Citation
Parent responses to Systematic training for effective parenting (STEP)

Material Information

Title:
Parent responses to Systematic training for effective parenting (STEP)
Creator:
Dinkmeyer, Don C., 1952-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xv, 245 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Age groups ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Children ( jstor )
Furniture tables ( jstor )
Marital status ( jstor )
Null hypothesis ( jstor )
Parent education ( jstor )
Parenting ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
Spats ( jstor )
Child rearing ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Parents -- Attitudes ( lcsh )
Systematic training for effective parenting ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1981.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 240-244).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Don Carl Dinkmeyer.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Don C. Dinkmeyer. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
07846405 ( OCLC )
0028125283 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













PARENT RESPONSES TO SYSTEMATIC TRAINING
FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING (STEP)








BY

DON CARL DINKMEYER

























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



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1981
































Copyright 1981 by

Don Carl Dinkmeyer
































Dedicated to my parents,

E. Jane and Don Dinkmeyer, Sr.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



With deepest gratitude, I would like to acknowledge

some of the many people who have contributed to the completion of this dissertation.

My doctoral committee chairman, Robert D. Myrick, has shared his wisdom, insight and patience since the beginning of my doctoral program. He has added much to my professional development through encouragement and example. A leader in our profession, I am fortunate to have experienced his guidance.

My committee members, Paul Fitzgerald, Ellen Amatea, and Don Avila, each have contributed to the evolution of this dissertation. Their ideas and interest in my work have made my efforts go much more smoothly.

Joyce McKay, Director of the Pima County Developmental Career Guidance Project, Tucson, Arizona, and Barbara Barkenbush have made it possible to utilize Tucson as a population for this study. Beth Dovell, Carolyn Fouts, and Sandy Jones, school counselors in Gainesville, Florida, have made the same effort with their populations.

Sally Crater Chambers has served as my research consultant throughout the development of the SPAT research instrument, computer programs, and interpretation of the



iv








data. Her skills and patience added to the quality of this dissertation.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Computing was done using the facilities of the Northeast Regional Data Center of the State University System of Florida, located on the campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville.

John P. Yackel, President, American Guidance Service, Inc., Circle Pines, Minnesota, and his staff have assisted in providing the study with information on their product, the STEP program.

I would like to thank Rosie, Cash, and Chris Beechler for their expertise which made the SPAT research instrument a printed reality. Natalie Gamble assisted in the long process of mailing the instrument across the country.

Katherine Williams was my typist and friend as the dissertation evolved. Her skills literally translated rough-hewn ideas and tables into eminently readable text.

Dr. Gary D. McKay, co-author of STEP, shared his

insights into the STEP program and the doctoral process. His friendship is a valued asset in my life.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, E. Jane

and Don Dinkmeyer. These few lines only begin to acknowledge the years of love and encouragement which produced a responsible child capable of this effort.

To all of you, my thanks.





v
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .. ................. . iv

LIST OF TABLES ................... . ix

ABSTRACT ............... . ..... xiii

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............. 1

Need for the Study ............ . . 2
Purpose of the Study ............ 5
Definition of Terms .... .......... . 5
Organization of Remainder of Study ..... . 6 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....... 7

Adlerian Parent Education ........... 7

Alfred Adler ........ .. . . 7
Rudolf Dreikurs ............. 9
Adlerian Book Study Groups ....... 11 Adlerian Parent Education Research .... 14

Systematic Training for Effective Parenting . 18

Don Dinkmeyer, Senior and Gary D. McKay . 18 Program Components ............ 21
The STEP Group Session .......... 24
STEP Concepts . . . . . . . . 28
Research on STEP ... ........ . 31

CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY .... ........ . 37

Population .............. . . . 38

Gainesville, Florida ........... 38
Tucson, Arizona ............. 39

Sample ......... . . .. . . .40
Experimental Design ....... ....... 41




vi










Page

Step Parenting Assessment Technique ......... 41

Development of the SPAT ......... 43
Test-Retest Reliability .......... 46
Content Validity . . .. ........ . . 47
Construct (Factorial) Validity . . . . 47

Research Hypotheses . ............ 48
Research Timetable and Procedures . ...... 52 Data Analysis .................. 55
Limitations of the Study ............ 56

