28
Summary 33
3 METHODOLOGY 35
Population 35
Sampling Procedure 37
Resultant Sample 38
Research Design 40
School Counselor Training 41
Treatment Description 43
Assessment Techniques 46
Hypotheses 52
Data Analysis 52
Research Procedures 54
iii

4 RESULTS 56
Data Analysis 57
Summary of Results 67
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 69
Summary 69
Conclusions 71
Discussion 73
Limitations 76
Implications 78
Recommendations 80
APPENDICES
A CONSENT LETTERS FOR PARTICIPATION 83
B RESEARCH PROCEDURES 90
C RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 96
D GROUP FACILITATOR’S MANUAL 103
E SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS 122
REFERENCES 124
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 135
IV

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION
FOR CHILDREN WITH
ATTENTION-DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
By
Linda DeJong Webb
August 1999
Chairman: Dr. Robert Myrick
Major Department: Counselor Education
A group counseling intervention for children with attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD) was evaluated for its effects on classroom behavior (Teacher Report
Form, TRF), on students’ perceptions of locus of control (Children’s Nowicki-Strickland
Internal External Locus of Control Scale, CNSIE), and on students’ perceptions of school
success behaviors (School Success Inventory, SSI-SF). The intervention was delivered
by 13 certified school counselors to ADHD students in grades 3, 4, and 5 in 12 public
elementary schools (n = 93).
A randomized prepost control group design was used to assess the effects of the
dependent variables. ADHD students in the treatment group participated in six small
group sessions that focused on increased awareness of the disorder as it relates to school
performance and on student perceptions of control related to school success. Control
group students maintained their regular school routine during the intervention period.
v

A mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on locus of control scores
yielded significant treatment effects (2 = .0021). Significant treatment interactions were
found between sex (j> = .0047) and whether a student was taking medication during the
intervention period (p = .0019). In each of the above CNSIE analysis, the shift was
towards a more external locus of control for students participating in the counseling
intervention. No significant treatment or interaction effects were found during the
ANCOVA analysis of TRF or SSI-SF scores.
Results suggested that a brief group counseling intervention for ADHD students
has the potential to increase awareness of ADHD characteristics as they affect school
performance. However, this increased awareness can leave students feeling less in
control of daily occurrences. The brevity and independence of the intervention were
considered when discussing these results.
It was suggested that follow-up and teacher collaboration be used in conjunction
with the counseling intervention for ADHD students. This type of intervention may be an
important adjunct in preparing ADHD students to accept the need for support and
alternative strategies as they strive to become successful students.
vi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly
diagnosed and studied disorders among children (Barkley, 1998; Shaywitz & Shaywitz,
1992). An estimated 3% to 5% of the school age population has ADHD, defined as
persistent patterns of developmentally inappropriate inattention, impulsivity, and/or
hyperactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) with boys outnumbering girls
(Kauffman, 1993; Barkley, 1990). Recent research (Barkley, 1998) is leaning towards
impulsivity as a hallmark of the disorder.
Although the onset of ADHD for most children is prior to age 4, it is most often
diagnosed when a child is in elementary school (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1993).
This is the time when children are introduced to the demands of the educational system.
Problems with impulsivity, inattention, or hyperactivity, often resulting in
underachievement, put these students at risk for a variety of problems related to school
performance. Zentall (1995) suggests that ADHD children likely exhibit their greatest
problems in the classroom. As many as 56% of ADHD students may require academic
tutoring, up to 30% may repeat a grade, and 30-40% may be placed in special education
programs. As many as 46% of ADHD students may be suspended from school with up to
35% dropping out completely and not finishing high school (Barkley, DuPaul, &
McMurry, 1990; Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990; Brown & Borden, 1986;
Weiss & Hechtman, 1993). In addition, without assistance students may develop

2
emotional problems with anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety (McKinney,
Montague, & Hocutt, 1993; Reeve, 1990), which can lead to oppositional defiant and
conduct disorders (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992).
Elementary school counselors, as behavior and relationship experts in their
schools (Myrick, 1997), are in a position to provide support and intervention for ADHD
students, their teachers and families. A position statement on ADHD, published by the
American School Counselor Association (ASCA) in 1994, strongly encourages the
involvement of school counselors in the multidimensional treatment of ADHD students.
This statement is supported by professionals in the field (Erk, 1995; Lavin, 1997;
Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995;) who see school counselor involvement with
ADHD children as an essential component in enhancing their school performance.
Myrick (1997) sees the role of the school counselor as helping all students to become
more effective and efficient learners. This would include ADHD students, suggesting
school counselors be aware of counselor interventions for ADHD students that could
contribute to the goal of effective learning.
One type of counselor intervention in schools involves small group counseling.
Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) suggest group counseling as opposed to individual
counseling for most ADHD children. Group sessions more closely approximate real life
peer relationship situations and have the potential to enhance skill acquisition and
generalization. For ADHD children, interventions applied consistently within the school
setting at the point of performance are the most effective in improving social and
academic performance. Providing counseling activities that will elicit the behaviors and

3
feelings that create difficulties with peers and school performance, allows the school
counselor to apply intervention at the point of performance.
This study examines the effects of a small group counseling intervention designed
to help ADHD students increase knowledge and control of their disorder, leading to
improved perceptions of self as a student, a more internal locus of control, and improved
classroom behavior. Cognitive behavioral strategies will be used.
Theoretical Perspective
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is the most recent diagnostic label for
children displaying significant problems with attention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity.
During this decade a shift has been underway to view the cause of ADHD as more
influenced by neurological and genetic factors than by social or environmental ones, and
as treatable but not curable (Barkley, 1998; Teeter & Semrud-Clikeman, 1995).
Problems typically presented by school children with ADHD include completing
academic work, acting-out behavior problems, low self-esteem, and inappropriate
interactions with peers, parents and teachers (Reeve, 1990; Zentall, 1993). These children
can not sustain concentration and are easily distracted. Additional difficulties noted by
DuPaul and Stoner (1994) include struggles with consistent school performance; low test
performance; disorganized desks, backpacks, and reports; and disruptions caused as
ADHD students call out or impulsively express anger and frustration.
The most common treatment for ADHD is medication (Epstein, Singh, Luebke, &
Stout, 1991). Sixty to ninety percent of children diagnosed with the disorder receive
stimulant medication for prolonged periods during their school careers (Whalen &
Henker, 1991). Short-term enhancements in behavioral functioning have been found in

4
about 75% of those being treated with stimulant medication (DuPaul & Rapport, 1993;
Kavale, 1982; Whalen & Henker, 1991). Even though stimulant medication has no effect
on academic performance, per se, productivity may improve as a result of controlling the
interfering behaviors (Montague & Warger, 1997). In addition, researchers (Weiss &
Hechtman, 1986) have found the long-term prognosis for ADHD children treated with
stimulant medication alone to be the same as those receiving no treatment. Therefore,
maximizing the effects of psychosocial and educational treatments may be the greatest
benefit. Stimulants do not teach appropriate behavior but do increase the probability of a
child displaying appropriate behaviors that are already in their repertoire (Barkley, 1998).
It helps children to show what they know but does not alter the child’s knowledge of what
needs to be done (Werry, 1978). According to Barkley (1998) the difficulty for ADHD
students is not knowing what to do, but doing what they know. This then makes ADHD
more a disorder of performance than a disorder of skill and not a learning disability.
From this perspective it is clear that additional intervention strategies are needed
to help ADHD students understand their disorder, and learn and practice new behaviors
that can become part of the repertoire of skills that enhances their learning. However, for
ADHD students, there is a difference between possessing a skill and using it effectively
(Stein, Szumowski, Blondis, & Roizen, 1995). Cognitive behavioral therapy provides
one approach to support student need for understanding how ADHD effects school
performance and a vehicle for learning and practicing skills needed to be successful in the
classroom. Providing the opportunity to learn school success skills would be a
prerequisite to demonstrating those skills in the classroom even when other interventions
are in place. An ADHD student can not exhibit a behavior that has not been learned.

5
A cognitive behavioral approach to intervention emphasizes behavioral change
and self-regulation along with the examination and possible modification of thoughts,
beliefs, and/or expectations. It is a theoretical approach that supports recent treatment
interventions for children with ADHD (Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995). This
theory assumes that while the primary symptoms of the disorder are difficult to
ameliorate, it may be possible to help children develop competencies that lower the risk
for the emergence of serious secondary difficulties related to low self-esteem, poor peer
relations, or conduct problems (Braswell, 1993). According to Myrick (1997), this
approach also lends itself to brief counseling that is so often used in the schools.
What continues to be evaluated is whether cognitive behavioral methods can
promote a shift from caregivers (teachers and parents) taking total control of the learning
conditions for the ADHD student to the students themselves taking responsibility and
making changes that enhance learning. One way to evaluate who the student perceives is
in control of making things happen is to consider the locus of control construct.
The theoretical construct of locus of control has been used to describe whether
students believe that reinforcements such as grades or achievements, are due to their own
actions (i.e., internal locus of control) or due to factors beyond their control (i.e., external
locus of control (Bryan & Pearl, 1979). An internal locus of control indicates that
outcomes are perceived to be the result of one’s own ability or effort, whereas an external
locus of control indicates that outcomes are perceived to be the result of luck, the
consequences of actions by others, or other factors beyond the individuals control (Rotter,
1990).

6
There is general agreement in the literature that successful students tend to have
more of an internal locus of control (Lewis & Lawerence-Patterson, 1989). Additionally,
Adalbjarnardottir (1995) has demonstrated that children with an internal locus of control
are better problem solvers than those with an external tendancy. Some researchers (Linn
& Hodge, 1982) also suggest that children with attention problems tend to have a more
external locus of control than do normal children. It is not surprising then, that ADHD
students tend to develop a more external locus of control.
How has the widespread use of stimulant medication and the emphasis on
modifications by teachers and parents effected the locus of control frame of reference of
ADHD children? Students who take stimulant medication and are the targets of
numerous interventions may not see themselves as responsible for the outcomes of their
behavior. From this perspective, what happens during the school day is the result of the
effectiveness of their medication and teachers’ efforts, not their own choices. This would
reflect an external locus of control.- On the other hand, Barkley (1998) suggests that
ADHD is not an excuse or a reason to dismiss the consequences of one’s actions but
rather an explanation as to why it is necessary for those with the disorder to increase
awareness of life’s behavioral contingencies. Helping ADHD students understand how
their disorder effects school performance may be one way to enhance a more internal shift
in locus of control perceptions. As this shift takes place, ADHD students can begin to see
themselves as having the capacity to control their environment (Goldstein & Goldstein,
1998).
This study involves the development of a school counseling intervention. It is
based on cognitive behavioral theory, and aimed to help students better understand

7
ADHD, their own behaviors, and ways to increase control of tasks related to school
performance.
Statement of the Problem
In 1991, the U.S. Department of Education initially recognized that ADHD may
qualify a student for special assistance in general education under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112). It also supported the consideration of
*
ADHD as a disabling condition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
also known as IDEA (Public Law 101-476), thereby facilitating eligibility for special
education services (Davila, William, & MacDonald, 1991) under the label of Other
Health Impaired. This has increased the number of ADHD students who are eligible for
special education services.
Special education teachers with training in the use of behavioral techniques and
small class sizes typically implement behavioral interventions with ADHD students.
However, between 85% and 90% percent of ADHD students will still be served in
general education classrooms for all or part of the school day (Montague & Warger,
1997). This means that ADHD students are probably in most schools and regular
education classrooms everyday.
The regular education teacher without specific training in the use of behavioral
interventions, with 30 or more students in a class, may view some strategies as
impractical and too time consuming. Teachers need support in their efforts to work with
ADHD students.
School counselors are in a position to provide support and are increasingly being
asked to intervene directly with ADHD students (Jordan, 1992). According to the ASCA

8
coordinator of Children with Attention Deficit Disorders Professional Interest Network,
Robert Erk (1995b), these functions are within the realm of typical guidance and
counseling programs and are part of the multidisciplinary treatment necessary to optimize
the learning outcomes of the ADHD student. Designing and providing direct counseling
services and programs for ADHD students are among the activities he encourages for
school counselors.
The question that remains is whether providing direct service through a small
group counseling intervention can improve ADHD student behavior in the classroom.
The school counseling literature has yielded few outcome studies to support such a claim
since 1988 (Sexton, 1996) so we remain unsure. The school counseling literature has
presented implications of clinical and school based investigations for school counselors
working with ADHD students (Bowley & Walther, 1992; Bramlet, Nelson, & Reeves,
1997; Burnley, 1993, Erk, 1995a, 1995b, 1998; Kottman, Robert, & Baker 1995; Lavin,
1991, 1997; Lucker, & Molloy, 1995; Schweibert, Sealander, & Bradshaw, 1998;
Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995). However, there has been no evidence of any
outcome study indicating the effectiveness of any school counselor intervention for
ADHD students in the last decade. There is a need to formally evaluate interventions
provided by the school counselor for ADHD students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD children. More specifically, ADHD students in
grades 3, 4, and 5 in public elementary schools participated in a set of group counseling
activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and their sense of personal control

9
grades 3, 4, and 5 in public elementary schools participated in a set of group counseling
activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and their sense of personal control
and responsibility for classroom behaviors related to school performance. An
experimental research design, featuring pre- and postmeasures was used to study the
outcomes and test hypotheses.
Research Questions
1. Will the ADHD students’ classroom behavior change following the
completion of the small group counseling intervention?
2. Will the ADHD students’ perception of locus of control change following
the completion of the counseling intervention?
3. Will ADHD students perceive their skills for school success differently?
4. Do students respond differently to treatment based on their sex, age, ESE
status, or being on or off medication for ADHD symptoms?
Definition of Terms
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) incorporates all of the subtypes
of attention deficit disorders as listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (4th ed., [DSM-IV.] American Psychiatric Association, 1994). These include
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type; attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type; and attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, combined type.
External locus of control refers to the perception that reinforcement is under the
control of others or subject to forces beyond one’s control (Rotter, 1990).

10
Impulsivitv is a deficiency in inhibiting behavior in response to situational
demands (Barkley, 1998).
Inattention refers to a difficulty with attention relative to normal children of the
same age and gender, specifically with reference to alertness, arousal, selectivity,
sustained attention, distractibility, or span of apprehension (Barkley, 1998).
Internal locus of control is the perception that reinforcements are contingent upon
effort, behavior, or personal characteristics such as ability (Rotter, 1990).
Locus of control is the degree to which one believes they are able to influence the
outcome of situation.
School success skills are classroom behaviors (i.e., skills) which help students
perform more effectively in school (Cuthbert, 1987).
Small group counseling in schools is a counselor-led educational experience in
which students can work together to explore their ideas, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors,
especially as related to personal development and progress in school (Myrick, 1997).
Special education services are for students who have been specifically identified
(Public Law 94-142; 1975) for services extending beyond the regular classroom, due to
one or more handicapping condition, as governed by an Individual Educational Plan.
These services have also been referred to as Exceptional Student Education services.
Overview of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the study is organized into four additional chapters. A review of
the related literature is presented in Chapter 2 focusing on the history, research, and
treatment of ADHD, ADHD students in the schools, research related to the dependent
variables, and the use of school counseling interventions. Chapter 3 contains the research

11
methodology, where procedures of the study are described. The results will be presented
in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will include a summary, conclusions, discussion, limitations,
implications, and recommendations.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been observed in children
from all racial, cultural, and socioeconomic groups with slightly elevated rates of the
disorder among children with a low socio-economic status (SES). Barkley (1990)
speculates this observed difference among the low SES population could be the result of
different rates of prenatal and perinatal difficulties, family instability, and/or a downward
social shift of ADHD individuals. Nonetheless, ADHD is diagnosed, using a common
criterion, in children from all walks of life.
Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is a prevalent and chronic disorder among
school-aged children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV
(1994) describes the diagnostic criteria as seen in Table 2-1. This criterion includes
symptoms in the areas of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity with at least some of
the symptoms causing impairment before age seven. At the time of diagnosis, the
impairment must be significant in social, academic, or occupational functioning and be
present in two or more settings.
The current terminology for the disorder is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
However, if both the criteria for attention (Al) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2) are met
(see Table 2-1), a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type is
made. If the criterion for attention (Al) is met but criterion for
12

13
Table 2-1
Diagnostic Criteria for ADHD (DSM-IV. 19941
A. Either (1) or (2):
(1) six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted
for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent
with the developmental level:
Inattention
1. often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless
mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
2. often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
3. often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
4. often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish
schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to
oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions)
5. often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
6. often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that
require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or
homework)
7. often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys,
school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
8. is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
9. is often forgetful in daily activities
(2) six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity
have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and
inconsistent with developmental level:
Hyperactivity
(a) often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
(b) often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which
remaining seated is expected
(c) often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is
inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to
subjective feelings of restlessness)
(d) often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities
quietly
(e) is often “on the go” or often acts as if “driven by a motor”
(f) often talks excessively
Impulsivity
(g) often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
(h) often has difficulty awaiting turn
(i) often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into
conversations or games)

14
Table 2-1—continued
B. Some hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused
impairment were present before age 7 years.
C. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings
(e.g., at school [or work] and at home).
D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social,
academic, or occupational functioning.
E. The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of a Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder and
are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., Mood
Disorder, nxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality
Disorder) (pp. 83-85).
hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2) has not been met for the past six months, a diagnosis of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type is made. Finally,
if the criterion for attention (Al) has not been met for the past six months but is met for
hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2), a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,
predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type can be made (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994).
ADHD is increasingly being diagnosed among children in the schools. Students
who are unable to follow rules, who are often out of their seats, unable to complete class
work, and are frequently referred for discipline do not learn well and are a concern to
their teachers and parents. The presence of ADHD does not mean that students can not
learn. Rather, it is frequently related to inappropriate responses to a structured
environment that does not tolerate impulsive behavior. If ADHD students were less
troublesome and were able to increase the frequency of school success skills, they would
probably not be viewed as such a problem in school.

15
The History of ADHD
The recognition of ADHD as a disorder may stem back to the early 1900s. Still
(1902) in his published letters to the Royal College of Physicians described a disorder in
which children exhibited deficits of cognitive relation to the environment, moral
consciousness, and inhibitory volition. He noted that children who were punished for
behaviors were exhibiting the same behaviors within a matter of hours. A greater
proportion of Still’s cases were males and in most cases the disorder appeared in early
childhood. Many of the cases involved children with a chaotic family life although others
involved children from households that provided adequate upbringing. Still hypothesized
that the disorder had a neurological basis stemming from early, mild, undetected damage
to the brain.
Tredgold (1908) and later Pasamanick, Rogers, and Lilienfeld (1956) would use
this theory to explain developmental behavior and learning deficiencies (Barkley, 1998)
with the term minimal brain dysfunction (MBD) eventually emerging in the 1950s.
However, there were other (Childers, in 1935) who raised questions about a diagnosis
involving brain damage when no history of any such damage existed. Even so, this
theory remained a well-accepted one for many years. Strauss and Lehtinen (1947)
addressed the education of these “brain damaged” children in a classic text. It included
placing students in smaller, more regulated classrooms while reducing distracting stimuli.
In this same era (1937-1941) there was significant research and dialog about the
use of medication therapy for behaviorally disordered children as the effects of its use
were revealed (Barkley, 1998). Laufer, Denhoff, and Solomons (1957), who found
positive drug responses in half or more hospitalized hyperactive children, would later

16
support use of medication. By the 1970s, stimulant medication was a common treatment
for children with characteristics of ADHD.
The 1960s and 1970s
By this time the perspective prevailed that hyperactivity was a brain-dysfunction
syndrome focusing on brain functions as opposed to brain damage (Ross & Ross, 1976).
Excessive activity level was considered its primary characteristic and treatments included
stimulant medication, psychotherapy, and minimum-stimulation classrooms.
More than 2,000 published studies on the disorder existed by the end of the 1970s
(Weiss & Hechtman, 1979). During this time, the characteristics of the disorder were
expanded to include impulsivity, short attention span, low frustration tolerance,
distractibility, and aggressiveness (Safer & Allen, 1976).
The use of stimulant medication with school-aged hyperactive children was
rapidly increasing (Barkley, 1990). Drug therapy studies also increased. Early studies,
led by Keith Connors, paved the way for more rigorous scientific methodology to be used
as over 120 studies involving this treatment approach were published by 1976 and more
than twice that by 1995 (Swanson, McBurnett, Christian, & Wigal, 1995).
Even with extensive research to support the proven efficacy of the use of
stimulant medication as a treatment strategy, public and professional concern began to
arise about its increasingly widespread use with children. This led to claims that
hyperactivity was a “myth” arising from intolerant teachers and parents and an inadequate
educational system (Conrad, 1975). There was a backlash against “drugging” school
children for behavior problems, and a growing belief that hyperactivity was the result of
environmental factors such as reactions to dyes or preservatives in foods (Feingold,

17
1975). This view gained so much support that a National Advisory Committee on
Hyperkinesis and Food Additives was convened in 1980. The evidence clearly refuted
these claims (Conners, 1980). Nevertheless, it remained popular for almost 10 years only
to be replaced by an equally unsupported hypothesis that sugar was more to blame than
food additives (Wolraich, Wilson, & White, 1995).
Other developments during the 1970s included the notion that an increasing
societal tempo and more rapid cultural change caused increased environmental
stimulation that would interact with a predisposition of some children for hyperactivity
(Block, 1977). Poor child rearing and lack of behavior management skills of parents was
also used to explain behaviors related to hyperactive children (Willis & Lovass, 1977).
As a result, parent training was increasingly recommended.
The passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 mandated special education services
for children with handicapping and behavioral disabilities in addition to those already
available for children with mental retardation (Henker & Whalen, 1980). At that time,
hyperactivity was not considered a disorder that met the criteria for special education
services. However, the law’s reinterpretation in 1991 by the Department of Education,
allows ADHD children to receive special education services under the “Other Health
Impaired” category, if the disorder includes a chronic or acute impairment that
significantly effects educational performance (Davila, Williams, & MacDonald, 1991).
During this decade there was also an abundance of research on behavioral
strategies for treatment (Allyon, Layman, & Kandel, 1975). The efficacy of these
strategies was evident but they did not produce the same degree of improvement as
stimulant medication. However, the opinion of the time was that stimulant medication

18
should not be used alone but should be accompanied by behavioral interventions and
parent training (Barkley, 1998).
The Conners Rating Scale, developed in 1969, was used widely to identify
children with ADHD. This was also the time period that an adult sequel to ADHD was
considered (Morrison & Minkoff, 1975) although it was not until the 1990s that this view
began to receive widespread acceptance.
The 1980s
This was an era in which diagnostic criteria were carefully examined. The
DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) was published and radically re¬
conceptualized hyperkinetic reaction to childhood, now called attention-deficit disorder
(with or without hyperactivity) which placed a greater emphasis on impulsivity and
inattention as central features of the disorder. Later in the decade the DSM-III (APA,
1987) was revised resulting in the renaming of the disorder to attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder.
Research during this period began to focus on the social effects of ADHD on
children, their parents (Barkley, 1989), teachers (Whalen, Henker, & Dotemoto, 1980),
siblings (Mash & Johnston, 1982), and peers (Henker & Whalen, 1980). Cognitive-
behavioral therapies (Kendall & Braswell, 1985) and social skills training programs for
ADHD children were also introduced. In addition, medication treatments for ADHD
were expanded beyond the use of stimulants during the 1980s.
The 1990s
Barkley (1998) refers to the decade of the 1990s as the decade of neuro-imaging,
genetics, and adult ADHD. Neuopsychological research has shown developmental delays

19
and reduced brain metabolic activity in the frontal lobes of those with the disorder
(Zametkin et ah, 1990). There has also been further support for the genetic link with
studies (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992; Pauls, 1991) showing between 10% and
35% of immediate family members of those with ADHD also having the disorder with
the risk to siblings being about 31%. This decade has also seen broadening acceptance of
ADHD as a disorder that persists into adulthood.
The DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) further specified that
ADHD characteristics must be pervasive across settings and create significant
impairments in life functioning to be diagnosed as a disorder. Behavioral disinhibition is
now seen as the most distinguishing characteristic from other disorders (Barkley, 1997).
However, whatever causes ADHD and no matter what we call it, those who
display its characteristics still sound very similar to those described by Still in 1902
almost a century ago. Since that time, ADHD has become one of the most well studied
childhood disorders of all time.
We continue to look for ways to support academic success for children with
ADHD in our schools. The nature of the disorder, creating academic, behavioral, and
social problems, requires planning and intervention if success is to be achieved. It
involves including ADHD children in their own treatment.
ADHD Students in Schools
School personnel need to be prepared to work with the needs of ADHD students
as they are at risk with respect to social and academic failure in school settings (Weiss &
Hechtman, 1993). Three to five percent of the school age population has ADHD, with
boys outnumbering girls almost 3 to 1 (Kauffman, 1993; Barkley, 1990). Although the

20
onset of ADHD for most children is prior to age 4, it is most often diagnosed when a
child is in elementary school (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1993) when problems
related to school performance surface. ADHD students are at significant risk when they
are unable to meet the demands of the classroom. Secondary behavioral and adjustment
problems develop in part as a response to frequent and repeated failures (Goldstein &
Goldstein, 1998). Teachers and parents become concerned with the resulting
underachievement and social difficulties. In addition, without assistance, students may
develop emotional problems with anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety (McKinney,
Montague, & Hocutt, 1993; Reeve, 1990), which can lead to oppositional defiant and
conduct disorders (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992) which can become even more
problematic in schools.
Teachers, administrators, and school counselors can not expect medication, parent
training, or family therapy to ameliorate the academic and behavioral difficulties of the
ADHD student (Abramowitz & O’Leary, 1991). Therefore, effective strategies are
needed for managing behavior and enhancing the academic success of students with
ADHD. These strategies are more involved than for normal students. The disorder
increases the complexity of the teaching process because the attentional problems result
in gaps in learning and behaviors that interfere with school performance.
Multimodal treatment for ADHD includes classroom modifications and
interventions; parent training; pharmacotherapy when appropriate; and other strategies
such as counseling, social skills training, problem solving, or anger management training
as needed (Abramowitz & O’Leary, 1991). This would put school counselors in a key
role helping teachers design and implement classroom modifications and interventions,

21
providing parent training, and developing small group counseling interventions geared
towards teaching skills that enhance school performance.
ADHD in the School Counseling Literature
Working with ADHD students in our schools has been a significant long-term
problem that has received sparse attention by school counseling articles published in
recognized professional journals. However, attempts have been made over the last 10
years by those contributing to the school counseling literature to synthesize clinical
reviews of the history, causes, and treatments of ADHD students. Their goals have been
to provide knowledge and implications for the practicing school counselor.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling
As the decade began, Gomez and Cole (1991) presented a review of treatment
alternatives for ADHD students which included discussion of stimulant medication,
antidepressant medication, behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral strategies. Implications
were for school counselors to gain increased knowledge of the appropriate use of
medication as one method of treatment and to provide a research base for the planning of
classroom and counseling strategies.
In 1992 (Bowley & Walther) the role of the elementary school counselor was
discussed implying that the knowledgeable school counselor could play a number of vital
roles for children with ADHD, their families, and their teachers. Robert Erk, Coordinator
of the Children with Attention-Deficit Disorders Professional Interest Network, wrote
about the evolution of attention-deficit terminology while others (Schweibert, Sealander,
Tollerud, 1995) provided a current overview of ADHD for school counselors.
Schweibert et al. (1995) also wrote about treatments that included medication, behavioral,

22
and cognitive-behavioral interventions. During this same period, Lucker and Malloy
(1995) made an extensive list of resources for working with ADHD children, their
teachers, and their families available.
The most recent article appearing in this journal (Bramlett, Nelson, & Reeves,
1997) involved the implications for school counselors of stimulant drug treatment for
elementary school counselors. This was an outcome based study attempting to determine
the percentage of elementary children in the United States who are receiving stimulant
medication at school and offer suggestions to school counselors as to ways to support
these students. This study of 246,707 school children across 46 states (53% return)
concluded that 2.7% of school children were receiving stimulant medication with boys
outnumbering girls four to one. Of all children receiving stimulant medication, 93%
received Ritalin. The article suggested that school counselors may be able to assist in
monitoring the effectiveness of medication as it is often difficult for parents and teachers
to offer objective evaluations.
The School Counselor
In the 1990s The School Counselor also gave attention to the need for counselor
intervention of ADHD students. Burnley (1993) presented a team approach to identifying
and treating children with ADHD using a four-step plan. He developed a plan for
identifying ADHD students in schools, a system to use for delivering instructional
strategies to teachers and information to parents, and a system for follow-up with both
teachers and parents.
Parental perspectives of the support being provided their ADHD children in the
schools was examined by Kottman, Tobert, & Baker (1995). While the sample of parents

23
returning the survey in this study was low (22% return rate) and those returning (94%
white with an average family income of $57,000) not being representative of the ADHD
population, the results were interesting. The parents in this study reported that their least
useful resource for their ADHD child was school system personnel. Even with the
external validity problems, this can not be ignored as it represents the population who did
return the surveys, and they do not see school personnel as helpful.
Erk (1995b) again looked unique opportunities for the school counselor after a
review of the causes and diagnosis of ADHD. His implications supported the
multidisciplinary approach to treating students with ADHD, while suggesting social skills
training, behavioral techniques, and cognitive behavioral strategies among others.
Paul Lavin (1997), provided indicators of the efficacy of using a daily classroom
checklist for communicating with parents of children with ADHD. This was based on
behavioral interventions as a proven treatment modality (Barkley, 1990; Gomez & Cole,
1991; Lavin, 1991).
Professional School Counseling
As a new journal, Professional School Counseling now serves the needs of all
levels of school counselors (neither Elementary School Guidance and Counseling or The
School Counselor will continued to be published). Immediate attention was given to
counseling children and adolescents with disabilities in the October, 1998 special issue.
This issue included articles that generally discussed the needs of all students with
disabilities. Of particular significance to the ADHD literature was the article by
Schweibert, Sealander, and Bradshaw (1998) involving the preparation of ADHD
students for the workplace. They recognized that some symptoms persist into adulthood,

24
along with the related problems that emerge during adolescence, and discussed
implications for vocational and post secondary entry.
Robert Erk continues to address the topic of ADHD in the most recent issue of the
Professional School Counselor (Erk, 1999). This time he examines the legal implications
for school counselors as related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. These federal acts provide an outline of the rights belonging to children with
ADHD. Erk (1999) outlines interventions and services that can be provided by school
counselors to help meet the needs of ADHD as well as satisfying the requirements of the
law.
The Journal of Counseling and Development
The Journal of Counseling and Development published an article (Jackson &
Farrugia, 1997) addressing the diagnosis and treatment of adults with ADHD. This was
significant as it was the only article published this decade specifically addressing the
disorder. It discussed making the adult diagnosis, other associated disorders, and
counseling strategies to be considered.
Overview of the School Counseling Literature
The review of the related school counseling literature over the past 10 years
indicates that counseling professionals recognize the need to address the concerns of
ADHD students. School counselors are becoming knowledgeable about their role in the
identification and treatment of the disorder as well as the legal implications of federal
statues. This review also suggests that the implications of clinical research have been
reported fairly consistently in the school counseling literature over the past ten years.

25
These implications include supporting the use of stimulant medication when appropriate,
coordinating multidisciplinary interventions, consulting with parents and teachers with
regard to modifications and behavioral intervention, being advocates for ADHD students,
and providing direct counseling intervention. However, at this time, there has been a lack
of published research in the school counseling literature to support the efficacy of direct
school counselor intervention for ADHD students.
Other counseling related literature such as The Journal of Counseling Psychology
and School Psychology have also published articles recognizing the need for
identification and intervention of ADHD. The focus of these articles tends to be on
accurate identification of ADHD symptoms, measuring related problems and creating
profiles that can be used to guide treatment planning.
Small Group Counseling Interventions
Small groups are frequently used to address the special needs and problems of
children (Corey & Corey, 1997). It is a valid counselor intervention in the schools that
can meet the needs of many students (Bowman, 1987; Brown, 1994). It can be a more
efficient and effective method for working with ADHD students as more than one student
can be seen at one time, students can support each others efforts, learn from each other,
and practice behaviors in a less intense setting than meeting with the school counselor
one on one (Myrick, 1997). Others concur (Schweibert et ah, 1995), suggesting that
opportunities to work with ADHD students in groups may assist students to work more
appropriately with peers while using the counselor’s time more effectively. However,
Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) caution that with one leader, the groups should be
limited to four students as behaviors associated with ADHD require attention.

26
Behavioral strategies have been found to be highly effective in altering the
behavior of ADHD students, especially when used in conjunction with stimulant
medication (Barkley, 1998). Many of the behavioral strategies stem from the work of B.
F. Skimier, spanning over 60 years. His theory contends that children choose behavior
based on anticipated consequences and that it is the things that happen to children that
influence and change them. Children are born neutral with the potential for either good
or evil, developing as a product of their environment. Because human behavior is
learned, any or all behavior can be unlearned and new behavior learned to take its place
(Skinner, 1971).
This concept is particularly important in treatment planning for the ADHD child.
While stimulant medication can improve impulsiveness and inattention, it does not
provide the repertoire of new behaviors necessary for the child to function successfully at
school. Small group counseling can provide a relatively safe setting for the ADHD child
to practice new behaviors before acting them out in the classroom. These small groups
are also helpful in reinforcing children as they attempt new behaviors. Thompson and
Rudolph (1996) suggest a format of tell me, show me, let me try.
Present day behaviorists generally combine behavioral approaches with cognitive
ones to attend to the child’s thoughts as well as their behaviors (Sharf, 1996). Helping
ADHD children understand their disorder and how it effects their performance would be a
cognitive compliment aimed at improving the child’s perception of self as new behaviors
are learned and practiced. Accepting appropriate responsibility for behavior and
recognizing the need to make behavioral changes are also important cognitive concepts.

27
Yet, highly cognitive strategies have not consistently proven successful for the
ADHD child. While researchers have found some success (Abramowitz & O’Leary,
1991; Schweibert et ah, 1995) with cognitive strategies with this population, other studies
(Abikoff, 1987; Abikoff & Gittelman, 1985; Brown, Wynne, & Medenis, 1985).
examining the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral strategies have not produced
significant effects at a level that could be detected in parent or teacher ratings. Braswell
and Bloomquist (1991), in their review of cognitive-behavioral studies, found that
successful cognitive-behavioral interventions for this population are more behavioral than
cognitive. These strategies emphasize group training for behavioral skill practice with
peers and maintain a focus on specific skills as well as the problem-solving process.
Students with ADHD often have difficulty even recognizing when they are involved in a
problematic situation. After additional study and research, Braswell (1998) has
concluded that while cognitive behavioral approaches provide viable strategies for
intervening with coexisting problems like aggression or peer difficulties, they will not
alleviate primary symptoms of ADHD.
Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) also note that when a cognitive component is
added to a behavioral treatment approach, the child should be at least third grade level or
8 years old. Children at this age are moving through a concrete operational stage of
cognitive development (Piaget, 1967) and are showing a greater capacity for logical
reasoning. They are making progress towards extending their thoughts from the actual to
the potential (Elkind, 1970) but the starting point must still be what is real and what has
been experienced. These concepts must underlie the use of cognitive components used to
supplement behavioral techniques for treating ADHD children.

28
Dependent Variables
Three dependent variables have been chosen for this study. They include
classroom behavior, locus of control, and school success skills. It is hypothesized that the
effects of a small group counseling intervention for ADHD students can be detected using
measures of these constructs. The intervention focuses on increased knowledge and
awareness of the disorder, coupled with the introduction and practice of specific
behavioral skills aimed at improving a student’s perception of self and shifting the
student towards a more internal locus of control. While these outcomes are perceptions
of students, classroom behavior followed eventually by improved academic success, are
the real targets.
Due to the short duration of this study (6 weeks), academic gains that would
follow behavioral improvements would not necessarily be expected and, therefore, will
not be assessed. It should be noted that Myrick and Dixon (1985) found that teachers
rated their students more positively after intervention. However, there will be no
expectations for teachers during this study other than completing the pre and posttest
measures. Teacher’s will have this task for both treatment and control group students and
will not be involved in the actual intervention for any students.
School Success Skills
Cartledge and Milburn (1978), after reviewing the literature on behavioral skills in
the classroom setting, found certain skills linked to academic success and to school
success. From these, Cuthbert (1987) identified six specific task oriented skills and
developed a six-week school counseling intervention designed to improve student self¬
perception as related to school success. Among the school success skills targeted were

29
paying attention in school, listening to teachers and peers, volunteering appropriately in
school, using self-control, interacting with teachers and peers, and utilizing self-
assessment.
Classroom attending refers to orienting towards the teacher or to stimuli defined
by the teacher, under conditions specified by the teacher (Cartledge & Milburn, 1978).
Another definition involves attending as doing what is appropriate in an academic
situation such as looking at the teacher when they present material or writing responses to
questions. This definition was used by Cobb (1972) in a study of classroom behavior and
academic achievement in fourth graders. Results found attending to be the most powerful
of eight behavioral categories examined as related to achievement.
Listening is also an important skill linked to school success. McGinnis and
Goldstein (1984) pointed out the importance of teaching students how to show that they
are listening in the classroom. This included, looking at the person who is talking, sitting
quietly, thinking about what is being said, acknowledging ideas, and asking questions.
Others (Myrick & Bowman, 1991; Foster, 1983) have also recognized the link between
listening and school success.
Volunteering (e.g., participating in classroom discussions appropriately) has been
positively correlated with academic achievement (Hops & Cobb, 1973). Wittmer and
Myrick (1989) spoke about this relationship as they believed asking questions and
contributing answers was a reflection of listening and active processing of material just
presented.
Interacting with teachers and peers has also been reported to have positive
relationship with successful learning. Cartledge and Milburn (1978), in their review of

30
selected studies, found a growing recognition of the reciprocal nature of interactions
between teachers and students. Research has shown that changes in student behavior can
bring about changes in teacher behavior. Klein (1971) also found support for this idea in
her study finding positive student behavior influencing teachers to use positive behaviors.
Teachers and counselors have long been concerned with finding ways to help
reduce aggressive behavior by teaching self-control and self-assessment skills. Kaufman
and O’Leary found that self-evaluation was effective in maintaining a lower level of
disruptive behavior in students who were deficient in reading and showed high rates of
disruptive behavior. Cox and Gunn (1980) have noted that the social skills of students
within the school setting has direct impact on their academic performance. They further
point out that the lack of appropriate social skills may be the result of not knowing what
to do, not having the skills (physical or cognitive) to execute the known behavior, or not
being able to deal with the emotional response (such as anger or anxiety) which inhibits
the skill performance.
Using these skills as a guide, it is not hard to understand why ADHD children
have so much difficulty in school. These are the very skills that ADHD students have
difficulty accessing, even if they are in their repertoire of known behaviors. These are
classroom skills that must continue to be the target of planning and intervention for
ADHD children.
Locus of Control
The literature on locus of control repeatedly identifies contrasting characteristics
of internal and external locus of control. According to Rotter (1966), this distinction
depends on whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his or her

31
behavior and what happens to them. He saw this as a particularly important influence as
the growing child learns appropriate social and personal behavior.
Evidence of the importance of locus of control in achievement was reported by
Coleman et al. (1966) in a study, Equality of Educational Opportunity, which included
information on over 645,000 students. It was concluded that students who assumed they
could affect their environment were higher achievers than those who felt that luck, fate,
or other uncontrollable factors were responsible for what happened to them. These
researchers reported that students’ locus of control orientations appeared to have a
stronger relationship to achievement than all school factors combined.
Nowicki and Duke (1983) went on to review several studies confirming that an
internal locus of control is related to greater achievement in academic settings. Theory
suggests that students with an internal locus of control are differentially sensitive to task
structure when compared to those with an external locus of control.
Sandler, Reese, Spencer, and Harpin (1983), in their review of person-by¬
environment interaction research, suggest that students with an internal locus of control
adapt better in low than high controlling environments. They concluded that this was due
to their activity preferences, self-control skills, reactance against loss of freedom, and
effective use of situational clues. Students with an external locus of control, on the other
hand, adapt better in high controlling situations as a result of their activity preference,
need for explicit cues, low reactance to loss of personal freedom, and poor internal self¬
regulation skills.
It has also been suggested (Searcy & Hawkins-Searcy, 1979) that those with an
internal locus of control are better adjusted. Adalbjarnardottir (1995) has demonstrated

32
that children with a more internal locus of control are better problem solvers than children
with an external orientation.
According to Linn and Hodge (1982), ADHD students tend to have a more
external locus of control with poor internal self-regulation skills and the need for explicit
cues. Tarnowski and Nay (1989) administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control
Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) to a group of boys and found that those with no
diagnosed difficulties were measured to have the least external locus of control while
those boys with attention-deficit who were also learning disabled demonstrated the most
external locus of control.
Goldstein and Goldstein (1998) find it no surprise that given the nature of the
lives of ADHD children, they are at risk for developing an external locus of control.
Modifications are made by parents and teachers, medications is frequently given, and
children begin to see themselves as “recipients” of an intervention out of their control
One aim of the small group counseling intervention designed for this study was to shift a
presumably external locus of control in the direction of a more internal one. This was to
be done through increasing student knowledge and awareness of the disorder, helping
students to understand how the disorders effects their school performance, as well as
teaching skills the student could use to effect school outcomes.
Classroom Behavior
Teachers are usually involved in the assessment of children’s behavior regarding
school-based interventions. Their reports are a prime source of baseline data with which
to compare outcomes (Achenbach, 1991). Other variables, including self-reports can be
used to augment outcomes as we develop better ways of helping children.