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS ................ 58

Sample Distribution ............... 58
Perceived Benefits of the STEP Program .... 70 SPAT Item Analyses . . . . . . . . 79

Hypothesis One: Total Population ..... 79 Hypothesis Two: Gainesville ....... 96 Hypothesis Three: Tucson ....... . 107
Hypothesis Four: Interaction Between
Demographic Variables and Geographic
Location ... ...... ....... . 118
Hypothesis Five: Interaction Between
Demographic Variables and Length of Time Since Completion of the Parent
Education Group ............. 140

SPAT Factor Analyses .............. 155

Hypothesis One: Total Population ..... 166 Hypothesis Two: Gainesville ........ 175 Hypothesis Three: Tucson .... .... 178
Hypothesis Four: Interaction Between
Demographic Variables and Geographic
Location ................. 187
Hypothesis Five: Interaction Between
Demographic Variables and Length of Time Since Completion of the Parent
Education Group ........ . .. 194

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 202

Summary ....... ........ . . . 202

Perceived Benefits of STEP .... .... 203 SPAT Item Analyses . . . . . . . 203
STEP Factor Analyses ........ ... . 205




vii









Page

Limitations ..... ............ .. 209
Conclusions . . . . . . .. . . . 210
Recommendations .................. 213

APPENDIX A: STEP PARENTING ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE . . 215 APPENDIX B: COVER LETTER TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
FOR FIRST MAILING OF SPAT ....... 219 APPENDIX C: CONTENT VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
THE SPAT . . . . . . . . 220

APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS 222 APPENDIX E: SPAT ITEMS BY PERCENTAGE ....... . 223 APPENDIX F: SPAT ITEMS BY PERCENTAGE (GAINESVILLE
RESPONDENTS) . . . . . . . 227

APPENDIX G: SPAT ITEMS BY PERCENTAGE (TUCSON
RESPONDENTS) . . . . . . . 231

APPENDIX H: BRIEF HISTORY OF PARENT EDUCATION ... 235 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............ . . . . 240

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........... ..... 245



























viii
















LIST OF TABLES



Table Page

1 RESULTS OF MAILING SPAT TO THE POPULATION . . 60 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE 61

3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL
SAMPLE BY CITY ............... 63

4 TOTAL SAMPLE BY CITY AND TIME GROUP . ... . 64

5 NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN STEP COURSE AND
SPAT SURVEY . . . . . . . . . 65

6 MARITAL STATUS . .. . . ....... . 66

7 NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME. .. ... . 67 8 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE . . ... . 68 9 REPORTED TYPE OF PARENT EDUCATION .. ... . . 71 10 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP ........... 73

11 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE . . 75 12 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE IN
GAINESVILLE. .................. 76

13 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE IN
TUCSON . . . . . . . . . . 77

14 FREQUENCY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS: MOST AND
LEAST LIKED ASPECTS OF THE STEP COURSE ... 78 15 SPAT ITEM MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR
TOTAL, GAINESVILLE AND TUCSON SAMPLES . .. . 80 16 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX .... ........ 85

17 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP ......... ... 88

18 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS . ... 92


ix









Table Page

19 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY ..... 94 20 ITEM ANALYSIS BY TIME GROUPS IN GAINESVILLE AND TUCSON . . . . . . . . . 97

21 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX FOR GAINESVILLE. .. ... 99 22 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP IN GAINESVILLE . . . 102 23 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS FOR GAINESVILLE . . . ......... . 105

24 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT
HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY IN
GAINESVILLE ...... ............ . 108

25 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX FOR TUCSON .... . . 110 26 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP IN TUCSON ..... ... 113 27 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS FOR
TUCSON ............ ... . 116

28 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT
HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY IN TUCSON 119 29 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION
AND SEX . . .. ...... . . . 122

30 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION
AND AGE GROUP ............... . 125

31 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION
AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) . . 129 32 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND
NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 133 33 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION
AND YEAR . . . . . . . . 137

34 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND SEX . 141 35 SUMMARY FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND AGE GROUP . 144 36 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND
CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) ... ... 148 37 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND NUMBER
OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) . .. 152


x









Table Page

38 FACTOR LOADING FOR SPAT ITEMS FOLLOWING A PRINCIPAL-AXIS FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN ORTHOGONAL ROTATION TO VARIMAX CRITERION . ..... 156 39 BASIC CORRELATION MATRIX ......... . 158

40 HIGHEST FACTOR LOADINGS FOR SPAT ITEMS FOLLOWING A PRINCIPAL AXES FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN
ORTHOGONAL ROTATION TO VARIMAX CRITERION . . 162 41 FACTOR ANALYSIS EIGENVALUE AND PERCENTAGE OF VARIANCE ...... ........... 167

42 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX ............ 169

43 FACTOR ANOVA BY AGE GROUP ............ 170

44 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS . ....... 171 45 FACTOR ANOVA BY FAMILY SIZE . . . . . . 173

46 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP .. ......... 174

47 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX IN GAINESVILLE ...... 176 48 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY AGE GROUP IN GAINESVILLE . . 177 49 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS IN GAINESVILLE ..... .......... . . 179

50 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY FAMILY SIZE IN GAINESVILLE . 180 51 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP IN GAINESVILLE ... 181 52 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX IN TUCSON . . . . 183 53 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY AGE GROUP IN TUCSON ..... 184 54 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS IN TUCSON . . 185 55 FACTOR ANOVA BY FAMILY SIZE IN TUCSON . . . 186 56 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP IN TUCSON . . . . 188 57 SUMMARY TABLE OF FACTOR ANOVA BY GEOGRAPHIC
LOCATION AND SEX . ............ 189

58 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION
AND AGE GROUP .......... . . 191



xi









Table Page

59 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) ....... 192 60 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME
(NOCHNOW) ................... . 193

61 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND YEAR . . . . . . . . . . 195

62 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND SEX . 196 63 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND AGE GROUP ................... . 198

64 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) ....... 199 65 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME
(NOCHNOW) ...... .... ......... 201



































xii















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



PARENT RESPONSES TO SYSTEMATIC TRAINING
FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING (STEP) By

DON CARL DINKMEYER

June 1981


Chairman: Dr. Robert D. Myrick Major Department: Counselor Education

The purpose of this study was to investigate the

parenting attitudes and behaviors of individuals who completed Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP). A research instrument developed for this study, the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT), provided data that were analyzed by ANOVA and factor analysis procedures. The 30 items of the SPAT and 7 derived factors were used to test five major hypotheses. The SPAT also measured perceived benefits of the STEP program.

The SPAT was mailed to individuals in Gainesville,

Florida, and Tucson, Arizona, who had completed a STEP program 3 to 40 months prior to this study. The sample of the study consisted of 76 valid responses from Gainesville (76 percent return) and 280 valid responses from Tucson



xiii









(49 percent return). Thus, 356 respondents (53 percent return) provided the total data for this study.

SPAT respondents in both Gainesville and Tucson perceived STEP as a valuable experience. Participants (93 percent) recommended the program for other parents. They agreed that STEP increased their knowledge of parenting (91 percent), improved relationships in their families (76 percent), improved their communication with children (80 percent), and lessened conflict with their children (61 percent).

In response to open questions asking for the most and least liked aspects of the STEP groups, participants indicated they most liked the group discussion, interaction with other parents, and learning that other parents had similar parenting concerns. The lack of a follow-up course, need for more examples, and the brevity of the course were least liked aspects. The STEP group leader was indicated as the most, or least, liked aspect by less than five percent of the respondents.

The five major null hypotheses investigated the

(1) total sample, (2) Gainesville sample, (3) Tucson sample,

(4) interaction between the two cities, and (5) interaction between the number of years since completing STEP. Each hypothesis was tested by sex, age, marital status, number of children, and length of time since completion of STEP.

There were no significant differences (.05 level) between males and females on the items and factors. Older



xiv









respondents (age 41-65) were significantly different from younger respondents on a parental intervention factor. They reported fewer negative interactions with their children.

Both one-child and one-parent-home respondents reported fewer instances of negative parental interaction with their children, compared with all other groups of respondents. They also expressed stronger agreement with STEP concepts pertaining to parental interactions with children. There were no significant differences among all respondents based on the time span between completion of STEP and the administration of the SPAT.