33
The Teacher Report Form (TRF) is a rating scale designed to capture descriptive
distinctions in classroom behavior without specialized training. Like other rating scales,
the intention is not to produce a diagnosis but to describe behavior in an organized,
statistical fashion. The TRF attempts to provide a profile of behavior as it is actually seen
by the classroom teacher. Profiles are provided in eight subscales and include: (1)
withdrawn; (2) somatic complaints; (3) anxious/depressed; (4) social problems; (5)
thought problems; (6) attention problems; (7) delinquent behavior; and (8) aggressive
behavior. Unlike the Connors Revised Teacher Rating Scale (Goyette, Conners, &
Ulrich, 1978) that was designed primarily for assessing hyperactivity, the TRF can obtain
a more differentiated picture of classroom behavior and the degree of deviance in each
area. This is important in assessing classroom behavior as the pupil may not really be
deviant in the area of the referral complaint, because terms like “hyperactivity” tend to
serve as euphemisms for a wide range of nuisance behaviors (Achenbach, 1991).
Since the TRF is not confined to any theoretical view or topic in its use, it can be
used as an outcome measure for a wide range of constructs. In this study, the TRF will be
used to detect changes in classroom behavior of ADHD students after an intervention
focusing on the constructs of locus of control and school success skills. This seems to be
an appropriate use.
Summary
A review of the related literature has (a) provided a historical context for
considering diagnosis and treatment of ADHD; (b) shown that characteristics of ADHD
interfere with school outcomes; (c) shown that frequent prevalence of the disorder in
schools necessitates school-based intervention; (d) demonstrated the effective use of

34
behavioral and cognitive methods; (e) supported the use of small group counseling as a
vehicle for intervention delivery; and (f) demonstrated that self-report and teachers
ratings of perceptions and behavior can be used to assess treatment.
There is abundant clinical ADHD literature and general agreement as to the nature
of the disorder. The literature is fairly consistent with its implications for intervention
with ADHD students. Many roles, including co-ordinator, consultant, and direct service
provider, have been identified for the school counselor all within the guidance and
counseling framework.
However, how effective are school counselors in these roles with regard to the
ADHD population? Can brief direct counseling services make a difference in classroom
behavior? What student variables effect the outcome of treatment? A void remains when
it comes to examining the efficacy of school counselor involvement with the school-aged
ADHD population. Such research becomes the focus of this study.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention on the classroom behavior, locus of control, and school success
skills of third, fourth and fifth grade ADHD students in the Alachua County, Florida
Public Schools. The intervention focused on helping students decrease their problem
behaviors in school through increasing their sense of personal control and responsibility
for school success skills. Further, this intervention involved helping students identify,
learn, and practice using skills and external resources to supplement the internal resources
that are often ineffective in allowing ADHD children to control and sustain behavior.
Pre- and postmeasures of locus of control and school success skills were
completed by treatment and control group students. The teacher of each participating
student completed a pre- and postmeasure of classroom behavior.
Population
The population of interest was third, fourth, and fifth grade students previously
diagnosed as ADHD in the 23 public elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida.
This included ADHD students who ranged in ages from 8-12 from five north central
Florida communities.
In 1997, the population of Alachua County was 208,145 including 44,000
University of Florida students. In the academic year 1996-1997, the Florida Department
of Education (1997) reported the Alachua County Public Schools having approximately
35

36
12,792 students attending 23 elementary schools. The racial and ethnic make-up of the
elementary school students included 52% white, 40% black, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and
1% American Indian/Alaskan native students. The gender breakdown was 49% male and
51% female. Free or reduced lunch was received by 56% of the elementary aged students
in Alachua County during this same period.
The demographic statistics for Alachua County are similar to those statewide with
the exception of the black and Hispanic populations. The state average for black students
in a district was 26% while the state average for Hispanic students in a district was 17 %.
The increased mean in Hispanic students could be due to the high concentration of
Hispanic students in some south Florida districts.
At the time of the study, 342 students were identified as ADHD in grades three,
four, and five in Alachua County. The list of ADHD students was generated from the
School Board of Alachua County (SBAC) data base and confirmed in each of the 19
schools volunteering participation in the study. Students diagnosed as ADHD per parent
report to school staff or who were taking medication at school for ADHD symptoms but
were not in the data base, were added to the identified data base population yielding a
total of 342 students. Omission from the SBAC data base was the result of the parent not
writing ADHD on the enrollment or data cards even though they had alerted school staff.
The demographic make-up of ADHD students in grades 3, 4, and 5 in Alachua
County included 68% white, 28% black, 2% Hispanic, 1% Asian, and 1% Indian/Alaskan
native students. In addition, 73% were male and 27% were female. Comparing the
demographics of race and sex of the ADHD population to those for the elementary school
population of Alachua County suggests that white students are more likely to be

37
identified ADHD than black or Hispanic students. It also suggests that males are more
likely than females to be diagnosed with the disorder at a rate of three to one, a finding
consistent with the ADHD literature.
Sampling Procedure
Upon approval of the University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board,
permission to conduct the study was sought from the Alachua County, Florida Public
Schools’ Department of Research and Evaluation. Next, the principals and counselors of
the 23 public elementary schools were informed of the nature of the study and invited to
volunteer their schools for participation. Each principal received a copy of the
Application for Research in Alachua County Public Schools form explaining the purpose
of the research, giving a brief summary of the research design, describing the population,
and delineating the amount of time involved to complete the study. An accompanying
letter (Appendix A) was sent to principals. Principals and counselors of schools decided
to volunteer the participation of their school. One of the non-participating schools was
not eligible for the study serving only students in grades K-2. A second non-participating
school did not have a school counselor at the time of the intervention.
Within each school choosing to participate, the names of all students in grades
three, four, and five who had been diagnosed and identified by school personnel as
ADHD were placed on a list. School counselors followed instructions for random
selection of students (Appendix B) and assigned numbers beginning with 00. Eight
names were chosen and recorded on a student information sheet using a table of random
numbers. Alternates were also selected using this method. In schools with eight or fewer
ADHD students identified, all ADHD students were selected. A letter (Appendix A) was

38
sent to the parents of the selected students about the research, the nature of the counseling
intervention, and asking permission to include their child in the study. From the list of
ADHD students whose parents gave permission, students were randomly assigned, again
using a table of random numbers, to either a treatment or a control group for the duration
of the study.
Resultant Sample
Of the 19 Alachua County, Florida school counselors agreeing to participate in the
study, 13 were able to complete the intervention and posttests within the time frame
necessary to be included in the study. The resultant sample was composed of 93 students
from 12 elementary schools. Demographics of the participating schools can be found in
tables 3-1 and 3-2. It should be noted that a large school with two certified counselors
ran two groups, resulting in 13 small groups.
Table 3-1
Total Enrollment and Lunch Status by Participating School
School#
Enrollment
% Free/Reduced Lunch
1
575
52%
3
521
75%
4
404
80%
5
574
54%
7
569
45%
10
657
79%
11
554
62%
12
661
26%
13
446
83%
16
255
72%
17
958
38%
18
471
87%

Table 3-2
Students by Race for Participating Schools
39
School#
% of Students by Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Indian
1
69%
27%
3%
1%*
1%*
3
52%
45%
2%
0%
1%
4
48%
48%
3%
1%
0%
5
52%
44%
3%
1%
1%*
7
80%
17%
2%
1%*
1%*
10
30%
67%
2%
1%
0%
11
72%
24%
2%
1%*
1%*
12
70%
20%
7%
3%
1%*
13
22%
71%
2%
5%
0%
16
79%
19%
1%
1%*
1%*
17
68%
25%
4%
3%
1%*
18
15%
74%
4%
7%
1%*
* Notes less than 1%
Ninety-six students were selected and agreed to participate in the study. Three
moved during the study resulting in 93 student participants. Of those students, 47 were
assigned to treatment and 46 to control groups. The size of each group varied from three
(42% of the groups) to four (58% of the groups) students. The demographic make-up of
the total sample as well as treatment and control groups can be found in Table 3-3 and
Table 3.4.
Table 3-3
Demographic Characteristics of Sample by Sex and Race
Groupings
Demographics
Male
Female
W
B
H
Total Sample n = 93
74%
26%
82%
18%
1%*
Treatment n = 47
70%
30%
87%
13%
0%
Control n = 46
83%
17%
72%
23%
4%
*Notes less than 1%

Table 3-4
Demographic Characteristics of Sample by Age, Medication, and ESE Status
40
Demographics
Age Group
On Medication*
ESE Program**
Groupings
8-9 yrs.
10-12 yrs.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total Sample, n = 93
44%
66%
86%
14%
51%
49%
Treatment, n = 47
48%
52%
87%
13%
54%
46%
Control, n = 46
40%
60%
85%
15%
47%
53%
*On Medication—refers to whether or not the participating ADHD student was on
medication for ADHD symptoms during the study.
**In ESE Program—refers to ADHD students who are in an Exceptional Student
Education program other than speech, language, or gifted.
Research Design
The research design used in this study was a prepost control group design as seen
in Table 3-5. Following random assignment of students to treatment and control groups,
students completed the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale (CNSIE) and the School Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF) both found in
Appendix C. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form (TRF) for students in
treatment and control groups. Following the small group counseling intervention for the
treatment group, all measures were administered again. The combination of random
assignment of subjects to groups and the presence of a pretest and control group served to
control for most sources of internal validity (Gay, 1996).
School counselors delivered the small group counseling intervention. An attempt
to make the treatment uniform and consistent was made through a workshop presented by
the researcher that included review of the Group Facilitator’s Manual (Appendix D).

Table 3-5
Prepost Control Group Design
41
Conditions
Pre
Post
Treatment
R
o,
02
03
X 0,
0,
03
Control
R
o,
o2
03
0,
o2
03
R = Random assignment of subjects to groups
X = Group counseling for ADHD students
O, = Teacher Report Form (TRF)
02 = Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale (CNSIE)
03 = School Success Inventory—Student Form (SSI-SF)
School Counselor Training
The participating Alachua County, Florida Public School counselors were trained
by the researcher. All participating counselors were certified school counselors earning at
least a masters degree with 54% earning at least a specialists degree. Years of experience
ranged from 1-27 years with an average of 12 years as a school counselor. State
certification status, highest degree earned and years of experience are seen in
Table 3-6 for each participating counselor by school.
Each counselor took part in a workshop led by the researcher. A package of
materials was presented at the workshop that contained a brief description of the project,
research procedures, and timelines to be followed. The package also contained copies of
the dependent measures and instructions on how to present them. As the materials were
reviewed, information regarding experimental conditions was discussed in an attempt to
control for differences in delivery of the intervention or data gathering across schools.
The researcher was available to consult with any counselor who was unsure of the
research procedures. A workshop outline follows.

Table 3-6
Levels of Experience and Education of Participating Counselors by School
42
Counselor Demographics
Certified School Counselor
Highest Degree
Experience
School Number
Yes
No
B M
Sp.
Doc.
Years
1
X
X
14
3
X
X
7
4
X
X
5
5
X
X
20
7
X
X
2
10
X
X
15
11
X
X
27
12
X
X
12
13
X
X
13
16
X
X
12
17(01-04)*
X
X
10
17 (05-08)*
X
X
1
18
X
X
16
ote: Two groups were run by in school 17, eac
i by a different counselor.
Counselor Workshop Outline
I. Nature of the Study
II. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
A. History
B. Characteristics
C. Extent of the problem in schools
D. Interventions (including medication)
E. Meeting ADHD student needs in Developmental Guidance
Programs
III. Research Procedures
A. Overview of Design
B. Randomization
C. Informed consent
D. Collecting pre- and posttest data
IV. Delivery of the Counseling Intervention
V. Return of Materials
VI. Questions

43
The researcher supervised the random selection of ADHD students and several
alternates for each school. This was done at the workshop, where the lists of ADHD
students at each school were available.
Upon completion of review and questions about research procedures, the
workshop focus shifted to ADHD and included the treatment intervention and its
delivery. Tasks included talking about problems facing ADHD children, reviewing
teacher concerns, and studying the Group Facilitator’s Manual. The participants
examined session content and discussed the activities in terms of objectives and
procedures. Counselors were encouraged to follow the counseling manual so the
treatment would be relatively consistent across counselors and schools.
Brief notices were sent to all counselors at two-week intervals with reminders
about important procedures and clarification reflecting any questions that had been raised
by any of the counselors. This was also an attempt to increase the uniformity of the
intervention delivery. The researcher remained available by phone throughout the
duration of the study.
Treatment Description
A small group format was used to deliver the counseling intervention to third,
fourth, and fifth grade ADHD students. The six counseling sessions took place in
approximately once a week sessions for a period of six weeks during the spring semester.
Each session lasted approximately 30-40 minutes. Counselors followed the agreed upon
guidelines described in the manual and implemented group counseling activities
accordingly.

44
The intervention followed the theme of a journey. During the small group
counseling intervention, ADHD students were encouraged to continue to set their sights
on “school success” as a destination while recognizing the need to consider “alternate
paths, detours, or the need for roadside assistance” as strategies to keep them on their
way. These metaphors were linked to specific skills that were taught and practiced during
the intervention.
Initially, each school counselor helped group members get acquainted, clarified
their reasons for being in the group, and began building a climate of trust and acceptance
through involvement in introductory activities. Thereafter, each session featured
activities and discussions that focused on helping students learn more about their disorder
as reflected in school performance. ADHD students were given an opportunity to explore
their own diagnosis and express feelings associated with that knowledge. A brief
discussion of the use of medication for ADHD symptoms was included.
Students participated in tasks and activities allowing them to identify behaviors
that support school success. The group format provided a setting in which students were
able to practice new behaviors while among their peers. Among the behaviors targeted
for this intervention were: paying attention, listening, organizing materials, recognizing,
creating, and using external cues in the classroom, handling frustration and anger, and
using available supports in the classroom to increase success in school. Students were
encouraged to take responsibility for their actions by recognizing the need for
modification and intervention in their daily routine.
The counseling intervention ended with a summary of what had been done,
allowing students to talk about their experience and describe their next steps. A brief

45
overview of the content sessions is outlined in Table 3.7. The complete intervention can
be found in the Group Facilitator’s Manual in Appendix D.
Table 3-7
Small Group Counseling Intervention
Session #
Title of Session
Content Objectives
Session #1
Our Journey
1. Students will gain increased knowledge of
ADHD.
2. Students will identify behaviors
associated with ADHD and how those
behaviors effect school success.
3. Students will be given an opportunity to
discuss their own ADHD diagnosis and
express associated feelings.
Session #2
Pack It Up
1. Students will learn and practice strategies
to support the need for better organization
as related to school success.
Session #3
Stop Lights & Traffic
Cops
1. Students will learn and practice behaviors
associated with attending.
2. Students will identify school situations in
which attending is important.
3. Students will identify school situations in
which attending is difficult.
Session #4
Using Road Signs As a
Guide
1. Students will learn to recognize, create
and use external cues in the classroom.
2. Students will gain increased awareness of
the need for strategies to support school
success.
Session #5
Road Holes and Detours
1. Students will identify school situations
that are particularly difficult.
2. Students will identify ways to improve
school situations that are difficult.
Session #6
Roadside Assistance &
Becoming Your Own
Mechanic
1. Students will identify sources of support
at school.
2. Students will be given the opportunity to
experience the feelings of “being in
control.”
3. Students will associate increased practice
of a skill with improvement of that skill.
4. Students will gain increased knowledge of
the use of medication in treating ADHD.

46
Students who participated in the groups were compared to ADHD students in the
control groups on the dependent measures. Students in the control group continued with
their regular school routine during this period. They responded to the measures of locus
of control and school success at the same eight-week interval as the treatment group.
Teachers also completed the classroom behavior measure for the control group students at
the designated intervals.
Assessment Techniques
In order to assess the effects of the treatment, the following measures will be used:
Teacher Report Form (TRF); Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of
Control Scale (CNSIE); and School Success Inventory—Student Form (SSI-SF).
Teacher Report Form {TRF}
The Teacher Report Form was designed in 1986 by Achenbach and Edelbrock to
provide standardized descriptions of social-emotional development for students, by
gender, ranging in age from 6-16. The effects of race and SES were examined but the
authors found that differences were too small to warrant separate norms (Achenbach &
Edelbrock, 1986). The scoring profiles were derived using factor analyses of TRF’s
completed on 1,800 children referred to mental health services in the eastern United
States. According to Christenson, in her 1992 review of the TRF, the norming
procedures were “impeccable.”
The TRF includes 118 items on a 3-step response scale (0 = Not True, 1 =
Somewhat or Sometimes True, and 2 = Very True or Often True). It is designed to be
completed by teachers who have known a student in a school setting for at least 2 months.

47
It is self-administered and requires no special training. Teachers can complete the scale
in about 20 minutes.
The TRF was designed to provide standardized descriptions of students’ behavior.
It does so by identifying behaviors that occur together and refers to these groupings as
syndromes. The syndromes were derived from TRF items identified by teachers for
children who were referred for special services (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986). The
following eight syndromes are displayed in the 1991 TRF profile: withdrawn, somatic
complaints, anxious/depressed, social problems, thought problems, attention problems,
delinquent behavior, and aggressive behavior (Achenbach, 1991).
Internalizing and externalizing groupings of behavior were also identified for each
age/sex group (Achenbach, 1991). The internalizing grouping is the sum of scores on the
withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed scales. The externalizing
grouping is comprised of the items on the delinquent and aggressive behavior scales.
These scales are not mutually exclusive. According to Achenbach (1991), students who
score high on one grouping tend to have at least above average scores in the other area as
well. Worth special consideration are students who have a much higher score in one
grouping than the other. A total sum score (TSS) of the internalizing and externalizing
behaviors can be derived as a measure of classroom problems exhibited by the student.
The behavior problems scale is comprehensive and is conceptually consistent with
other problem-oriented behavior rating scales ( Elliott & Busse, 1992). Construct validity
data is derived from factor analysis and concurrent validity with the Conners Revised
Teacher Rating Scale (r = .85) which also looks at children’s problem behaviors. In
addition, Achenbach and Edelbrock (1986) found for all ages and both sexes that referral

48
status consistently accounted for the largest percent of the variance in ratings on the TRF.
One example was students whose diagnosis was made independently of the TRF.
Researchers (Edelbrock, Costello, & Kessler, 1984) found that students with ADHD
scored higher on the inattentive scale than a control group of referred students having
other diagnosis.
Test-retest reliability was reported by Achenbach in 1991. The correlation of test-
retest reliability of the TRF was r = .92 over a 15 day interval for problem behavior
scores. Inter-rater agreement was similar for teachers seeing students under different
conditions (r = .54) and teachers seeing students under more similar conditions (r = .55)
with respect to problem behaviors.
The TRF lends itself to statistical analysis done on samples that include children
of both sexes and different age ranges (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1986). T scores, as
opposed to raw scores, can be used for the respective sex/age groups. The T score reflects
each subject’s deviation from the mean of his/her normative group. Therefore, while a
raw score of 29 is in the borderline clinical range for boys age 12-18, it is well above the
clinical range for girls 12-18 resulting in a lower T score for boys.
Several hundred references to the Child Behavior Checklist in the Eleventh
Mental Measurements Yearbook (Christenson, 1992) suggest its widespread acceptance
and use. However, it is recognized that the TRF not be used in isolation but in
combination with other methodologies to identify behavioral difficulties in school-aged
children.

49
Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE)
The Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale
(Appendix C) is a pencil paper self-report measure developed in 1969 consisting of 40
questions that are answered either yes or no. It was constructed on the basis of Rotter’s
(1966) definition of the internal-external control of reinforcement dimension as an
attempt to measure locus of control in children. The items describe a variety of
reinforcement situations across interpersonal and motivational areas such as affiliation,
achievement, and dependency (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).
Scores were based on the number of responses that indicated an external locus of
control orientation to the statement; therefore, scores could range from 0-40. Higher
scores indicate a more external locus of control than lower scores.
Upon testing 1,017 students in grades three through 12 twelve, Nowicki and
Strickland (1973) reported test-retest reliabilities that ranged from .66 to .71 after a six-
week period. All socioeconomic groups were included in this sample and all subjects had
intelligence tests scores in the average range.
Estimates of internal consistency using the split half method, corrected by the
Spearman Brown formula, were correlated by grade levels (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973)
and range from .63 (for grades 3, 4, and 5) to .81 (for grade 12). Since the CNSIE scale is
additive and the test items are not arranged sequentially according to difficulty and are
not comparable, the split-half reliabilities may underestimate the internal-consistency of
the scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973).
Construct validity was established (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) comparing the
CNSIE to other locus of control measures. Significant (p < .01) but not high correlations

50
were found when comparisons were made to the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility
scale (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965) with correlations of .31 and .51 for black
third (N = 182) and seventh graders (N = 171). A correlation of .41 with the Bialer-
Cromwell (Bialer, 1961) was also significant (p < .05) for 26 white students ages 9-11.
Additionally, the relationship between the Rotter (1966) and the CNSIE adult scale was
significant (p < .01) in two studies with college students yielding correlations of .61 (N =
76) and .38 (N = 46) (Nowicki-Strickland, 1973).
Correlations of the CNSIE with the Children’s Social Desirability Scale (Crandall,
Crandall, & Katkowsky, 1965) were computed. For males and females within each
grade level, locus of control scores were not significantly related to social desirability.
The CNSIE has been used to compare internal-external locus of control with
ADHD and control groups (Linn & Hodge, 1982). The effects of cognitive strategies on
locus of control for learning disabled students (Morin, 1993) has also been measured
using this instrument.
School Success Inventory—Teacher Form (SSI-TF)
The School Success Inventory-Student Form (Appendix C) is a paper and pencil
measure containing 12 items, 2 items to represent each of the six classroom behaviors of
attending, listening, volunteering, using self-control, interacting, and assessing self. The
items comprise behaviors related to school success (Cuthbert, 1987).
The student marks each item in terms of perceived frequency of occurrence on a
5-point scale of very often, often, sometimes, seldom, and very seldom. Students
indicated their choices by marking with an X or a check mark. Each of these categories
was assigned a numerical score, with one indicating the “desired behavior and

51
corresponding to Very Often. The total score over the 12 items ranges from 12
(behaviors occurring very often) to 60 (very seldom). A total frequency score was
recorded for each student. A lower score was more indicative of self-perceived desired
behaviors than was a higher score.
Cuthbert (1987) measured test-retest reliability for the SSI-SF yielding a
coefficient of stability of .79 during a pilot study. In this pilot, the SSI-SF was
administered to 49 students in two third-grade classrooms. Two weeks later, the students
rated themselves again on the same instrument. Cuthbert (1987) used this scale to
measure the effectiveness of a classroom guidance intervention aimed at teaching skills
for school success.
Both the CNSIE and the SSI-SF were developed to be completed by school-aged
children. Each instrument has a third grade reading level making them appropriate for
self-reporting. The students in the current study were in grades three, four, and five.
However, due to the possibility of ADHD students having reading abilities below grade
three, the counselor read the items on the instruments as the student followed along and
marked responses.
School Counselor Survey
School counselors, postintervention, completed a survey. The survey contained
11 items with a five point Likert-type scale. School counselors were asked to respond to
each statement on the survey by marking either Strongly Agree, Agree, ETncertain,
Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. Items focused on the counselor’s perceptions of the unit,
the experience of participating students, the counselor’s own experience, and
recommendations.

52
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses will be evaluated at the .05 level of significance in this
study:
1. There will be no significant difference between the classroom behavior
adjusted means of students in the treatment and control group, as measured by
the Teacher Report Form (TRF).
2. There will be no significant difference between treatment and control group
students’ locus of control adjusted means, as measured by the Children’s
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control scale (CNSIE).
3. There will be no significant difference between treatment and control group
students’ adjusted mean perception of school success skills, as measured by
the School Success Inventory—Student Form (SSI-SF).
4. There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex, ESE
status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, and SSI-SF.
Data Analysis
Pre- and posttreatment data were initially analyzed using a hierarchical linear
model. This analysis was appropriate since each group of students receiving treatment
belonged to an intact school group that volunteered participation in the study (Patterson &
Goldstein, 1991; Raudenbush, 1988). The intact school groups participating could
influence the scores on dependent measures as a result of interaction with a particular set
of individuals or occurrences. In this analysis, the effects due to group membership
(school) were separated from the within-group residual error term. However, pooling the
error term and using a mixed effects model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was

53
considered appropriate in this case, as there was not a significant between school variance
on any of the dependent variables. Mixed effects models are used when the classification
of variables are a mixture of random and fixed effects (Agresti & Finlay, 1997), as was
the case in this study.
ANCOVA assumptions were checked and provided support for use of the
ANCOVA model. Assumptions of normality, equal variances, and linearity were
checked by plotting the data. The equal slopes assumption was checked through
statistical analysis. Independence was considered prior to the study through random
assignment of students. Measures that were appropriately reliable for social science
research were used to satisfy the measurement error assumption.
The mixed model ANCOVA was then performed on all measures for treatment
and control groups. The purpose of the ANCOVA to is determine whether the observed
differences between means are due to chance or to systematic differences among
treatment populations (Shavelson, 1996). It does so by statistically removing predictable
individual differences from the dependent variable, thereby providing a more precise
estimate of experimental error and a more powerful test of the null hypothesis. The
pretest score served as the covariate to adjust posttest scores. Random assignment of
subjects to treatment and control groups increased the validity for using the ANCOVA
(Gay, 1996).
The mixed effects ANCOVA model (Table 3-5) examined five main effects and
four two-way interactions. The main effects included treatment, age, sex, ESE
placement, and whether the student was taking medication for ADHD symptoms. The
two-way interactions looked at how treatment interacted with each of the other variables

54
(age, sex, ESE, and medication). The two-way interactions were introduced into the
ANCOVA model one at a time while holding the model constant. School was treated as
a random effect while age, sex, medication, and ESE status were treated as fixed effects.
Table 3-8
Mixed Effects ANCOVA Model
Y - ¡5 (X - X )= // + a + yl + ay, + y2 +
post - covariate = grand mean + treatment + school + school by treatment + age +
test
y3 + r4 + y5 + £
sex + meds + ese + error
Note: This is the portion of the model that was held constant as the two-way interactions
were introduced one at a time.
The alpha level for all tests in this study was set at the .05 level. The .05 level of
significance is a reasonable probability level (Gay, 1996) as this study is exploring the
effectiveness of a counselor intervention strategy for ADHD students while producing
implications for further research.
Research Procedures
During the week preceding the intervention, pretreatment measures were
administered. All measures were to be coded by number to ensure confidentiality of
results. Corresponding school, gender, race, age, special education designation, and
whether or not the student was on medication for ADHD symptoms were provided to the
investigator for use in the analysis. The school counselor at each school involved in the
study administered the student assessments in their respective schools.
School counselors were trained in procedures for administration of the Children’s
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control scale and the School Success

55
Inventory—Student Form. Counselors read all test items to students to help control for
differences in reading abilities. School counselors gave teachers the Teacher Report
during this same pretreatment week and recovered all forms before treatment began.
Counselors planned with teachers to arrange a weekly time for the small group counseling
intervention.
The six treatment sessions took place approximately once per week and took
about 30-40 minutes. At the end of the six-week intervention, the school counselor again
administered the CNSIE and the SSI-SF to students in the treatment and control groups.
The school counselor disseminated the TRF to classroom teachers of students in the
treatment and control groups.
School counselors completed a postintervention questionnaire concerning
counselor demographics and perceptions of the intervention experience (Appendix C).
All data was placed in large envelopes, and collected and analyzed by the investigator.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This study examined the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention
for ADHD students. School counselors delivered the intervention to ADHD
students in grades three, four, and five. Counseling activities were designed to increase
the students awareness of ADHD and improve their sense of control for behaviors related
to school success.
To assess the effectiveness of the group counseling intervention, analysis was
performed on pre- and postdata obtained using a mixed effects ANCOVA model. Three
dependent measures were used to gather data related to the effects of the intervention.
These measures included (a) teachers’ ratings of student classroom behavior as measured
by the Teacher Report Form, (b) students’ perceptions of their locus of control orientation
as measured by the Children’s Nowicki Strickland Locus of Control Scale, and (c)
students’ perceptions of school success behaviors as measured by the School Success
Inventory-Student Form.
Data on the three dependent measures were collected from 93 students in grades
three, four, and five, attending 13 public elementary schools. An experimental research
design provided for random assignment of students to treatment and control groups for
the duration of the intervention, resulting in 47 treatment and 46 control group
assignments.
56

57
Pre- and posttreatment data were initially analyzed using a hierarchical linear
model as each group of students receiving treatment belonged to an intact school group
that volunteered participation in the study. Using this analysis, the effects due to group
membership (school) were separated from the within-group residual error term.
However, pooling the error term and using a mixed effects model analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was considered appropriate, as there was not a significant between school
variance on any of the dependent variables. Pretest scores were used as covariates in
computing the analysis of covariance to remove the influence of pre-intervention
variation on the scores for each measure.
Assumptions providing support for use of the ANCOVA as an appropriate
statistical analysis, were checked. Results of tests for between school variance and
assumptions may be found in Appendix E. The confidence level was set at .05 for all
statistical tests.
Data Analysis
Four hypotheses were investigated using three targeted dependent variables. The
means and standard deviations for all pre- and postmeasures can be found in
Appendix E.
Teacher Rating of Classroom Behavior
To investigate the effects of treatment on the classroom behavior of ADHD
students, results of the Teacher Report Form (TRF) were subjected to analysis. The TRF
measures problem behaviors in the classroom as observed by the teacher. Higher scores
indicate more problematic behavior than lower scores. These results were then used to
test the stated null hypothesis.

58
Two-way interactions. The effect of treatment by sex, age, medication, and ESE
status, as measured by the Teacher Report Form was examined. Each interaction was
introduced into the ANCOYA model one at a time. The following null hypothesis was
tested.
Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.
None of the variables, age, sex, ESE, or medication status of the ADHD student,
interacted significantly with scores on the TRF. In addition, there was not a significant
school by treatment interaction for this dependent measure. A more detailed statistical
report of the Teacher Report Form results can be found in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1
Statistical Results Mixed Effects Model ANCOVA - Teacher Report Form
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Pr > F
Sch1
676.80
12
56.41
1.56
.4010
Trt1
32.40
1
32.40
.68
.4257
Sch*Trt
582.72
1
48.56
1.78
.0717
Sex
64.61
1
64.61
2.37
.1290
Age
136.39
1
136.39
4.99
.0290*
Meds
2.75
1
2.75
.05
.8252
ESE
64.10
1
64.10
1.15
.2883
Error
3463.93
62
55.87
‘Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 48.63 (df = 11.95)
For Trt, MS (Err) = 47.79 (df = 12.51)
* Significance at the p < .05 level

59
Main effects of treatment. No significant difference was found when comparing
TRF adjusted posttest means of treatment and control group students (Table 4-1);
therefore, Ho, was not rejected.
Ho,: There will be no significant difference between the classroom behavior of
students in the treatment and control groups, as measured by the Teacher
Report Form.
It appears that classroom behavior of ADHD students was not impacted by the treatment
intervention as measured by the TRF. However, teachers rated students in both treatment
and control groups as having slightly improved behavior.
Additionally, age was found to have an effect on TRF scores (F (1,62) = 4.99, p =
.03). The adjusted posttest mean for 8-9-year-old students (M - 59.58), was lower than
that of 10, 11, and 12-year-old students (M = 62.36) participating in the study. Results
did not yield any treatment by age interaction. Age of student effected TRF scores
regardless of group assignment (Table 4-1).
Student Perceived Locus of Control
The effects of treatment on student perceived locus of control was investigated by
analyzing the results of the Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of
Control Scale (CNSIE). The range of possible scores was 0-40, with points assigned for
each response made corresponding to the external choice. The higher the score, the more
external the locus of control orientation.
Two-way interactions. Treatment effect by sex, age, medication, and ESE status
was also examined with the ANCOVA model using adjusted posttest means to test the
null hypothesis (Table 4-2). Each interaction was introduced into the ANCOVA model
one at a time. This hypothesis was previously rejected based on a TRF by age interaction.

60
Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.
A significant interaction was found between treatment, as measured by the
CNSIE, and the sex of students (F (1,60) = 8.64, p = .005). While both males and
females in the treatment group had higher adjusted posttest means than their counterparts
in the control groups, females scores were significantly higher (Figure 4-1). Males in the
control group had an adjusted posttest mean of 16.58 with adjusted means for males in
the treatment group being reported at 18.10. Females in the control group had an adjusted
posttest mean of 13.99 while adjusted means for females in the treatment group were
reported at 21.63. Females locus of control scores were, on average, almost seven and a
half points higher when receiving treatment, indicating a significantly higher external
locus of control orientation. This treatment by sex interaction would provide additional
support for the rejection of Fky,.
A second two-way interaction was found during the ANCOYA analysis of CNSIE
results (Figure 4-2). Whether or not a student was taking medication during the
intervention period, significantly interacted with treatment results (F (1,60) = 10.51, p =
.002).
Students taking medication showed little difference in their adjusted posttest
means regardless of their control group (M = 17.63) or treatment group (M = 17.92)
assignment. Flowever, students not taking medication during the intervention, had
adjusted mean scores that were significantly impacted by group assignment. Control
group students not taking medication had an adjusted mean score of 12.95 while
treatment group students not taking medication had a mean score of 21.81 (Table 4-3).

61
Treatment*Sex Interaction - CNSIE
Control
T reatment
Series 1 = Males; Series 2 = Females
Figure 4-1
Treatment by Sex Interaction - CNSIE
Treatment*Medication Interaction
25
-4— Seriesl
HI— Series2
Control
T reatm ent
Series 1 = Students not on medication; Series 2 = Students on medication
Figure 4-2
Treatment by Medication Interaction—CNSIE

Table 4-2
Statistical Results Mixed Effects Model ANCOVA- CNSIE
62
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Pr > F
Sch'
194.76
12
16.23
1.06
.4597
Trt'
138.64
1
138.64
10.42
.0021*
Sch*Trt
184.08
12
15.34
1.24
.2787
Trt*Sex
106.97
1
106.97
8.64
.0047*
Trt* Age
13.41
1
13.41
1.08
.3022
Trt*Meds
130.17
1
130.17
10.51
.0019*
Trt*ESE
.21
1
.21
.02
.8957
Error
742.80
60
12.38
'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 15.31 (df 12.23).
For Trt, MS (Err) = 13.31 (df = 56.53).
* Significance at the £ < .05 level
Table 4-3
Adjusted Post-Test Means of CNSIE Scores for Significant Variables
Source Adjusted Post-Test Means
Control Group
15.29
Treatment Group
19.87
Control Group Males
16.58
Treatment Group Males
18.10
Control Group Females
13.99
Treatment Group Females
21.63
Control Group Students on Meds
17.63
Treatment Group Students on Meds
17.92
Control Group Students Not on Meds
12.95
Treatment Group Students Not on Meds
21.81

63
Students who received the intervention but were not taking medication had the highest
locus of control scores, indicating a significantly higher external locus of control
orientation. Non-medicated treatment group students also showed the greatest variation
in score when compared to their control group counterparts by scoring, on the average,
nine points higher on the CNSIE. This treatment by medication interaction continues to
provide support for the rejection of Ho4.
The remaining variables, age and ESE status, did not interact significantly with
treatment as measured by the CNSIE. Additionally, there was not a significant school by
treatment interaction for this dependent measure.
Main effects of treatment. The following null hypothesis was tested using the
CNSIE results.
Ho2: There will be no significant difference between treatment and control
group students locus of control, as measured by the Children’s Nowicki-
Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale.
Results of the ANCOYA revealed a significant difference in the CNSIE posttest scores
for treatment and control groups (F (1, 56) = 10.42, g = .002). Therefore, Ho2 was
rejected. Adjusted posttest means for the control group (M = 15.29) were significantly
lower than the adjusted means for the treatment group (M = 19.87). Students in the
control group rated themselves as having a more internal locus of control than the
students who received treatment (Table 4-2 and 4-3).
Students’ Perceptions of School Success Behaviors
Students’ perception of School Success Behaviors was measured using the School
Success Inventory—Student Form (SSI-SF). This 10-item Likert-type scale yielded scores

64
that ranged from 12 to 60. The closer the score was to 12, the more positive the
students’ perception regarding their school success behaviors.
Two-way interactions. The effects of treatment by sex, age, medication, and ESE
status, as measured by the SSI-SF showed no interaction effect. The following null
hypothesis was previously rejected based on variable interaction with the TRF and the
CNSIE.
Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.
The analysis of the SSI-SF yields no main or two-way interaction effects. The
previous decision to reject Ho4, stands. In addition, there was not a significant school by
treatment interaction for this dependent measure. A statistical report of the SSI-SF can be
found in Table 4-4.
Main effects of treatment. The following null hypothesis was tested using this
dependent measure.
Ho3: There will be no significant difference between treatment and control
group students perception of school success skills, as measured by the
School Success Inventory—Student Form.
No significant difference was found when comparing SSI-SF adjusted posttest means of
treatment and control group students; therefore, Ho3 was not rejected. Students’
perceptions of their school success skills was not impacted by the treatment intervention
as measured by the SSI-SF. There was less than a one point change in scores for both
treatment and control groups following intervention.

65
School Counselor Survey
School counselors completed a survey at the conclusion of intervention
implementation. The survey contained 11 items that were answered on a five point
Likert-type scale. There were 14 surveys returned. All counselors (100%) supported the
appropriateness of unit content, sessions, and outline, and would recommend the unit to
other counselors. All counselors (100%) also agreed that the unit contributed to their
own understanding of ADHD students and was an effective strategy for this population.
Increased confidence with regard to teacher consultation (93%) and changed counselor
Table 4-4
Statistical Results Mixed Model ANCOVA—SSI-SF
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Pr > F
Sch1
583.36
12
48.63
1.27
.3416
Trt1
6.26
1
6.26
.16
.6931
Sch*Trt
458.40
12
38.20
.68
.7605
Sex
1.05
1
1.05
.02
.8913
Age
114.49
1
114.49
2.05
.1573
Meds
2.75
1
2.75
.05
.8252
ESE
64.09
1
64.09
1.15
.2883
Error
3463.94
62
55.87
'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 38.31 (df = 12.23)
For Trt, MS (Err) = 38.34 (df- 12.29)
Significance set at the p < .05 level
perceptions (71%) were reported by most counselors. A large majority (93%) of
counselors also believed that students participating in the unit changed their views of
themselves as students. Table 4-5 shows the results of this survey.

Table 4-5
Counselor Survey Results (Number of Counselors Responding to Each Choice)
66
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Question 1
(Unit content appropriate)
11
3
0
0
0
Question 2
(Fun, informative
activities)
9
5
0
0
0
Question 3
(Outlines easy to follow)
12
2
0
0
0
Question 4
(Increased student
awareness of ADHD)
7
7
0
0
0
Question 5
(Increased student’s
self-perception)
8
5
1
0
0
Question 6
(Counselor knowledge
and insight)
12
2
0
0
0
Question 7
(Increased counselor
confidence)
7
6
1
0
0
Question 8
(Changed counselor
perceptions of ADHD)
3
7
2
1
1
Question 9
(Effective unit)
7
7
0
0
0
Question 10
(Recommend unit)
10
4
0
0
0
Question 11
(Plan to use again)
11
2
1
0
0

67
Summary of Results
A summary of the results of the mixed effects ANCOVAs for this study are
presented below. The results are organized by dependent variable.
Teacher's Perceptions of Students Classroom Behavior as Measured by the Teacher
Report Form (TRF)
1. There was no significant difference between treatment and control groups in
teachers’ perceptions of classroom behavior following the intervention.
2. There was a significant difference between the way 8-9 year old students and 10,
11,12 year old students were perceived by their teachers following the
intervention regardless of group assignment.
Students’ Perception of Locus of Control Orientation as Measured bv the Children’s
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale
1. There was a significant difference between the way treatment and control group
students rated their own locus of control orientation following the intervention.
2. There was a significant difference between the way males and females rated their
own locus of control orientation that was effected by group assignment.
3. There was a significant difference in the way students on and off medication rated
their own locus of control orientation that was effected by group assignment.
Students’ Perceptions of School Success Behaviors as Measured bv the School Success
Inventory—Student Form (SSI-SF)
1. There was no significant difference between the way treatment and control group
students rated their own school success behaviors following the intervention.

68
There were no significant interactions between treatment and age, sex,
medication, or ESE status.
School Counselor Perception as Measured by the School Counselor Survey
1. School counselors perceived the intervention as appropriate for ADHD students.
2. School counselors perceived the intervention as effective in improving students’
perceptions of themselves as students.
3. School counselors perceived increased confidence in working with ADHD
students and their teachers.
In the next chapter, conclusions will be drawn based on results presented in
Chapter 4. Methodological limitations as well as implications and recommendations for
further research will be discussed.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD students. More specifically, ADHD students
participated in a set of counseling activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and
a personal sense of control and responsibility for classroom behaviors related to school
success. ADHD students from third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms in 12 public
schools participated in the study (n = 93). Students were randomly assigned to treatment
and control groups using a table of random numbers. Group means (n = 13) were used in
the analysis.
Thirteen school counselors delivered the intervention to ADHD students.
Sessions featured activities and discussions that focused on helping students learn more
about their disorder as reflected in school performance. The group format provided a
setting in which students were able to learn and practice new behaviors while among their
peers. Targeted behaviors included paying attention, listening, organizing materials,
recognizing, creating, and using external cues in the classroom, handling frustration and
anger, and using available supports in the classroom to increase success in school.
Students who participated in the groups were compared to ADHD students in the
control groups on three dependent variables. The first dependent variable, classroom
69

70
behavior, was measured by the Teacher Report Form (TRF). This instrument asked
teachers to rate the classroom behavior of their students using a 0 (Not True), 1
(Sometimes True), and 2 (Very Often True) rating scale for 118 behaviors. Standardized
T scores are generated, normed for age and sex, with higher scores indicating more
problematic behavior than lower scores. Total scores were used in the mixed model
ANCOVA.
The second dependent variable, locus of control, was measured by the Children’s
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE). Students were
asked to respond to 40 statements by circling yes or no as each response was read by the
counselor. Scores were based on the number of responses that indicated an external locus
of control orientation to the statement; therefore, scores could range from 0 to 40. Higher
scores indicated a more external locus of control than lower scores. The raw number of
external responses was used in the mixed model ANCOVA analysis.
The third dependent variable, students’ perceptions of school success behaviors,
was measured by the School Success Inventory - Student Form (SSI - SF) which asked
students to rate themselves on 12 items related to school success skills in terms of
frequency on a five point Likert-type scale. Scores ranged from 12 (best performance) to
60 (worst performance). Total scores were used in the mixed model ANCOVA.
Descriptive statistics were used to examine the results of a post-intervention
school counselor survey. The focus of the 11 item Likert-type survey was to assess
counselors’ perceptions of appropriateness and effectiveness of the intervention as well as
to assess the impact of intervention delivery on the school counselors themselves.

71
Conclusions
The outcomes of the study were mixed. Results suggested that the small group
counseling activities were not effective in changing classroom behavior or the students’
perceptions of school success behaviors. However, there were changes in locus of control
orientation that were effected by participation in the group activities. The conclusions are
discussed with regard to each of the dependent variables.
Teachers’ Ratings of Classroom Behavior
The mixed model ANCOVA showed no significant difference between the
classroom behavior of students in the treatment and control group. Therefore, it was
concluded that the small group counseling intervention did not significantly impact the
classroom behavior of students.
The only variable that significantly effected the TRF scores was the age of student
being rated, not group membership. Teacher ratings of ADHD students in the 8-9 year
old age group were significantly lower as a whole than students who were 10,11, and 12
years old. Teachers perceived younger ADHD students as less problematic than older
students. Their perception was not effected by the group counseling intervention.
Neither sex, being on medication during the study, nor ESE status significantly
impacted the effectiveness of the counseling intervention. Likewise, none of these
variables seemed to effect the way students were rated by teachers on the TRF.
Student Perceived Locus of Control
The mixed model ANCOVA revealed a significant difference between the
perceived locus of control for treatment and control group students. Students in the
treatment group rated themselves as having a more external locus of control than students

72
in the control group. It was concluded that the small group counseling intervention did
effect perceptions of locus of control for ADHD students by shifting their orientation
towards becoming more external.
Two sub-groups of ADHD students seemed to be most effected by this external
shift. Females and students not on medication during the study were most significantly
effected by inclusion in the counseling intervention.
While both males and females in treatment had a more external locus of control
than students in the control group did, females seemed to be more effected by the
counseling intervention. Females who participated in the small groups rated themselves
as feeling less in control of what happens to them than males, even though females in the
control group felt more in control than their male counterparts. It can be concluded that
the locus of control perception for females was significantly effected by the counseling
intervention and that it became more external with treatment.
A second characteristic that appeared to impact the way locus of control
orientation was effected by the counseling intervention, was whether or not the student
was taking medication for ADHD symptoms during the study. Students who were taking
medication appeared to have their locus of control perceptions unaffected by the
intervention. However, students who were not on medication showed significantly more
external perceptions following treatment even though their control group counterparts had
a more internal locus of control perception than control group students on medication. It
can be concluded that the counseling intervention significantly impacted the locus of
control orientation of students not taking medication for ADHD symptoms during the
study and that it became more external with treatment.

73
Students’ Perceptions of School Success Behaviors
The ANCOVA performed on the students’ perceptions of school success
behaviors showed no significant differences between treatment and control groups.
Additionally, scores on the School Success Inventory - Student Form were not effected
by age, sex, medication, or ESE status; therefore, it was concluded that these variables
did not seem to effect the way students rated themselves with regard to school success
behaviors.
School Counselor Perceptions
Descriptive statistics were used to examine perceptions of schools counselors
delivering the small group counseling intervention. Based on returned surveys, it can be
concluded that school counselors felt the intervention was appropriate for ADHD
students, that it positively effected student perceptions and knowledge, and that it
improved their own knowledge base and confidence in working with ADHD students and
their teachers.
Discussion
Results of the current study suggest that school counselors consider the
implications of brief group counseling interventions for ADHD students. Results also
suggest a look at variables that may impact the results of treatment and outcome
measures.
The counseling intervention did not appear to significantly impact the classroom
behavior of ADHD students. While school success behaviors were introduced and
practiced in the group, the brevity of the intervention may not have allowed for the
integration of skills that would be evident in teacher ratings of classroom behavior.

74
The only variable that appeared to effect teacher ratings was age. The behavior of
younger students did not seem as problematic to teachers as the behavior of older students
participating in the study. Since TRF results are normed by age and sex of student, this
was not simply an expected developmental increase in problematic behaviors. These
results might suggest that as ADHD students get older, their behaviors become even more
problematic when compared to other students of the same sex and age. This would
support existing literature. This would also support the need for school based
intervention for ADHD students.
There was a significant treatment effect with regard to the locus of control
construct. Locus of control became more external for students receiving treatment. This
may be due to ADHD students increasing awareness of their disorder and how it impacts
their school performance. Students may have begun to understand how ADHD
characteristics can create difficulties for them in the classroom, while not having the
outside or continued support necessary to integrate thoughts and behaviors into the
classroom routine.
Females and students not taking medication were most effected by this external
locus of control shift. It might be noted that only three students in the study fell into both
of these categories, females not taking medication. Non-medicated female control group
students actually felt more in control than males and students on medication. However,
female and medicated treatment groups students felt less in control at the conclusion of
the intervention.
Female students with ADHD frequently exhibit less aggressive characteristics of
the disorder. For this reason, teachers and parents may have felt less urgency to address

75
the disorder with female students. It is not uncommon for teachers and parents to provide
intervention without student collaboration.
Students in treatment and control groups who were taking medication during the
study showed no response to treatment. It may be that if students are on medication that
there is already some level of awareness of the characteristics of ADHD as it impacts
school performance. This awareness would not be the result of the medication itself but
rather the result of another adult taking the time to explain the rationale for treatment. It
is also possible that the results of the medication intervention have previously produced
noticeable behavioral changes in the classroom. Students not taking medication for
ADHD symptoms may be in particular need for understanding how their disorder impacts
their school performance and for follow-up interventions.
There was no treatment or interaction effect found in the ANCOVA analysis of
SSI-SF results even though this was the instrument that was most sensitive to changes in
student perceptions during a previous intervention period. This overall lack of
significance may have been the result of lack of school counselor familiarity with the
instrument. The school success behaviors were directly matched to unit content. While a
workshop and group counseling manual were provided prior to the beginning of the
study, school counselors may not have been familiar enough with the school success
language of the SSI-SF. Additionally, the lack of systematic collaboration with teachers
about ways to follow-up on the group counseling activities may have resulted in
inadequate practice of skills that would support changes in perceptions.
It was interesting to note that none of the dependent measures were effected by
Exceptional Student Education status. While students in ESE programs generally have

76
more complex academic and/or behavioral difficulties, it was somewhat surprising to find
that ADHD students who also had an additional ESE diagnosis showed no significantly
difference response to treatment or to the dependent measures.
Supporting the idea that follow-up, collaboration with teachers, or an extended
intervention may have produced additional results, are the counselor surveys.
School counselors delivering the intervention perceived changes in levels of student
knowledge and awareness of the disorder. They rated the unit as appropriate and
effective for use with ADHD students. While all dependent variable measures may not
have been sensitive to these changes, it was the counselors’ perceptions that changes were
taking place that would support ADHD students becoming more effective students.
Limitations
During the six-week intervention, ADHD students explored their diagnosis as it
impacted school performance and identified, learned, and practiced behaviors that are
associated with success in school. The brevity of the intervention may have been a
limitation. While meeting weekly for six-weeks is a common format for group
counseling in elementary schools, it may not be long enough for ADHD students to
practice and integrate new behaviors into their school routine.
An additional limitation involved the independent delivery of the group
counseling intervention. Collaboration with classroom teachers to provide more
structured follow-up in the classroom was not part of the study. Prior research would
suggest that multiple treatment interventions have improved chances of producing results
with ADHD students. Although, when there are several interventions, it becomes more
difficult to assess effective components when they are embedded. This researcher

77
previously delivered the group counseling intervention to ADHD students, however, there
was also collaboration for teacher follow-up, adjusted academic strategies, as well as
smaller class sizes. While there were significant results with regard to students’
perceptions of school success behaviors as well as teacher observed classroom behavior,
it was difficult to assess which intervention may have been responsible for the changes.
Anytime research takes place in school settings there are limitations with regard to
control of outside interventions. As previously mentioned, ADHD students are frequently
involved in multiple interventions. The two intervention strategies that were controlled
for in the current study were whether or not the student was taking medication for ADHD
symptoms and whether or not the student was in an Exceptional Student Education
Program aimed at academic or behavioral support. Other classroom or home based
interventions such as tutors, academic or behavioral modifications taking place in the
classroom, and parent involvement are other possible types of interventions not controlled
for. The current study used random assignment of students to treatment and control
groups as a way to minimize this control of outside intervention limitation.
School principal’s volunteered their schools participation in the study. The lack
of random selection of schools presents a limitation in generalization of results as does
using a small number of schools from a single school district. In this study, the
population being studied was schools in a single district and those volunteering
participation were representative of the range of district demographics. However, there
can be no generalization beyond the population outlined in the current study.
Statistical limitations were realized with the assignment of small numbers of
students to each treatment and control group. Due to the nature of the intervention as

78
well as the nature of the disorder (ADHD), a maximum of four students were
recommended for inclusion in each. Most schools were able to assign four students to the
treatment group while attrition left some schools’ groups with three students. While the
adjusted mean score for each small group was reported, the small, unequal numbers
within each group produced estimated error rates and estimated degrees of freedom.
In summary, there were several possible limitations. Limitations included brevity,
the issue of embedded intervention, non-random inclusion of schools in the study, small
and unequal numbers of students in groups, and difficulty in controlling outside
intervention. However, it was felt that most of these limitations were anticipated and that
steps were taken in the design of the research to minimize their effects on the results of
the study.
Implications
The results of this study contribute to the limited information available to school
counselors about the effectiveness of small group counseling as an intervention for
ADHD students. The results also contribute to the growing body of information
concerning ADHD students and locus of control orientation.
The findings suggest that brief group counseling interventions for ADHD students
can effect changes in perceptions. Because of tight scheduling and time restrictions at all
levels of schooling, it is important to identify interventions that can produce effects in
short periods of time. Brief group intervention can help increase awareness of ADHD as
it relates to school behaviors. However, it is also important to recognize that this type of
brief intervention alone may not be enough to produce a sense of control of daily
occurrences or behavioral changes that can be generalized to classroom settings.

79
Counselors are in a position in school settings to offer small group counseling to
ADHD students to increase awareness and knowledge of the disorder as it impacts school
success. This study suggests that this may not be enough. However, school counselors
are in the unique position of being able to collaborate, follow-up, and co-ordinate
treatment interventions that build upon concepts and skills introduced during the group
counseling intervention.
The results of this study also contribute to the already growing body of literature
concerning locus of control and ADHD students. It has been recognized that ADHD
children tend to grow more external in their locus of control orientation with age
(Borden, Brown, Jenkins, & Clingerman, 1987). It has also been suggested that students
with a more internal locus of control tend to do better in school and with peers.
Therefore, it becomes important to continue to explore the locus of control construct for
ADHD students in relation to school success. If increased awareness does in fact begin
an external shift in locus of control perceptions, it is possible that continued and
coordinated intervention for practice and eventual integration of skills may be next.
An additional implication is found in the results of the school counselor survey.
While counselors perceived student growth, it was important to realize that all
participating school counselors agreed that their own knowledge and understanding of
ADHD students was increased through delivery of the intervention. In addition, a large
majority felt reported increased confidence in their abilities to consult with teachers about
the needs of ADHD students. It may be that while professional in-service about ADHD
student need is important, that direct contact with ADHD students through intervention
may better prepare school counselors for collaboration and consultation.

80
Recommendations
Follow-up and extended intervention, to include collaboration with teachers to
support practice and reinforcement of skills introduced during the intervention, would be
a primary recommendation. This would help counselors gain a clearer picture of the
value of increased awareness and introduction of school success behaviors.
While this study suggests that awareness and introduction of school success
behaviors may produce a more external locus of control, it would be interesting to extend
the study. What would happen to locus of control scores for groups of students who had
participated in small group counseling prior to behavioral intervention strategies being
implemented in the classroom? This could be compared to students involved in the same
behavioral strategies who had not participated in group counseling.
It seems possible that while the shift in brief treatment is towards an external
locus of control, this shift may accompany the understanding needed for ADFID students
to fully embrace the need for alternative strategies to attain school success. The increased
awareness resulting from the counseling intervention may prove to be the catalyst for
accepting modified behavioral and academic intervention. This type of intervention may
be an important adjunct in preparing ADHD students to accept the need for support and
alternative strategies as they strive to become successful students.
An additional recommendation would be to provide a similar intervention to
middle school students with ADHD. The cognitive component of this cognitive-
behavioral strategy may be more easily integrated by older students. The age range of
students in the current study was 8-12 years. Research suggests that cognitive
interventions are most appropriate with students who are at least eight. As this is the

81
bottom of the age range, it is suggested that middle school students might be better able
to embrace awareness concepts and move towards accepting their own role as participants
in achieving school success during the brief intervention.
A final recommendation is to continue to support the need for school counselors
to be advocates for ADHD students. Many school personnel continue to struggle with
acceptance of ADHD as a disorder. School counselors are in a position to provide
awareness activities and behavioral intervention for ADHD students while helping their
teachers’ balance the need for structure, alternatives, and acceptance.

APPENDIX A
CONSENT LETTERS FOR PARTICIPATION

Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Dear Elementary School Principal;
My name is Linda Webb. I have been a school counselor in Alachua County since
1985 at High Springs Elementary, Wiles Elementary, and most recently the ANCHOR
Center. Currently, I am on leave with the School Board of Alachua County while
finishing my Ph.D. in Counselor Education at the University of Florida.
During my leave I have been working part time with Dr. John Ross and Dr. Ed
Turner and the Multidisciplinary Training Project (MDTP) at UF. The focus of my direct
intervention with students in the project has been the development of school counselor
interventions that provide support to students with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and their teachers.
Attached, you will find a request for your school’s voluntary participation in a
study that would allow me to share information and intervention strategies with your
school counselor and at the same time meet UF requirements for completion of my
degree.
The counselor in your school knows this request is coming. Because the attached
request is so brief, I felt the need to alert school counselors as to the nature of their
commitment if your school participates. Additionally, they would be asked to attend a 2
hour workshop that would provide current information about ADHD and its treatment.
We would examine the role of the school counselor with ADHD students and their
teachers. I would then focus on the nature of my own research and provide the specific
information needed to carryout the study.
I will be available to you or your school’s counselor throughout the study.
I thank you for taking the time to consider the attached request and look forward to
working with those who choose to participate. If you have any questions, please call me
at 332-2022.
Sincerely,
Linda Webb
School Counselor
83

Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
84
Dear School Counselor;
My name is Linda Webb. I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida
under the supervision of Dr. Robert Myrick. I am conducting a study that involves
examining the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention for ADHD students.
I am inviting you to participate. While there will be no compensation for your voluntary
participation, benefits would include increased knowledge and resources for working with
ADHD students. There are no known risks associated with your participation. You may
withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete several tasks that
include attending a two hour workshop, coordinating the study in your school,
administering pre and post test instruments, and delivering the small group counseling
intervention. These activities would take place over an 8 week period with the small
group meeting weekly for a period of six weeks.
Results of the study will be reported in the form of group data only. Individual
data, including names of counselors and schools will be coded by number and kept
confidential to the extent provided by law.
If you have questions, please contact me (332-2022) or my supervisor, Dr. Myrick
(392-0731). Questions about research participants’ rights may be directed to the UFIRB
office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433.
I have read the information above and voluntarily agree to participate in Linda
Webb’s study. I have received a copy of this information.
Counselor’s Signature
Date

85
Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Dear Parent/Guardian,
My name is Linda Webb. I am a graduate student in the Department of Counselor
Education at the University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Myrick,
conducting research on the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention for
students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The purpose of this
study is to compare the perceptions and behaviors of ADHD students who take part in a
small group counseling intervention, with ADHD students who do not participate in the
intervention. The results of the study may better help school counselors understand the
types of interventions that can help ADHD students become more effective learners in
their classrooms. The counselor at your child’s school will lead the small group
counseling intervention.
Half of the ADHD students who participate will be randomly selected to
participate in the small group counseling intervention which will take place once each
week for six weeks. Each session will last about 30-40 minutes and will meet at a time
and place during the school day, as agreed upon by the counselor and teacher. The
sessions will feature activities and discussions that focus on helping students learn more
about ADHD as it is reflected in their school performance, and learning ways to improve
that performance. ADHD students not receiving the counseling intervention will
maintain their regular school routine, helping to determine the effectiveness of the group
counseling.
All ADHD students who participate, even if they are not selected for participation in the
counseling sessions, will be asked to complete two instruments about how they see
themselves, that will require about 20 minutes of their time prior to the beginning of the
intervention and again at the conclusion of the intervention about 8 weeks later. The
school counselor will read the instruments to students at a time he/she has arranged with
your child’s teacher. The students will not have to mark any items they do not want to
answer. Additionally, the teacher will be asked to complete a behavior checklist before
and after the counseling intervention for all ADHD students participating. Although the
children will be asked to write their names on the checklists for matching purposes, their
identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. We will replace their
names with code numbers. Results will only be reported in the form of group data and
will be available upon request in July. Participation or non-participation in this study will
not affect the children’s grades or placement in any programs.
You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your child’s participation at
any time without consequence. If your child is not aware of his/her ADHD diagnosis,
there may be some risk of uncertainty or anxiety about this new knowledge. Your child’s

86
school counselor if prepared to help your child handle these feelings. If you do not want
your child to have age appropriate information about ADHD as it effects his/her
performance at school, he/she should not participate. Knowledge of the disorder, its
effects on school performance, and improved perceptions and behaviors are potential
benefits for children participating in the study. No compensation is offered for
participation. If you have any questions about this research project please contact me at
332-2022, or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Myrick, at 392-0731. Questions or concerns
about research participants’ rights may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of
Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433.
Cut on the dotted line and return this portion of the consent to your child’s school
counselor by if you would like your child to participate.
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily give my consent for my child,
, to participate in Linda Webb’s study involving a small
group counseling intervention for ADHD students. I have received a copy of this
description.
Parent/Guardian
Date
2nd Parent/Witness
Date

Assent Script for All ADHD Students
(grades 3, 4, & 5)
87
The following paragraph is to be read to the students by the school counselor prior to
completion of pre-post test instruments. The name of each school’s counselor will go in
the blank.
Hello,
My name is . I am the counselor at your school. I am
helping a University of Florida student, Linda Webb, gather information about the way
students your age see themselves. I would like to ask you to complete two checklists with
me today and two again at a later time. I will read them to you. Only myself and the
University of Florida student will see your individual answers.
If you choose to take part, you may stop at any time and you will not have to
answer any questions you do not want to.
Would you like to do this?

Assent Script for ADHD Students Randomly Selected for Small Group Counseling
Intervention (grades 3, 4, & 5)
88
The following paragraph is to be read by the school counselor to each student prior to
beginning the small group counseling intervention. The name of each school’s counselor
will go in the blank.
Hello,
My name is . I am the counselor at your school.
I am helping a University of Florida student, Linda Webb, try out some ways school
counselors can help children become better students. Once each week for the next six
weeks, I will be meeting with a group of students for discussions and activities that have
to do with being successful at school. You will have the opportunity to take part in these
groups if you would like to.
If you do choose to participate, you may stop at any time. Would you like to
participate?

APPENDIX B
RESEARCH PROCEDURES

Checklist of Procedures
For ADHD Group Counseling Study
Principal Investigator: Linda Webb (332-2022)
The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD children. It involves the following:
1. Workshop participation by school
counselor.
2. Random selection of students for
participation in study.
3. Parent permission letters sent.
4. Random assignment to treatment and
control groups.
5. Pre-testing of all students in both groups.
6. Group counseling intervention delivered
for treatment group.
7. Post-testing of students in both groups.
8. Materials returned.
(Date Completed)
90

91
Instructions for Randomization
Sample Selection
1. One the following page you will find the list of ADHD students in your school that
has been computer generated. Please add the names, grade, sex, and race of the other
students you have identified with ADHD in grades 3, 4, and 5.
2. Number the students on the list. The numbering has been started and you should
continue by assigning the next student on the list the next number.
3. Turn to the Table of Random Numbers.
4. Without looking, drop you pencil onto the page. This will be the number of the first
student selected for the study.
(1) If the number of students on your list is less than 10, only pay attention to the
last digit of the random number. For example, you have 9 students on your
list and you drop your pencil on to the number 78. This would mean the
student on your list who is number 08 would be selected to participate.
(2) If you are using both digits because your number of students is greater than 10,
lets say it’s 22, and you drop your pencil on 78 you would continue to move
down the list until you come to a number between 00 and 22 and select that
student.
3. Once your first student is selected, continue down the list of random numbers until
the desired number of students has been selected (8 plus alternates).
4. Record these names on the top of page 4.
5. Send parent permission letters home with the first 8 students. If you have parents
who do not want their child to participate or you can’t get the form back, go to the
first alternate on the list and continue until you have 8 students (4 minimum).
6. Write the names of the students who have parent consent on the bottom of page four.
Now we will need to randomly assign these students to treatment and control groups.
Random Assignment to Treatment and Control Groups
1. Look at your numbered list of names in the middle of page four.
2. Refer again to your Table of Random Numbers.
3. Drop your pencil (you will only need to use the last digit - see 4a above).
4. The first student selected will be placed in the treatment group. Write their name on
the bottom of page 4.
5. Continue down the random numbers list, the next student selected will be placed in
the control group. Record their name and continue this process until all 8 students
have been placed in either the treatment or control group.
6. You are ready to go! Remember all students in both the treatment and control
groups are given pre and post measures.

92
Student Information Sheet
Students randomly selected from school population: Send a parent permission letter
with each student on the list on the left. If necessary, go to the alternates, beginning with
number one.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Alternates:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Students with parent permission who will be participating in the study: Put the names
of the students in the blanks below and then assign to treatment or control groups using
the instruction provided on page 2. Record the names at the bottom of this page.
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Treatment Group/# Assigned for Study Control Group/# Assigned for Study
The numbers above should appear on all pre and post-test data. This will allow for
matching of pretest results with the post test results. Student names can be put on the
instruments, along with the # above, for your ease in identifying students, but the number
must be present. The names will get blocked out with a heavy marker to ensure
confidentiality, leaving only the number.

93
Pre and Post-test Data Collection
Data is collected for each student whose parent has given permission for
participation in the study whether they are in the treatment or control group. All pre-test
data will be collected prior to the beginning of the intervention. Post-test data, using the
same instruments, will be collected upon its completion.
Teacher Report Forms
The classroom teacher for each participating student will be asked to complete a TRF.
Please put the student number and PRE on the form so I can tell it from the post test
which should be marked with the student number and POST. A copy of the “Teacher
Instructions for the TRF” with the student’s name should accompany it.
School Success Inventory/Student Form - Read the assent script to all students before
completing pre-test instruments to affirm their voluntary participation.
Then say, “Lets look at the first check list and see what to do. I will read each
item to you as you follow along. As I read, think about the possible answers. For
example, if the first question was “I eat cereal for breakfast in the mornings,” I
would want you think about what the true answer would be for you. The choices
are: Very Often, Often, Sometimes, Seldom, and Very Seldom.” (Make sure students
understand the word seldom.)
“Which would be true for you?” (Responses)
“Then you would put an X under the column that says , and that would
be the correct answer for you. There are no wrong answers as long as you mark
what is true for you. Your teachers and parents will not see your answers. Are
there any questions?” (Clarify if necessary.) “Let’s begin.” (Read each item twice.)
After students have completed the items, give them a few minutes then administer the
locus of control scale.
Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE)
Say, “This next scale is used to find out what boys and girls your age think about
certain things. I will be reading some questions and want you to answer the
questions the wav you feel. AH the answers are either yes or no. There are no right
or wrong answers. Your parents and teachers will not see you answers. Don’t take
too much time thinking about any one question. You will mark yes or no on your
answer sheet as I read the items.” (Have students use an index card or their finger to
keep their place on the answer sheet. Double check with students along the way to make
sure they are on the right item.) “Find #1 on your answer sheet and let’s begin.”

94
Checklist of Materials to be Returned
Please return the following information to Linda Webb c/o Wiles Elementary
Guidance.
Informed Consent Forms
Pre-test Materials
Post-test Materials
Student Information Sheets (Computer print out and form with research #'s.
This will allow me to determine the age, race, ESE status, medication status, and sex of
students before destroying their names.)
Checklist of Procedures for ADHD Study
Please list the name and research # of any student in the treatment group who missed
more than one session during the intervention period.

APPENDIX C
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Children’s Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale
Students will mark yes or no on their answer sheet for each item as it is read.
Yes
No
(1)
Yes
No
(2)
Yes
No
(3)
Yes
No
(4)
Yes
No
(5)
Yes
No
(6)
Yes
No
(7)
Yes
No
(8)
Yes
No
(9)
Yes
No
(10)
Yes
No
(11)
Yes
No
(12)
Yes
No
(13)
Yes
No
(14)
Yes
No
(15)
Yes
No
(16)
Yes
No
(17)
Yes
No
(18)
Yes
No
(19)
Yes
No
(20)
Yes
No
(21)
Yes
No
(22)
Yes
No
(23)
Yes
No
(24)
Do you believe that most problems will solve themselves if you just
don’t fool with them?
Do you believe that you can stop yourself from catching a cold?
Are some kids just born lucky?
Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades means a great
deal to you?
Are you often blamed for things that just aren’t your fault?
Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough he or she can
pass any subject?
Do you feel that most of the time it doesn’t pay to try hard because
things never turn out right anyway?
Do you feel that if things start out well in the morning that it’s going to
be a good day no matter what you do?
Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children
have to say?
Do you believe that wishing can make good things happen?
When you get punished does it usually seem its for no good reason at
all?
Most of the time do you find it hard to change a friend’s mind?
Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a team to win?
Do you feel that it’s nearly impossible to change your parent’s mind
about anything?
Do you believe that your parents should allow you to make most of
your own decisions?
Do you feel that when you do something wrong there’s very little you
can do to make it right?
Do you believe that most kids are just born good at sports?
Are most of the other kids your age stronger than you are?
Do feel that one of the best ways to handle most problems is just not to
think about them?
Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in who your friends are?
If you find a four leaf clover do you believe that it might bring you
good luck?
Do you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do
with what kind of grades you get?
Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, there’s little
you can do to stop him or her?
Have you ever had a good luck charm?
96

97
Yes
No
(25)
Yes
No
(26)
Yes
No
(27)
Yes
No
(28)
Yes
No
(29)
Yes
No
(30)
Yes
No
(31)
Yes
No
(32)
Yes
No
(33)
Yes
No
(34)
Yes
No
(35)
Yes
No
(36)
Yes
No
(37)
Yes
No
(38)
Yes
No
(39)
Yes
No
(40)
Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how
you act?
Will your parents usually help you if you ask them to?
Have you felt that when people were mean to you it was usually for no
reason at all?
Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen
tomorrow by what you do today?
Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen they just are
going to happen no matter what you try to do to stop them?
Do you think that kids can get their own way if they just keep trying?
Most of the time do you find it useless to try to get your own way at
home?
Do you feel that when good things happen they happen because of hard
work?
Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy
there’s little you can do to change matters?
Do you feel that it is easy to get friends to do what you want them to?
Do you usually feel that you have little to way about what you get to
eat at home?
Do you feel that when someone doesn’t like you there’s little you can
do about it?
Do you usually feel that it’s almost useless to try in school because
most other children are just plain smarter than you are?
Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes
things turn out better?
Most of the time, do you feel that you have little to way about what
your family decides to do?
Do you think it’s better to be smart than to be lucky?

98
CNSIE Answer Sheet - Student Name Research#
1. Yes
No
21.
Yes
No
2. Yes
No
22.
Yes
No
3. Yes
No
23.
Yes
No
4. Yes
No
24.
Yes
No
5. Yes
No
25.
Yes
No
6. Yes
No
26.
Yes
No
7. Yes
No
27.
Yes
No
8. Yes
No
28.
Yes
No
9. Yes
No
29.
Yes
No
10. Yes
No
30.
Yes
No
11. Yes
No
31.
Yes
No
12. Yes
No
32.
Yes
No
13. Yes
No
33.
Yes
No
14. Yes
No
34.
Yes
No
15. Yes
No
35.
Yes
No
16. Yes
No
36.
Yes
No
17. Yes
No
37.
Yes
No
18. Yes
No
38.
Yes
No
19. Yes
No
39.
Yes
No
20. Yes
No
40.
Yes
No
Pre/Post

99
School Success Inventory - Student Form
Seldom Very
Seldom
2. I hand in my
assignments on time.
3. I listen carefully
for directions in class.
4.I do what my teacher
suggests to help me
during school.
5.I ask questions in class.
6.I stay on-task on work.
7. I sit up straight when
listening to my teachers.
8. I stay in my seat and
do my assignments.
9. I listen for ideas and
feelings of others in
class discussions.
10.1tell my teacher
thoughts and feelings
about school.
11.1tell my ideas in
class discussions.
12.1work as hard as I can
on all assignments.
Very Often Some-
Often times
1. I look at the
teacher when he/
she is talking to us.
Permission granted by author. Cuthbert, Marjorie (1987). Student Success Inventory-Student Form. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.

100
Instructions for Administration of the TRF
The attached TRF is being used to gather information for a research study
conducted by Linda Webb, a University of Florida doctoral student. The
student you are to consider is . This student’s
(Name)
parent has given permission for completion of the checklist.
You only need to fill out pages 3 and 4 of the instrument. In filling the form out,
please consider the student’s behavior as it has occurred over the last 2 weeks. Mark the
answers to the best of your ability. Please do not place the student’s name on the form.
Thank you for your voluntary cooperation in completing the form.
The form needs to be completed by and returned
(Date)
to .
(Name)

101
School Counselor Survey
Please respond to each item below by circling the choice that reflects your perceptions of
participation in the ADHD unit and its delivery. The response choices are:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.
1.The unit content was appropriate for ADHD
students.
2. The session activities were fun and informative.
3. The session outlines were easy to follow.
4. The sessions reflected increased student awareness
of ADHD.
5. The unit improved the way ADHD
students saw themselves as successful students.
6. Delivery of the intervention contributed to my
knowledge and insight of ADHD students.
7. The unit increased my own confidence
in working with teachers of ADHD students.
8. The unit helped change my perception of
ADHD students.
9. The unit is effective for use with ADHD students.
10.1 would recommend the small group unit to
other counselors.
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
11. I plan to use the unit again.

APPENDIX D
GROUP FACILITATOR’S MANUAL

GROUP FACILITATOR’S MANUAL
SESSION ONE: OUR JOURNEY
Objectives:
To help students understand attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
To help students identify behaviors associated with ADHD and how they can
effect school success.
To allow students to recognize their own ADHD diagnosis and express associated
feelings.
Materials Needed:
Chart paper, marker, and tape, tacks, or magnets to post (or a chalk board or dry
erase board)
Maps (included)
Opening Statement:
Say, “Hello, we’re going to get together as group for the next six weeks. Each
of you has been picked for the group because you know something about ADHD.
Today we are going to get to know each other a little, talk about what ADHD is, and
what it means when someone at school has ADHD.”
Activities:
Have the students sit in a circle and take turns sharing information with each other
(a “go around”) using some basic questions.
Say, “First we’re going to get to know each other. We are going
to take turns telling your name, who’s class you are in, and one thing you like
to do when you get home from school. We’ll start with you (indicate the
student to your left) and go all the way around to you.”
Teach students about ADHD, related behaviors, and school performance.
Say, “We’re going to be talking a lot about ADHD. What do you know about
it? (Allow several responses)
“OK, now I am going to share some things about ADHD. The letters ADHD
stand for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Having Attention Deficit
Disorder is like needing to wear glasses. A student who needs glasses may
have trouble seeing things that need to be read or copying things from the
board. Some students who need glasses don’t like to put them on at first, but
they do it to help their eyes focus more clearly. This can be like having
103

104
ADHD. Students who have ADHD may need help focusing on what to do in
order to pay attention, get their work done, or stay in their seat. However,
there are some things ADHD students can learn to do to help themselves
focus more clearly. (Make sure students understand this does not imply that they
might have to wear glasses) Students with ADHD are not stupid. Lots of
really smart kids have ADHD, just like many really smart kids wear glasses.
The man who invented the light bulb, Thomas Edison, had ADHD. Your
parent or teacher could have ADHD. Your doctor could have ADHD. The
person who works at the bank, a policeman, or even an astronaut could have
ADHD. There is nothing wrong with it. Each of you are in the group
because you have ADHD.”
“So, what are people with ADHD like?” (Post the chart paper and write the
characteristics one at a time while students think of a time in school and a time
out of school that the characteristic would be valued: creative, has high energy,
resourceful, sensitive, good sense of humor, and willing to take risks.
Then say, “So, ADHD students have some really special qualities. Each of
you do too. Which of these describes you?” (Responses)
“Then why does having ADHD make it harder for some students in school?”
(Add the words impulsive, hyperactive, and inattentive on the right side of the
paper and make their connection to the words on the left side.)
“It is because students with ADHD sometimes have trouble controlling their
behavior when they really need to. The teacher may want you to stop being
creative, tone down your energy, or stop showing off your sense of humor
because those behaviors are getting in the way of your work!”
“Has this ever happened to any of you?” (Allow for sharing of experiences
while connecting the ADHD behavior to the school performance effected.)
Map Activity (Give a map to each student in the group.)
Say, “Now we’re going to look at ADHD another way. Pretend we are
planning a trip to Fun City. I want each of you to look at your map and the
route that has been planned. It is marked in green. What kinds of problems
do you see?” (As students notice the yellow construction arrows, announce that
we can’t go this way so we will plan to go another way.)
What if we hadn’t looked at a map and didn’t realize we couldn’t go this way
until we got this far? How would you feel?” (Responses.)

105
“OK, but we have a map and we can see the problem ahead of time. Does
that mean we aren’t going to Fun City? No, it just means we got to make
some other plans to get there. How else might we get there?” (Facilitate a
brief discussion in which the students might use the map to plan alternate routes
or even consider other modes of transportation. Encourage at least 6
possibilities.)
“What is our destination in school? What are we trying to do?” (Help
students connect things like learning, making good grades, etc... to the ultimate
destination which we will call “school success”.)
“How can having ADHD be like the construction on the main route to our
destination?” (Facilitate feedback about ADD behaviors that can be like the road
under construction and how those can impact “school success”.)
Summary Statement:
Having ADHD doesn’t mean you can’t be successful as a student. However,
it does mean that you might have to find some ways to help you get there (to
success) that will be a little different than the route other students take. Each
of you in this group is lucky. Not lucky that you have ADHD, but lucky your
parents, teachers, and doctor have figured out that you have it. Some kids in
school have the problem and don’t know it. That would be like not having a
map. You will have the chance to do well because you have a map for your
journey and the problem has been marked. That means you know you will
need to do some things to help yourself become a more successful student. If
you do, you will have more control over where you are going and how you
will get there.” (Encourage students to take their maps to share with their
teachers and/or parents.)
Next time we meet, we will be talking about some of the things ADHD
students, like you, can do. When you come, I want you to bring your
backpacks with you.” (Figure out who has a backpack to bring.)

106
SESSION TWO: PACK IT UP
Objective:
To help students with organization.
Materials:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
“Messy” bag (optional - instructions attached at end of manual)
Activity cards (included)
Backpacks (students to bring their own and set aside)
Large zip lock bags (included)
Trash can
Opening Statement:
Say, “Remember last week we talked about ADHD. We said that knowing
you have it will help you to be successful at school because you can plan to work on
ways to help yourself be a better student. Today we are going to talk about and
practice one way to help ourselves be more in control and more successful.
Activities:
(1) Introduce the organization activity to students. As it unfolds, reinforce the
concepts of having appropriate materials, being able to find them, and throwing
away trash.
Ask, “What kinds of things do parents or teachers say to you about the way
you keep your backpack, desk, or bedroom organized? How do you feel and
what are you thinking when they say these things?” (Responses)
“Why does it matter? What is it like when you try to find something?”
(Responses)
“O.K., let’s do an activity together that might help us as we pack up for our
journey.”
Place the cards with the backpack, desk, bedroom, and trash can face up on the
table or floor.
Option 1: Counselor role play - Counselor will be looking in the “Messy”
bag for the stack of cards used to complete the activity.
However,
the bag is so messy he/she can’t find them and will begin pulling other
stuff out that students could place on one of the activity cards that are face
up on the floor. Have fun with this one! Don’t worry about ever finding
the cards.