It was concluded that STEP had positive influences on participants, regardless of their sex, age, marital status, number of children, or number of years since completion of the STEP course.
























xv















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



Parents have a significant influence on the development of their children. They face many challenges when interacting with their children which produce "normal problems," yet they receive little, if any, training or education for their role. Consequently, most interaction between parents and children is often based on recall of their experiences as children, on trial and error, or perhaps from observation of other parents.

-In many ways, parenting is a profession which demands many skills of the practitioner. These skills need not be left to chance. Parenting skills can be taught.

The proliferation of parent education materials in the past decade might suggest that attempts to teach parents are only recent phenomena. Yet interest in child care training and education in the United States can be traced to the nineteenth century. For example, the Society for the Study of Child Nature was formed in 1888 (Croake and Glover, 1977). It began as a series of informal discussions by groups of mothers about their role and responsibilities as a mother. Topics such as effective discipline and the moral responsibilities of parents were discussed.


1





2



This interest in the training of children led to many books and booklets on the subject. One of the first widely distributed and accepted books on child development was The Care and Feeding of Children (Holt, 1896). The United States Children's Bureau published its first booklet, Infant Care, in 1914.

As interest grew and ideas proliferated, parents became more organized in their efforts to learn about, and to teach, child care. An organization still active today began just before the turn of the century. The Parent-Teachers Association (PTA) began in 1897, as an outgrowth of a Washington, D.C., women's conference (Abbott, 1938).

Thus, organizations and materials on the parenting role have been available in this country for almost a century. Today, vast and rapid changes in the structure of the family unit have made child care even more challenging. The need for parent education has not diminished.



Need for the Study

Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP),

(Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1976) is a standardized, nine-session parent education, group program based in Adlerian psychology. Through a sequence of activities in each group session, STEP participants study child-rearing beliefs and behaviors. The program presents alternatives to ineffective, but common parenting beliefs and behaviors.









STEP is possibly the most widely available Adlerian parent education program. It has been distributed in all 50 states, most Canadian provinces, Australia, Venezuela, and Japan. More than 750,000 parents have participated in STEP groups (McKay, 1980). Although training of leaders is not required, interest in the program has led to more than 50 leader training workshops in 25 states and three Canadian provinces in the past four years (Dinkmeyer, 1980).

Several efforts to translate the materials into Spanish are making the STEP program available to more diverse populations in the United States and other countries. Teachers in San Antonio, Texas, translated materials into Spanish for their predominately Mexican-American population (Scanlon, 1980). A more formal Spanish translation of the program, intended for publication, is now in progress in Caracas, Venezuela (Yackel, 1980). Interest in a Japanese translation has been expressed (Sekan, 1980).

Some research has been done on the effectiveness of the STEP program. Most of this research has focused on attitude and behavior changes during or immediately after, the nine-week STEP program.

Studies have measured parental perception of a target child's behavior during the program (McKay, 1976a; Bauer 1977; Moline, 1979). Research has measured parenting attitudes of STEP participants while participating in the group (McKay, 1976a; Losoncy, 1978; Weaver, 1980). Other





4



research has measured the effectiveness of the program with minority (Chicana) mothers (Villegas, 1977).

These changes in attitudes and behaviors can be attributed to the retention of the ideas and principles presented in the STEP program. Since many of the ideas presented in STEP--such as encouragement, consequences, and the family meeting--are new to the parent, most pre and posttest research designs also measure an increase in knowledge of the concepts presented in STEP.

All but one of the research studies on the STEP program measured the participants during the course of the STEP program. This study had a limited sample, but suggested some fading three months after the completion of the program.

Seynaeve (1977) conducted two STEP groups and then interviewed the participants. She suggested that three months after completing the group, participants seemed to be using fewer STEP concepts than those who had just completed the program.

No research had been reported which measured a STEP

participant more than three months after completion of the group. Since the STEP program is an approximate 20-hour intervention in an approximate 20-year responsibility, research must examine the long-term effects of the program. More meaningful conclusions about these long-term effects can be made if STEP group participants can be measured months and years after the group. Thus, there was a need for research which measured long-term effects.





5



Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to measure parenting attitudes and behaviors of participants who have completed the STEP program. Their perceived benefits of the STEP group experience were examined. The following question were investigated.