107
Option 2: Have students take turns drawing a small card from the
stack and deciding if it should be placed in the backpack, desk, bedroom,
or trash can. (Some items could belong in more than one stack.)
After the activity say, “Many students with ADHD have difficulty
finding things and are easily distracted by messes in their backpacks,
desks, and bedrooms. ADHD is not an excuse for a messy desk or
backpack but a reason that we have to keep it organized. It is one
way to help ourselves be more in control of what happens in school.”
Backpack clean-out. Have each student get their backpack (pair students
who did not bring one).
Say, “I want each of you to look inside your backpack. I want you to
rate it from 1 to 10 in terms of organization with 1 being the least
organized and 10 being the most organized.” (Allow students to share
their ratings - you might also rate your own bag!)
Now have students find a spot in the room that they can sit and “privately”
dump out the contents of their backpack. Their task is to identify those
things that belong in the backpack, those things that should be taken home,
and those things that should go into the trash. Give them a large zip lock
bag for those things that should be taken home. Provide a trash can for the
activity.
Then say, “Lets all come back together with our backpacks. Now how
would you rate it? How does it feel to have it organized?” (Reinforce
responses while connecting organization to control)
Do 3 quick go arounds with students sharing the following:
“What kinds of things did you have in your backpack that belong
there?”
“What kinds of things are in the zip lock bag to go home?”
“What kinds of things did you throw away?”
“How could you use this same strategy with your desk or cubby?
What else could you organize?” (Accept all responses then encourage
students to pick one thing they will try or organize during the week that
they can tell us about next time.)
Closing statement:
Say, “Knowing you have ADHD also helps you to understand why
keeping things organized is important. It is one way for you to help

108
yourself on your journey to school success.” (Encourage students to
share their organized backpack with their teacher or parent while leaving
the zip lock bag home.)

109
SESSION THREE: STOP LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC COPS
Objectives:
(1) To help students identify school situations in which attending is important.
(2) To help students identify school situations in which attending is difficult.
(3) To help students become more aware of the behaviors associated with attending
and listening.
Materials:
(1) Chart paper and markers
(2) Blank cards (included)
(3) Any children’s book
(4) Two desks with chairs (preferred but not absolutely necessary - students could sit
in chairs at a table for the game)
Opening Statement:
Say, “Last week we learned how to get organized. What were the steps?”
(Reinforce responses about keeping appropriate materials, taking inappropriate materials
home or wherever they go, and throwing away trash.)
“What was something you organized this week? How did you feel when you
were done? How did it help you at school?” (Have students take turns responding.
Give any student who attempted, positive feedback about taking control of his/her own
learning. If necessary, rephrase the question to “What is something you wish you had
organized better this week?)
“Today we are going to work on two other skills that help all students -
listening and paying attention. As ADHD students on your journey to school
success, you are learning that this means you have to recognize what is difficult for
you and plan ways to help yourself. Paying attention and listening are good
examples of behaviors ADHD students find themselves working on. Let’s get
started.”
Activities:
(1) Teach the SLANT strategy for paying attention with students seated at a table or
on the floor.
Say, “Let’s pretend again that we are on our car trip. Of course it would
always be important to pay attention in the car, but when might we really
find it important to pay especially close attention?” (Reinforce responses that
have to do with looking for directions, trying to read signs, coming to a traffic
light that might be changing, etc., and how these can keep us from getting to our
destination if we overlook them.)

110
“How can traffic cops be helpful to us if we aren’t paying close enough
attention at these times?” (Responses may include giving reminders, tickets,
directions, directing traffic, etc...)
“Our classroom trip to success can be like this. While it is always important to
pay attention and listen at school, sometimes it is particularly important to give
these skills an extra effort, like in our example about the car trip. In your
classroom, what might some of these times be?” (Responses)
“How can teachers be of help if we are not paying close enough attention?”
(Responses)
“Your teacher wants you to have a successful journey!”
“What does the teacher want you to do when she says pay attention or
UstenV’ (Responses)
“One way we can remember some of these things and a few others is by using
an acronym (word made from the first letter of other words). An acronym that
some people use for helping remember how to pay attention is SLANT. ”
(Write vertically down the left side of chart paper)
Using the following as a guide, teach the strategy by reading, modeling the skill
for the students, having one student model, and having them all practice. Then
have students write the acronym on the card for their desk.
S - Sit up
L - Lean in slightly (as opposed to laying back)
A - Ask questions or make comments to show you are listening
N - Nod your head to show you are listening
T - Track the talker with your eyes
Note: While some of the physical behaviors may be hard to sustain, I have found
that A - Asking questions or making comments has been the most successful in
helping ADHD students.
(2) The Paying Attention Game (Counselor will need a children’s book, two students
will be seated in desks and two students will be the distracters)
Say, “Now we are going to play a game that will help us practice these skills.”
(Have two students take the seats in the desks or at the table with their SLANT
card on the desk.)

Ill
“Two of you will be practicing paying attention and listening while I read.
The other two of you will create distractions such as walking around the
room, talking, laughing, etc... the only rules are that you can not yell or
touch the students in the desks. Your job is to make it hard for the others to
pay attention.”
Read for about a minute or so and reinforce what you see. Encourage and create
opportunities for use of all 5 behaviors. Have students change places and repeat
the game. Process the activity with all students seated by asking questions like:
“What did you think about the game? What was it like when you were in the
desk listening? What did you do when there were noises and distractions?
How was the SLANT card helpful? What are times in your classroom when
paying attention is difficult? What can you do to be more in control?”
Summary Statement:
“Having ADHD doesn’t mean you can’t listen or pay attention. Remember
when we talked about the glasses, people who wear glasses can see without them,
they just can’t see clearly. Having ADHD makes paying attention and listening
more difficult but it can be done. Learning and remembering a strategy like
SLANT is important to help us take control during our journey to make sure we can
be successful in school. This is something you can do.” (Have students take their
SLANT card back to their classroom to tape to the corner of their desk. Encourage them
to practice during the week.)

112
SESSION FOUR: USING ROAD SIGNS AS A GUIDE
Objective:
To help students learn to recognize, create and use external cues in the classroom.
Materials needed:
(1) “Cue” cards (included)
(2) Cards (included) and markers
(3) Towel
Opening Statement:
Say, “Last week we played a game that helped us learn more about helping
ourselves pay attention even though we know that can be difficult at times. What do
you remember about that?” (Reinforce SLANT strategy, self-help, and encourage
sharing of any attempts to use it during the week.)
“How did having a SLANT card on your desk help?” (Responses)
“This week we are going to talk about some other ways to use “cues”, like the
SLANT card, to help us remember things we can do to help ourselves be more
successful in school. Cues are like reminders and can be very helpful for people
with ADHD even though many people who don’t have ADHD also use cues.”
Activities:
(1) Using the cue cards included for this activity, have each student pick a card to
hold up. The other students will guess what the card is reminding them to think or
do, and where they would see it (stop sign, RR crossing, sharp turn, exit, poison,
no running, happy face, SLANT - you may draw others you think of).
Then say, “These are all examples of cues or symbols that help us to
remember to think or do something. Can you think of other?” (Encourage all
responses, especially those that might relate to their classroom.)
(2) This activity involves reading body language cues. The counselor will start by
displaying several body postures and facial expressions that teachers might use in
the classroom to indicate approval or disapproval of student behavior. (This is
another one that you can have fun with!) Next, students each take a turn with
non-verbal expression that the others try to guess in the “Towel Game”.
Begin by saying, “Some of the cues we get in the classroom are not signs like
we would find on a road and are not written. Some of the cues or reminders
come from the way our teachers look at us. If we can learn to pay attention
to them, we can be better students. Watch me while I show you a few ways

113
your teacher may try to cue or remind you without saying anything.”
(Counselor non-verbal cues)
“If I were your teacher, what would you think I was trying to tell you?”
(Responses)
“How can you tell what I want? What do you see that gives you the clue?”
(Allow for responses then play a round of the “Towel Game”. Give each student
a turn to use the towel as a prop to depict a non-verbal scenario.)
“How does it help to be able to read body language?” (Responses)
“These are all cues you can read that will help you be more in control of
what
happens in your classroom.”
(3) Help students learn to create their own cues using acronyms.
Say, “Now let’s think about how we might make our own cues to act as
reminders. What is an acronym? (Response)
“Remember, I said using them is a good way to help remember things. You
can make up your own, like someone made up SLANT. For example, if you
needed to remember your lunchbox, assignment sheet, and backpack
everyday when it was time to go home, what acronym could you remember?”
(Write the letters A, B, and L down on a piece of paper for students to
unscramble)
“You could remember the acronym LAB. LAB would be a cue for the end of
every day that would help you get the rights things home. What kinds of
things do you need to remember at the end of the day? What kinds of things
do you need to remember to bring to school in the morning?” (If time allows,
help students make a list of things they need to remember at one point in the day
and come up with their own acronym.
Summary Statement:
“Students with ADHD can be successful in school and get things done.
Using cues and reminders in your classroom and making up your own are
ways to do it. Using them is like putting your glasses on, they help you to
focus more clearly on what you need to do and remember.”

114
SESSION FIVE: ROAD HOLES AND DETOURS
Objectives:
(1) To help students identify situations particularly difficult for students with ADHD.
(2) To help students identify ways to improve the situation when something has not
gone well (to take control of themselves).
Materials:
(1) Problem Solving Cards (included)
(2) Blank paper and markers or crayons
Opening Statement:
Say, “For the last several weeks we have talked about ADHD and ways to
help ourselves be more successful students. What are some of the things we can do
to help ourselves be more in control of what happens at school?” (Responses)
“What things have you tried? How have they worked?” (Responses)
“Today we are going to talk about times when things just don’t seem to work
out.”
Activities:
(1) Teach some coping strategies for times when students become upset, frustrated, or
“out of control”. These will include deep breathing and self talk.
Say, “What happens when things don’t work out the way you want them to?
How do you feel?” (Responses)
“What about when the teacher wants you to stop being silly or wants you to
pay attention to her directions but you just can’t seem to do it?” (Responses)
“There are some things we can learn to do in these situations that will help us
to be more successful. First of all, you can take a couple of deep breaths.
Let’s all take a couple. (Pause for the group to do this together)
“When your teacher gives you the cue that something is not OK, a couple of
deep breaths might give you the time to think about what you should be
doing. They might also help you relax so you can think more clearly. What
other times might a deep breath be good to give you time to think?” (When
they are angry or frustrated)
“Another things you might do is to say something to yourself like, I can do
this, settle down, what am I supposed to do, or try to do this one more time.

115
These things also give us the chance to think for a second before we do
anything. Why might it be important to think for a second before we act if
we are frustrated, angry, or upset?” (Responses)
“What might be a time that would be good to try this?” (Allow for responses
and have students model the behavior for one another.)
“Sometimes we can do both of these things at the same time, take a deep
breath and say something to ourselves that will give us a second before we do
anything.”
(2) Use the problem solving cards to elicit feelings and behaviors associated with
difficulties that might be experienced by ADHD students.
Say, “I want you to look each card. Problems like these are like running into
holes in the road when we travel. With ADHD we know that there are going
to be some holes in the road. We are going to have to find a way to go
around them, like a detour. These are times that you may be feeling
frustrated or upset, or things are just not going well. Every student has times
when things do not go well. ADHD students have times when things do not
go well in the classroom. Look at this card, what do you think has (is)
happened (happening)?” (Responses)
“How do you think the student is feeling? (Responses)
“What could this student do to help themselves right now?” (Responses)
“What might they have done to give themselves a few seconds to think before this
happened?” (Responses and then repeat for each card)
Have students draw a picture of a time they felt frustrated or upset. The cards
should have them thinking of one. Then have students write what they might
have done or said to create time to think before reacting.
Begin by saying, “Can you think of a time that you felt frustrated or upset?
What might you have said or done? I want you to draw me a picture of one
of those times. If we have time we will share them with each other.” (Give
each student a paper and marker. Encourage students to take their pictures with
them when they leave and share them with their parent or teacher.)

116
Closing Statement:
Say, “We know there will be holes in the road for ADHD students. There are
holes in the road for all students, but your map is marked so you can expect them.
You can learn how to get around them and get on with your journey. You will be
able to handle difficult situations better by taking a few deep breaths or saying
something to slow yourself down (before you get too frustrated or upset) so you can go
around the holes. When I see you next week, it will be the last time we will meet to
work on strategies.”

117
SESSION SIX: ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE AND BECOMING YOUR OWN
MECHANIC
Objectives:
(1) To help students identify sources of support at school.
(2) To have students experience the feelings of being in control.
(3) To help students understand that increased practice of a skill increases control
over that skill.
(4) To help students understand the use of medication in treating ADHD.
Materials:
(1) Chart paper and marker
(2) Two decks of cards and instructions for tricks (included)
(3) Juice and snack
Opening Statement:
Say, “We have been talking about ADHD and things we can do to help our¬
selves increase control of our success as students. What are some of those things?
(Reinforce responses that involve the strategies learned and any others the student may be
trying.)
“Today will be our last meeting. We will look at some more ways to help
ourselves be better students.”
Activities:
1. Provide an experience in which the student feels in control by teaching two
students a magic trick that they can perform. Be sure they have several minutes to
practice. Then swap students and teach a new trick to be performed.
Begin by saying, “First, we are going learn to do a magic trick. I bet you are
wondering what this has to do with ADD or being a more successful
student!” (Teach 2 students a trick to perform then swap and teach a new trick)
“How did you like doing the tricks?”
“How did practicing help?” (Connect responses to the concept that practice
increases control over things turning out the way you want them to.)
“How did it feel to be the one who knew how the trick was done?”
“This is how it feels to be in control. Are there times in your classroom when
you feel like this? What is that like?

118
“What was it like not to know how to do the trick? Who was in control
then? What was that like?”
“Sometimes, students with ADHD do not feel like they are in control of what
happens in the classroom. This may be because other people are trying make
things go well for them. Who else tries to make things go well for you at
school?” (Responses to be charted)
“What can each do to help you become more successful?”
“Having others help us is OK. Most students need some help at school. For
ADHD students, allowing others to help us is like getting roadside assistance
if we were having car trouble on our trip. We would welcome the help so we
could be on our way.”
2. Serve juice and snack as you finish the unit with a discussion of medication.
Begin by saying, “While you are eating, I am going to tell you a little more
about ADHD. Some students with ADHD also get help from medication.
The medication can help by giving you time to think about what to do before
- not after - you do it. The medicine does not teach you how to behave. For
example, if you take medication, that doesn’t mean you will know how to use
the SLANT strategies for paying attention. However, if you have learned
how to use SLANT, the medication can help you to do it. It can help make it
easier to get school work and even homework done by helping you to focus.”
“Not all students with ADHD take medication. Your doctor and parents
usually decide if you can be helped with medication. If they have decided it
will help you, you can help yourself by taking it and working on the
strategies we have been learning. Once more, this is like putting on your
glasses to focus more clearly. If they have decided that medication is not for
you, you can still focus on the kinds of strategies we have been learning.
Have students share their experiences and feelings about taking medication.
Answer any questions they might have.
Summary Statement:
“We know that all students need to work hard to be successful students. We
also know that each of you in the group has ADHD. That means you have to pay
particular attention to the ways to be a more successful student. During our group
sessions we have learned about being organized, cues that help us remember things,
SLANT that helps us to pay attention, about taking deep breaths and telling
ourselves things that will help us to slow down, about practicing skills, and about

119
ADHD. These are skills that help you become your own mechanic even though we
know there will be times you need roadside assistance.
Bring some closure to the group experience by asking students what they liked about the
group, what they didn’t like and how they plan to use the strategies. Thank them for
participating in the group.

120
Hints for Working with ADHD Students During this Unit
1. Use language that reinforces student responsibility for school success and being in
control of what happens at school. These are our keys to altering perceptions.
2. When students are given the chance to share ideas or responses, you might use a
“Go Around” by designating which student will share first and telling the group
which way to go around the circle. This provides additional structure.
3. Be conscious of your time during the sessions.
a. A simple acknowledgement, reflection, response to feeling expressed, or
maybe a how/what question would be appropriate responses to student
sharing that would facilitate the discussion but NOT take a great deal of
time. These kinds of responses will encourage students to share and keep
things moving.
b. If you have too much time left during any session, play Simon Says, Red
Light Green Light, or Mother May I. Use the games to continue reinforcing
feelings associated with control, successfully following directions, and
frustrations associated with things not turning out the way you want them to.
Encourage the use of paying attention strategies and taking deep breaths as
needed.
4. Be conscious of student interest and attention levels.
a. Use the reinforcers when necessary.
b. You might have the students rotate chairs between activities.
c. Move students from the floor to the table or table to floor if the activity
allows.
d. Have students sit Indian style in their chair.
e. Monitor individual sharing if other students are not attending.
5. Be aware of each student’s feelings associated with the ADHD diagnosis. The
parent permission letter asks that parents not give permission for the group if they
do not want their child to know they have ADHD. However, they may be waiting
for you to tell their child.
6. Once a strategy has been introduced, such as SLANT, continue to cue and
reinforce the behavior when it occurs in later sessions.
7. Using mnemonic devices (rhymes, sentences, or other devices intended to help us
remember) can also be used as aids. Sometimes just making a list to put on the
back door of the house to check as you leave in the morning or one to tape just
inside the desk as an end of the day reminder can help too.
8. If students plan to share activities from the session with their teacher, suggest that
they do it at an “appropriate time” and not the second they walk back to the
classroom.
9. Students will need reminders about transition behaviors.
10. Students who don’t have backpacks for the second session can be paired with
those who do. However, explore the reason for no backpack. Many PTA’s or
other groups will provide them for students. They can be particularly helpful for
ADHD students.

APPENDIX E
SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS

Table E-l
Statistical Results Supporting ANCOVA Assumptions - TRF
Source
SS
df
MS
F
D > F
Sch*Trt
582.72
12
48.56
1.78
.0717
TRFpre*TREpst
27.30
1
27.30
125.36
.0001*
*2> .05
Table E-2
Statistical Results SuoDortins ANCOVA Assumptions - CNSIE
Source
SS
df
MS F
D > F
Sch*Trt
184.08
12
15.34 1.24
.2728
LOCpre*LOCpst
12.38
1
12.38 11.28
.0014*
*P > .05
Table E-3
Statistical Results Supporting ANCOVA Assumptions - SSI-SF
Source
SS
df
MS
F
D > F
Sch*Trt
458.40
12
38.20
.68
.7605
SSIpre*SSIpst
55.87
1
55.87
15.20
.0002*
*P > .05
122

123
Table E -4
Means and Standard Deviation of Pre- and Post-Test Scores for Control Group Students
Control Group
Variable
N
Mean
Std Dev
TRF - Pre
46
63.54
8.20
TRF - Post
46
61.28
8.98
CNSIE - Pre
46
18.26
4.86
CNSIE - Post
46
17.52
4.40
SSI-Pre
46
27.52
7.30
SSI - Post
46
27.82
8.51
Table E -5
Means and Standard Deviation of Pre- and Post-Test Scores for Treatment Group
Students
Treatment Group
Variable
N
Mean
Std Dev
TRF - Pre
47
60.64
8.50
TRF - Post
47
60.34
9.86
CNSIE - Pre
47
19.09
4.38
CNSIE - Post
47
17.89
4.73
SSI - Pre
47
27.63
8.50
SSI-Post
47
26.89
7.22

REFERENCES
Abikoff, E. (1987). An evaluation of cognitive-behavioral therapy for hyperactive
children. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol 10,
pp.171-216). New York: Plenum.
Abikoff, E., & Gittelman, R. (1985). Hyperactive children treated with
stimulants: Is cognitive training a useful adjunct? Archives of General Psychiatry, 42,
953-961.
Abramowitz, A. J., & O’Leary S. G. (1991). Behavioral interventions for the
classroom: Implications for students with ADHD. School Psychology Review, 20(2),
220-234.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991
Profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. S. (1986). Manual for the teacher’s report
form and teacher’s version of the child behavior profile. Burlington: Department of
Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Adalbjarnardottir, S. (1995). How school children propose to negotiate: The role
of social withdrawal, social anxiety, and locus of control. Child Development. 66. 1739-
1751.
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Allyon, T., Layman, D. & Kendel, H. (1975). A behavioral-educational
alternative to drug control of hyperactive children. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Analysis. 8. 137-146.
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
124

125
American School Counselor Association (1994). Position statement: Attention-
deficit hyperactivity disorder. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Barkley, R. A. (1989). Hyperactive boys and girls: Stimulant drug effects on
mother-child interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 30. 379-390.
Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for
diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York:
Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for
diagnosis and treatment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Barkley, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., & McMurray, M. B. (1990). A comprehensive
evaluation of attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 58. 775-789.
Barkey, R. A., Fischer, M., Edelbrock, C. S., & Smallish, L. (1990). The
adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8 year
prospective follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry. 29. 546-557.
Bialer, I. (1961). Conceptualization of success and failure in mentally retarded
and normal children. Journal of Personality. 29. 303-320.
Biederman, J., Faraone, S. V., & Lapey, K. (1992). Comorbidity of diagnosis in
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. In G. Weiss (Ed), Child and adolescent
psychiatric clinics of North American: Attention-deficit hyperactibitv disorder (pp. 335-
360). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Block, J. H. (1977). Hyperactivity: A cultural perspective. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 10. 235-240.
Borden, K. A., Brown, R. T., Jenkins, P., & Clingerman, S. R. (1987).
Achievement attributions and depressive symptoms in attention-deficit disordered and
normal children. Journal of School Psychology. 25.399-404.
Bowley, B. B., & Walther, E. (1992). Attention deficit disorders and the role of
the elementary school counselor. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 27. 39-46.

126
Bowman, R. P. (1987). Small group guidance and counseling in the schools: A
national survey of school counselors. The School Counselor. 34. 256-262.
Bramlett, R. K., Nerson, P., & Reeves, B. (1997). Stimulant treatment of
elementary school children: Implications for school counselors. Elementary School
Guidance & Counseling. 31. 243-250.
Braswell, L. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral groups for children manifesting ADHD
and other disruptive behavior disorders. Special Services in the Schools. 8. 91-117.
Braswell, L. (1998). Cognitive behavioral approaches as adjunctive treatments for
ADHD children and their families. In S. Goldstein & M. Goldstein (Eds.), Managing
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: A practitioners guide (pp. 533-544).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Braswell, L., & Bloomquist, M. L. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for
children with ADHD: Child, family and school interventions. New York: Guilford.
Brown, N. W. (1994). Group counseling for elementary and middle school
children. CT: Praeger.
Brown, R. T., & Borden, K. A. (1986). Hyperactivity at adolescence: Some
misconceptions and new directions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 15. 194-209.
Brown, R. T., Wynne, M. E., & Medinis, R. (1985). Methylphenidate and
cognitive therapy: A comparison of treatment approaches with hyperactive boys. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13. 69-88.
Bryan, T. H., & Pearl, R. (1979). Self-concepts and locus of control of learning
disabled students. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 8. 223-226.
Burnley, G. D. (1993). A team approach for identification of an attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder child. The School Counselor. 40. 228-230.
Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J. F. (1978). The case for teaching social skills in the
classroom: A review. Review of Educaitonal Research. 48. 133-156.
Cobb, J. A. (1972). Relationship is discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology. 63, 74-80.
Christenson, S. L. (1992). Review of the Child Behavior Checklist. In J. J.
Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 164-
166). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.

127
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M.,
Weinfield, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (OE38001).
Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U. S. Office of
Education.
Conners, C. K. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with
children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 884-888.
Conners, C. K. (1980). Food additives and hyperactive children. New York:
Plenum.
Conrad, P. (1975). The discovery of hyperkinesis: Notes on the medicalization of
deviant behavior. Social Problems. 23, 12-21.
Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (1997). Groups: Process and practice (5th ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Cox, R. D., & Gunn, W. B. (1980). Interpersonal skills in the schools:
Assessment and curriculum development. In D. P. Rathjen & J. P. Foreyt (Eds.), Social
competence: Interventions for children and adults (pp. 113-132). New York: Pergamon
Press.
Crandall, V. C., Crandall, Y. J., & Katkowsky, W. (1965). A children’s social
desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 27-36.
Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Children’s beliefs in
their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations.
Child Development. 36, 91-109.
Cuthbert, M. I. (1987). Developmental guidance for school success skills: A
comparison of modeling and coaching. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Davlia, R. R., William, M. L., & MacDonald, J. T. (1991). Memorandum of chief
state school officers re: Clarification of policy to address the needs of children with
attention deficit disorder within general or special education. Washington DC: U. S.
Department of Education.
DuPaul, G. J., & Rapport, M. D. (1993). Does methylphenidate normalize the
classroom performance of children with attention deficit disorder? Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 190-198.

128
DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (1994). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and
intervention strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Edelbrock, C., Costello, A. J., & Kessler, M. D. (1984). Empirical corroboration
of attention deficit disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry.
23,285-290.
Elkind, D. (1970). Children and adolescents: Interpretive essays on Jean Piaget.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, S. N., & Busse, R. T. (1992). Review of the Child Behavior Checklist. In
J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp.
166-169). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Epstein, M. H., Singh, N. N., Luebke, J., & Stout, C. E. (1991).
Psychopharmacological intervention: Teacher perceptions of psychotropic medication for
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24. 477-483.
Erk, R. R. (1995a). The evolution of attention deficit disorders terminology.
Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 29. 243-248.
Erk, R. R. (1995b). A diagnosis of attention deficit disorder: What does it mean
for school counselors? The School Counselor. 42. 292-299.
Erk, R. R. (1999). Attention deficit hyperacitity disorders: Counselors, laws, and
implications for Practice. Professional School Counseling. 2. 318-326.
Feingold, B. (1975). Why your child is hyperactive. New York: Random House.
Florida Department of Education (1997). Alachua County Public Schools: School
Advisory Report. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Education.
Foster, E. S. (1983). Tutoring: Learning by helping. Minneapolis, MN:
Educational Media.
Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goldstein, S., & Goldstein, M. (1998). Managing attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder in children: A guide for practitioners. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

129
Gomez, K. M., & Cole, C. L. (1991). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A
review of treatment alternatives. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling. 26. 106-113.
Goyette, C. H., Conners, C. K., & Ulrich, R. F. (1978). Normative data on revised
Conners Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 6.
221-236.
Henker, B., & Whalen, C. (1980). The changing faces of hyperactivity:
Retrospect and prospect. In C. Whalen & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The
social ecology of identification and treatment (pp. 321-364). New York: Academic Press.
Hops, H., & Cobb, J. A. (1973). Survival behaviors in the educational setting:
Their implications for research and intervention. In L. A. Hemmerlynk, L. C. Handy, &
E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change (pp. 193-208). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Jackson, B., & Farrugia D. (1997). Diagnosis and treatment of adults with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Counseling & Development. 75(4),
312-319.
Jordan, D. R. (1992). Attention deficit disorder: ADHD and ADD syndromes.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kauffman, J. M (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of
children and youth (5th ed.). New York: Merrill.
Kavale, K. (1992). The efficacy of stimulant drug treatment for hyperactivity: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 15. 280-289.
Kendall, P. C., & Braswell, L. (1985). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for impulsive
children. New York: Guilford Press.
Klein, S. S. (1971). Student influence on teacher behavior. American
Educational Research Journal. 8. 403-421.
Kottman, T., Robert, R., & Baker, D. (1995). Parental perspectives on attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: How school counselors can help. The School Counselor.
41 142-149.
Laufer, M., Denhoff, E., & Solomons, G. (1957). Hyperkinetic impulse disorder
in children’s behavior problems. Psychosomatic Medicine, 19, 38-49.

130
Lavin, P. (1991). The counselor as consultant-coordinator for children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 26.
115-120.
Lavin, P. (1997). A daily classroom checklist for communicating with parents of
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The School Counselor. 44, 315-
318.
Limi, R. T. & Hodge, G. K. (1982). Locus of control in childhood hyperactivity.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50Í4) 592-593.
Lucker, J. R., & Molloy, A. T. (1995). Resources for working with children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Elementary School Guidance &
Counseling. 29, 260-267.
Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. (1983). Sibling interactions of hyperactive and
normal children and their relationship to reports of maternal stress and self-esteem.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12. 91-99.
McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A.P (1984). Skill streaming the elementary school
child: A guide for teaching prosocial skills. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
McKinney, J. D., Montague, M., & Hocutt, A. M. (1993). Educational assessment
of children with attention deficit disorder. Exceptional Children. 60(2). 125-131.
Montague, M„ & Warger, C. (1997). Helping students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder succeed in the classroom. Focus on Exceptional Children. 30(4),
1-16.
Morin, V. A. (1993). Effects of a complex cognitive strategy on locus of control
for students with learning disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Morrison, J. R., & Minkoff, K. (1975). Explosive personality as a sequel to the
hyperactive child syndrome. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 16. 343-348.
Myrick, R. D. (1997). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical
approach (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corp.
Myrick, R. D., & Bowman (1991). Children helping children: Teaching students
to become friendly helpers (revised ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corp.

131
Myrick, R. D., & Dixon, R. W. (1985). Changing student attitudes and behavior
through group counseling. The School Counselor. 32. 325-330.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1983). The Nowicki-Strickland life-span locus of
control scales: Construct validation. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of
control construct. Volume II: Developments and social problems (pp. 9-51). New York:
Academic Press.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 41(1) 148-154.
Pasamanick, B., Rogers, M., & Lilienfeld, A. M. (1956). Pregnancy experience
and the development of behavior disorder in children. American Journal of Psychiatry.
112.613-617.
Patterson, L., & Goldstein, H. (1991). New statistical methods for analysing
social structures: An introduction to multilevel models. British Educational Research
Journal. 17. 387-393.
Pauls, D. L. (1991). Genetic factors in the expression of attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psvchopharmacology. 1. 353-
360.
Piaget, J. (1967). The child’s construction of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,
Adams.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Educational applications of hierarchical linear
models: A review. Journal of Educational Statistics. 13. 85-116.
Reeve, R. E. (1990). ADHD: Facts and fallacies. Intervention in School and
Clinic. 26. 115-120.
Ross, D. M., & Ross, S. A. (1976). Hyperactivity: Research, theory, and action.
New York: Wiley.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 80. 609.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal verses external control of reinforcement: A case
history of a variable. American Psychologist. 45. 489-493.
Safer, D. J., & Allen, R. (1976). Hyperactive children. Baltimore: University
Park Press.

132
Sandler, I., Reese, F., Spender, L., & Harpin, P. (1983). Person by environment
interaction and locus of control: Laboratory, therapy, and classroom studies. In H. M.
Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct. Volume II: Developments
and social problems (pp. 187-251). New York: Academic Press.
Schweibert, V. L., Sealander, K. A., & Bradshaw, M. L. (1998). Preparing
students with Attention-Deficit Disorders for entry into the workplace and post-secondary
education. Professional School Counseling. 2(1). 26-32.
Schweibert, V. L., Sealander, K. A., & Tollerud, T. R. (1995). Attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder: An overview for school counselors. Elementary School Guidance
& Counseling. 29. 249-259.
Searcy, J. D., & Hawkins-Searcy, J. (1979). Locus of control research and its
implications for child personality. In A. J. Finch & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Clinical
treatment and research in child psychopathology (pp. 137-152). Jamaica, NY: Spectrum.
Sexton, T. L. (1998). The relevance of counseling outcome research: Current
trends and practical implications. Journal of Counseling & Development. 74, 590-600.
Sharf, R. S. (1996). Theories of psychotherapy and counseling: Concepts and
cases. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
U Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (Eds.). (1992). Attention deficit disorder
comes of age: Toward the twenty-first century, Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Stein, M. A., Szumowski, E., Blondis, T. A., & Roizen, N. J. (1995). Adaptive
skills dysfunction in ADD and ADHD children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 36, 663-670.
Still, G. F. (1902). Some abnormal conditions in children. Lancet. 1, 1008-1012,
1077-1082, 1163-1168.
Strauss, A. A.,& Lehtinen, L. E. (1947). Psychopathology and education of the
brain-injured child. New York: Gruñe & Stratton.

133
Swanson, J. M., McBurnett, K., Christian, D. L., & Wigal, T. (1995). Stimulant
medications and the treatment of children with ADHD. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz
(Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Yol. 17, pp. 265-322). New York:
Plenum.
Tarnowski. K. J., & Nay, S. M. (1989). Locus of control in children with
hyperactivity and learning disabilities: A subgroup analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 22, 381-389.
Teeter, P. A., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1995). Integrating neurobiological,
psychosocial, and behavioral paradigms: A transactional model for the study of ADHD.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 10, 433-461.
Thompson, C. L., & Rudolph, L. B. (1996). Counseling children (4th ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing.
Tredgold, A. F. (1908). Mental deficiency /amentia). New York: W. Wood.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1979). The hyperactive child syndrome. Science.
205, 1348-1354.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1986). Hyperactive children grown up. New York:
Guilford Press.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1993). Hyperactive children grown up: ADHD in
children, adolescents and adults. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Werry, J. (1978). Pediatric pharmacology. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. (1991). Therapies for hyperactive children:
Comparisons, combinations, and compromises. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59, 126-137.
Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., & Dotemoto, S. (1980). Teacher response to
methylphenidate (Ritalin) verses placebo status of hyperactive boys in the classroom.
Child Development. 52, 1005-1014.
Willis, T. J., & Lovaas, I. (1977). A behavioral approach to treating hyperactive
children: The parent’s role. In J. B. Millichap (Ed.), Learning disabilities and related
disorders (pp. 199-140). Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publications.
Wittmer, J., & Myriclc, R. D. (1989). The teacher as facilitator. Minneapolis,
MN: Educational Media Corporation.

134
Wolraich, M. L., Wilson, D. B., & White, J. W. (1995). The effect of sugar on
behavior or cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 274, 1617-1621.
Zametkin, A. J., Nordahl, T. E., Gross, M., King, A. C., Semple, W. E., Rumsey,
J., Hamburger, S., & Cohen, R. M. (1990). Cerebral glucose metabolism in adults with
hyperactivity of childhood onset. New England Journal of Medicine. 323. 1361-1366.
Zentall, S. S. (1993). Research on the educational implications of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children. 60121. 143-153.
Zentall, S. S. (1995). Modifying classroom tasks and environments. In S.
Goldstein (Ed.), Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior (pp. 143-
154). New York: Wiley.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Linda DeJong Webb was born February 19, 1957, in Iowa City, Iowa, the
daughter of Marlene Shellady DeJong and Richard Henry DeJong, Jr. She received her
Bachelor of Science degree in early childhood and elementary education from Florida
State University in 1978, and in 1982, she received her Master of Education degree from
the University of Mississippi.
Linda began her career as a school counselor in 1985 in Alachua County, Florida,
serving in this capacity until 1997. She is a Florida Certified School Counselor and
National Board Certified Counselor. She is also completing requirements for becoming a
Licensed Mental Health Counselor.
Over the past two years, Linda has been a guidance counselor with the
Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Training Program under Dr. John Ross, a pediatric
neurologist. This has provided an opportunity to be involved in the initial planning and
implementation of a specialized classroom for ADHD children where preliminary work
for this study was conducted. Linda is a member of the American Counseling
Association, American School Counseling Association, the Association for Counselor
Education and Supervision, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
135

136
Linda has spent her adult lifetime working to understand and empower immediate
and extended family members impacted by ADHD. This has driven her to take a serious
look at ways life and public school systems address the needs of those with the disorder.
Linda has lived in Gainesville, Florida, since 1985. As a professional, school
counseling activities have been the focus. Personally, Linda has been happily married to
John Webb and has enjoyed the personal, academic, and athletic growth of her two
daughters Pam, who is 15, and Christa, who is 13.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert D. Myrick, Chair
Professor of Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Harry Daniels
Professor of Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor of Foundations of
Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Edward Turner
Associate Professor of Instruction
and Curriculum
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1999 yZ. /)? v
Dean, College of Education J *-~
Dean, Graduate School

861F13 y, â„¢ !
10/12/99 347G0

¿'ftpyá'P
â–  $ i:?
m
»hí-síS-í
3.T;
.:)vü.
X i!>v-É1-TX Ills
l ,i -V J1 . < r
‘i
'•Y-'.
¡¡L'lsiíSi&iitwu.
w‘ "' ¡ÉlP
'
‘mwí
ÉÉeSftk
ü
!S"*jtenií»5iSfesiB.
::;U;
;iáv;
..ii#®» •«
■áíí'm im
'fes
Irte
r:¡§^
«a fe#-
Irü^íísa:-
S&5
’gaV) Api''::^-V
v-:1;'!'1;.;.:■'■'■;'fe■ lifea;:i;i'vi:il:|' ¿fe
' . *
»:i!S
ialid
Él
mm
. 5
í¡iS! «S;!
iSiUSS?
'iró.'A-ii'teíSi
KÍ|1Í I «ÍÍIÍÍ
.;• -.iV.,:■ -r v.
¿Sáí't
lírHH
AÍ’:'uUi«i5Hr::^
â– 
Y-’.p': : •■’. ' i -.■■■■
' fea fe ■•"... i'v
‘" ‘ :ih;--;‘r:*:-ív--í^c'Mííi;íi: ■siai&wsi
: â– :::â– â– â– ;â– : ;.: ;
m
-
fe:!1
Sáfe
1:¡I¡1¡!ÍÍ:J;k!
wS¡l:
Xil;
j*
itfeíííítiK
¡'Mm*
i;i nubViSí
]'v\v4['
V'JWífiií
â– p
!V'V,
;|p#'
i|
X J- "f.
1¡¡
L'aafv;
i;«í%{j:íS
;||:
yííiii
ilt&lxív:
'ápAÚ
;i:|í
áijiji;;
■ -á.iia-
.r-vr.;f:1
ámii;
.•íáv.ixi:':
tvD'v
ls|
\p . ^
:. :* v :-i :
•
lili!
íiiSiiSfe
S¡í¡¡
'¡rJijíí
fe
m
i
g¡
fes
¡¡usan:
fe 'fe
'tisE&l,nai>i5'Sriü
&«*
mei
m
\< I ’
i§0X‘
,;l iSv.
lit):;;;?
■Jpií-tf.
fflgijjj'ii»;?
: fe
â– iSils'DIlpS)
!“ Mfe
â–  Ifel': :
í'fe'-ító
;.i.l¡U.' ’h»i-.;,-
1Í1Í!
IIÉÍ?
g&ftSgR^SSSji&iíl
: â–  â– 
iv W^rnM^M%r
í
nS-:¡Éfei
ir.
, :i:Í
fefS'.
I ,1vi 111 • - r¿$fe,
fefefe-fefe1#:. :fei.':'fe
ífe
fefe-:fe
::^-;
iüülfiSSiiS*'
. ai
â– mmm
•;aM
i:R
...
iiiiii
, „... sutes
:!'.¡i!:hil)" itfi! I'':1!1? i: ;i¡K“
íMm
iilil
ii-WF
iíÉiípSü
Bms
â– :,v'
ÉHlÉÉi»^
• ,■ .,..i: 'i-:V: ; . ■' ■
â– 
sil 11
IWIlliiilK
itoii?!
... ¡ I ' i.' • 'i
v t, â–  ; ;
'
fiil:
Ki'1'1 , '-'.v/m
; .'Xv ! : â–  ;> V::- -
/ . k; •
i||; V; >
■I . ; !• :■ ? **0-
liil
'''■■■’■fll'viw:
■■í' .: ■
>*iesiña
P mmms
Pilir*
i:::iíS|SÉa,J
.,.?! ¡íl,
w—i
' :' ., ;. ■ II.; ■ •
il|i'é'É«ISÍÍiwilS ‘ É
ssn-í
l!l«
;V.i;'.:';: vbííXá;!
:íl-■■, ■ ■■■>;'■
f:!:í:i,;;;t <:i
ii'rtiíi
m
¡!S;:M¿í:;lii.i:
||S:fE‘i
iv. ;â– !
.! .
r«SW3íí»i,,v3i£M&
;!&!'
■íw!íi|3;jii
m.
. í! ■ £M ímm
• ... ......
,' >' ; ... ■■:■• ■ ■■■ .
iiSiiPliiíiS
. . < . :
IllSIlfcliSilin
illdlPllílil!!!!
l¡X|ii::;ÍÜíil
MÍiififfi
m
Ms
.;i:i ’>
I â–  ....
' ,;. ■ • -ir.:. :
;■ ;l: ■-í V; ' ... :p:
,i.! '• •■ !•'. •'■... . ’
; :
¡|;SS
. . -â–  ; :,:v.
mam
'I :i-
VA-X
• •
*4 ¡iXWé^x *ic:
â– ir \)v&
rn:
¡V;.
i¡::;'¡:) X'
MBS)
)B haí’-fc
ggjl
â– mm
Í5SG:
Í.:; liH:': ■■ '' i: V ')-•:
¿y/u*v' '*• ,f-:
^»>?Ar,n¡i¡ic.r:H”i:4,::7r.i4- ;i -
- - ’ *
'•" :, ,. -; • .,v
Xr-.iic.fnijitu;!.?.;: tó
l'flj rflfe,
â– 
ífilSIIR
■ .iál■'
â– 
í’iMi
¡flM
W:
.
. ‘: ’ ú E:;
r*síi*i8»
MlMS
íi:S;i
Ai

1780
1999
W366




H

r
D
9
k-'
' V
H
*
5f
*
*
$
â–  -4
*!
4
15
aw
Í*
*»
IP
1?
a
t>
P


EDUCATION LIBRARY
DATE DUE
DUE RETURNED DUE RETURNED
JAN 2 5 20|qfAN | o 2
00
MAR 1 2 20
MAR 0 1 21
00
W 0 2 201
MJL 1 7 20
0
OCT 0 1 20
m 0 8 201
0
OCT 2 3 2Í
1ft 3 1 20Í
1
A
scn \ w
njj 8 HÚÚ
?P2
I
AUfi 2 f
2002
WG 1 6 201
?
MAY 3 0 ?
wiUN 1 *
\003
K
n
uv 1 8 ZQk
NOV t 9 2'
03
MAR 0 9
m i7"
906



73
Students Perceptions of School Success Behaviors
The ANCOVA performed on the students perceptions of school success
behaviors showed no significant differences between treatment and control groups.
Additionally, scores on the School Success Inventory Student Form were not effected
by age, sex, medication, or ESE status; therefore, it was concluded that these variables
did not seem to effect the way students rated themselves with regard to school success
behaviors.
School Counselor Perceptions
Descriptive statistics were used to examine perceptions of schools counselors
delivering the small group counseling intervention. Based on returned surveys, it can be
concluded that school counselors felt the intervention was appropriate for ADHD
students, that it positively effected student perceptions and knowledge, and that it
improved their own knowledge base and confidence in working with ADHD students and
their teachers.
Discussion
Results of the current study suggest that school counselors consider the
implications of brief group counseling interventions for ADHD students. Results also
suggest a look at variables that may impact the results of treatment and outcome
measures.
The counseling intervention did not appear to significantly impact the classroom
behavior of ADHD students. While school success behaviors were introduced and
practiced in the group, the brevity of the intervention may not have allowed for the
integration of skills that would be evident in teacher ratings of classroom behavior.