1. What are the self-reported parenting attitudes of participants who have completed STEP?

2. What are the self-reported parenting behaviors of participants who have completed STEP?

3. What effect will time have on the retention of

of STEP concepts by those who have completed the program?

4. What is participant perception of the STEP group benefits?



Definition of Terms

Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP)-- A copyrighted Adlerian parent education program consisting of standardized participant materials and group activities in a nine-session format. STEP is published by American Guidance Service, Inc., Publishers Building, Circle Pines, Minnesota 55014.

Parenting-- The attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge of concepts which characterize a person's interaction with his or her children.





6



Parenting Attitude-- An opinion about a child-rearing belief.

Parenting Behavior-- A specific, parent-child interaction that a parent takes with a child as part of the parenting process.



Organization of Remainder of Study

A review of the literature, providing a rationale for the study, is presented in Chapter II. In Chapter III, the research hypotheses, research design, data collection procedures, and discussion of the research instrument are outlined. The results of the study are reported in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary, conclusions, limitations of the study, and recommendations.















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE



The review of the related literature providing a

rationale for the study will focus on Adlerian parent education and research, and the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program and research.



Adlerian Parent Education

Adlerian parent education is conducted throughout the United States and Canada, in virtually every state and province. More than twenty years ago, parent study groups were being conducted in each of the contiguous 48 states (Schulman, 1957). Adlerian psychology's commitment to parent education is demonstrated by its founder, Alfred Adler.



Alfred Adler

Alfred Adlhr (1870-1937) was a practicing physician in Vienna when he joined Sigmund Freud's discussion groups in 1902. Adler was invited by Freud after he came to the defense of Freud's psychoanalytic theories in a letter published in a newspaper. By 1910, Adler was President of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, only to resign that position within one year to start the Society for Individual


7





8



Psychology in 1912. Contrary to popular belief, Adler was never a disciple of Freud, but a professional equal. His subsequent departure from Freud's group was based on profound philisophical differences (Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer, 1979).

Adler's commitment to educating parents and teachers in a useful theory of behavior is perhaps best known by the child guidance clinics which he began in the Vienna public schools. Following his tour of duty in World War I as a Medical Officer, the clinics were initiated as training vehicles for parents, teachers, social workers, physicians, and other professionals. He was the first to demonstrate his beliefs and techniques in front of large groups through the demonstration method. Adler would bring a family or its individuals up on stage with him, and they proceeded to "have therapy" in public.

Adler first came to the United States in 1926, and settled permanently in 1935 to escape the Nazi movement throughout Europe. His more than 50 child-guidance clinics, the backbone of the Individual Psychology movement, were eventually disbanded as his followers scattered across Europe and the world (Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer, 1979).

The destruction of Europe, coupled with the preeminent and pervasive grip which Freudians held on American psychological thought, resulted in a decline in the Adlerian movement throughout the world. The rebuilding task in the United States was largely spearheaded by Rudolf Dreikurs.





9



Adler believed that misbehaving and nonachieving

children were not ill, but simply lacking in courage--the courage to participate positively, and the courage to be imperfect. It was the teachers' and parents' duty to learn how to understand their children and to learn new ways of dealing with them which would build their courage (Adler, 1954).



Rudolf Dreikurs

Rudolf Dreikurs, M.D. (1897-1972) fled Europe in 1937, thus ending a long and productive relationship with Alfred Adler and the Vienna child guidance clinics. Upon his arrival in New York City, Dreikurs was warned of the obstacles Adlerian psychology faced in the United States. On his first night in America, at the home of one of Adler's children, Dreikurs was told: do not admit your Adlerian beliefs to other professionals as they will only cause you trouble (Terner and Pew, 1977). So strong was the Freudian grip on America that Dreikurs continually fought for professional credibility in the psychiatric community. He settled in Chicago, and from there founded the Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago, and in 1952, the American Society of Adlerian Psychology, later to become the North American Society for Adlerian Psychology (NASAP), reflecting the widespread application of the psychology throughout Canada. NASAP recently celebrated its 25th anniversary by exceeding the one-thousand-member mark.