'
.
.
-
ffi&
hShHi
mmm
mm
'.S ?A
wPffiSf
. ;..;
mm
sm


6
There is general agreement in the literature that successful students tend to have
more of an internal locus of control (Lewis & Lawerence-Patterson, 1989). Additionally,
Adalbjamardottir (1995) has demonstrated that children with an internal locus of control
are better problem solvers than those with an external tendancy. Some researchers (Linn
& Hodge, 1982) also suggest that children with attention problems tend to have a more
external locus of control than do normal children. It is not surprising then, that ADHD
students tend to develop a more external locus of control.
How has the widespread use of stimulant medication and the emphasis on
modifications by teachers and parents effected the locus of control frame of reference of
ADHD children? Students who take stimulant medication and are the targets of
numerous interventions may not see themselves as responsible for the outcomes of their
behavior. From this perspective, what happens during the school day is the result of the
effectiveness of their medication and teachers efforts, not their own choices. This would
reflect an external locus of control. On the other hand, Barkley (1998) suggests that
ADHD is not an excuse or a reason to dismiss the consequences of ones actions but
rather an explanation as to why it is necessary for those with the disorder to increase
awareness of lifes behavioral contingencies. Helping ADHD students understand how
their disorder effects school performance may be one way to enhance a more internal shift
in locus of control perceptions. As this shift takes place, ADHD students can begin to see
themselves as having the capacity to control their environment (Goldstein & Goldstein,
1998).
This study involves the development of a school counseling intervention. It is
based on cognitive behavioral theory, and aimed to help students better understand


GROUP FACILITATORS MANUAL
SESSION ONE: OUR JOURNEY
Objectives:
To help students understand attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
To help students identify behaviors associated with ADHD and how they can
effect school success.
To allow students to recognize their own ADHD diagnosis and express associated
feelings.
Materials Needed:
Chart paper, marker, and tape, tacks, or magnets to post (or a chalk board or dry
erase board)
Maps (included)
Opening Statement:
Say, Hello, were going to get together as group for the next six weeks. Each
of you has been picked for the group because you know something about ADHD.
Today we are going to get to know each other a little, talk about what ADHD is, and
what it means when someone at school has ADHD.
Activities:
Have the students sit in a circle and take turns sharing information with each other
(a go around) using some basic questions.
Say, First were going to get to know each other. We are going
to take turns telling your name, whos class you are in, and one thing you like
to do when you get home from school. Well start with you (indicate the
student to your left) and go all the way around to you.
Teach students about ADHD, related behaviors, and school performance.
Say, Were going to be talking a lot about ADHD. What do you know about
it? (Allow several responses)
OK, now I am going to share some things about ADHD. The letters ADHD
stand for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Having Attention Deficit
Disorder is like needing to wear glasses. A student who needs glasses may
have trouble seeing things that need to be read or copying things from the
board. Some students who need glasses dont like to put them on at first, but
they do it to help their eyes focus more clearly. This can be like having
103


43
The researcher supervised the random selection of ADHD students and several
alternates for each school. This was done at the workshop, where the lists of ADHD
students at each school were available.
Upon completion of review and questions about research procedures, the
workshop focus shifted to ADHD and included the treatment intervention and its
delivery. Tasks included talking about problems facing ADHD children, reviewing
teacher concerns, and studying the Group Facilitators Manual. The participants
examined session content and discussed the activities in terms of objectives and
procedures. Counselors were encouraged to follow the counseling manual so the
treatment would be relatively consistent across counselors and schools.
Brief notices were sent to all counselors at two-week intervals with reminders
about important procedures and clarification reflecting any questions that had been raised
by any of the counselors. This was also an attempt to increase the uniformity of the
intervention delivery. The researcher remained available by phone throughout the
duration of the study.
Treatment Description
A small group format was used to deliver the counseling intervention to third,
fourth, and fifth grade ADHD students. The six counseling sessions took place in
approximately once a week sessions for a period of six weeks during the spring semester.
Each session lasted approximately 30-40 minutes. Counselors followed the agreed upon
guidelines described in the manual and implemented group counseling activities
accordingly.


78
well as the nature of the disorder (ADHD), a maximum of four students were
recommended for inclusion in each. Most schools were able to assign four students to the
treatment group while attrition left some schools groups with three students. While the
adjusted mean score for each small group was reported, the small, unequal numbers
within each group produced estimated error rates and estimated degrees of freedom.
In summary, there were several possible limitations. Limitations included brevity,
the issue of embedded intervention, non-random inclusion of schools in the study, small
and unequal numbers of students in groups, and difficulty in controlling outside
intervention. However, it was felt that most of these limitations were anticipated and that
steps were taken in the design of the research to minimize their effects on the results of
the study.
Implications
The results of this study contribute to the limited information available to school
counselors about the effectiveness of small group counseling as an intervention for
ADHD students. The results also contribute to the growing body of information
concerning ADHD students and locus of control orientation.
The findings suggest that brief group counseling interventions for ADHD students
can effect changes in perceptions. Because of tight scheduling and time restrictions at all
levels of schooling, it is important to identify interventions that can produce effects in
short periods of time. Brief group intervention can help increase awareness of ADHD as
it relates to school behaviors. However, it is also important to recognize that this type of
brief intervention alone may not be enough to produce a sense of control of daily
occurrences or behavioral changes that can be generalized to classroom settings.


4
about 75% of those being treated with stimulant medication (DuPaul & Rapport, 1993;
Kavale, 1982; Whalen & Henker, 1991). Even though stimulant medication has no effect
on academic performance, per se, productivity may improve as a result of controlling the
interfering behaviors (Montague & Warger, 1997). In addition, researchers (Weiss &
Hechtman, 1986) have found the long-term prognosis for ADHD children treated with
stimulant medication alone to be the same as those receiving no treatment. Therefore,
maximizing the effects of psychosocial and educational treatments may be the greatest
benefit. Stimulants do not teach appropriate behavior but do increase the probability of a
child displaying appropriate behaviors that are already in their repertoire (Barkley, 1998).
It helps children to show what they know but does not alter the childs knowledge of what
needs to be done (Werry, 1978). According to Barkley (1998) the difficulty for ADHD
students is not knowing what to do, but doing what they know. This then makes ADHD
more a disorder of performance than a disorder of skill and not a learning disability.
From this perspective it is clear that additional intervention strategies are needed
to help ADHD students understand their disorder, and learn and practice new behaviors
that can become part of the repertoire of skills that enhances their learning. However, for
ADHD students, there is a difference between possessing a skill and using it effectively
(Stein, Szumowski, Blondis, & Roizen, 1995). Cognitive behavioral therapy provides
one approach to support student need for understanding how ADHD effects school
performance and a vehicle for learning and practicing skills needed to be successful in the
classroom. Providing the opportunity to learn school success skills would be a
prerequisite to demonstrating those skills in the classroom even when other interventions
are in place. An ADHD student can not exhibit a behavior that has not been learned.


3
feelings that create difficulties with peers and school performance, allows the school
counselor to apply intervention at the point of performance.
This study examines the effects of a small group counseling intervention designed
to help ADHD students increase knowledge and control of their disorder, leading to
improved perceptions of self as a student, a more internal locus of control, and improved
classroom behavior. Cognitive behavioral strategies will be used.
Theoretical Perspective
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is the most recent diagnostic label for
children displaying significant problems with attention, impulsiveness, and hyperactivity.
During this decade a shift has been underway to view the cause of ADHD as more
influenced by neurological and genetic factors than by social or environmental ones, and
as treatable but not curable (Barkley, 1998; Teeter & Semrud-Clikeman, 1995).
Problems typically presented by school children with ADHD include completing
academic work, acting-out behavior problems, low self-esteem, and inappropriate
interactions with peers, parents and teachers (Reeve, 1990; Zentall, 1993). These children
can not sustain concentration and are easily distracted. Additional difficulties noted by
DuPaul and Stoner (1994) include struggles with consistent school performance; low test
performance; disorganized desks, backpacks, and reports; and disruptions caused as
ADHD students call out or impulsively express anger and frustration.
The most common treatment for ADHD is medication (Epstein, Singh, Luebke, &
Stout, 1991). Sixty to ninety percent of children diagnosed with the disorder receive
stimulant medication for prolonged periods during their school careers (Whalen &
Henker, 1991). Short-term enhancements in behavioral functioning have been found in


70
behavior, was measured by the Teacher Report Form (TRF). This instrument asked
teachers to rate the classroom behavior of their students using a 0 (Not True), 1
(Sometimes True), and 2 (Very Often True) rating scale for 118 behaviors. Standardized
T scores are generated, normed for age and sex, with higher scores indicating more
problematic behavior than lower scores. Total scores were used in the mixed model
ANCOVA.
The second dependent variable, locus of control, was measured by the Childrens
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE). Students were
asked to respond to 40 statements by circling yes or no as each response was read by the
counselor. Scores were based on the number of responses that indicated an external locus
of control orientation to the statement; therefore, scores could range from 0 to 40. Higher
scores indicated a more external locus of control than lower scores. The raw number of
external responses was used in the mixed model ANCOVA analysis.
The third dependent variable, students perceptions of school success behaviors,
was measured by the School Success Inventory Student Form (SSI SF) which asked
students to rate themselves on 12 items related to school success skills in terms of
frequency on a five point Likert-type scale. Scores ranged from 12 (best performance) to
60 (worst performance). Total scores were used in the mixed model ANCOVA.
Descriptive statistics were used to examine the results of a post-intervention
school counselor survey. The focus of the 11 item Likert-type survey was to assess
counselors perceptions of appropriateness and effectiveness of the intervention as well as
to assess the impact of intervention delivery on the school counselors themselves.


13
Table 2-1
Diagnostic Criteria for ADHD (DSM-IV. 19941
A. Either (1) or (2):
(1) six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted
for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent
with the developmental level:
Inattention
1. often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless
mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
2. often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
3. often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
4. often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish
schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to
oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions)
5. often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
6. often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that
require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or
homework)
7. often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys,
school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
8. is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
9. is often forgetful in daily activities
(2) six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity
have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and
inconsistent with developmental level:
Hyperactivity
(a) often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
(b) often leaves seat in classroom or in other situations in which
remaining seated is expected
(c) often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is
inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to
subjective feelings of restlessness)
(d) often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities
quietly
(e) is often on the go or often acts as if driven by a motor
(f) often talks excessively
Impulsivity
(g) often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
(h) often has difficulty awaiting turn
(i) often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into
conversations or games)


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly
diagnosed and studied disorders among children (Barkley, 1998; Shaywitz & Shaywitz,
1992). An estimated 3% to 5% of the school age population has ADHD, defined as
persistent patterns of developmentally inappropriate inattention, impulsivity, and/or
hyperactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) with boys outnumbering girls
(Kauffman, 1993; Barkley, 1990). Recent research (Barkley, 1998) is leaning towards
impulsivity as a hallmark of the disorder.
Although the onset of ADHD for most children is prior to age 4, it is most often
diagnosed when a child is in elementary school (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1993).
This is the time when children are introduced to the demands of the educational system.
Problems with impulsivity, inattention, or hyperactivity, often resulting in
underachievement, put these students at risk for a variety of problems related to school
performance. Zentall (1995) suggests that ADHD children likely exhibit their greatest
problems in the classroom. As many as 56% of ADHD students may require academic
tutoring, up to 30% may repeat a grade, and 30-40% may be placed in special education
programs. As many as 46% of ADHD students may be suspended from school with up to
35% dropping out completely and not finishing high school (Barkley, DuPaul, &
McMurry, 1990; Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1990; Brown & Borden, 1986;
Weiss & Hechtman, 1993). In addition, without assistance students may develop
1


Table 3-2
Students bv Race for Participating Schools
39
School#
% of Students by Race
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Indian
1
69%
27%
3%
1%*
1%*
3
52%
45%
2%
0%
1%
4
48%
48%
3%
1%
0%
5
52%
44%
3%
1%
1%*
7
80%
17%
2%
1%*
1%*
10
30%
67%
2%
1%
0%
11
72%
24%
2%
1%*
1%*
12
70%
20%
7%
3%
1%*
13
22%
71%
2%
5%
0%
16
79%
19%
1%
1%*
1%*
17
68%
25%
4%
3%
1%*
18
15%
74%
4%
7%
1%*
* Notes less than 1%
Ninety-six students were selected and agreed to participate in the study. Three
moved during the study resulting in 93 student participants. Of those students, 47 were
assigned to treatment and 46 to control groups. The size of each group varied from three
(42% of the groups) to four (58% of the groups) students. The demographic make-up of
the total sample as well as treatment and control groups can be found in Table 3-3 and
Table 3.4.
Table 3-3
Demographic Characteristics of Sample bv Sex and Race
Groupings
Demographics
Male
Female
W
B
H
Total Sample n = 93
74%
26%
82%
18%
1%*
Treatment n = 47
70%
30%
87%
13%
0%
Control n = 46
83%
17%
72%
23%
4%
*Notes less than 1%


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Theoretical Perspective 3
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Definition of Terms 9
Overview of the Remainder of the Study 10
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12
Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 12
The History of ADHD 15
ADHD Students in Schools 19
ADHD in the School Counseling Literature 21
Small Group Counseling Interventions 25
Dependent Variables 28
Summary 33
3 METHODOLOGY 35
Population 35
Sampling Procedure 37
Resultant Sample 38
Research Design 40
School Counselor Training 41
Treatment Description 43
Assessment Techniques 46
Hypotheses 52
Data Analysis 52
Research Procedures 54
iii


106
SESSION TWO: PACK IT UP
Objective:
To help students with organization.
Materials:
(1) Messy bag (optional instructions attached at end of manual)
(2) Activity cards (included)
(3) Backpacks (students to bring their own and set aside)
(4) Large zip lock bags (included)
(5) Trash can
Opening Statement:
Say, Remember last week we talked about ADHD. We said that knowing
you have it will help you to be successful at school because you can plan to work on
ways to help yourself be a better student. Today we are going to talk about and
practice one way to help ourselves be more in control and more successful.
Activities:
(1) Introduce the organization activity to students. As it unfolds, reinforce the
concepts of having appropriate materials, being able to find them, and throwing
away trash.
Ask, What kinds of things do parents or teachers say to you about the way
you keep your backpack, desk, or bedroom organized? How do you feel and
what are you thinking when they say these things? (Responses)
Why does it matter? What is it like when you try to find something?
(Responses)
O.K., lets do an activity together that might help us as we pack up for our
journey.
Place the cards with the backpack, desk, bedroom, and trash can face up on the
table or floor.
Option 1: Counselor role play Counselor will be looking in the Messy
bag for the stack of cards used to complete the activity.
However,
the bag is so messy he/she cant find them and will begin pulling other
stuff out that students could place on one of the activity cards that are face
up on the floor. Have fun with this one! Dont worry about ever finding
the cards.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Linda DeJong Webb was bom February 19,1957, in Iowa City, Iowa, the
daughter of Marlene Shellady DeJong and Richard Henry DeJong, Jr. She received her
Bachelor of Science degree in early childhood and elementary education from Florida
State University in 1978, and in 1982, she received her Master of Education degree from
the University of Mississippi.
Linda began her career as a school counselor in 1985 in Alachua County, Florida,
serving in this capacity until 1997. She is a Florida Certified School Counselor and
National Board Certified Counselor. She is also completing requirements for becoming a
Licensed Mental Health Counselor.
Over the past two years, Linda has been a guidance counselor with the
Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Training Program under Dr. John Ross, a pediatric
neurologist. This has provided an opportunity to be involved in the initial planning and
implementation of a specialized classroom for ADHD children where preliminary work
for this study was conducted. Linda is a member of the American Counseling
Association, American School Counseling Association, the Association for Counselor
Education and Supervision, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
135


67
Summary of Results
A summary of the results of the mixed effects ANCOVAs for this study are
presented below. The results are organized by dependent variable.
Teachers Perceptions of Students Classroom Behavior as Measured bv the Teacher
Report Form (TRF)
1. There was no significant difference between treatment and control groups in
teachers perceptions of classroom behavior following the intervention.
2. There was a significant difference between the way 8-9 year old students and 10,
11,12 year old students were perceived by their teachers following the
intervention regardless of group assignment.
Students Perception of Locus of Control Orientation as Measured bv the Childrens
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale
1. There was a significant difference between the way treatment and control group
students rated their own locus of control orientation following the intervention.
2. There was a significant difference between the way males and females rated their
own locus of control orientation that was effected by group assignment.
3. There was a significant difference in the way students on and off medication rated
their own locus of control orientation that was effected by group assignment.
Students Perceptions of School Success Behaviors as Measured bv the School Success
InventoryStudent Form (SSI-SF)
1. There was no significant difference between the way treatment and control group
students rated their own school success behaviors following the intervention.


23
returning the survey in this study was low (22% return rate) and those returning (94%
white with an average family income of $57,000) not being representative of the ADHD
population, the results were interesting. The parents in this study reported that their least
useful resource for their ADHD child was school system personnel. Even with the
external validity problems, this can not be ignored as it represents the population who did
return the surveys, and they do not see school personnel as helpful.
Erk (1995b) again looked unique opportunities for the school counselor after a
review of the causes and diagnosis of ADHD. His implications supported the
multidisciplinary approach to treating students with ADHD, while suggesting social skills
training, behavioral techniques, and cognitive behavioral strategies among others.
Paul Lavin (1997), provided indicators of the efficacy of using a daily classroom
checklist for communicating with parents of children with ADHD. This was based on
behavioral interventions as a proven treatment modality (Barkley, 1990; Gomez & Cole,
1991; Lavin, 1991).
Professional School Counseling
As a new journal, Professional School Counseling now serves the needs of all
levels of school counselors (neither Elementary School Guidance and Counseling or The
School Counselor will continued to be published). Immediate attention was given to
counseling children and adolescents with disabilities in the October, 1998 special issue.
This issue included articles that generally discussed the needs of all students with
disabilities. Of particular significance to the ADHD literature was the article by
Schweibert, Sealander, and Bradshaw (1998) involving the preparation of ADHD
students for the workplace. They recognized that some symptoms persist into adulthood,


65
School Counselor Survey
School counselors completed a survey at the conclusion of intervention
implementation. The survey contained 11 items that were answered on a five point
Likert-type scale. There were 14 surveys returned. All counselors (100%) supported the
appropriateness of unit content, sessions, and outline, and would recommend the unit to
other counselors. All counselors (100%) also agreed that the unit contributed to their
own understanding of ADHD students and was an effective strategy for this population.
Increased confidence with regard to teacher consultation (93%) and changed counselor
Table 4-4
Statistical Results Mixed Model ANCOVA-SSI-SF
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Pr >F
Sch1
583.36
12
48.63
1.27
.3416
Trt1
6.26
1
6.26
.16
.6931
Sch*Trt
458.40
12
38.20
.68
.7605
Sex
1.05
1
1.05
.02
.8913
Age
114.49
1
114.49
2.05
.1573
Meds
2.75
1
2.75
.05
.8252
ESE
64.09
1
64.09
1.15
.2883
Error
3463.94
62
55.87
'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 38.31 (df = 12.23)
For Trt, MS (Err) = 38.34 (df = 12.29)
Significance set at the p < .05 level
perceptions (71%) were reported by most counselors. A large majority (93%) of
counselors also believed that students participating in the unit changed their views of
themselves as students. Table 4-5 shows the results of this survey.


(
o
; n
I
w
$

*v
r
-n
*
1
*
i
i
*
as*
?*
'rt
Tf
>
9

1*
*


74
The only variable that appeared to effect teacher ratings was age. The behavior of
younger students did not seem as problematic to teachers as the behavior of older students
participating in the study. Since TRF results are normed by age and sex of student, this
was not simply an expected developmental increase in problematic behaviors. These
results might suggest that as ADHD students get older, their behaviors become even more
problematic when compared to other students of the same sex and age. This would
support existing literature. This would also support the need for school based
intervention for ADHD students.
There was a significant treatment effect with regard to the locus of control
construct. Locus of control became more external for students receiving treatment. This
may be due to ADHD students increasing awareness of their disorder and how it impacts
their school performance. Students may have begun to understand how ADHD
characteristics can create difficulties for them in the classroom, while not having the
outside or continued support necessary to integrate thoughts and behaviors into the
classroom routine.
Females and students not taking medication were most effected by this external
locus of control shift. It might be noted that only three students in the study fell into both
of these categories, females not taking medication. Non-medicated female control group
students actually felt more in control than males and students on medication. However,
female and medicated treatment groups students felt less in control at the conclusion of
the intervention.
Female students with ADHD frequently exhibit less aggressive characteristics of
the disorder. For this reason, teachers and parents may have felt less urgency to address


* k)3C?ip
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08555 1645




136
Linda has spent her adult lifetime working to understand and empower immediate
and extended family members impacted by ADHD. This has driven her to take a serious
look at ways life and public school systems address the needs of those with the disorder.
Linda has lived in Gainesville, Florida, since 1985. As a professional, school
counseling activities have been the focus. Personally, Linda has been happily married to
John Webb and has enjoyed the personal, academic, and athletic growth of her two
daughters Pam, who is 15, and Christa, who is 13.


Assent Script for ADHD Students Randomly Selected for Small Group Counseling
Intervention (grades 3, 4, & 5)
88
The following paragraph is to be read by the school counselor to each student prior to
beginning the small group counseling intervention. The name of each schools counselor
will go in the blank.
Hello,
My name is I am the counselor at your school.
I am helping a University of Florida student, Linda Webb, try out some ways school
counselors can help children become better students. Once each week for the next six
weeks, I will be meeting with a group of students for discussions and activities that have
to do with being successful at school. You will have the opportunity to take part in these
groups if you would like to.
If you do choose to participate, you may stop at any time. Would you like to
participate?


11
methodology, where procedures of the study are described. The results will be presented
in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 will include a summary, conclusions, discussion, limitations,
implications, and recommendations.


24
along with the related problems that emerge during adolescence, and discussed
implications for vocational and post secondary entry.
Robert Erk continues to address the topic of ADHD in the most recent issue of the
Professional School Counselor (Erk, 1999). This time he examines the legal implications
for school counselors as related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. These federal acts provide an outline of the rights belonging to children with
ADHD. Erk (1999) outlines interventions and services that can be provided by school
counselors to help meet the needs of ADHD as well as satisfying the requirements of the
law.
The Journal of Counseling and Development
The Journal of Counseling and Development published an article (Jackson &
Farrugia, 1997) addressing the diagnosis and treatment of adults with ADHD. This was
significant as it was the only article published this decade specifically addressing the
disorder. It discussed making the adult diagnosis, other associated disorders, and
counseling strategies to be considered.
Overview of the School Counseling Literature
The review of the related school counseling literature over the past 10 years
indicates that counseling professionals recognize the need to address the concerns of
ADHD students. School counselors are becoming knowledgeable about their role in the
identification and treatment of the disorder as well as the legal implications of federal
statues. This review also suggests that the implications of clinical research have been
reported fairly consistently in the school counseling literature over the past ten years.


APPENDIX D
GROUP FACILITATORS MANUAL


91
Instructions for Randomization
Sample Selection
1. One the following page you will find the list of ADHD students in your school that
has been computer generated. Please add the names, grade, sex, and race of the other
students you have identified with ADHD in grades 3,4, and 5.
2. Number the students on the list. The numbering has been started and you should
continue by assigning the next student on the list the next number.
3. Turn to the Table of Random Numbers.
4. Without looking, drop you pencil onto the page. This will be the number of the first
student selected for the study.
(1) If the number of students on your list is less than 10, only pay attention to the
last digit of the random number. For example, you have 9 students on your
list and you drop your pencil on to the number 78. This would mean the
student on your list who is number 08 would be selected to participate.
(2) If you are using both digits because your number of students is greater than 10,
lets say its 22, and you drop your pencil on 78 you would continue to move
down the list until you come to a number between 00 and 22 and select that
student.
3. Once your first student is selected, continue down the list of random numbers until
the desired number of students has been selected (8 plus alternates).
4. Record these names on the top of page 4.
5. Send parent permission letters home with the first 8 students. If you have parents
who do not want their child to participate or you cant get the form back, go to the
first alternate on the list and continue until you have 8 students (4 minimum).
6. Write the names of the students who have parent consent on the bottom of page four.
Now we will need to randomly assign these students to treatment and control groups.
Random Assignment to Treatment and Control Groups
1. Look at your numbered list of names in the middle of page four.
2. Refer again to your Table of Random Numbers.
3. Drop your pencil (you will only need to use the last digit see 4a above).
4. The first student selected will be placed in the treatment group. Write their name on
the bottom of page 4.
5. Continue down the random numbers list, the next student selected will be placed in
the control group. Record their name and continue this process until all 8 students
have been placed in either the treatment or control group.
6. You are ready to go! Remember all students in both the treatment and control
groups are given pre and post measures.


Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Dear Elementary School Principal;
My name is Linda Webb. I have been a school counselor in Alachua County since
1985 at High Springs Elementary, Wiles Elementary, and most recently the ANCHOR
Center. Currently, I am on leave with the School Board of Alachua County while
finishing my Ph.D. in Counselor Education at the University of Florida.
During my leave I have been working part time with Dr. John Ross and Dr. Ed
Turner and the Multidisciplinary Training Project (MDTP) at UF. The focus of my direct
intervention with students in the project has been the development of school counselor
interventions that provide support to students with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) and their teachers.
Attached, you will find a request for your schools voluntary participation in a
study that would allow me to share information and intervention strategies with your
school counselor and at the same time meet UF requirements for completion of my
degree.
The counselor in your school knows this request is coming. Because the attached
request is so brief, I felt the need to alert school counselors as to the nature of their
commitment if your school participates. Additionally, they would be asked to attend a 2
hour workshop that would provide current information about ADHD and its treatment.
We would examine the role of the school counselor with ADHD students and their
teachers. I would then focus on the nature of my own research and provide the specific
information needed to carryout the study.
I will be available to you or your schools counselor throughout the study.
I thank you for taking the time to consider the attached request and look forward to
working with those who choose to participate. If you have any questions, please call me
at 332-2022.
Sincerely,
Linda Webb
School Counselor
83


61
Treatment*Sex Interaction CNSIE
kn
O
£
PQ
So
u
Control Treatment
Series 1 = Males; Series 2 = Females
Figure 4-1
Treatment bv Sex Interaction CNSIE
Treatment*Medication Interaction
25 -
£ 20 -
o
n 15

4 Seriesl
Series2
PQ
Sn 10
v/J -1 v
1 5
u
0 -
2
Control Treatment
Series 1 = Students not on medication; Series 2 = Students on medication
Figure 4-2
Treatment bv Medication Interaction-CNSIE


101
School Counselor Survey
Please respond to each item below by circling the choice that reflects your perceptions of
participation in the ADHD unit and its delivery. The response choices are:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.
1.The unit content was appropriate for ADHD
students.
2. The session activities were fun and informative.
3. The session outlines were easy to follow.
4. The sessions reflected increased student awareness
of ADHD.
5. The unit improved the way ADHD
students saw themselves as successful students.
6. Delivery of the intervention contributed to my
knowledge and insight of ADHD students.
7. The unit increased my own confidence
in working with teachers of ADHD students.
8. The unit helped change my perception of
ADHD students.
9. The unit is effective for use with ADHD students.
10.1 would recommend the small group unit to
other counselors.
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
U
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
SA
A
u
D
SD
11.1 plan to use the unit again.


34
behavioral and cognitive methods; (e) supported the use of small group counseling as a
vehicle for intervention delivery; and (f) demonstrated that self-report and teachers
ratings of perceptions and behavior can be used to assess treatment.
There is abundant clinical ADHD literature and general agreement as to the nature
of the disorder. The literature is fairly consistent with its implications for intervention
with ADHD students. Many roles, including co-ordinator, consultant, and direct service
provider, have been identified for the school counselor all within the guidance and
counseling framework.
However, how effective are school counselors in these roles with regard to the
ADHD population? Can brief direct counseling services make a difference in classroom
behavior? What student variables effect the outcome of treatment? A void remains when
it comes to examining the efficacy of school counselor involvement with the school-aged
ADHD population. Such research becomes the focus of this study.


7
ADHD, their own behaviors, and ways to increase control of tasks related to school
performance.
Statement of the Problem
In 1991, the U.S. Department of Education initially recognized that ADHD may
qualify a student for special assistance in general education under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-112). It also supported the consideration of
ADHD as a disabling condition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
also known as IDEA (Public Law 101-476), thereby facilitating eligibility for special
education services (Davila, William, & MacDonald, 1991) under the label of Other
Health Impaired. This has increased the number of ADHD students who are eligible for
special education services.
Special education teachers with training in the use of behavioral techniques and
small class sizes typically implement behavioral interventions with ADHD students.
However, between 85% and 90% percent of ADHD students will still be served in
general education classrooms for all or part of the school day (Montague & Warger,
1997). This means that ADHD students are probably in most schools and regular
education classrooms everyday.
The regular education teacher without specific training in the use of behavioral
interventions, with 30 or more students in a class, may view some strategies as
impractical and too time consuming. Teachers need support in their efforts to work with
ADHD students.
School counselors are in a position to provide support and are increasingly being
asked to intervene directly with ADHD students (Jordan, 1992). According to the ASCA


Table 4-5
Counselor Survey Results (Number of Counselors Responding to Each Choice^
66
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Question 1
(Unit content appropriate)
11
3
0
0
0
Question 2
(Fun, informative
activities)
9
5
0
0
0
Question 3
(Outlines easy to follow)
12
2
0
0
0
Question 4
(Increased student
awareness of ADHD)
7
7
0
0
0
Question 5
(Increased students
self-perception)
8
5
1
0
0
Question 6
(Counselor knowledge
and insight)
12
2
0
0
0
Question 7
(Increased counselor
confidence)
7
6
1
0
0
Question 8
(Changed counselor
perceptions of ADHD)
3
7
2
1
1
Question 9
(Effective unit)
7
7
0
0
0
Question 10
(Recommend unit)
10
4
0
0
0
Question 11
(Plan to use again)
11
2
1
0
0


CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD students. More specifically, ADHD students
participated in a set of counseling activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and
a personal sense of control and responsibility for classroom behaviors related to school
success. ADHD students from third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms in 12 public
schools participated in the study (n = 93). Students were randomly assigned to treatment
and control groups using a table of random numbers. Group means (n = 13) were used in
the analysis.
Thirteen school counselors delivered the intervention to ADHD students.
Sessions featured activities and discussions that focused on helping students learn more
about their disorder as reflected in school performance. The group format provided a
setting in which students were able to learn and practice new behaviors while among their
peers. Targeted behaviors included paying attention, listening, organizing materials,
recognizing, creating, and using external cues in the classroom, handling frustration and
anger, and using available supports in the classroom to increase success in school.
Students who participated in the groups were compared to ADHD students in the
control groups on three dependent variables. The first dependent variable, classroom
69


68
There were no significant interactions between treatment and age, sex,
medication, or ESE status.
School Counselor Perception as Measured by the School Counselor Survey
1. School counselors perceived the intervention as appropriate for ADHD students.
2. School counselors perceived the intervention as effective in improving students
perceptions of themselves as students.
3. School counselors perceived increased confidence in working with ADHD
students and their teachers.
In the next chapter, conclusions will be drawn based on results presented in
Chapter 4. Methodological limitations as well as implications and recommendations for
further research will be discussed.


92
Student Information Sheet
Students randomly selected from school population: Send a parent permission letter
with each student on the list on the left. If necessary, go to the alternates, beginning with
number one.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Alternates:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Students with parent permission who will be participating in the study: Put the names
of the students in the blanks below and then assign to treatment or control groups using
the instruction provided on page 2. Record the names at the bottom of this page.
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Treatment Group/# Assigned for Study Control Group/# Assigned for Study
The numbers above should appear on all pre and post-test data. This will allow for
matching of pretest results with the post test results. Student names can be put on the
instruments, along with the # above, for your ease in identifying students, but the number
must be present. The names will get blocked out with a heavy marker to ensure
confidentiality, leaving only the number.


REFERENCES
Abikoff, E. (1987). An evaluation of cognitive-behavioral therapy for hyperactive
children. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology Vol 10,
pp.171-216). New York: Plenum.
Abikoff, E., & Gittelman, R. (1985). Hyperactive children treated with
stimulants: Is cognitive training a useful adjunct? Archives of General Psychiatry. 42,
953-961.
Abramowitz, A. J., & OLeary S. G. (1991). Behavioral interventions for the
classroom: Implications for students with ADHD. School Psychology Review. 20(21.
220-234.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teachers Report Form and 1991
Profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. S. (1986). Manual for the teachers report
form and teachers version of the child behavior profile. Burlington: Department of
Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Adalbjamardottir, S. (1995). How school children propose to negotiate: The role
of social withdrawal, social anxiety, and locus of control. Child Development. 66. 1739-
1751.
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Allyon, T., Layman, D. & Kendel, H. (1975). A behavioral-educational
alternative to drug control of hyperactive children. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Analysis. 8. 137-146.
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
124


Table 3-5
Prepost Control Group Design
41
Conditions
Pre
Post
Treatment
R
o,
o2
03
X 0,
02
03
Control
R
o,
o2
03
0,
02
03
R = Random assignment of subjects to groups
X = Group counseling for ADHD students
O, = Teacher Report Form (TRF)
02 = Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control
Scale (CNSIE)
03 = School Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF)
School Counselor Training
The participating Alachua County, Florida Public School counselors were trained
by the researcher. All participating counselors were certified school counselors earning at
least a masters degree with 54% earning at least a specialists degree. Years of experience
ranged from 1-27 years with an average of 12 years as a school counselor. State
certification status, highest degree earned and years of experience are seen in
Table 3-6 for each participating counselor by school.
Each counselor took part in a workshop led by the researcher. A package of
materials was presented at the workshop that contained a brief description of the project,
research procedures, and timelines to be followed. The package also contained copies of
the dependent measures and instructions on how to present them. As the materials were
reviewed, information regarding experimental conditions was discussed in an attempt to
control for differences in delivery of the intervention or data gathering across schools.
The researcher was available to consult with any counselor who was unsure of the
research procedures. A workshop outline follows.


Table E-l
Statistical Results Supporting ANCOVA Assumptions TRF
Source
SS
df
MS
F
d>F
Sch*Trt
582.72
12
48.56
1.78
.0717
TRFpre*TREpst
27.30
1
27.30
125.36
.0001*
*P > .05
Table E-2
Statistical Results SuDDortine ANCOVA Assumptions CNSIE
Source
SS
df
MS F
p >F
Sch*Trt
184.08
12
15.34 1.24
.2728
LOCpre*LOCpst
12.38
1
12.38 11.28
.0014*
*P > .05
Table E-3
Statistical Results Supporting ANCOVA Assumptions SSI-SF
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p>F
Sch*Trt
458.40
12
38.20
.68
.7605
SSIpre*SSIpst
55.87
1
55.87
15.20
.0002*
*P > .05
122


30
selected studies, found a growing recognition of the reciprocal nature of interactions
between teachers and students. Research has shown that changes in student behavior can
bring about changes in teacher behavior. Klein (1971) also found support for this idea in
her study finding positive student behavior influencing teachers to use positive behaviors.
Teachers and counselors have long been concerned with finding ways to help
reduce aggressive behavior by teaching self-control and self-assessment skills. Kaufman
and OLeary found that self-evaluation was effective in maintaining a lower level of
disruptive behavior in students who were deficient in reading and showed high rates of
disruptive behavior. Cox and Gunn (1980) have noted that the social skills of students
within the school setting has direct impact on their academic performance. They further
point out that the lack of appropriate social skills may be the result of not knowing what
to do, not having the skills (physical or cognitive) to execute the known behavior, or not
being able to deal with the emotional response (such as anger or anxiety) which inhibits
the skill performance.
Using these skills as a guide, it is not hard to understand why ADHD children
have so much difficulty in school. These are the very skills that ADHD students have
difficulty accessing, even if they are in their repertoire of known behaviors. These are
classroom skills that must continue to be the target of planning and intervention for
ADHD children.
Locus of Control
The literature on locus of control repeatedly identifies contrasting characteristics
of internal and external locus of control. According to Rotter (1966), this distinction
depends on whether or not the person perceives a causal relationship between his or her


15
The History of ADHD
The recognition of ADHD as a disorder may stem back to the early 1900s. Still
(1902) in his published letters to the Royal College of Physicians described a disorder in
which children exhibited deficits of cognitive relation to the environment, moral
consciousness, and inhibitory volition. He noted that children who were punished for
behaviors were exhibiting the same behaviors within a matter of hours. A greater
proportion of Stills cases were males and in most cases the disorder appeared in early
childhood. Many of the cases involved children with a chaotic family life although others
involved children from households that provided adequate upbringing. Still hypothesized
that the disorder had a neurological basis stemming from early, mild, undetected damage
to the brain.
Tredgold (1908) and later Pasamanick, Rogers, and Lilienfeld (1956) would use
this theory to explain developmental behavior and learning deficiencies (Barkley, 1998)
with the term minimal brain dysfunction (MBD) eventually emerging in the 1950s.
However, there were other (Childers, in 1935) who raised questions about a diagnosis
involving brain damage when no history of any such damage existed. Even so, this
theory remained a well-accepted one for many years. Strauss and Lehtinen (1947)
addressed the education of these brain damaged children in a classic text. It included
placing students in smaller, more regulated classrooms while reducing distracting stimuli.
In this same era (1937-1941) there was significant research and dialog about the
use of medication therapy for behaviorally disordered children as the effects of its use
were revealed (Barkley, 1998). Laufer, Denhoff, and Solomons (1957), who found
positive drug responses in half or more hospitalized hyperactive children, would later


81
bottom of the age range, it is suggested that middle school students might be better able
to embrace awareness concepts and move towards accepting their own role as participants
in achieving school success during the brief intervention.
A final recommendation is to continue to support the need for school counselors
to be advocates for ADHD students. Many school personnel continue to struggle with
acceptance of ADHD as a disorder. School counselors are in a position to provide
awareness activities and behavioral intervention for ADHD students while helping their
teachers balance the need for structure, alternatives, and acceptance.