10



Dreikurs continued the practice of public demonstration of principles and techniques. In 1939, he established the first Adlerian child guidance clinic in North America in Chicago. One of his contributions to Adlerian theory is the four goals of misbehavior, a perception of children's behavior which he elaborated in many articles and books, and countless lectures and public demonstrations. The most widely read discussion by Dreikurs of the four goals of misbehavior is contained in Children: The Challenge (Dreikurs and Soltz, 1964).

Consistent with the Adlerian principle that all behavior has a purpose, Dreikurs found that children misbehaved for one of only four possible goals, or purposes: to gain attention, to be in control (power), to get even (revenge), and to give up (display of inadequacy).

"Why do children misbehave?" parents and teachers would ask. This brought other Adlerian tenets such as each individual's search for a unique identity, and the need to belong to the group, into focus. A child misbehaves to seek attention because being attended to by others--parents or teachers--is vitally important, in their subjective perception. If it happens to be an unpleasant behavior for the adult, that does not stop the child from pursuing the goal.

When the goal of the misbehavior is identified, the parent can act to stop the misbehavior. Dreikurs recommended that the parent recognize the positive aspect of the goal; for example, give the child a chance for appropriate





11



attention. An immediate effective reaction to the attention misbehavior would be to ignore it. This would not meet the child's goal. For example, as "instinctive" as it may seem to tell the class clown to "Cut it out, Harold!" that verbal attending meets the child's need for attention.

Dreikurs greatly advanced the Adlerian philosophy with his contributions on the four goals of misbehavior, discouragement and encouragement, and the courage to be imperfect--the middle part, or core, of motivation. In parent education, perhaps his greatest permanent contributions were the books which became texts for Adlerian book study groups.



Adlerian Book Study Groups

One estimate of Adlerian parent groups stated that more than 2,000 parents are involved in parent study groups at any one time (Schulman, 1957). Often these study groups are one of the major services of an Adlerian Family Education Center (FEC). In addition to providing diagnosis and treatment for troubled families and individuals, the FEC is a resource for education experiences. Adolescents, parents, and teachers are able to meet in groups which discuss Adlerian ideas. The application of these groups in the schools has been discussed by Carlson and Jarman (1975).

Small groups of parents usually study one of three

books: Children: The Challenge (Dreikurs and Soltz, 1964), Raising a Responsible Child (Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1973), or The Practical Parent (Corsini and Painter, 1975). Dreikurs'





12



first major book on parenting, The Challenge of Parenthood, (1948), served as the first widely used book for study groups. Today, Children: The Challenge is the most widely used book for group study.

Several supplementary guides have been published. Soltz (1967) developed a leader's manual which contains study and discussion questions. An outline for a nine-session group based on Raising a Responsible Child, including session format and discussion questions, has been published (Dinkmeyer, McKay, and Dinkmeyer, 1978).

Groups usually meet once a week on a regular basis, covering topics such as the four goals of misbehavior and natural and logical consequences. Other Adlerian ideas which are discussed include encouragement, discouragement, and the family meeting.

The group experience, regardless of the book or materials chosen, is reflected in the Adlerian concept of social interest. Social interest is the caring for, and identification with, others by an individual. In Adlerian parent education, this process is an invaluable and integral part of the parent group experience.

The parent education group represents not only a unique experience but also
a unique approach that does not call
for the prescription of "cures" or the
onus of therapy. Instead, it allows
parents to utilize powerful and often
ignored forces in traditional learning settings. It does not consist of lectures, programmed learning, or other individual forms of learning. Parent education is essentially interaction





13



among group members, because its goal
is to improve interaction between parent and child. (Dinkmeyer, Pew, & Dinkmeyer,
1979, p. 207)

However, there are several inherent problems in parent education groups which utilize books:


1. Use of a book tends to limit groups to higher socio-economic groups and more highly educated parents.


2. The three major texts have been available only in hardback editions. Their cost is continually increasing. In addition, the vocabulary level of some of these materials exceeds the grade school level.


3. The books are often sold in bookstores without any indication of a group experience as a complement to individual reading.


4. Adlerian book study groups are frequently only an outgrowth of an Adlerian Family Education Center (FEC). Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer (1979) list only 24 such centers throughout the United States and Canada.


5. Structuring a useful discussion from a book can be difficult, even with a set of questions or manual developed by the authors to supplement the book.