14
Table 2-1--continued
B. Some hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused
impairment were present before age 7 years.
C. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more settings
(e.g., at school [or work] and at home).
D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social,
academic, or occupational functioning.
E. The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of a Pervasive
Developmental Disorder, Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder and
are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., Mood
Disorder, nxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality
Disorder) (pp. 83-85).
hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2) has not been met for the past six months, a diagnosis of
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type is made. Finally,
if the criterion for attention (Al) has not been met for the past six months but is met for
hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2), a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,
predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type can be made (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994).
ADHD is increasingly being diagnosed among children in the schools. Students
who are unable to follow rules, who are often out of their seats, unable to complete class
work, and are frequently referred for discipline do not learn well and are a concern to
their teachers and parents. The presence of ADHD does not mean that students can not
learn. Rather, it is frequently related to inappropriate responses to a structured
environment that does not tolerate impulsive behavior. If ADHD students were less
troublesome and were able to increase the frequency of school success skills, they would
probably not be viewed as such a problem in school.


109
SESSION THREE: STOP LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC COPS
Objectives:
(1) To help students identify school situations in which attending is important.
(2) To help students identify school situations in which attending is difficult.
(3) To help students become more aware of the behaviors associated with attending
and listening.
Materials:
(1) Chart paper and markers
(2) Blank cards (included)
(3) Any childrens book
(4) Two desks with chairs (preferred but not absolutely necessary students could sit
in chairs at a table for the game)
Opening Statement:
Say, Last week we learned how to get organized. What were the steps?
(Reinforce responses about keeping appropriate materials, taking inappropriate materials
home or wherever they go, and throwing away trash.)
What was something you organized this week? How did you feel when you
were done? How did it help you at school? (Have students take turns responding.
Give any student who attempted, positive feedback about taking control of his/her own
learning. If necessary, rephrase the question to What is something you wish you had
organized better this week?)
Today we are going to work on two other skills that help all students -
listening and paying attention. As ADHD students on your journey to school
success, you are learning that this means you have to recognize what is difficult for
you and plan ways to help yourself. Paying attention and listening are good
examples of behaviors ADHD students find themselves working on. Lets get
started.
Activities:
(1) Teach the SLANT strategy for paying attention with students seated at a table or
on the floor.
Say, Lets pretend again that we are on our car trip. Of course it would
always be important to pay attention in the car, but when might we really
find it important to pay especially close attention? (Reinforce responses that
have to do with looking for directions, trying to read signs, coming to a traffic
light that might be changing, etc., and how these can keep us from getting to our
destination if we overlook them.)


50
were found when comparisons were made to the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility
scale (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965) with correlations of .31 and .51 for black
third (N = 182) and seventh graders (N = 171). A correlation of .41 with the Bialer-
Cromwell (Bialer, 1961) was also significant (p< .05) for 26 white students ages 9-11.
Additionally, the relationship between the Rotter (1966) and the CNSIE adult scale was
significant (p < .01) in two studies with college students yielding correlations of .61 (N =
76) and .38 (N = 46) (Nowicki-Strickland, 1973).
Correlations of the CNSIE with the Childrens Social Desirability Scale (Crandall,
Crandall, & Katkowsky, 1965) were computed. For males and females within each
grade level, locus of control scores were not significantly related to social desirability.
The CNSIE has been used to compare internal-external locus of control with
ADHD and control groups (Linn & Hodge, 1982). The effects of cognitive strategies on
locus of control for learning disabled students (Morin, 1993) has also been measured
using this instrument.
School Success InventoryTeacher Form (SSI-TF1
The School Success InventoryStudent Form (Appendix C) is a paper and pencil
measure containing 12 items, 2 items to represent each of the six classroom behaviors of
attending, listening, volunteering, using self-control, interacting, and assessing self. The
items comprise behaviors related to school success (Cuthbert, 1987).
The student marks each item in terms of perceived frequency of occurrence on a
5-point scale of very often, often, sometimes, seldom, and very seldom. Students
indicated their choices by marking with an X or a check mark. Each of these categories
was assigned a numerical score, with one indicating the desired behavior and


29
paying attention in school, listening to teachers and peers, volunteering appropriately in
school, using self-control, interacting with teachers and peers, and utilizing self-
assessment.
Classroom attending refers to orienting towards the teacher or to stimuli defined
by the teacher, under conditions specified by the teacher (Cartledge & Milburn, 1978).
Another definition involves attending as doing what is appropriate in an academic
situation such as looking at the teacher when they present material or writing responses to
questions. This definition was used by Cobb (1972) in a study of classroom behavior and
academic achievement in fourth graders. Results found attending to be the most powerful
of eight behavioral categories examined as related to achievement.
Listening is also an important skill linked to school success. McGinnis and
Goldstein (1984) pointed out the importance of teaching students how to show that they
are listening in the classroom. This included, looking at the person who is talking, sitting
quietly, thinking about what is being said, acknowledging ideas, and asking questions.
Others (Myrick & Bowman, 1991; Foster, 1983) have also recognized the link between
listening and school success.
Volunteering (e.g., participating in classroom discussions appropriately) has been
positively correlated with academic achievement (Hops & Cobb, 1973). Wittmer and
Myrick (1989) spoke about this relationship as they believed asking questions and
contributing answers was a reflection of listening and active processing of material just
presented.
Interacting with teachers and peers has also been reported to have positive
relationship with successful learning. Cartledge and Milburn (1978), in their review of


CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This study examined the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention
for ADHD students. School counselors delivered the intervention to ADHD
students in grades three, four, and five. Counseling activities were designed to increase
the students awareness of ADHD and improve their sense of control for behaviors related
to school success.
To assess the effectiveness of the group counseling intervention, analysis was
performed on pre- and postdata obtained using a mixed effects ANCOVA model. Three
dependent measures were used to gather data related to the effects of the intervention.
These measures included (a) teachers ratings of student classroom behavior as measured
by the Teacher Report Form, (b) students perceptions of their locus of control orientation
as measured by the Childrens Nowicki Strickland Locus of Control Scale, and (c)
students perceptions of school success behaviors as measured by the School Success
Inventory-Student Form.
Data on the three dependent measures were collected from 93 students in grades
three, four, and five, attending 13 public elementary schools. An experimental research
design provided for random assignment of students to treatment and control groups for
the duration of the intervention, resulting in 47 treatment and 46 control group
assignments.
56


18
should not be used alone but should be accompanied by behavioral interventions and
parent training (Barkley, 1998).
The Conners Rating Scale, developed in 1969, was used widely to identify
children with ADHD. This was also the time period that an adult sequel to ADHD was
considered (Morrison & Minkoff, 1975) although it was not until the 1990s that this view
began to receive widespread acceptance.
The 1980s
This was an era in which diagnostic criteria were carefully examined. The
DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) was published and radically re
conceptualized hyperkinetic reaction to childhood, now called attention-deficit disorder
(with or without hyperactivity) which placed a greater emphasis on impulsivity and
inattention as central features of the disorder. Later in the decade the DSM-III (APA,
1987) was revised resulting in the renaming of the disorder to attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder.
Research during this period began to focus on the social effects of ADHD on
children, their parents (Barkley, 1989), teachers (Whalen, Henker, & Dotemoto, 1980),
siblings (Mash & Johnston, 1982), and peers (Henker & Whalen, 1980). Cognitive-
behavioral therapies (Kendall & Braswell, 1985) and social skills training programs for
ADHD children were also introduced. In addition, medication treatments for ADHD
were expanded beyond the use of stimulants during the 1980s.
The 1990s
Barkley (1998) refers to the decade of the 1990s as the decade of neuro-imaging,
genetics, and adult ADHD. Neuopsychological research has shown developmental delays


16
support use of medication. By the 1970s, stimulant medication was a common treatment
for children with characteristics of ADHD.
The 1960s and 1970s
By this time the perspective prevailed that hyperactivity was a brain-dysfunction
syndrome focusing on brain functions as opposed to brain damage (Ross & Ross, 1976).
Excessive activity level was considered its primary characteristic and treatments included
stimulant medication, psychotherapy, and minimum-stimulation classrooms.
More than 2,000 published studies on the disorder existed by the end of the 1970s
(Weiss & Hechtman, 1979). During this time, the characteristics of the disorder were
expanded to include impulsivity, short attention span, low frustration tolerance,
distractibility, and aggressiveness (Safer & Allen, 1976).
The use of stimulant medication with school-aged hyperactive children was
rapidly increasing (Barkley, 1990). Drug therapy studies also increased. Early studies,
led by Keith Connors, paved the way for more rigorous scientific methodology to be used
as over 120 studies involving this treatment approach were published by 1976 and more
than twice that by 1995 (Swanson, McBumett, Christian, & Wigal, 1995).
Even with extensive research to support the proven efficacy of the use of
stimulant medication as a treatment strategy, public and professional concern began to
arise about its increasingly widespread use with children. This led to claims that
hyperactivity was a myth arising from intolerant teachers and parents and an inadequate
educational system (Conrad, 1975). There was a backlash against drugging school
children for behavior problems, and a growing belief that hyperactivity was the result of
environmental factors such as reactions to dyes or preservatives in foods (Feingold,


128
DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (1994). ADHD in the schools: Assessment and
intervention strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Edelbrock, C., Costello, A. J., & Kessler, M. D. (1984). Empirical corroboration
of attention deficit disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry.
21285-290.
Elkind, D. (1970). Children and adolescents: Interpretive essays on Jean Piaget.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, S. N., & Busse, R. T. (1992). Review of the Child Behavior Checklist. In
J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp.
166-169). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Epstein, M. H., Singh, N. N., Luebke, J., & Stout, C. E. (1991).
Psychopharmacological intervention: Teacher perceptions of psychotropic medication for
students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24. 477-483.
Erk, R. R. (1995a). The evolution of attention deficit disorders terminology.
Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 29. 243-248.
Erk, R. R. (1995b). A diagnosis of attention deficit disorder: What does it mean
for school counselors? The School Counselor. 42. 292-299.
Erk, R. R. (1999). Attention deficit hyperacitity disorders: Counselors, laws, and
implications for Practice. Professional School Counseling. 2. 318-326.
Feingold, B. (1975). Whv vour child is hyperactive. New York: Random House.
Florida Department of Education (1997). Alachua County Public Schools: School
Advisory Report. Tallahassee, FL: Department of Education.
Foster, E. S. (1983). Tutoring: Learning bv helping. Minneapolis, MN:
Educational Media.
Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
application (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Goldstein, S., & Goldstein, M. (1998). Managing attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder in children: A guide for practitioners. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


123
Table E -4
Means and Standard Deviation of Pre- and Post-Test Scores for Control Group Students
Control Group
Variable
N
Mean
Std Dev
TRF Pre
46
63.54
8.20
TRF Post
46
61.28
8.98
CNSIE-Pre
46
18.26
4.86
CNSIE Post
46
17.52
4.40
SSI-Pre
46
27.52
7.30
SSI Post
46
27.82
8.51
Table E-5
Means and Standard Deviation of Pre- and Post-Test Scores for Treatment Group
Students
Treatment Group
Variable
N
Mean
Std Dev
TRF Pre
47
60.64
8.50
TRF-Post
47
60.34
9.86
CNSIE-Pre
47
19.09
4.38
CNSIE-Post
47
17.89
4.73
SSI-Pre
47
27.63
8.50
SSI Post
47
26.89
7.22


Ill
Two of you will be practicing paying attention and listening while I read.
The other two of you will create distractions such as walking around the
room, talking, laughing, etc... the only rules are that you can not yell or
touch the students in the desks. Your job is to make it hard for the others to
pay attention.
Read for about a minute or so and reinforce what you see. Encourage and create
opportunities for use of all 5 behaviors. Have students change places and repeat
the game. Process the activity with all students seated by asking questions like:
What did you think about the game? What was it like when you were in the
desk listening? What did you do when there were noises and distractions?
How was the SLANT card helpful? What are times in your classroom when
paying attention is difficult? What can you do to be more in control?
Summary Statement:
Having ADHD doesnt mean you cant listen or pay attention. Remember
when we talked about the glasses, people who wear glasses can see without them,
they just cant see clearly. Having ADHD makes paying attention and listening
more difficult but it can be done. Learning and remembering a strategy like
SLANT is important to help us take control during our journey to make sure we can
be successful in school. This is something you can do. (Have students take their
SLANT card back to their classroom to tape to the corner of their desk. Encourage them
to practice during the week.)


54
(age, sex, ESE, and medication). The two-way interactions were introduced into the
ANCOVA model one at a time while holding the model constant. School was treated as
a random effect while age, sex, medication, and ESE status were treated as fixed effects.
Table 3-8
Mixed Effects ANCOVA Model
Y -fi(X X)= ¡J, + a + Yi + aYi + Y2 +
post covariate = grand mean + treatment + school + school by treatment + age +
test
Yj + Y4 + Ys + £
sex + meds + ese + error
Note: This is the portion of the model that was held constant as the two-way interactions
were introduced one at a time.
The alpha level for all tests in this study was set at the .05 level. The .05 level of
significance is a reasonable probability level (Gay, 1996) as this study is exploring the
effectiveness of a counselor intervention strategy for ADHD students while producing
implications for further research.
Research Procedures
During the week preceding the intervention, pretreatment measures were
administered. All measures were to be coded by number to ensure confidentiality of
results. Corresponding school, gender, race, age, special education designation, and
whether or not the student was on medication for ADHD symptoms were provided to the
investigator for use in the analysis. The school counselor at each school involved in the
study administered the student assessments in their respective schools.
School counselors were trained in procedures for administration of the Childrens
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control scale and the School Success


CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention on the classroom behavior, locus of control, and school success
skills of third, fourth and fifth grade ADHD students in the Alachua County, Florida
Public Schools. The intervention focused on helping students decrease their problem
behaviors in school through increasing their sense of personal control and responsibility
for school success skills. Further, this intervention involved helping students identify,
learn, and practice using skills and external resources to supplement the internal resources
that are often ineffective in allowing ADHD children to control and sustain behavior.
Pre- and postmeasures of locus of control and school success skills were
completed by treatment and control group students. The teacher of each participating
student completed a pre- and postmeasure of classroom behavior.
Population
The population of interest was third, fourth, and fifth grade students previously
diagnosed as ADHD in the 23 public elementary schools in Alachua County, Florida.
This included ADHD students who ranged in ages from 8-12 from five north central
Florida communities.
In 1997, the population of Alachua County was 208,145 including 44,000
University of Florida students. In the academic year 1996-1997, the Florida Department
of Education (1997) reported the Alachua County Public Schools having approximately
35


53
considered appropriate in this case, as there was not a significant between school variance
on any of the dependent variables. Mixed effects models are used when the classification
of variables are a mixture of random and fixed effects (Agresti & Finlay, 1997), as was
the case in this study.
ANCOVA assumptions were checked and provided support for use of the
ANCOVA model. Assumptions of normality, equal variances, and linearity were
checked by plotting the data. The equal slopes assumption was checked through
statistical analysis. Independence was considered prior to the study through random
assignment of students. Measures that were appropriately reliable for social science
research were used to satisfy the measurement error assumption.
The mixed model ANCOVA was then performed on all measures for treatment
and control groups. The purpose of the ANCOVA to is determine whether the observed
differences between means are due to chance or to systematic differences among
treatment populations (Shavelson, 1996). It does so by statistically removing predictable
individual differences from the dependent variable, thereby providing a more precise
estimate of experimental error and a more powerful test of the null hypothesis. The
pretest score served as the covariate to adjust posttest scores. Random assignment of
subjects to treatment and control groups increased the validity for using the ANCOVA
(Gay, 1996).
The mixed effects ANCOVA model (Table 3-5) examined five main effects and
four two-way interactions. The main effects included treatment, age, sex, ESE
placement, and whether the student was taking medication for ADHD symptoms. The
two-way interactions looked at how treatment interacted with each of the other variables


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend sincere thanks to Dr. Robert Myrick for serving as
chairman of my committee. His professional suggestions and personal encouragement
were invaluable to me and are greatly appreciated. I would also like to thank Dr. David
Miller for serving on my committee. His patient attention while providing support during
the statistical analysis of data and throughout the process was assuring. Thanks are also
extended to Dr. Harry Daniels and Dr. Edward Turner for serving on the committee.
Special thanks are in order for the Alachua County, Florida, elementary school
counselors who delivered the counseling intervention and patiently carried out the
research procedures. The completion of this study depended on them, and they did not let
me down.
I would also like to thank Dan and Michelle at Office Automation in Gainesville
for the willingness to make all my copying a priority with little notice. Thanks also to Liz
at the Institutional Review Board for her personal attention. Specials thanks to Stephanie
Wehery for her help with the statistical analysis.
Additional thanks are extended (a) to my husband, John, for his love and support
throughout the entire doctoral process; (b) to my daughters, Pam and Christa, for
understanding my need to become obsessive and snappy at crunch times; (c) to my
sister, Rene, for her help with data entry; (d) to my late mother for her strong directive
that I not ever become a fluffy school counselor; (e) to my father for his continued
support of everything I do; and (f) to my mother-in law for her support and help with the
girls during the last two years.
11


51
corresponding to Very Often. The total score over the 12 items ranges from 12
(behaviors occurring very often) to 60 (very seldom). A total frequency score was
recorded for each student. A lower score was more indicative of self-perceived desired
behaviors than was a higher score.
Cuthbert (1987) measured test-retest reliability for the SSI-SF yielding a
coefficient of stability of .79 during a pilot study. In this pilot, the SSI-SF was
administered to 49 students in two third-grade classrooms. Two weeks later, the students
rated themselves again on the same instrument. Cuthbert (1987) used this scale to
measure the effectiveness of a classroom guidance intervention aimed at teaching skills
for school success.
Both the CNSIE and the SSI-SF were developed to be completed by school-aged
children. Each instrument has a third grade reading level making them appropriate for
self-reporting. The students in the current study were in grades three, four, and five.
However, due to the possibility of ADHD students having reading abilities below grade
three, the counselor read the items on the instruments as the student followed along and
marked responses.
School Counselor Survey
School counselors, postintervention, completed a survey. The survey contained
11 items with a five point Likert-type scale. School counselors were asked to respond to
each statement on the survey by marking either Strongly Agree, Agree, Uncertain,
Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. Items focused on the counselors perceptions of the unit,
the experience of participating students, the counselors own experience, and
recommendations.


119
ADHD. These are skills that help you become your own mechanic even though we
know there will be times you need roadside assistance.
Bring some closure to the group experience by asking students what they liked about the
group, what they didnt like and how they plan to use the strategies. Thank them for
participating in the group.


32
that children with a more internal locus of control are better problem solvers than children
with an external orientation.
According to Linn and Hodge (1982), ADHD students tend to have a more
external locus of control with poor internal self-regulation skills and the need for explicit
cues. Tarnowski and Nay (1989) administered the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control
Scale (Nowicki & Strickland, 1973) to a group of boys and found that those with no
diagnosed difficulties were measured to have the least external locus of control while
those boys with attention-deficit who were also learning disabled demonstrated the most
external locus of control.
Goldstein and Goldstein (1998) find it no surprise that given the nature of the
lives of ADHD children, they are at risk for developing an external locus of control.
Modifications are made by parents and teachers, medications is frequently given, and
children begin to see themselves as recipients of an intervention out of their control
One aim of the small group counseling intervention designed for this study was to shift a
presumably external locus of control in the direction of a more internal one. This was to
be done through increasing student knowledge and awareness of the disorder, helping
students to understand how the disorders effects their school performance, as well as
teaching skills the student could use to effect school outcomes.
Classroom Behavior
Teachers are usually involved in the assessment of childrens behavior regarding
school-based interventions. Their reports are a prime source of baseline data with which
to compare outcomes (Achenbach, 1991). Other variables, including self-reports can be
used to augment outcomes as we develop better ways of helping children.




A GROUP COUNSELING INTERVENTION
FOR CHILDREN WITH
ATTENTION-DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
By
LINDA DEJONG WEBB
I
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999


116
Closing Statement:
Say, We know there will be holes in the road for ADHD students. There are
holes in the road for all students, but your map is marked so you can expect them.
You can learn how to get around them and get on with your journey. You will be
able to handle difficult situations better by taking a few deep breaths or saying
something to slow yourself down (before you get too frustrated or upset) so you can go
around the holes. When I see you next week, it will be the last time we will meet to
work on strategies.


28
Dependent Variables
Three dependent variables have been chosen for this study. They include
classroom behavior, locus of control, and school success skills. It is hypothesized that the
effects of a small group counseling intervention for ADHD students can be detected using
measures of these constructs. The intervention focuses on increased knowledge and
awareness of the disorder, coupled with the introduction and practice of specific
behavioral skills aimed at improving a students perception of self and shifting the
student towards a more internal locus of control. While these outcomes are perceptions
of students, classroom behavior followed eventually by improved academic success, are
the real targets.
Due to the short duration of this study (6 weeks), academic gains that would
follow behavioral improvements would not necessarily be expected and, therefore, will
not be assessed. It should be noted that Myrick and Dixon (1985) found that teachers
rated their students more positively after intervention. However, there will be no
expectations for teachers during this study other than completing the pre and posttest
measures. Teachers will have this task for both treatment and control group students and
will not be involved in the actual intervention for any students.
School Success Skills
Cartledge and Milburn (1978), after reviewing the literature on behavioral skills in
the classroom setting, found certain skills linked to academic success and to school
success. From these, Cuthbert (1987) identified six specific task oriented skills and
developed a six-week school counseling intervention designed to improve student self
perception as related to school success. Among the school success skills targeted were


86
school counselor if prepared to help your child handle these feelings. If you do not want
your child to have age appropriate information about ADHD as it effects his/her
performance at school, he/she should not participate. Knowledge of the disorder, its
effects on school performance, and improved perceptions and behaviors are potential
benefits for children participating in the study. No compensation is offered for
participation. If you have any questions about this research project please contact me at
332-2022, or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Myrick, at 392-0731. Questions or concerns
about research participants rights may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of
Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433.
Cut on the dotted line and return this portion of the consent to your childs school
counselor by if you would like your child to participate.
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily give my consent for my child,
, to participate in Linda Webbs study involving a small
group counseling intervention for ADHD students. I have received a copy of this
description.
Parent/Guardian
Date
2nd Parent/Witness
Date


127
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M.,
Weinfield, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (OE38001).
Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U. S. Office of
Education.
Conners, C. K. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with
children. American Journal of Psychiatry. 126. 884-888.
Conners, C. K. (1980). Food additives and hyperactive children. New York:
Plenum.
Conrad, P. (1975). The discovery of hyperkinesis: Notes on the medicalization of
deviant behavior. Social Problems. 23.12-21.
Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (1997). Groups: Process and practice (5th ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Cox, R. D., & Gunn, W. B. (1980). Interpersonal skills in the schools:
Assessment and curriculum development. In D. P. Rathjen & J. P. Foreyt (Eds.), Social
competence: Interventions for children and adults tpp. 113-132). New York: Pergamon
Press.
Crandall, V. C., Crandall, V. J., & Katkowsky, W. (1965). A childrens social
desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 29. 27-36.
Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. (1965). Childrens beliefs in
their own control of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations.
Child Development 36. 91-109.
Cuthbert, M. I. (1987). Developmental guidance for school success skills: A
comparison of modeling and coaching. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Davlia, R. R., William, M. L., & MacDonald, J. T. (1991). Memorandum of chief
state school officers re: Clarification of policy to address the needs of children with
attention deficit disorder within general or special education. Washington DC: U. S.
Department of Education.
DuPaul, G. J., & Rapport, M. D. (1993). Does methylphenidate normalize the
classroom performance of children with attention deficit disorder? Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 32. 190-198.


5
A cognitive behavioral approach to intervention emphasizes behavioral change
and self-regulation along with the examination and possible modification of thoughts,
beliefs, and/or expectations. It is a theoretical approach that supports recent treatment
interventions for children with ADHD (Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995). This
theory assumes that while the primary symptoms of the disorder are difficult to
ameliorate, it may be possible to help children develop competencies that lower the risk
for the emergence of serious secondary difficulties related to low self-esteem, poor peer
relations, or conduct problems (Braswell, 1993). According to Myrick (1997), this
approach also lends itself to brief counseling that is so often used in the schools.
What continues to be evaluated is whether cognitive behavioral methods can
promote a shift from caregivers (teachers and parents) taking total control of the learning
conditions for the ADHD student to the students themselves taking responsibility and
making changes that enhance learning. One way to evaluate who the student perceives is
in control of making things happen is to consider the locus of control construct.
The theoretical construct of locus of control has been used to describe whether
students believe that reinforcements such as grades or achievements, are due to their own
actions (i.e., internal locus of control) or due to factors beyond their control (i.e., external
locus of control (Bryan & Pearl, 1979). An internal locus of control indicates that
outcomes are perceived to be the result of ones own ability or effort, whereas an external
locus of control indicates that outcomes are perceived to be the result of luck, the
consequences of actions by others, or other factors beyond the individuals control (Rotter,
1990).


3 1262 07056 6038
EDUCATION LIBRARY ^
DATE DUE
DUE RETURNED DUE RETURNED
JAN 2 5 2t|
JAN 1 0 2
MAR 1 2 2d
[MAR 0 1 2<
MAY 0 2 201
JUL 1 7 201
T
OCT 0 1 2!
0 8 281
0
OCT 2' 3 25
31 m
1
t
\ M
)
AUG 2
2002
UJG 1 6 !BI
l
MAY \ ft \
!083
h
flw -
ov 18 M
NOV 191,
03
MAR 0 9
ZWfe 17"
808


Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
84
Dear School Counselor;
My name is Linda Webb. I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida
under the supervision of Dr. Robert Myrick. I am conducting a study that involves
examining the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention for ADHD students.
I am inviting you to participate. While there will be no compensation for your voluntary
participation, benefits would include increased knowledge and resources for working with
ADHD students. There are no known risks associated with your participation. You may
withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete several tasks that
include attending a two hour workshop, coordinating the study in your school,
administering pre and post test instruments, and delivering the small group counseling
intervention. These activities would take place over an 8 week period with the small
group meeting weekly for a period of six weeks.
Results of the study will be reported in the form of group data only. Individual
data, including names of counselors and schools will be coded by number and kept
confidential to the extent provided by law.
If you have questions, please contact me (332-2022) or my supervisor, Dr. Myrick
(392-0731). Questions about research participants rights may be directed to the UFIRB
office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; (352) 392-0433.
I have read the information above and voluntarily agree to participate in Linda
Webbs study. I have received a copy of this information.
Counselors Signature
Date


Table 3-6
Levels of Experience and Education of Participating Counselors bv School
42
Counselor Demographics
Certified School Counselor
Highest Degree
Experience
School Number
Yes
No
B M
Sp. Doc.
Years
1
X
X
14
3
X
X
7
4
X
X
5
5
X
X
20
7
X
X
2
10
X
X
15
11
X
X
27
12
X
X
12
13
X
X
13
16
X
X
12
17(01-04)*
X
X
10
17(05-08)*
X
X
1
18
X
X
16
Note: Two groups were run by in school 17, each by a different counselor.
Counselor Workshop Outline
I. Nature of the Study
II. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
A. History
B. Characteristics
C. Extent of the problem in schools
D. Interventions (including medication)
E. Meeting ADHD student needs in Developmental Guidance
Programs
III. Research Procedures
A. Overview of Design
B. Randomization
C. Informed consent
D. Collecting pre- and posttest data
IV. Delivery of the Counseling Intervention
V. Return of Materials
VI. Questions


94
Checklist of Materials to be Returned
Please return the following information to Linda Webb c/o Wiles Elementary
Guidance.
Informed Consent Forms
Pre-test Materials
Post-test Materials
Student Information Sheets (Computer print out and form with research #'s.
This will allow me to determine the age, race, ESE status, medication status, and sex of
students before destroying their names.)
Checklist of Procedures for ADHD Study
Please list the name and research # of any student in the treatment group who missed
more than one session during the intervention period.


Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale
Students will mark yes or no on their answer sheet for each item as it is read.
Yes
No
(1)
Yes
No
(2)
Yes
No
(3)
Yes
No
(4)
Yes
No
(5)
Yes
No
(6)
Yes
No
(7)
Yes
No
(8)
Yes
No
(9)
Yes
No
(10)
Yes
No
(11)
Yes
No
(12)
Yes
No
(13)
Yes
No
(14)
Yes
No
(15)
Yes
No
(16)
Yes
No
(17)
Yes
No
(18)
Yes
No
(19)
Yes
No
(20)
Yes
No
(21)
Yes
No
(22)
Yes
No
(23)
Yes
No
(24)
Do you believe that most problems will solve themselves if you just
dont fool with them?
Do you believe that you can stop yourself from catching a cold?
Are some kids just bom lucky?
Most of the time do you feel that getting good grades means a great
deal to you?
Are you often blamed for things that just arent your fault?
Do you believe that if somebody studies hard enough he or she can
pass any subject?
Do you feel that most of the time it doesnt pay to try hard because
things never turn out right anyway?
Do you feel that if things start out well in the morning that its going to
be a good day no matter what you do?
Do you feel that most of the time parents listen to what their children
have to say?
Do you believe that wishing can make good things happen?
When you get punished does it usually seem its for no good reason at
all?
Most of the time do you find it hard to change a friends mind?
Do you think that cheering more than luck helps a team to win?
Do you feel that its nearly impossible to change your parents mind
about anything?
Do you believe that your parents should allow you to make most of
your own decisions?
Do you feel that when you do something wrong theres very little you
can do to make it right?
Do you believe that most kids are just bom good at sports?
Are most of the other kids your age stronger than you are?
Do feel that one of the best ways to handle most problems is just not to
think about them?
Do you feel that you have a lot of choice in who your friends are?
If you find a four leaf clover do you believe that it might bring you
good luck?
Do you often feel that whether you do your homework has much to do
with what kind of grades you get?
Do you feel that when a kid your age decides to hit you, theres little
you can do to stop him or her?
Have you ever had a good luck charm?
96


APPENDIX C
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS


126
Bowman, R. P. (1987). Small group guidance and counseling in the schools: A
national survey of school counselors. The School Counselor. 34. 256-262.
Bramlett, R. K., Nerson, P., & Reeves, B. (1997). Stimulant treatment of
elementary school children: Implications for school counselors. Elementary School
Guidance & Counseling. 31. 243-250.
Braswell, L. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral groups for children manifesting ADHD
and other disruptive behavior disorders. Special Services in the Schools. 8. 91-117.
Braswell, L. (1998). Cognitive behavioral approaches as adjunctive treatments for
ADHD children and their families. In S. Goldstein & M. Goldstein (Eds.), Managing
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: A practitioners guide (pp. 533-544).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Braswell, L., & Bloomquist, M. L. (1991). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for
children with ADHD: Child, family and school interventions. New York: Guilford.
Brown, N. W. (1994). Group counseling for elementary and middle school
children. CT: Praeger.
Brown, R. T., & Borden, K. A. (1986). Hyperactivity at adolescence: Some
misconceptions and new directions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 15. 194-209.
Brown, R. T., Wynne, M. E., & Medinis, R. (1985). Methylphenidate and
cognitive therapy: A comparison of treatment approaches with hyperactive boys. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology. 13. 69-88.
Bryan, T. H., & Pearl, R. (1979). Self-concepts and locus of control of learning
disabled students. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 8. 223-226.
Burnley, G. D. (1993). A team approach for identification of an attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder child. The School Counselor. 40. 228-230.
Cartledge, G., & Milbum, J. F. (1978). The case for teaching social skills in the
classroom: A review. Review of Educaitonal Research. 48. 133-156.
Cobb, J. A. (1972). Relationship is discrete classroom behaviors to fourth-grade
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63. 74-80.
Christenson, S. L. (1992). Review of the Child Behavior Checklist. In J. J.
Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 164-
166). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.


112
SESSION FOUR: USING ROAD SIGNS AS A GUIDE
Objective:
To help students learn to recognize, create and use external cues in the classroom.
Materials needed:
(1) Cue cards (included)
(2) Cards (included) and markers
(3) Towel
Opening Statement:
Say, Last week we played a game that helped us learn more about helping
ourselves pay attention even though we know that can be difficult at times. What do
you remember about that? (Reinforce SLANT strategy, self-help, and encourage
sharing of any attempts to use it during the week.)
How did having a SLANT card on your desk help? (Responses)
This week we are going to talk about some other ways to use cues, like the
SLANT card, to help us remember things we can do to help ourselves be more
successful in school. Cues are like reminders and can be very helpful for people
with ADHD even though many people who dont have ADHD also use cues.
Activities:
(1) Using the cue cards included for this activity, have each student pick a card to
hold up. The other students will guess what the card is reminding them to think or
do, and where they would see it (stop sign, RR crossing, sharp turn, exit, poison,
no running, happy face, SLANT you may draw others you think of).
Then say, These are all examples of cues or symbols that help us to
remember to think or do something. Can you think of other? (Encourage all
responses, especially those that might relate to their classroom.)
(2) This activity involves reading body language cues. The counselor will start by
displaying several body postures and facial expressions that teachers might use in
the classroom to indicate approval or disapproval of student behavior. (This is
another one that you can have fun with!) Next, students each take a turn with
non-verbal expression that the others try to guess in the Towel Game.
Begin by saying, Some of the cues we get in the classroom are not signs like
we would find on a road and are not written. Some of the cues or reminders
come from the way our teachers look at us. If we can learn to pay attention
to them, we can be better students. Watch me while I show you a few ways


110
How can traffic cops be helpful to us if we arent paying close enough
attention at these times? (Responses may include giving reminders, tickets,
directions, directing traffic, etc...)
Our classroom trip to success can be like this. While it is always important to
pay attention and listen at school, sometimes it is particularly important to give
these skills an extra effort, like in our example about the car trip. In your
classroom, what might some of these times be? (Responses)
How can teachers be of help if we are not paying close enough attention?
(Responses)
Your teacher wants you to have a successful journey!
What does the teacher want you to do when she says pay attention or
listenV (Responses)
One way we can remember some of these things and a few others is by using
an acronym (word made from the first letter of other words). An acronym that
some people use for helping remember how to pay attention is SLANT.
(Write vertically down the left side of chart paper)
Using the following as a guide, teach the strategy by reading, modeling the skill
for the students, having one student model, and having them all practice. Then
have students write the acronym on the card for their desk.
S Sit up
L Lean in slightly (as opposed to laying back)
A Ask questions or make comments to show you are listening
N Nod your head to show you are listening
T Track the talker with your eyes
Note: While some of the physical behaviors may be hard to sustain, I have found
that A Asking questions or making comments has been the most successful in
helping ADHD students.
(2) The Paying Attention Game (Counselor will need a childrens book, two students
will be seated in desks and two students will be the distracters)
Say, Now we are going to play a game that will help us practice these skills.
(Have two students take the seats in the desks or at the table with their SLANT
card on the desk.)


46
Students who participated in the groups were compared to ADHD students in the
control groups on the dependent measures. Students in the control group continued with
their regular school routine during this period. They responded to the measures of locus
of control and school success at the same eight-week interval as the treatment group.
Teachers also completed the classroom behavior measure for the control group students at
the designated intervals.
Assessment Techniques
In order to assess the effects of the treatment, the following measures will be used:
Teacher Report Form (TRF); Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of
Control Scale (CNSIE); and School Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF).
Teacher Report Form (TRF)
The Teacher Report Form was designed in 1986 by Achenbach and Edelbrock to
provide standardized descriptions of social-emotional development for students, by
gender, ranging in age from 6-16. The effects of race and SES were examined but the
authors found that differences were too small to warrant separate norms (Achenbach &
Edelbrock, 1986). The scoring profiles were derived using factor analyses of TRFs
completed on 1,800 children referred to mental health services in the eastern United
States. According to Christenson, in her 1992 review of the TRF, the norming
procedures were impeccable.
The TRF includes 118 items on a 3-step response scale (0 = Not True, 1 =
Somewhat or Sometimes True, and 2 = Very True or Often True). It is designed to be
completed by teachers who have known a student in a school setting for at least 2 months.


72
in the control group. It was concluded that the small group counseling intervention did
effect perceptions of locus of control for ADHD students by shifting their orientation
towards becoming more external.
Two sub-groups of ADHD students seemed to be most effected by this external
shift. Females and students not on medication during the study were most significantly
effected by inclusion in the counseling intervention.
While both males and females in treatment had a more external locus of control
than students in the control group did, females seemed to be more effected by the
counseling intervention. Females who participated in the small groups rated themselves
as feeling less in control of what happens to them than males, even though females in the
control group felt more in control than their male counterparts. It can be concluded that
the locus of control perception for females was significantly effected by the counseling
intervention and that it became more external with treatment.
A second characteristic that appeared to impact the way locus of control
orientation was effected by the counseling intervention, was whether or not the student
was taking medication for ADHD symptoms during the study. Students who were taking
medication appeared to have their locus of control perceptions unaffected by the
intervention. However, students who were not on medication showed significantly more
external perceptions following treatment even though their control group counterparts had
a more internal locus of control perception than control group students on medication. It
can be concluded that the counseling intervention significantly impacted the locus of
control orientation of students not taking medication for ADHD symptoms during the
study and that it became more external with treatment.


APPENDIX B
RESEARCH PROCEDURES


120
Hints for Working with ADHD Students During this Unit
1. Use language that reinforces student responsibility for school success and being in
control of what happens at school. These are our keys to altering perceptions.
2. When students are given the chance to share ideas or responses, you might use a
Go Around by designating which student will share first and telling the group
which way to go around the circle. This provides additional structure.
3. Be conscious of your time during the sessions.
a. A simple acknowledgement, reflection, response to feeling expressed, or
maybe a how/what question would be appropriate responses to student
sharing that would facilitate the discussion but NOT take a great deal of
time. These kinds of responses will encourage students to share and keep
things moving.
b. If you have too much time left during any session, play Simon Says, Red
Light Green Light, or Mother May I. Use the games to continue reinforcing
feelings associated with control, successfully following directions, and
frustrations associated with things not turning out the way you want them to.
Encourage the use of paying attention strategies and taking deep breaths as
needed.
4. Be conscious of student interest and attention levels.
a. Use the reinforcers when necessary.
b. You might have the students rotate chairs between activities.
c. Move students from the floor to the table or table to floor if the activity
allows.
d. Have students sit Indian style in their chair.
e. Monitor individual sharing if other students are not attending.
5. Be aware of each students feelings associated with the ADHD diagnosis. The
parent permission letter asks that parents not give permission for the group if they
do not want their child to know they have ADHD. However, they may be waiting
for you to tell their child.
6. Once a strategy has been introduced, such as SLANT, continue to cue and
reinforce the behavior when it occurs in later sessions.
7. Using mnemonic devices (rhymes, sentences, or other devices intended to help us
remember) can also be used as aids. Sometimes just making a list to put on the
back door of the house to check as you leave in the morning or one to tape just
inside the desk as an end of the day reminder can help too.
8. If students plan to share activities from the session with their teacher, suggest that
they do it at an appropriate time and not the second they walk back to the
classroom.
9. Students will need reminders about transition behaviors.
10. Students who dont have backpacks for the second session can be paired with
those who do. However, explore the reason for no backpack. Many PTAs or
other groups will provide them for students. They can be particularly helpful for
ADHD students.


107
Option 2: Have students take turns drawing a small card from the
stack and deciding if it should be placed in the backpack, desk, bedroom,
or trash can. (Some items could belong in more than one stack.)
After the activity say, Many students with ADHD have difficulty
finding things and are easily distracted by messes in their backpacks,
desks, and bedrooms. ADHD is not an excuse for a messy desk or
backpack but a reason that we have to keep it organized. It is one
way to help ourselves be more in control of what happens in school.
Backpack clean-out. Have each student get their backpack (pair students
who did not bring one).
Say, I want each of you to look inside your backpack. I want you to
rate it from 1 to 10 in terms of organization with 1 being the least
organized and 10 being the most organized. (Allow students to share
their ratings you might also rate your own bag!)
Now have students find a spot in the room that they can sit and privately
dump out the contents of their backpack. Their task is to identify those
things that belong in the backpack, those things that should be taken home,
and those things that should go into the trash. Give them a large zip lock
bag for those things that should be taken home. Provide a trash can for the
activity.
Then say, Lets all come back together with our backpacks. Now how
would you rate it? How does it feel to have it organized? (Reinforce
responses while connecting organization to control)
Do 3 quick go arounds with students sharing the following:
What kinds of things did you have in your backpack that belong
there?
What kinds of things are in the zip lock bag to go home?
What kinds of things did you throw away?
How could you use this same strategy with your desk or cubby?
What else could you organize? (Accept all responses then encourage
students to pick one thing they will try or organize during the week that
they can tell us about next time.)
Closing statement:
Say, Knowing you have ADHD also helps you to understand why
keeping things organized is important. It is one way for you to help


131
Myrick, R. D., & Dixon, R. W. (1985). Changing student attitudes and behavior
through group counseling. The School Counselor. 32. 325-330.
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1983). The Nowicki-Strickland life-span locus of
control scales: Construct validation. In H. M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of
control construct. Volume II: Developments and social problems (pp. 9-51). New York:
Academic Press.
Nowicki, S., Jr., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 41 (11 148-154.
Pasamanick, B., Rogers, M., & Lilienfeld, A. M. (1956). Pregnancy experience
and the development of behavior disorder in children. American Journal of Psychiatry,
112.613-617.
Patterson, L., & Goldstein, H. (1991). New statistical methods for analysing
social structures: An introduction to multilevel models. British Educational Research
Journal. 17. 387-393.
Pauls, D. L. (1991). Genetic factors in the expression of attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psvchopharmacologv. 1. 353-
360.
Piaget, J. (1967). The childs construction of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield,
Adams.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Educational applications of hierarchical linear
models: A review. Journal of Educational Statistics. 13. 85-116.
Reeve, R. E. (1990). ADHD: Facts and fallacies. Intervention in School and
Clinic. 26. 115-120.
Ross, D. M., & Ross, S. A. (1976). Hyperactivity: Research, theory, and action.
New York: Wiley.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control
of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 80. 609.
Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal verses external control of reinforcement: A case
history of a variable. American Psychologist. 45. 489-493.
Safer, D. J., & Allen, R. (1976). Hyperactive children. Baltimore: University
Park Press.


38
sent to the parents of the selected students about the research, the nature of the counseling
intervention, and asking permission to include their child in the study. From the list of
ADHD students whose parents gave permission, students were randomly assigned, again
using a table of random numbers, to either a treatment or a control group for the duration
of the study.
Resultant Sample
Of the 19 Alachua County, Florida school counselors agreeing to participate in the
study, 13 were able to complete the intervention and posttests within the time frame
necessary to be included in the study. The resultant sample was composed of 93 students
from 12 elementary schools. Demographics of the participating schools can be found in
tables 3-1 and 3-2. It should be noted that a large school with two certified counselors
ran two groups, resulting in 13 small groups.
Table 3-1
Total Enrollment and Lunch Status bv Participating School
School #
Enrollment
% Free/Reduced Lunch
1
575
52%
3
521
75%
4
404
80%
5
574
54%
7
569
45%
10
657
79%
11
554
62%
12
661
26%
13
446
83%
16
255
72%
17
958
38%
18
471
87%


APPENDIX A
CONSENT LETTERS FOR PARTICIPATION


Assent Script for All ADHD Students
(grades 3, 4, & 5)
87
The following paragraph is to be read to the students by the school counselor prior to
completion of pre-post test instruments. The name of each schools counselor will go in
the blank.
Hello,
My name is I am the counselor at your school. I am
helping a University of Florida student, Linda Webb, gather information about the way
students your age see themselves. I would like to ask you to complete two checklists with
me today and two again at a later time. I will read them to you. Only myself and the
University of Florida student will see your individual answers.
If you choose to take part, you may stop at any time and you will not have to
answer any questions you do not want to.
Would you like to do this?


132
Sandler, L, Reese, F., Spender, L., & Harpin, P. (1983). Person by environment
interaction and locus of control: Laboratory, therapy, and classroom studies. In H. M.
Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct. Volume II: Developments
and social problems (pp. 187-251). New York: Academic Press.
Schweibert, V. L., Sealander, K. A., & Bradshaw, M. L. (1998). Preparing
students with Attention-Deficit Disorders for entry into the workplace and post-secondary
education. Professional School Counseling. 2(D. 26-32.
Schweibert, V. L., Sealander, K. A., & Tollerud, T. R. (1995). Attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder: An overview for school counselors. Elementary School Guidance
& Counseling. 29. 249-259.
Searcy, J. D., & Hawkins-Searcy, J. (1979). Locus of control research and its
implications for child personality. In A. J. Finch & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Clinical
treatment and research in child psychopathology (pp. 137-152). Jamaica, NY: Spectrum.
Sexton, T. L. (1998). The relevance of counseling outcome research: Current
trends and practical implications. Journal of Counseling & Development 74. 590-600.
Sharf, R. S. (1996). Theories of psychotherapy and counseling: Concepts and
cases. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
# Shavelson, R. J. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (Eds.). (1992). Attention deficit disorder
comes of age: Toward the twentv-first century. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Stein, M. A., Szumowski, E., Blondis, T. A., & Roizen, N. J. (1995). Adaptive
skills dysfunction in ADD and ADHD children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 36. 663-670.
Still, G. F. (1902). Some abnormal conditions in children. Lancet. 1.1008-1012,
1077-1082, 1163-1168.
Strauss, A. A.,& Lehtinen, L. E. (1947). Psychopathology and education of the
hrain-iniured child. New York: Grue & Stratton.


48
status consistently accounted for the largest percent of the variance in ratings on the TRF.
One example was students whose diagnosis was made independently of the TRF.
Researchers (Edelbrock, Costello, & Kessler, 1984) found that students with ADHD
scored higher on the inattentive scale than a control group of referred students having
other diagnosis.
Test-retest reliability was reported by Achenbach in 1991. The correlation of test-
retest reliability of the TRF was r = .92 over a 15 day interval for problem behavior
scores. Inter-rater agreement was similar for teachers seeing students under different
conditions (r = .54) and teachers seeing students under more similar conditions (r = .55)
with respect to problem behaviors.
The TRF lends itself to statistical analysis done on samples that include children
of both sexes and different age ranges (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1986). T scores, as
opposed to raw scores, can be used for the respective sex/age groups. The T score reflects
each subjects deviation from the mean of his/her normative group. Therefore, while a
raw score of 29 is in the borderline clinical range for boys age 12-18, it is well above the
clinical range for girls 12-18 resulting in a lower T score for boys.
Several hundred references to the Child Behavior Checklist in the Eleventh
Mental Measurements Yearbook (Christenson, 1992) suggest its widespread acceptance
and use. However, it is recognized that the TRF not be used in isolation but in
combination with other methodologies to identify behavioral difficulties in school-aged
children.


58
Two-way interactions. The effect of treatment by sex, age, medication, and ESE
status, as measured by the Teacher Report Form was examined. Each interaction was
introduced into the ANCOVA model one at a time. The following null hypothesis was
tested.
Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.
None of the variables, age, sex, ESE, or medication status of the ADHD student,
interacted significantly with scores on the TRF. In addition, there was not a significant
school by treatment interaction for this dependent measure. A more detailed statistical
report of the Teacher Report Form results can be found in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1
Statistical Results Mixed Effects Model ANCOVA Teacher Report Form
Source
SS
df
MS
F
Pr >F
Sch1
676.80
12
56.41
1.56
.4010
Trt1
32.40
1
32.40
.68
.4257
Sch*Trt
582.72
1
48.56
1.78
.0717
Sex
64.61
1
64.61
2.37
.1290
Age
136.39
1
136.39
4.99
.0290*
Meds
2.75
1
2.75
.05
.8252
ESE
64.10
1
64.10
1.15
.2883
Error
3463.93
62
55.87
'Error terms are estimated for Sch and Trt.
For Sch, MS (Err) = 48.63 (df = 11.95)
For Trt, MS (Err) m 47.79 (df= 12.51)
* Significance at the p < .05 level


76
more complex academic and/or behavioral difficulties, it was somewhat surprising to find
that ADHD students who also had an additional ESE diagnosis showed no significantly
difference response to treatment or to the dependent measures.
Supporting the idea that follow-up, collaboration with teachers, or an extended
intervention may have produced additional results, are the counselor surveys.
School counselors delivering the intervention perceived changes in levels of student
knowledge and awareness of the disorder. They rated the unit as appropriate and
effective for use with ADHD students. While all dependent variable measures may not
have been sensitive to these changes, it was the counselors perceptions that changes were
taking place that would support ADHD students becoming more effective students.
Limitations
During the six-week intervention, ADHD students explored their diagnosis as it
impacted school performance and identified, learned, and practiced behaviors that are
associated with success in school. The brevity of the intervention may have been a
limitation. While meeting weekly for six-weeks is a common format for group
counseling in elementary schools, it may not be long enough for ADHD students to
practice and integrate new behaviors into their school routine.
An additional limitation involved the independent delivery of the group
counseling intervention. Collaboration with classroom teachers to provide more
structured follow-up in the classroom was not part of the study. Prior research would
suggest that multiple treatment interventions have improved chances of producing results
with ADHD students. Although, when there are several interventions, it becomes more
difficult to assess effective components when they are embedded. This researcher


37
identified ADHD than black or Hispanic students. It also suggests that males are more
likely than females to be diagnosed with the disorder at a rate of three to one, a finding
consistent with the ADHD literature.
Sampling Procedure
Upon approval of the University of Floridas Institutional Review Board,
permission to conduct the study was sought from the Alachua County, Florida Public
Schools Department of Research and Evaluation. Next, the principals and counselors of
the 23 public elementary schools were informed of the nature of the study and invited to
volunteer their schools for participation. Each principal received a copy of the
Application for Research in Alachua County Public Schools form explaining the purpose
of the research, giving a brief summary of the research design, describing the population,
and delineating the amount of time involved to complete the study. An accompanying
letter (Appendix A) was sent to principals. Principals and counselors of schools decided
to volunteer the participation of their school. One of the non-participating schools was
not eligible for the study serving only students in grades K-2. A second non-participating
school did not have a school counselor at the time of the intervention.
Within each school choosing to participate, the names of all students in grades
three, four, and five who had been diagnosed and identified by school personnel as
ADHD were placed on a list. School counselors followed instructions for random
selection of students (Appendix B) and assigned numbers beginning with 00. Eight
names were chosen and recorded on a student information sheet using a table of random
numbers. Alternates were also selected using this method. In schools with eight or fewer
ADHD students identified, all ADHD students were selected. A letter (Appendix A) was


57
Pre- and posttreatment data were initially analyzed using a hierarchical linear
model as each group of students receiving treatment belonged to an intact school group
that volunteered participation in the study. Using this analysis, the effects due to group
membership (school) were separated from the within-group residual error term.
However, pooling the error term and using a mixed effects model analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was considered appropriate, as there was not a significant between school
variance on any of the dependent variables. Pretest scores were used as covariates in
computing the analysis of covariance to remove the influence of pre-intervention
variation on the scores for each measure.
Assumptions providing support for use of the ANCOVA as an appropriate
statistical analysis, were checked. Results of tests for between school variance and
assumptions may be found in Appendix E. The confidence level was set at .05 for all
statistical tests.
Data Analysis
Four hypotheses were investigated using three targeted dependent variables. The
means and standard deviations for all pre- and postmeasures can be found in
Appendix E.
Teacher Rating of Classroom Behavior
To investigate the effects of treatment on the classroom behavior of ADHD
students, results of the Teacher Report Form (TRF) were subjected to analysis. The TRF
measures problem behaviors in the classroom as observed by the teacher. Higher scores
indicate more problematic behavior than lower scores. These results were then used to
test the stated null hypothesis.


60
Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.
A significant interaction was found between treatment, as measured by the
CNSIE, and the sex of students (F (1,60) = 8.64, p = .005). While both males and
females in the treatment group had higher adjusted posttest means than their counterparts
in the control groups, females scores were significantly higher (Figure 4-1). Males in the
control group had an adjusted posttest mean of 16.58 with adjusted means for males in
the treatment group being reported at 18.10. Females in the control group had an adjusted
posttest mean of 13.99 while adjusted means for females in the treatment group were
reported at 21.63. Females locus of control scores were, on average, almost seven and a
half points higher when receiving treatment, indicating a significantly higher external
locus of control orientation. This treatment by sex interaction would provide additional
support for the rejection of Ho4.
A second two-way interaction was found during the ANCOVA analysis of CNSIE
results (Figure 4-2). Whether or not a student was taking medication during the
intervention period, significantly interacted with treatment results (F (1,60) = 10.51, p =
.002).
Students taking medication showed little difference in their adjusted posttest
means regardless of their control group (M = 17.63) or treatment group (M = 17.92)
assignment. However, students not taking medication during the intervention, had
adjusted mean scores that were significantly impacted by group assignment. Control
group students not taking medication had an adjusted mean score of 12.95 while
treatment group students not taking medication had a mean score of 21.81 (Table 4-3).


100
Instructions for Administration of the TRF
The attached TRF is being used to gather information for a research study
conducted by Linda Webb, a University of Florida doctoral student. The
student you are to consider is This students
(Name)
parent has given permission for completion of the checklist.
You only need to fill out pages 3 and 4 of the instrument. In filling the form out,
please consider the students behavior as it has occurred over the last 2 weeks. Mark the
answers to the best of your ability. Please do not place the students name on the form.
Thank you for your voluntary cooperation in completing the form.
The form needs to be completed by and returned
(Date)
to .
(Name)


130
Lavin, P. (1991). The counselor as consultant-coordinator for children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling. 26.
115-120.
Lavin, P. (1997). A daily classroom checklist for communicating with parents of
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The School Counselor. 44. 315-
318.
Linn, R. T. & Hodge, G. K. (1982). Locus of control in childhood hyperactivity.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50(41 592-593.
Lucker, J. R., & Molloy, A. T. (1995). Resources for working with children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Elementary School Guidance &
Counseling. 29. 260-267.
Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. (1983). Sibling interactions of hyperactive and
normal children and their relationship to reports of maternal stress and self-esteem.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 12, 91-99.
McGinnis, E., & Goldstein, A.P (1984). Skill streaming the elementary school
child: A guide for teaching prosocial skills. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
McKinney, J. D., Montague, M., & Hocutt, A. M. (1993). Educational assessment
of children with attention deficit disorder. Exceptional Children. 60(21.125-131.
Montague, M., & Warger, C. (1997). Helping students with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder succeed in the classroom. Focus on Exceptional Children. 30(41.
1-16.
Morin, V. A. (1993). Effects of a complex cognitive strategy on locus of control
for students with learning disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Morrison, J. R., & Minkoff, K. (1975). Explosive personality as a sequel to the
hyperactive child syndrome. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 16. 343-348.
Myrick, R. D. (1997). Developmental guidance and counseling: A practical
approach (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corp.
Myrick, R. D., & Bowman (1991). Children helping children: Teaching students
to become friendly helpers (revised ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corp.


9
grades 3, 4, and 5 in public elementary schools participated in a set of group counseling
activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and their sense of personal control
and responsibility for classroom behaviors related to school performance. An
experimental research design, featuring pre- and postmeasures was used to study the
outcomes and test hypotheses.
Research Questions
1. Will the ADHD students classroom behavior change following the
completion of the small group counseling intervention?
2. Will the ADHD students perception of locus of control change following
the completion of the counseling intervention?
3. Will ADHD students perceive their skills for school success differently?
4. Do students respond differently to treatment based on their sex, age, ESE
status, or being on or off medication for ADHD symptoms?
Definition of Terms
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD') incorporates all of the subtypes
of attention deficit disorders as listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (4th ed., [DSM-IV,] American Psychiatric Association, 1994). These include
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive type; attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type; and attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder, combined type.
External locus of control refers to the perception that reinforcement is under the
control of others or subject to forces beyond ones control (Rotter, 1990).


861F13 V17||
10/12/99 34760 ill


133
Swanson, J. M, McBumett, K., Christian, D. L., & Wigal, T. (1995). Stimulant
medications and the treatment of children with ADHD. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz
(Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 265-322). New York:
Plenum.
Tamowski, K. J., & Nay, S. M. (1989). Locus of control in children with
hyperactivity and learning disabilities: A subgroup analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities. 22. 381-389.
Teeter, P. A., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1995). Integrating neurobiological,
psychosocial, and behavioral paradigms: A transactional model for the study of ADHD.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 10. 433-461.
Thompson, C. L., & Rudolph, L. B. (1996). Counseling children (4th ed.l. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing.
Tredgold, A. F. (1908). Mental deficiency amentia-). New York: W. Wood.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1979). The hyperactive child syndrome. Science.
205. 1348-1354.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1986). Hyperactive children grown up. New York:
Guilford Press.
Weiss, G., & Hechtman, L. (1993). Hyperactive children grown up: ADHD in
children, adolescents and adults. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Werry, J. (1978). Pediatric pharmacology. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Whalen, C. K., & Henker, B. (1991). Therapies for hyperactive children:
Comparisons, combinations, and compromises. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 59. 126-137.
Whalen, C. K., Henker, B., & Dotemoto, S. (1980). Teacher response to
methylphenidate (Ritalin) verses placebo status of hyperactive boys in the classroom.
Child Development. 52. 1005-1014.
Willis, T. J., & Lovaas, I. (1977). A behavioral approach to treating hyperactive
children: The parents role. In J. B. Millichap (Ed.), Learning disabilities and related
disorders (pp. 199-140). Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publications.
Wittmer, J., & Myrick, R. D. (1989). The teacher as facilitator. Minneapolis,
MN: Educational Media Corporation.


134
Wolraich, M. L., Wilson, D. B., & White, J. W. (1995). The effect of sugar on
behavior or cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 274.1617-1621.
Zametkin, A. J., Nordahl, T. E., Gross, M., King, A. C., Semple, W. E., Rumsey,
J., Hamburger, S., & Cohen, R. M. (1990). Cerebral glucose metabolism in adults with
hyperactivity of childhood onset. New England Journal of Medicine. 323. 1361-1366.
Zentall, S. S. (1993). Research on the educational implications of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children. 60(21,143-153.
Zentall, S. S. (1995). Modifying classroom tasks and environments. In S.
Goldstein (Ed.), Understanding and managing childrens classroom behavior (pp. 143-
154). New York: Wiley.


8
coordinator of Children with Attention Deficit Disorders Professional Interest Network,
Robert Erk (1995b), these functions are within the realm of typical guidance and
counseling programs and are part of the multidisciplinary treatment necessary to optimize
the learning outcomes of the ADHD student. Designing and providing direct counseling
services and programs for ADHD students are among the activities he encourages for
school counselors.
The question that remains is whether providing direct service through a small
group counseling intervention can improve ADHD student behavior in the classroom.
The school counseling literature has yielded few outcome studies to support such a claim
since 1988 (Sexton, 1996) so we remain unsure. The school counseling literature has
presented implications of clinical and school based investigations for school counselors
working with ADHD students (Bowley & Walther, 1992; Bramlet, Nelson, & Reeves,
1997; Burnley, 1993, Erk, 1995a, 1995b, 1998; Kottman, Robert, & Baker 1995; Lavin,
1991,1997; Lucker, & Molloy, 1995; Schweibert, Sealander, & Bradshaw, 1998;
Schweibert, Sealander, & Tollerud, 1995). However, there has been no evidence of any
outcome study indicating the effectiveness of any school counselor intervention for
ADHD students in the last decade. There is a need to formally evaluate interventions
provided by the school counselor for ADHD students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD children. More specifically, ADHD students in
grades 3, 4, and 5 in public elementary schools participated in a set of group counseling
activities designed to increase awareness of ADHD and their sense of personal control


33
The Teacher Report Form (TRF) is a rating scale designed to capture descriptive
distinctions in classroom behavior without specialized training. Like other rating scales,
the intention is not to produce a diagnosis but to describe behavior in an organized,
statistical fashion. The TRF attempts to provide a profile of behavior as it is actually seen
by the classroom teacher. Profiles are provided in eight subscales and include: (1)
withdrawn; (2) somatic complaints; (3) anxious/depressed; (4) social problems; (5)
thought problems; (6) attention problems; (7) delinquent behavior; and (8) aggressive
behavior. Unlike the Connors Revised Teacher Rating Scale (Goyette, Conners, &
Ulrich, 1978) that was designed primarily for assessing hyperactivity, the TRF can obtain
a more differentiated picture of classroom behavior and the degree of deviance in each
area. This is important in assessing classroom behavior as the pupil may not really be
deviant in the area of the referral complaint, because terms like hyperactivity tend to
serve as euphemisms for a wide range of nuisance behaviors (Achenbach, 1991).
Since the TRF is not confined to any theoretical view or topic in its use, it can be
used as an outcome measure for a wide range of constructs. In this study, the TRF will be
used to detect changes in classroom behavior of ADHD students after an intervention
focusing on the constructs of locus of control and school success skills. This seems to be
an appropriate use.
Summary
A review of the related literature has (a) provided a historical context for
considering diagnosis and treatment of ADHD; (b) shown that characteristics of ADHD
interfere with school outcomes; (c) shown that frequent prevalence of the disorder in
schools necessitates school-based intervention; (d) demonstrated the effective use of




A mixed model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on locus of control scores
yielded significant treatment effects (2 .0021). Significant treatment interactions were
found between sex (2 = .0047) and whether a student was taking medication during the
intervention period (2 = .0019). In each of the above CNSIE analysis, the shift was
towards a more external locus of control for students participating in the counseling
intervention. No significant treatment or interaction effects were found during the
ANCOVA analysis of TRF or SSI-SF scores.
Results suggested that a brief group counseling intervention for ADHD students
has the potential to increase awareness of ADHD characteristics as they affect school
performance. However, this increased awareness can leave students feeling less in
control of daily occurrences. The brevity and independence of the intervention were
considered when discussing these results.
It was suggested that follow-up and teacher collaboration be used in conjunction
with the counseling intervention for ADHD students. This type of intervention may be an
important adjunct in preparing ADHD students to accept the need for support and
alternative strategies as they strive to become successful students.
vi


Checklist of Procedures
For ADHD Group Counseling Study
Principal Investigator: Linda Webb (332-2022)
The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a small group
counseling intervention with ADHD children. It involves the following:
1. Workshop participation by school
counselor.
2. Random selection of students for
participation in study.
3. Parent permission letters sent.
4. Random assignment to treatment and
control groups.
5. Pre-testing of all students in both groups.
6. Group counseling intervention delivered
for treatment group.
7. Post-testing of students in both groups.
8. Materials returned.
(Date Completed)
90


98
CNSIE Answer Sheet Student Name Research#
1.
Yes
No
21.
Yes
No
2.
Yes
No
22.
Yes
No
3.
Yes
No
23.
Yes
No
4.
Yes
No
24.
Yes
No
5.
Yes
No
25.
Yes
No
6.
Yes
No
26.
Yes
No
7.
Yes
No
27.
Yes
No
8.
Yes
No
28.
Yes
No
9.
Yes
No
29.
Yes
No
10.
Yes
No
30.
Yes
No
11.
Yes
No
31.
Yes
No
12.
Yes
No
32.
Yes
No
13.
Yes
No
33.
Yes
No
14.
Yes
No
34.
Yes
No
15.
Yes
No
35.
Yes
No
16.
Yes
No
36.
Yes
No
17.
Yes
No
37.
Yes
No
18.
Yes
No
38.
Yes
No
19.
Yes
No
39.
Yes
No
20.
Yes
No
40.
Yes
No
Pre/Post


63
Students who received the intervention but were not taking medication had the highest
locus of control scores, indicating a significantly higher external locus of control
orientation. Non-medicated treatment group students also showed the greatest variation
in score when compared to their control group counterparts by scoring, on the average,
nine points higher on the CNSIE. This treatment by medication interaction continues to
provide support for the rejection of Ho4.
The remaining variables, age and ESE status, did not interact significantly with
treatment as measured by the CNSIE. Additionally, there was not a significant school by
treatment interaction for this dependent measure.
Main effects of treatment. The following null hypothesis was tested using the
CNSIE results.
Ho2: There will be no significant difference between treatment and control
group students locus of control, as measured by the Childrens Nowicki-
Strickland Internal External Locus of Control Scale.
Results of the ANCOVA revealed a significant difference in the CNSIE posttest scores
for treatment and control groups (F (1, 56) = 10.42, p = .002). Therefore, Ho2 was
rejected. Adjusted posttest means for the control group (M = 15.29) were significantly
lower than the adjusted means for the treatment group (M = 19.87). Students in the
control group rated themselves as having a more internal locus of control than the
students who received treatment (Table 4-2 and 4-3).
Students Perceptions of School Success Behaviors
Students perception of School Success Behaviors was measured using the School
Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF). This 10-item Likert-type scale yielded scores


105
OK, but we have a map and we can see the problem ahead of time. Does
that mean we arent going to Fun City? No, it just means we got to make
some other plans to get there. How else might we get there? (Facilitate a
brief discussion in which the students might use the map to plan alternate routes
or even consider other modes of transportation. Encourage at least 6
possibilities.)
What is our destination in school? What are we trying to do? (Help
students connect things like learning, making good grades, etc... to the ultimate
destination which we will call school success.!
How can having ADHD be like the construction on the main route to our
destination? (Facilitate feedback about ADD behaviors that can be like the road
under construction and how those can impact school success.!
Summary Statement:
Having ADHD doesnt mean you cant be successful as a student. However,
it does mean that you might have to find some ways to help you get there (to
success) that will be a little different than the route other students take. Each
of you in this group is lucky. Not lucky that you have ADHD, but lucky your
parents, teachers, and doctor have figured out that you have it. Some kids in
school have the problem and dont know it. That would be like not having a
map. You will have the chance to do well because you have a map for your
journey and the problem has been marked. That means you know you will
need to do some things to help yourself become a more successful student. If
you do, you will have more control over where you are going and how you
will get there. (Encourage students to take their maps to share with their
teachers and/or parents.)
Next time we meet, we will be talking about some of the things ADHD
students, like you, can do. When you come, I want you to bring your
backpacks with you. (Figure out who has a backpack to bring.)


104
ADHD. Students who have ADHD may need help focusing on what to do in
order to pay attention, get their work done, or stay in their seat. However,
there are some things ADHD students can learn to do to help themselves
focus more clearly. (Make sure students understand this does not imply that they
might have to wear glasses) Students with ADHD are not stupid. Lots of
really smart kids have ADHD, just like many really smart kids wear glasses.
The man who invented the light bulb, Thomas Edison, had ADHD. Your
parent or teacher could have ADHD. Your doctor could have ADHD. The
person who works at the bank, a policeman, or even an astronaut could have
ADHD. There is nothing wrong with it. Each of you are in the group
because you have ADHD.
So, what are people with ADHD like? (Post the chart paper and write the
characteristics one at a time while students think of a time in school and a time
out of school that the characteristic would be valued: creative, has high energy,
resourceful, sensitive, good sense of humor, and willing to take risks.
Then say, So, ADHD students have some really special qualities. Each of
you do too. Which of these describes you? (Responses)
Then why does having ADHD make it harder for some students in school?
(Add the words impulsive, hyperactive, and inattentive on the right side of the
paper and make their connection to the words on the left side.)
It is because students with ADHD sometimes have trouble controlling their
behavior when they really need to. The teacher may want you to stop being
creative, tone down your energy, or stop showing off your sense of humor
because those behaviors are getting in the way of your work!
Has this ever happened to any of you? (Allow for sharing of experiences
while connecting the ADHD behavior to the school performance effected.)
Map Activity (Give a map to each student in the group.)
Say, Now were going to look at ADHD another way. Pretend we are
planning a trip to Fun City. I want each of you to look at your map and the
route that has been planned. It is marked in green. What kinds of problems
do you see? (As students notice the yellow construction arrows, announce that
we cant go this way so we will plan to go another way.)
What if we hadnt looked at a map and didnt realize we couldnt go this way
until we got this far? How would you feel? (Responses.)


44
The intervention followed the theme of a journey. During the small group
counseling intervention, ADHD students were encouraged to continue to set their sights
on school success as a destination while recognizing the need to consider alternate
paths, detours, or the need for roadside assistance as strategies to keep them on their
way. These metaphors were linked to specific skills that were taught and practiced during
the intervention.
Initially, each school counselor helped group members get acquainted, clarified
their reasons for being in the group, and began building a climate of trust and acceptance
through involvement in introductory activities. Thereafter, each session featured
activities and discussions that focused on helping students learn more about their disorder
as reflected in school performance. ADHD students were given an opportunity to explore
their own diagnosis and express feelings associated with that knowledge. A brief
discussion of the use of medication for ADHD symptoms was included.
Students participated in tasks and activities allowing them to identify behaviors
that support school success. The group format provided a setting in which students were
able to practice new behaviors while among their peers. Among the behaviors targeted
for this intervention were: paying attention, listening, organizing materials, recognizing,
creating, and using external cues in the classroom, handling frustration and anger, and
using available supports in the classroom to increase success in school. Students were
encouraged to take responsibility for their actions by recognizing the need for
modification and intervention in their daily routine.
The counseling intervention ended with a summary of what had been done,
allowing students to talk about their experience and describe their next steps. A brief


47
It is self-administered and requires no special training. Teachers can complete the scale
in about 20 minutes.
The TRF was designed to provide standardized descriptions of students behavior.
It does so by identifying behaviors that occur together and refers to these groupings as
syndromes. The syndromes were derived from TRF items identified by teachers for
children who were referred for special services (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986). The
following eight syndromes are displayed in the 1991 TRF profile: withdrawn, somatic
complaints, anxious/depressed, social problems, thought problems, attention problems,
delinquent behavior, and aggressive behavior (Achenbach, 1991).
Internalizing and externalizing groupings of behavior were also identified for each
age/sex group (Achenbach, 1991). The internalizing grouping is the sum of scores on the
withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed scales. The externalizing
grouping is comprised of the items on the delinquent and aggressive behavior scales.
These scales are not mutually exclusive. According to Achenbach (1991), students who
score high on one grouping tend to have at least above average scores in the other area as
well. Worth special consideration are students who have a much higher score in one
grouping than the other. A total sum score (TSS) of the internalizing and externalizing
behaviors can be derived as a measure of classroom problems exhibited by the student.
The behavior problems scale is comprehensive and is conceptually consistent with
other problem-oriented behavior rating scales (Elliott & Busse, 1992). Construct validity
data is derived from factor analysis and concurrent validity with the Conners Revised
Teacher Rating Scale {r = .85) which also looks at childrens problem behaviors. In
addition, Achenbach and Edelbrock (1986) found for all ages and both sexes that referral


115
These things also give us the chance to think for a second before we do
anything. Why might it be important to think for a second before we act if
we are frustrated, angry, or upset? (Responses)
What might be a time that would be good to try this? (Allow for responses
and have students model the behavior for one another.)
Sometimes we can do both of these things at the same time, take a deep
breath and say something to ourselves that will give us a second before we do
anything.
(2) Use the problem solving cards to elicit feelings and behaviors associated with
difficulties that might be experienced by ADHD students.
Say, I want you to look each card. Problems like these are like running into
holes in the road when we travel. With ADHD we know that there are going
to be some holes in the road. We are going to have to find a way to go
around them, like a detour. These are times that you may be feeling
frustrated or upset, or things are just not going well. Every student has times
when things do not go well. ADHD students have times when things do not
go well in the classroom. Look at this card, what do you think has (is)
happened (happening)? (Responses)
How do you think the student is feeling? (Responses)
What could this student do to help themselves right now? (Responses)
What might they have done to give themselves a few seconds to think before this
happened? (Responses and then repeat for each card)
Have students draw a picture of a time they felt frustrated or upset. The cards
should have them thinking of one. Then have students write what they might
have done or said to create time to think before reacting.
Begin by saying, Can you think of a time that you felt frustrated or upset?
What might you have said or done? I want you to draw me a picture of one
of those times. If we have time we will share them with each other. (Give
each student a paper and marker. Encourage students to take their pictures with
them when they leave and share them with their parent or teacher.)


Department of Counselor Education
PO Box 117046 University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
85
Dear Parent/Guardian,
My name is Linda Webb. I am a graduate student in the Department of Counselor
Education at the University of Florida, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Myrick,
conducting research on the effectiveness of a small group counseling intervention for
students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The purpose of this
study is to compare the perceptions and behaviors of ADHD students who take part in a
small group counseling intervention, with ADHD students who do not participate in the
intervention. The results of the study may better help school counselors understand the
types of interventions that can help ADHD students become more effective learners in
their classrooms. The counselor at your childs school will lead the small group
counseling intervention.
Half of the ADHD students who participate will be randomly selected to
participate in the small group counseling intervention which will take place once each
week for six weeks. Each session will last about 30-40 minutes and will meet at a time
and place during the school day, as agreed upon by the counselor and teacher. The
sessions will feature activities and discussions that focus on helping students learn more
about ADHD as it is reflected in their school performance, and learning ways to improve
that performance. ADHD students not receiving the counseling intervention will
maintain their regular school routine, helping to determine the effectiveness of the group
counseling.
All ADHD students who participate, even if they are not selected for participation in the
counseling sessions, will be asked to complete two instruments about how they see
themselves, that will require about 20 minutes of their time prior to the beginning of the
intervention and again at the conclusion of the intervention about 8 weeks later. The
school counselor will read the instruments to students at a time he/she has arranged with
your childs teacher. The students will not have to mark any items they do not want to
answer. Additionally, the teacher will be asked to complete a behavior checklist before
and after the counseling intervention for all ADHD students participating. Although the
children will be asked to write their names on the checklists for matching purposes, their
identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. We will replace their
names with code numbers. Results will only be reported in the form of group data and
will be available upon request in July. Participation or non-participation in this study will
not affect the childrens grades or placement in any programs.
You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your childs participation at
any time without consequence. If your child is not aware of his/her ADHD diagnosis,
there may be some risk of uncertainty or anxiety about this new knowledge. Your childs


^v-> --w-:'T
---'"-V.-^V..r'.v.' V :'.:.T^^sJjzi:;S-: :jf~-...
1: >*- -XX'XrXv. -rrvr- -S£X^r:-srjr -rrcv- - ~c.:- ~_v: *X;
?Zz£z .-U-XX;XXi^XwX'X ^r^r"--
- .UW **-.,
** _ ^lt ^ JzZ ",
"XrXrT 'r * * - _
'" w * V~ ^ w w,,-.- . ' ^ * 'v * a' **y _
** *> ..'. -V- ^ ^ r V(^w.v-v.w^
- w ~^X^J"^[!Xrr^C VxT" 7 W~ '' V W-W' *- -f Vji'' ^ n
^'- V*--* *. t r_*ir *jrw -. w _ _, /v'.'^r_. Jt,* "rr t' *-^ x --^*x, **.-*,
' ""w'*rv_''^'r -.i^rr^r ' ^v.~~Xv._ _._
!^3~2=3SK=553rS5^^Ga5SKSS££iS22^S^=~:S^^ -: '
2^>"r^r *4.
W** '** w '*' W--*-
1' wv W v
^-,
** *-*'* ^
^ '* -w- "*r*I J '*" 1 VW h4V c W. Xb ,%,^- ^ ^ .
- "V^*v,^wVKV*V.l. ^ *
MWM r
. WwVaV ^vi^" ^ ..- TZT'ZJ" >-s.Vv
^ s^S-^. -V-i-v .*, - ^v .
ftirXxl **-**'*' -B w JX"XUwT7 * * -- V'^>*.* J
-t.C^'Cv ^ j~ -" -vj-wCC!!^. '-^-- -, -w^.--,^. _, -_-~ - -"- j-v.vv .,w _\_ j£~ -'- ^ ' .^^xs.'r 'r> r - -
Jirjrjr'-V -'..-.JLri'_~J^.lC_""''"~ "-' ~ -~.tJ". -~-T^ S__~~~!''_~J_''*'*' .r_.. ..... ^_7 -J! ['" ~ 7^^-y -v-w k..... ^.,. y"T^' -* .
".i^zz^i~^.z'---- ----X~v~_vr_~--,w- "-'-
. cr^ctr^ssi --- - -- .vl._i'
; ' ^ 'J^TT^yr ~Zf~*T''-'~ ~ ".r_~.j-_'V 'r --- -%,>;>.
Ni wwwv, VW- ---^ .. ^ ^J., TTr * ^ X^flPrt-w wjLTZ^ - w w-
^ rf- ^ ^.X , JULXb7~ * ~^X'*X?£?~ v-
^ 4 # .-V *


52
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses will be evaluated at the .05 level of significance in this
study:
1. There will be no significant difference between the classroom behavior
adjusted means of students in the treatment and control group, as measured by
the Teacher Report Form (TRF).
2. There will be no significant difference between treatment and control group
students locus of control adjusted means, as measured by the Childrens
Nowicki-Strickland Internal External Locus of Control scale (CNSIE).
3. There will be no significant difference between treatment and control group
students adjusted mean perception of school success skills, as measured by
the School Success Inventory-Student Form (SSI-SF).
4. There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex, ESE
status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, and SSI-SF.
Data Analysis
Pre- and posttreatment data were initially analyzed using a hierarchical linear
model. This analysis was appropriate since each group of students receiving treatment
belonged to an intact school group that volunteered participation in the study (Patterson &
Goldstein, 1991; Raudenbush, 1988). The intact school groups participating could
influence the scores on dependent measures as a result of interaction with a particular set
of individuals or occurrences. In this analysis, the effects due to group membership
(school) were separated from the within-group residual error term. However, pooling the
error term and using a mixed effects model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was


113
your teacher may try to cue or remind you without saying anything.
(Counselor non-verbal cues)
If I were your teacher, what would you think I was trying to tell you?
(Responses)
How can you tell what I want? What do you see that gives you the clue?
(Allow for responses then play a round of the Towel Game. Give each student
a turn to use the towel as a prop to depict a non-verbal scenario.)
How does it help to be able to read body language? (Responses)
These are all cues you can read that will help you be more in control of
what
happens in your classroom.
(3) Help students learn to create their own cues using acronyms.
Say, Now lets think about how we might make our own cues to act as
reminders. What is an acronym? (Response)
Remember, I said using them is a good way to help remember things. You
can make up your own, like someone made up SLANT. For example, if you
needed to remember your lunchbox, assignment sheet, and backpack
everyday when it was time to go home, what acronym could you remember?
(Write the letters A, B, and L down on a piece of paper for students to
unscramble)
You could remember the acronym LAB. LAB would be a cue for the end of
every day that would help you get the rights things home. What kinds of
things do you need to remember at the end of the day? What kinds of things
do you need to remember to bring to school in the morning? (If time allows,
help students make a list of things they need to remember at one point in the day
and come up with their own acronym.
Summary Statement:
Students with ADHD can be successful in school and get things done.
Using cues and reminders in your classroom and making up your own are
ways to do it. Using them is like putting your glasses on, they help you to
focus more clearly on what you need to do and remember.