6. The success of a book study group is often

highly dependent upon the structuring skills of the leader.





14



Adlerian Parent Education Research

It is difficult to draw conclusions from the published studies of Adlerian parent education. McKay, co-author of the STEP program, calls it "somewhat confusing and contradictory" (McKay, 1976a). Prior to publication of the STEP program, there was apparently no method of parent group education which was systematic among group leaders and easily replicable (Appendix H demonstrates the history of parent education). The length of the sessions, number of sessions, and materials presented vary from study to study.

In large part this is due to the research opportunities for many investigators. Research is conducted on existing parent groups, offered by established Family Education Centers. For example, Agati and Iovino (1974) were able to establish a series of ongoing family counseling demonstrations as the result of a successful informal investigation. A questionnaire consisting of open ended questions and a rating scale were used to investigate an introductory fiveweek, parent study group.

Other surveys of Adlerian parent groups have also found positive effects from the groups. Tindall (1974) found positive changes in the family atmosphere of her parent study group participants.

Hillman (1968) studied the effect of lecture-discussion and demonstration sessions on participants in a Parent-Teacher Education Center. His questionnaire was intended to measure participant feelings about the overall





15



effectiveness of the program, and also assessed changes in the participants' children. A total of 72 percent of the participants rated the program as excellent. No one rated the program as fair or poor. Less than 2 percent of the respondents to Hillman's questionnaire indicated that there had been "no growth" in their children as a result of the Parent-Teacher Education Center sessions. Thirty-three percent of the respondents indicated "much growth" in their children, and 64 percent indicated "some growth" as a result of their participation in the program.

More formal investigations of the effects of Adlerian parent programs have also been conducted. Dinkmeyer (1959) did not find a significant improvement in children's adjustment in their families as a result of the family counseling process in an audience setting at a Family Education Center. While the mothers who participated in the study generally felt satisfied with their experiences, there was no evidence that this method was effective in the measured areas of child adjustment.

A comparison of an Adlerian parent discussion group

with an eclectic discussion group which utilized films found no significant difference between the two methods of education. Swenson (1970) studied changes in parent attitudes and parental perceptions of child adjustment as a result of the above education procedures. There were no reported changes in either parent attitudes or perceived child adjustment.





16



Hillman and Perry (1975) studied the effects of a

ten-week program on parents and teachers. The program was offered at an Adlerian Parent-Teacher Education Center, and consisted of three segments: a parent discussion group, a family counseling demonstration, and a discussion group for teachers. All participants viewed the family counseling demonstration each week, and then met their respective discussion groups.

Measurements of participant attitudes toward adultchild relations, and perceptions of a specific child's behavior were made immediately before and after the ten-week series. The specific child for each of the parents and teachers was defined as "the child with whom they were most concerned." Analysis of the pre- and post-test scores of the participants on the attitude instrument showed a significant change in two areas. The parents and teachers reported that they were less overprotective and would not accept as many undesirable child behaviors. Positive changes in child behaviors were also reported.

Hillman and Perry repeated the ten-week treatment twice, so that the attitude and behavior measures were applied to three different populations. In each of the two replications, significantly positive changes in parent and teacher attitudes were reported.

Freeman (1975) found that mothers who participated in an Adlerian book study group became less controlling and less authoritarian in their attitudes in comparison with





17



those who participated in a traditional (Non-Adlerian) discussion group and a control group. The mothers in the Adlerian group also reported significantly fewer child behaviors as bothersome.

The Adlerian mothers in Freeman's study reported fewer incidents of spanking, withdrawal of privileges, confinement, and rewards for desirable behavior than the traditional study group or control group mothers. Adlerian mothers also reported improvements in their behaviors: they did fewer of the childrens' chores when the child did not finish these chores. Traditional group mothers used verbal suggestions with greater frequency than did the Adlerian mothers. It is difficult to interpret a final finding in Freeman's study as an improvement in parenting, but the Adlerian group mothers were also reporting less play time with their children.

A study similar in purpose to this investigator's proposed research was a survey of book study group participants several years after completion of the group. Thorn (1974) conducted a follow-up survey of parents two years after the group experience. Three significant findings indicate that these parents did retain the concepts taught in the group. With a 40 percent response rate, 94 percent reported the group had helped them resolve problems with their children. More than 75 percent were still using methods taught in the course, such as logical consequences, and





18



more than 50 percent of the respondents could specifically list the methods they were still using (Thorn, 1974).