17
1975). This view gained so much support that a National Advisory Committee on
Hyperkinesis and Food Additives was convened in 1980. The evidence clearly refuted
these claims (Conners, 1980). Nevertheless, it remained popular for almost 10 years only
to be replaced by an equally unsupported hypothesis that sugar was more to blame than
food additives (Wolraich, Wilson, & White, 1995).
Other developments during the 1970s included the notion that an increasing
societal tempo and more rapid cultural change caused increased environmental
stimulation that would interact with a predisposition of some children for hyperactivity
(Block, 1977). Poor child rearing and lack of behavior management skills of parents was
also used to explain behaviors related to hyperactive children (Willis & Lovass, 1977).
As a result, parent training was increasingly recommended.
The passage of Public Law 94-142 in 1975 mandated special education services
for children with handicapping and behavioral disabilities in addition to those already
available for children with mental retardation (Henker & Whalen, 1980). At that time,
hyperactivity was not considered a disorder that met the criteria for special education
services. However, the laws reinterpretation in 1991 by the Department of Education,
allows ADHD children to receive special education services under the Other Health
Impaired category, if the disorder includes a chronic or acute impairment that
significantly effects educational performance (Davila, Williams, & MacDonald, 1991).
During this decade there was also an abundance of research on behavioral
strategies for treatment (Allyon, Layman, & Kandel, 1975). The efficacy of these
strategies was evident but they did not produce the same degree of improvement as
stimulant medication. However, the opinion of the time was that stimulant medication


25
These implications include supporting the use of stimulant medication when appropriate,
coordinating multidisciplinary interventions, consulting with parents and teachers with
regard to modifications and behavioral intervention, being advocates for ADHD students,
and providing direct counseling intervention. However, at this time, there has been a lack
of published research in the school counseling literature to support the efficacy of direct
school counselor intervention for ADHD students.
Other counseling related literature such as The Journal of Counseling Psychology
and School Psychology have also published articles recognizing the need for
identification and intervention of ADHD. The focus of these articles tends to be on
accurate identification of ADHD symptoms, measuring related problems and creating
profiles that can be used to guide treatment planning.
Small Group Counseling Interventions
Small groups are frequently used to address the special needs and problems of
children (Corey & Corey, 1997). It is a valid counselor intervention in the schools that
can meet the needs of many students (Bowman, 1987; Brown, 1994). It can be a more
efficient and effective method for working with ADHD students as more than one student
can be seen at one time, students can support each others efforts, learn from each other,
and practice behaviors in a less intense setting than meeting with the school counselor
one on one (Myrick, 1997). Others concur (Schweibert et al., 1995), suggesting that
opportunities to work with ADHD students in groups may assist students to work more
appropriately with peers while using the counselors time more effectively. However,
Braswell and Bloomquist (1991) caution that with one leader, the groups should be
limited to four students as behaviors associated with ADHD require attention.


93
Pre and Post-test Data Collection
Data is collected for each student whose parent has given permission for
participation in the study whether they are in the treatment or control group. All pre-test
data will be collected prior to the beginning of the intervention. Post-test data, using the
same instruments, will be collected upon its completion.
Teacher Report Forms
The classroom teacher for each participating student will be asked to complete a TRF.
Please put the student number and PRE on the form so I can tell it from the post test
which should be marked with the student number and POST. A copy of the Teacher
Instructions for the TRF with the students name should accompany it.
School Success Inventory/Student Form Read the assent script to all students before
completing pre-test instruments to affirm their voluntary participation.
Then say, Lets look at the first check list and see what to do. I will read each
item to you as you follow along. As I read, think about the possible answers. For
example, if the first question was I eat cereal for breakfast in the mornings, I
would want you think about what the true answer would be for you. The choices
are: Very Often, Often, Sometimes, Seldom, and Very Seldom. (Make sure students
understand the word seldom.)
Which would be true for you? (Responses)
Then you would put an X under the column that says and that would
be the correct answer for you. There are no wrong answers as long as you mark
what is true for you. Your teachers and parents will not see your answers. Are
there any questions? (Clarify if necessary.) Lets begin. (Read each item twice.)
After students have completed the items, give them a few minutes then administer the
locus of control scale.
Childrens Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (CNSIE)
Say, This next scale is used to find out what boys and girls your age think about
certain things. I will be reading some questions and want you to answer the
questions the wav you feel. All the answers are either yes or no. There are no right
or wrong answers. Your parents and teachers will not see you answers. Dont take
too much time thinking about any one question. You will mark yes or no on your
answer sheet as I read the items. (Have students use an index card or their finger to
keep their place on the answer sheet. Double check with students along the way to make
sure they are on the right item.) Find #1 on your answer sheet and lets begin.


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert D. Myrick, Chair Professor of Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Harry Daniels
Professor of Counselor Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Professor of Foundations of
Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Edward Turner
Associate Professor of Instruction
and Curriculum
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1999
Dean, College of Education a*-'
Dean, Graduate School


129
Gomez, K. M., & Cole, C. L. (1991). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A
review of treatment alternatives. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling. 26. 106-113.
Goyette, C. H., Conners, C. K., & Ulrich, R. F. (1978). Normative data on revised
Conners Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6.
221-236.
Henker, B., & Whalen, C. (1980). The changing faces of hyperactivity:
Retrospect and prospect. In C. Whalen & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The
social ecology of identification and treatment (pp. 321-364). New York: Academic Press.
Hops, H., & Cobb, J. A. (1973). Survival behaviors in the educational setting:
Their implications for research and intervention. In L. A. Hemmerlynk, L. C. Handy, &
E. J. Mash (Eds.), Behavior change (pp. 193-208). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Jackson, B., & Farrugia D. (1997). Diagnosis and treatment of adults with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Counseling & Development. 7514).
312-319.
Jordan, D. R. (1992). Attention deficit disorder: ADHD and ADD syndromes.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kauffman, J. M (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of
children and youth (5th ed.). New York: Merrill.
Kavale, K. (1992). The efficacy of stimulant drug treatment for hyperactivity: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 15.280-289.
Kendall, P. C., & Braswell, L. (1985). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for impulsive
children. New York: Guilford Press.
Klein, S. S. (1971). Student influence on teacher behavior. American
Educational Research Journal. 8,403-421.
Kottman, T., Robert, R., & Baker, D. (1995). Parental perspectives on attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: How school counselors can help. The School Counselor.
43,142-149.
Laufer, M., Denhoff, E., & Solomons, G. (1957). Hyperkinetic impulse disorder
in childrens behavior problems. Psychosomatic Medicine. 19. 38-49.


45
overview of the content sessions is outlined in Table 3.7. The complete intervention can
be found in the Group Facilitators Manual in Appendix D.
Table 3-7
Small Group Counseling Intervention
Session #
Title of Session
Content Objectives
Session #1
Our Journey
1. Students will gain increased knowledge of
ADHD.
2. Students will identify behaviors
associated with ADHD and how those
behaviors effect school success.
3. Students will be given an opportunity to
discuss their own ADHD diagnosis and
express associated feelings.
Session #2
Pack It Up
1. Students will learn and practice strategies
to support the need for better organization
as related to school success.
Session #3
Stop Lights & Traffic
Cops
1. Students will learn and practice behaviors
associated with attending.
2. Students will identify school situations in
which attending is important.
3. Students will identify school situations in
which attending is difficult.
Session #4
Using Road Signs As a
Guide
1. Students will learn to recognize, create
and use external cues in the classroom.
2. Students will gain increased awareness of
the need for strategies to support school
success.
Session #5
Road Holes and Detours
1. Students will identify school situations
that are particularly difficult.
2. Students will identify ways to improve
school situations that are difficult.
Session #6
Roadside Assistance &
Becoming Your Own
Mechanic
1. Students will identify sources of support
at school.
2. Students will be given the opportunity to
experience the feelings of being in
control.
3. Students will associate increased practice
of a skill with improvement of that skill.
4. Students will gain increased knowledge of
the use of medication in treating ADHD.


M
pV^Js >H ;/i, feYNA
9 "
,t( ***
i i /, n
) 4 ^ tnr' ' > 4
^j'rvv T'¡Pp yPP/
. i YfY
YY-Y v
; PipteppiP 1 " '
: yPP \m
, fe ¡
, ; !( ; j P, yyyyyyyYy' y'Y'pp. y;y.yyYp.P' y,pPPyyPypyPPyyP'Y' lopPtpPpp:yP YpYpPppppp tfp; PWiS'iPirY'ipP :P¡PP -PYp.' y- Till
yY' -yY'PY.*'Pp y;yYy.-"'^' < "'rY.PY. ..* y:.vy *. Y;;PP..!{, ¡UP YpiiP'YYYPp.pY..* yyPy, yyP"Yy yyyy
Vr > f/i *!''*: Jit.,-.*.'* SP*f* 1 lf\<\ r* ' Vi i i-i .;j> w< -1'1- , s my ^niY1 v/ <. P< v p*i?> J' *H i Jlf , *, .-^o *'? y yt*' P :/ ¡ I.;). jwim i y* r.1 fv", .* MF *.K'M : .... i j\, ** Y4b^ *MS )**vkl: W 1 !j s # H 'P\U.\Mw*fK
iiPP 1 p

P-PUyyUy'^PpPyP UPP'P-y.'" Y : ':. YY::p.Ppp'P, ;;U '->-Pr;:PvY yy . : y :.; ;y. p :p: yY'YY.'Py':'P.yPyY.Y'YV'y.y; y,;
yU PPPUy Py'YPP.7' PyP- y, ' P vP'. Y.Y'yP-' ; '''-Py"';-:1;::1:..:'y'5;;:;
j Jll:. ..'vi ^ i v vi .*v4Urp' ; t;1*. :: p w.rrM r 'f- .Y.W'P¡'fr & i,-rp*,: /. j; :iv : !;p PI;VnP^ .;
, t, h','- : i ,f ; :. ,-. i , k -f ' ; , 4 m. ',r / , v.\ly>v * v' ^ ,,, T / sj-./k *.i ^ r.',:tr. .,-'t !<>>*'' *< 9 . '.-lf .v; j; :u?4 ** .fpf' 'rr1;/, i:-.'o-i mmim* *- 1 * ,: r r > iy

< ; *:r,., A .. .: 'i>'('¡''wi <'> ::.tilw W-¡4 Ur* Vb'i:Jffta'r !rtt.5 v > :(v V'1 ¡i},:^w:" r>V?; #!.** >.,' Fii'Vl- .'.:y. > w. -'initW!r^'}t?>;V!-v-t1 'r'' ;nbl);
i' *' ,n yaM1'-1 i 0 ', /fij*4 ;. n/'\ I < ,,\fA I -, . j- r i t >'*:'' ,, it ,'i > i|* >cJ t -/* 'i J i k Ill y : A v V, P'-.P * -a $ ' 'K4 * *' \ '*>'< 4'; JrL r\ '! ; m y / vHv^)> i r* h 1
> '* f ;. t. ;>V;?K-i.¡iteSiife'.::; i'^P-- Py:, cVyV. ::;;;f11^t.-,.},A >.*-' '.'Y lY-vYi: P-Py.y: y::! ; MYtt
;. t 4 % *;i I1 \ f! [1 i' ' >, < ; i i t ir,r y' < 1 * m , v C ' '4" ' > ,, i i /' i i > < f 'j w 4 \ ;i i'H f.T ! v. tj<,i VM ! ji' t, r" "'*t' *1 ^ ,* .'11 'V .¡ J r ; r I a *> *V*V, * \ !, .,>. * iy\ 1 \ -y'.iWU.ij',11*^^ '' 'Y \ A'v , i n./
" ' .. . y-' '; p- i'jv-Yi'i p-p-' prv; Y.^'v--; Y i' l''p.f pY. ^. ; i:;:,'!!;'i'p ;":-.^;'Y;;:
. v Y : y;y.,,ty; ;.. -:P P;P
^;PP-;vYYHPP;,:;{yP,::v,yiy:':-
'y:: ri' 'v :. .:1 p- iwp *; y-b; y y y IP : ? *: l*'' ^ : ^3 *:; y i -;
y'-yyv.yy.yyyy 1 . . ;j;¡; Y .< y v ; *; ' , ,
w.;¡,';.;.;Y,:Y...-i!-;i;.;¡;'Y';;Y ; >!. y'-:.,.!; ' w sPuN'.,f -1'; :! ¡.. i;--v;,Pr;ii¡;!p!UU !. -P:.:.!}!.>/
; : MY ; .'vy'y :
/.Y Y-,.. ..< /;; ' ; Y {{.'¡v) Y?1.' i : Y 'Yi' Y Y YY Y. , ; / i o> ; :'
b'Y yVYYvYY...Y'YYY,
WSi'")¡& k-YPi
/>: rM;-M J.v'>p1y/,up ./.( .Yr.i-.wt;i;P;P:r|4v, . ^v-; ^ ^tri,;pH U- A* lif; V;v.V;. {*' '{:i: *- 4*/1;/;: .,>y y ^ y.., ..Y.-.-..- j; Mf;! r
, 'y: ! i"-Y'' < :y Y; .* Y ; Y ; Y :VY ;V I Y Y; YiY ,/yv: ... ;-' , ; .. y; ;
'. I"¡ ;^Y : :Y;.Y,i ;w¡'^;Y::.;'->-r;inY:.YY!Y ;;:',';::.:i;Yv, ',Y.-.;;YY. .;^ yY. :; .-,,Y'Y;.
, Y.,s t t\ *>/,/ ' w j i f ,.4t u 'Y*;y ,,;Y' i. v .J v' ,, r, > Y . P I'. .. ,y,ym \ i /Y k,f *' '.p1 ¡ \ f\ ,.< > ' ' / [ "; 4!,,, y j r M 1 ,-/VA') y YS ' ( > .. .. ,, , v. < I *r. <**pi '*" ,K\ ... 'p!,,,., Y' 11 4
'Y / Y.*; ,Y Y YrYi;,,Y'!YY;. 'Vj\: 'Y : Y. y i'Y.:/Y.;i ¡Y';:, V¡.'>-.Y;-YY Y.- ; > *,1.,!Y.1yY
' Y y .. '. Y Y' ¡.i ; YY-'-'' Y YY I- ;y.YYY Y...Y.; .Yr-Y:;:- ^ Y V Y. YyI'yPy^ Y Y': Y''*'
Y.' Y. ; .'. Y T- y yY :. Y V- 1! :Y'¡:,'lo^ ^ ' ..'
.
! ' :. ". V.;?' ,: j -y Y Y Y Y, Y -,y, ' ..
b'iYV.
-'-'y'y, -Y j; .! : ir rE ?. y i; r-V^p:. v;Y.rS y,y';Y ,:'Yi^vr; yyyivyyYy.yvy-. yy;.* 'y., y y i ,yy.:;
. Y..,.. y'Y'.yyy, ;> r pp ,.i;n: ; Y Y :
;:v.y.>.,.\:;;-?..-!=v;: -.;::.-y;y:y yU;yy'yy y;.,,
o>*--.i.,;'!*., ... :YfY"Y;.'-;.Y : .yYYY. .
*!,;* 4nrMVs
|yv:ff* ;t
imI> i l')* t*'*! \ i
¡l'PbJi.j >
. y"
YYyYY, - > ,. ; p 5 .
WY' '.'Y- -YY Y
rYI;'YY
rv^, r\*yn *.
I sil
. | i .i jj/'Mii
pM¡
V'llt*
| ',1'JVp.p
I 1 -fiVV
, ,; y, K 0
:!Y¡Y. i,t. livin''* *..
I t\ t\( 1 Y,+
pt Wi'ti
;ibSiv''r'P1;'
.'i.lV'i'¡ -V'lV': T *: '
* ¡, tPi Mi*
.!il
rfir Pl's i.i b
ivr. ¡-V¡r
i/,V*-Li,j< yv*s: :
!>Y-Y' r.^- V n3'a \
* 'P.f1;;!';. rYY : 1 y' :
ib Y
i'l1-: -v 'j^Y p. *,
p:;;r;.!AP
.PVr-i^pkinT!:
i t'Y. - 7 i / {' b j; t
: :YY-:. i; YYV"'Yrw:::Y::Y::;;.Y!;o-.''::-';Y'';
' i ap9*ss ,; ;> ' :;. '
? k. i- * >p y,.. '* / P' r "r- ? .1 y! - :\t w ;¡f Y. ^rV.¡t - ¡v ^irv-. ;% \ ;" *. h Y. ^ }i) ;- J -Y,..* ; ; P P/yw ''nr Y* Y'.-Vr
: : : Y - y:.:: ,pp;' YY.Y\YV.::ppYK 'P:'P,''Y Y, ; Y! Y p|
. i:.' :.'.}: Y'i.Y,-.'/.Y'. '
. t > i i' ' * 1 f r \ 1 *' ' ^ r < m < i,s i 1 f 1 ^ ^ \ ,jl t '**** Y \ r '' t f M I - n1 J L* I* -1 I j¡ f i i1 4 i i . .4 r f /* il 1Y*' *1 * 1
I ' i > ^ ' P 1. i.| 1 ' Y 1 Y Y ; P r i M w '* >' P P ] 1 4 l. i,Y, J% 1 H'.- ' ' 1 { w ' Y .. Y r *' ' ' ) Y , l i, , I*
' -fe* '
: :,. Y'v yY'Y Y''Miife'i?. : :
; > T -;Y;:i:Tfe-
' 1! Y,';l:
..v'V Y
' ! i Y, ; ;S:Ki:!;'';|?;li viii^rtv'
'.y,''^';':::!Y:;.':.::;Y::Yy.;-'' y
-YYYYvY Y- ..:. '
' y'-.^^Y'-^-'-vy-vY'::. ....... ,^.:":y;;;:1Y;:y y\ . :
p;> -r.' '"1 ; , V i'YYip, ;t : PP'y-" Y, Yf Ip'-' ;,yy' .; .y y : -p > PP.
¡: : y'' 'f ' 'y' ;y'-yy:y.y *yyY ''::-'.*::' yy '
Y Y Y *> 'Y Y ,;y YYp-YY y::::::;yiyyy,;:;;:y;y:y'; p; ¡. .y ... .
'
. Y Y !) ;. i
; ; \ :,-/U ; ..
. :- :iv;;¡.!sfeYgY5iY*!H;ii ^;!!YK2sr. V'-Y
; j;{!¡:S:;iHY!Y#;;!;s:YfeiH¡
.'YY Yv,;;;;yYY::: /' f. ¡fe:: "-Y i .
y v ;# '
y ' y ; :¡
'in >Y >*' t i j M * 'pV/P r.u,¡'' .* -* p l't 1 P P \y r*. k > 1;Y p pf., ; <,[ i ,* 1 V \ '! f P V'V-4 J v > w } *1 t¡>\'1 P I ^ } f 1 **' M L iP '/ *>> 1'! *\P P */;.' '^V'! Vii *' *'i ' *<' '< \ \ PA" 1 %l. I 'm . 4 r >Vv* M,J> ¡W^1 1 %] J y.mmV-i-' * V
: #r ( 'l' \\ i- 4 i P -Y 1111 0 flpv, O )' v \ '1 Yt Y r, ,-w t. ¡ < ,' p 11, \ .* f i 1 1 4 P , \ V P *\\,'J i *siv P )(.| ^ -' f f '/ ¡ t. (<;K) f H * f p' \ ^ ¡ i. V4|. 1 Y \ ' ,%r. i. s r k i \ > 'up VP \ \ .pp t y i >" i r( i *'! 1' i
* a " i v>'- ;p,>'.w.Y y ,| p;,:.; s.iuY.p-' ,'H'!/PrMVM-'P!'4,-:;p;.¡/.iPl'^,'.p .,bvp 1 p'. ,'p i ; *!}?]] r*'
" ''.i;' v VA.H" ;,t Y :Y ;Y) uu.-* m ;V u y. a/FY.-In-f .-' ,Y laY, V;. y *; .>14*: i .v>.. v!r r;, ,r ,,r " un. jY;*;.',", . :'>, 'yj
.... w ; I J'W, ., '! .'/. ,!,V t * 1. ,>:1 "'lJl'**'1 ..* >- J,.¡., ,,;/<,. < . >',ic ; Y ¡! K un\ith *< *>
Y y'"y.. *: ^ Y yPv¡;p;y:-yP y-- p ' t?
vv; *'* Vil *J'W, Y. r Y <-; 1 ipv 1 v! t 'fjj; y* ;yr,,,; i i u}A W ft VpY-li # t 4 V V.11 ^; i r -i f /a ^ r/ VC" ; M-* f yy .... ...I ;h; J,*'} Jv^Ui P; VpY.i >-.pAfcv
,P i 1 j .. .i * N ';. ,;"'P .P'U '.P" . T v i '-l'J* *' r:\j .* -lp vP,,.P;.iI : wY' ^ vpp,Pv;. :P >;, p V1''P j ,m . > f 'rP 1 ,y 1; y- -5 ! *P-. m-> J ;;. .!. p^ *v. 1 tVH p .. >y ,, ,Hpi ;/t*P;! 4;',(pp* ;, l !V' ¡: 1;''J U| r p'P'/RoV1' 1* Vt ,U
/V'P' y ^*vpyv)|'A ()'? 'p JP4'J p1 ,p.. 4- ,p :'P4 p p1 J'.J'-: y':,', y'UmV-t; '¡j'lP/iP^H'^p' p/pp.pp p ',i/r *' * [*' 1 ¡"''!'".t/", ''rl'S P V! < v^1','^'s'yP;p;' >',VU r i m'*,' ' 'Wf* *Ph1 ( PM/p't iv T: 'y i.i'-'-'r p.pVptoM
:-';rY;Yr;YYYY'.,:vY i S ¡MMjiSs^ fe5 ;y
Y .;.v.y'P::';'y:V,,'P 'y,; ! Y. 'y:.;; Y' . v:;'
; ; p, P ; 'pkY;YVPYbpp;.Y:;YYYY^ppppYY:ppi. ';Y
y y:yyy'!P;PPPP:::;-ypPPP::yVY',v :- p';U y p: P . :
' ; "Yr.YY. ;. ..yy:. ..''feP;!ppY;Y';:Y,PY:ppY.. -.: Py . yy, ;y:- y'. .;;;.;,:¡::yy/Yy.yyy
;;: y.'yy:.' ..y,.;....yyy; .,
.
i ' YY, :.'.iY-. Y1 Y, ;
p / 1 y 'M '¡i'. y p p ,. : : ,p.-i i-vw.fHYvr.f-p' .tV' > t U *
y : vY
hiS-^M % :vpi¡u;:ipS¡|i|i:¡tii
.; : ; .pyYrpYYYYpYY.'
Y ..I.......
Y 'Y 1 Y ] ., ..Y ;
. ': '' ;Y':1 YpYY-'Y. rY.
4 ; 1 4 iV '*1',/*, J ?*;**' i .',n p1",pil |.|ir.", H'-Y t r*'1 Y Y
V.M. v, !. (..vv-;n .r.vi- Y.-.i! Y .f -' ,#vt4.-.: -V'AtfUU''.l5(,5C;{rii?^!
. PV;* 4Yy p.pp-pp* +P Jp^.y'V y? jr,'*>*V'THU^r
y:. ',>yPv'Y
¡ .fY' 1 .¡. Yt,*\'., ''Y .ii'juii'feHlviiif-,. .y j.itl U'/V'
" 'Y;;'> Y..':',." P¡-^U;upHjb.iHfePttl¡>P|jJ
P' p y r1 .Y y: py¡'.p; ..¡i*fP'.P-pi Aro. rp.,-Mbi-vsb
;P:P- 1.H.NV 1 " ; : ;}'* k,p( 'S- ;t i 4 r.w'V I / ( bv^i >:y}>* uUjyM m
, ,1-1 t 11 1 { 4 t ¡ *V< 1 r fV* ri *lt ** i Piv ^' l **' J 'I "
,-yyy;: ;Y'Y ¡i'iPiPp;.' YiY.r., PUp?;: flte&fetffep
' Y .Y yYYY, :
P Pj tr-v, YYtiY Mirp.u.,ip -Y ;..pp,(^p, .; .P *.,. P*,pw')|.| ppv,,:^1pv,
... y '. Y -Y 'Y. YY':;YYYp :Y Y.
< p I P tx; W¡-:P'M\:;: Y'pPp itfefeYPPi'UH ¡i\l
yy'.y ; y,
p -:Sir : YYP^>:P''-Y-YYppiVP P ;pP .t>fii'Y(iY:^MpV;dp.YYKT!P
PPP-,. ,0m'> -, y. i '.tjpV¡Vi; ;.j p j'V.PiV PYrvp'! , '.f j *'
p:¡ ;'
. t *1 + 1V > Y PF ' Y.l. y Y J . 5 1 /j Y 1 ') I 1 (^v r
j' pp.,' 4'4 i ' P Y". v;* 5* v, v! 5 Y,i tvVpif >n 44 b *' H / MvP 1
PP'
1 p.t 4',YY' ' pp - Y p;
. , ,4 *'A I V f Y -4 ; v' r '* -,fP y 1 \
p. v . J '"'P1}1 P f PP f P f i Y vp 41T P P P ' P Yp p.¡ P
"''VIu, 'I'V-jp.^tp^p^pp;
; br Y I \pp 1 p.v >]Y
! :-P'-' 1 p-p'7,rP':'4 ; ppv :;v, b,v ,
-> .-bY'"4' PpPvy- Y p,4 -5> UPP;;:! l
P,V '/FJ. p.; ,f
n] ; l.v> .* v Ji4!.1 i.: 1 f
PyyPy,
,;i¡
fV' *' f 1 '1
Ui¡ t '' 'r',r [ ;.,4| s' r. < i *V
f ppiHfHErfepP
*; P Y r* * 'VM i;iPv ' V
. YY ;;;iS;pSYv;: Y:
m !a .,1, 'v'! y *4 h -. !>..- 4 : Js ppp, jiii > p!lf p VritiiY' <'"wt PfL / / iy: /*.1 i.i* 7 j, 4 yy 1 > >* v' ,7 ; PiPLIP P, wi IV'N'i
'y 4 1 ¡ ', (| I 1, *1 f t i *' 1 'i i1 1 f '. r \ H ' 1 ,, I/, j 1 P p L -I \ r I > < v 4*1 { L ui I, P r> 1 y:! ( J I I *. < |,Y'1 (V* t1 ) '/ '. p I, L y< ,* / f y P ji P P P Y 1 \: 1 I .i, \ ki r 4 y Yi y' p J ^ V V'i
' \ i U> > S, 41 *1*1 '<') ; .4 /'y*yw y J j 11 > Y' 1 *- y (< ¡ } ; y 1 1 t 4;;4,, nS i* i- < 4 n PsPwP
.'' P: Y. ..u''>V;'Py:yyPyP; ;.P;:-?{p;7pt7^Ui;!p:p^p£ P P. .:,:Vyy:' .- y .: y,;,: pyy'yyy -
i,,iW'".YVi Pi 1V. t * *1 S 1 ,'.. m \ .t > J' f \ \ .4> i >,* J s Y . 1 ,. fi t m y ' Y v h-A #' ** '*',. j, ,* .4; *' *1 **> , ,yw,. ,, u)' - Y 1 iif; *.; V.^ vj ^ TI" v ri/-' tlA
! ; jivr 1 p'.7,: y!:y:::'w,'.; Ysnlp V-
s/* >v. t,vpp:;' K*wv-v,i*
, > P%>4 S>y Y
i P *[l\t i A s H .
[A i i iV^' '
; 'i'; i!, i<; '. Y Y Y i- : 'YYYY.:.'YYYY Y... !YY¡ * 'Y '-*y. ".'YY ' Y. , ;;;Y'YYpY Yvp'YY: ,
-J*.* VH4/ * y f Vt 'T*P i S l y ' >- i 'v t 'M ^ P 4( y,' J *' J x' i \ (i f 1 n ^ 1 t j ^ 1* vp 4 r P Y. frY ^ i 4 i *' i. *i. )ym v ; 1 4 in t \ P ^ i *' U'j i j i 4 |''y,'kV* '7 iP i.. >u P ' y 4 ", S ft P11 i v 7 -4 n*,.> 'if'l P W *
'.Y '*, :. . ' P.' P' .. . : .' i! P P
'Py P PP'YY " :'P:.P'.Y. Y P yy.'--P':'PPy:YP.y:':yy'
Y. Y.y.Y: .y, :;: ' ''yy' vpYY :Y.:YYYy¡.yy'.' r'-P .p'ppvp. y,:PYY Yfef
"y- '^P'y'y'iyyPy:*:',; PyPyy/'yy Hi 1'' '! A,Y- ' '' Y Jfe.Y '1v*'"'*": Y'.!' .. ; ..... Y Y .', :.. "Y:,. n. ' ' *' ' '", * ':;;! ."Y<>n> 4-. 1. '/Y1'.'.UM 4.ii Y , .>; Jv?¡
i Y :' ' ' i Y.Y' ; fi
...., .r;-; ..:.', --'v: Y- \i V ::: 1 .v.':.", : i::;:;;'1
i,-/ '*^4 Mp v,¡l u'.^ P' V ,1,, j ** Jp p :>?*" lj,pjP'P f '*,r''.',1' t,'4 Ppp, < * '4 >'. 44j V . ! / A ^% <- 'YY y: y .* * ;y Y',' '. i,((*. : 'Y- V' ; :^P*-.;.y: ,.Y::Y,'.Y. Y. Y': .:. yy
/w.;4 ; p".:'b' ' p 1 '* ''^p. ,PP'7 V'W;"p''pp'1iPP" .pp'ppp .p; ;f " .- ./pp.;.7V7 PpPP ,pl. 7'.'7
, i 11 * i 1 f" "pp s.<< 4'sP V PP ^ ; '' i 1 ; *.' rp'1 4p Jv; ;prj" pp :.. - 1 ; ... . "pp. ' * ; '^pPPP .* ni
, t > i ' M** vP , 4 '"** 1 ; 1 4 P y I i Y r 4 j ,. f 1 S:% Yi- >' M ' V b Y P Y .'Yp '' Y ' I J *' * M fP Y v , > i i n J* ;' .' ,; ,* un t' Y ' . ^ i vl" w : , /* 4 Y" *-,,* pw M *1 "f; \r }l : '; l.'1:/ t \ >YV i", p S Vi
.' : P: . 'P.Y Y . .. P ' Y 5 'YY':,, YY' Y.'.p p ; ;yY "Y..- '
'*Vr'V WyIm.P: */i-'" : P4. ,, r i4 ,f t'V4}Y f P Uf >4>. .. P P ' pp pp >, 4 ; p" p ,. ' -y i p 4 * p pp ,M p.i1-' Mip:,4 .... i ... '^4',fV' PP'.UPymP7^ y- -'pppl'i::-
p i :***' P ,* /-4 ' \ r p . ,11 Y *'. y. ;;Pv, i vr ft*' '4' :; .s.MP.MVSr y.,.: P..4;* ? : ^ -s,'Pppv,.*.,^. ...*< rPpplT ,-v p' .P,P ^4,i4r.' .tv**!*'p. : * , \v* % PP,y t':W* 4 y *
' ; ;p ; u
SlPP i I Y vi:
. i.svP4 *p r
m yy -' ;
>' Y'^Y '. 4 41 ,P i ( l '*!> P J tiiV,* 'iU\f 1 vit* 4 4
4 t 1,ii'iY-4*- ,, h'. '4* 4 J PP'sPiW
p..( /%*.*;/. ' P .Mf*',>***' *!'/ -P < ,4,4 -.#>*' T *
; P 4 t .i ** 1 ill, *. 'i*'*1 p ", i y #
upp:. pppYppp'
\ i V'^i V rUr
r\ *>,>, >Y


31
behavior and what happens to them. He saw this as a particularly important influence as
the growing child learns appropriate social and personal behavior.
Evidence of the importance of locus of control in achievement was reported by
Coleman et al. (1966) in a study, Equality of Educational Opportunity, which included
information on over 645,000 students. It was concluded that students who assumed they
could affect their environment were higher achievers than those who felt that luck, fate,
or other uncontrollable factors were responsible for what happened to them. These
researchers reported that students locus of control orientations appeared to have a
stronger relationship to achievement than all school factors combined.
Nowicki and Duke (1983) went on to review several studies confirming that an
internal locus of control is related to greater achievement in academic settings. Theory
suggests that students with an internal locus of control are differentially sensitive to task
structure when compared to those with an external locus of control.
Sandler, Reese, Spencer, and Harpin (1983), in their review of person-by-
environment interaction research, suggest that students with an internal locus of control
adapt better in low than high controlling environments. They concluded that this was due
to their activity preferences, self-control skills, reactance against loss of freedom, and
effective use of situational clues. Students with an external locus of control, on the other
hand, adapt better in high controlling situations as a result of their activity preference,
need for explicit cues, low reactance to loss of personal freedom, and poor internal self
regulation skills.
It has also been suggested (Searcy & Hawkins-Searcy, 1979) that those with an
internal locus of control are better adjusted. Adalbjarnardottir (1995) has demonstrated


97
Yes
No
(25)
Yes
No
(26)
Yes
No
(27)
Yes
No
(28)
Yes
No
(29)
Yes
No
(30)
Yes
No
(31)
Yes
No
(32)
Yes
No
(33)
Yes
No
(34)
Yes
No
(35)
Yes
No
(36)
Yes
No
(37)
Yes
No
(38)
Yes
No
(39)
Yes
No
(40)
Do you believe that whether or not people like you depends on how
you act?
Will your parents usually help you if you ask them to?
Have you felt that when people were mean to you it was usually for no
reason at all?
Most of the time, do you feel that you can change what might happen
tomorrow by what you do today?
Do you believe that when bad things are going to happen they just are
going to happen no matter what you try to do to stop them?
Do you think that kids can get their own way if they just keep trying?
Most of the time do you find it useless to try to get your own way at
home?
Do you feel that when good things happen they happen because of hard
work?
Do you feel that when somebody your age wants to be your enemy
theres little you can do to change matters?
Do you feel that it is easy to get friends to do what you want them to?
Do you usually feel that you have little to way about what you get to
eat at home?
Do you feel that when someone doesnt like you theres little you can
do about it?
Do you usually feel that its almost useless to try in school because
most other children are just plain smarter than you are?
Are you the kind of person who believes that planning ahead makes
things turn out better?
Most of the time, do you feel that you have little to way about what
your family decides to do?
Do you think its better to be smart than to be lucky?


108
yourself on your journey to school success. (Encourage students to
share their organized backpack with their teacher or parent while leaving
the zip lock bag home.)


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been observed in children
from all racial, cultural, and socioeconomic groups with slightly elevated rates of the
disorder among children with a low socio-economic status (SES). Barkley (1990)
speculates this observed difference among the low SES population could be the result of
different rates of prenatal and perinatal difficulties, family instability, and/or a downward
social shift of ADHD individuals. Nonetheless, ADHD is diagnosed, using a common
criterion, in children from all walks of life.
Diagnostic Criteria for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is a prevalent and chronic disorder among
school-aged children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV
(1994) describes the diagnostic criteria as seen in Table 2-1. This criterion includes
symptoms in the areas of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity with at least some of
the symptoms causing impairment before age seven. At the time of diagnosis, the
impairment must be significant in social, academic, or occupational functioning and be
present in two or more settings.
The current terminology for the disorder is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
However, if both the criteria for attention (Al) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (A2) are met
(see Table 2-1), a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type is
made. If the criterion for attention (Al) is met but criterion for
12


20
onset of ADHD for most children is prior to age 4, it is most often diagnosed when a
child is in elementary school (McKinney, Montague, & Hocutt, 1993) when problems
related to school performance surface. ADHD students are at significant risk when they
are unable to meet the demands of the classroom. Secondary behavioral and adjustment
problems develop in part as a response to frequent and repeated failures (Goldstein &
Goldstein, 1998). Teachers and parents become concerned with the resulting
underachievement and social difficulties. In addition, without assistance, students may
develop emotional problems with anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety (McKinney,
Montague, & Hocutt, 1993; Reeve, 1990), which can lead to oppositional defiant and
conduct disorders (Biederman, Faraone, & Lapey, 1992) which can become even more
problematic in schools.
Teachers, administrators, and school counselors can not expect medication, parent
training, or family therapy to ameliorate the academic and behavioral difficulties of the
ADHD student (Abramowitz & OLeary, 1991). Therefore, effective strategies are
needed for managing behavior and enhancing the academic success of students with
ADHD. These strategies are more involved than for normal students. The disorder
increases the complexity of the teaching process because the attentional problems result
in gaps in learning and behaviors that interfere with school performance.
Multimodal treatment for ADHD includes classroom modifications and
interventions; parent training; pharmacotherapy when appropriate; and other strategies
such as counseling, social skills training, problem solving, or anger management training
as needed (Abramowitz & OLeary, 1991). This would put school counselors in a key
role helping teachers design and implement classroom modifications and interventions,


64
that ranged from 12 to 60. The closer the score was to 12, the more positive the
students perception regarding their school success behaviors.
Two-way interactions. The effects of treatment by sex, age, medication, and ESE
status, as measured by the SSI-SF showed no interaction effect. The following null
hypothesis was previously rejected based on variable interaction with the TRF and the
CNSIE.
Ho4: There will be no significant interaction between treatment and age, sex,
ESE status, or being on medication as measured by the TRF, CNSIE, or
SSI-SF.
The analysis of the SSI-SF yields no main or two-way interaction effects. The
previous decision to reject Ho4, stands. In addition, there was not a significant school by
treatment interaction for this dependent measure. A statistical report of the SSI-SF can be
found in Table 4-4.
Main effects of treatment. The following null hypothesis was tested using this
dependent measure.
Ho3: There will be no significant difference between treatment and control
group students perception of school success skills, as measured by the
School Success InventoryStudent Form.
No significant difference was found when comparing SSI-SF adjusted posttest means of
treatment and control group students; therefore, Ho3 was not rejected. Students
perceptions of their school success skills was not impacted by the treatment intervention
as measured by the SSI-SF. There was less than a one point change in scores for both
treatment and control groups following intervention.


22
and cognitive-behavioral interventions. During this same period, Lucker and Malloy
(1995) made an extensive list of resources for working with ADHD children, their
teachers, and their families available.
The most recent article appearing in this journal (Bramlett, Nelson, & Reeves,
1997) involved the implications for school counselors of stimulant drug treatment for
elementary school counselors. This was an outcome based study attempting to determine
the percentage of elementary children in the United States who are receiving stimulant
medication at school and offer suggestions to school counselors as to ways to support
these students. This study of 246,707 school children across 46 states (53% return)
concluded that 2.7% of school children were receiving stimulant medication with boys
outnumbering girls four to one. Of all children receiving stimulant medication, 93%
received Ritalin. The article suggested that school counselors may be able to assist in
monitoring the effectiveness of medication as it is often difficult for parents and teachers
to offer objective evaluations.
The School Counselor
In the 1990s The School Counselor also gave attention to the need for counselor
intervention of ADHD students. Burnley (1993) presented a team approach to identifying
and treating children with ADHD using a four-step plan. He developed a plan for
identifying ADHD students in schools, a system to use for delivering instructional
strategies to teachers and information to parents, and a system for follow-up with both
teachers and parents.
Parental perspectives of the support being provided their ADHD children in the
schools was examined by Kottman, Tobert, & Baker (1995). While the sample of parents


i ;>
H


80
Recommendations
Follow-up and extended intervention, to include collaboration with teachers to
support practice and reinforcement of skills introduced during the intervention, would be
a primary recommendation. This would help counselors gain a clearer picture of the
value of increased awareness and introduction of school success behaviors.
While this study suggests that awareness and introduction of school success
behaviors may produce a more external locus of control, it would be interesting to extend
the study. What would happen to locus of control scores for groups of students who had
participated in small group counseling prior to behavioral intervention strategies being
implemented in the classroom? This could be compared to students involved in the same
behavioral strategies who had not participated in group counseling.
It seems possible that while the shift in brief treatment is towards an external
locus of control, this shift may accompany the understanding needed for ADHD students
to fully embrace the need for alternative strategies to attain school success. The increased
awareness resulting from the counseling intervention may prove to be the catalyst for
accepting modified behavioral and academic intervention. This type of intervention may
be an important adjunct in preparing ADHD students to accept the need for support and
alternative strategies as they strive to become successful students.
An additional recommendation would be to provide a similar intervention to
middle school students with ADHD. The cognitive component of this cognitive-
behavioral strategy may be more easily integrated by older students. The age range of
students in the current study was 8-12 years. Research suggests that cognitive
interventions are most appropriate with students who are at least eight. As this is the