In response to the need for systematic and easily

available Adlerian parent education, the STEP program was created. The historical antecedents to STEP, in both practice and research, indicate no single, widely reproducable group experience. The following section outlines the STEP program.



Systematic Training for Effective Parenting

The Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program was authored by Don Dinkmeyer, Senior, and Gary D. McKay. This section includes the authors of the program, the components of the STEP kit, the concepts contained in the STEP program, and research on the STEP program.



Don Dinkmeyer, Senior and Gary D. McKay

Don Dinkmeyer, Senior, was the first person to coauthor a book with Rudolf Dreikurs in the United States. Encouraging Children to Learn: The Encouragement Process

(Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs, 1963) was a textbook intended to introduce graduate students and teachers to the Adlerian principles of encouragement and discouragement.

His interest in working with parents and children was the foundation for a study of mothers who attended Adlerian family education centers. His dissertation was one of the first comprehensive studies in the United States to focus





19



on the Adlerian approach to working with parents (Dinkmeyer, 1959).

The historical antecedents to the STEP group were first expressed as group education experiences for small groups of teachers (Dinkmeyer, 1971a, 1971b; Dinkmeyer and Arciniega, 1972). The focus of these small groups was on the solution of classroom problems, after a practical theory of student behavior and misbehavior was taught. The purpose of the educational component was to provide a common and effective mutual basis from which the teachers could discuss and solve classroom concerns. The practical theory which was taught to teachers was Adlerian psychology. The application of this theory to students' behavior and misbehavior was expressed as Dreikurs' four goals of misbehavior.

The term "C-group" was coined to express the different group processes which occurred. Counseling, collaboration, consultation, cooperation, concern, and commitment, for example, would occur in an effective C-group.

In a C-group, the members were expected to apply the theory to specific challenges they wished to work on. The group members helped each other to understand the goals of the students' misbehavior. They brainstormed solutions with the other group members. This would help members generate and consider alternatives. After the education component, the focus was on problem solving. There were no planned topics after the first session, except those which the





20



members of the group chose to discuss. Groups were conducted by elementary school counselors, and consisted of six to twelve one-hour sessions.

The C-group method was also advocated as an appropriate group procedure for parents. School counselors were encouraged to offer the groups to parents (Dinkmeyer and Carlson, 1973). This position has been expressed in many articles and has been recently summarized in two textbooks (Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer, 1979; Dinkmeyer and Muro, 1979).

Don Dinkmeyer, Senior, and Gary D. McKay wrote Raising a Responsible Child (1973) prior to their collaboration on the STEP program. The purpose of this book was to provide a "non-textbook" application of Adlerian psychology to everyday household concerns for parents. The book discussed many "typical concerns" and possible solutions. For example, topics suoh as getting to bed on time, getting chores done, and dealing with misbehaving children were discussed.

Dinkmeyer's collaboration with McKay arose out of

coursework which Dinkmeyer taught, and McKay attended, at the Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago. At this time, Dinkmeyer had founded and was serving as Editor of the professional journal Elementary School Guidance and Counseling. McKay was serving as a counselor in a Creve Coeur, Missouri, school and had been introduced to Adlerian psychology through the St. Louis Adlerian society.




21



Program Components

The STEP program is a nine-session course for small

groups of parents. Major advantages of this program are the materials and group activities which help leaders organize parent study groups. The kit components include the following items.



Introductory Tape. An eight minute audio tape presentation outlines the current need for parent education, the format of the STEP program, and ideas which stimulate interest in the STEP program. The tape is designed for use during brief presentations to groups such as the PTA.



Invitational Brochure. The invitational brochure is

used in conjunction with the introductory tape. It presents .a rationale for parent education, and outlines the nine session topics of the STEP program.

The leader of a STEP program can use these two materials to stimulate interest in the STEP group. The following materials are used in the STEP group sessions.



STEP Leader's Manual. Detailed outlines of the STEP sessions are presented in the manual. The 139-page manual also contains the script of the introductory tape, and the

9 tapes for the session. Sections on group leadership skills, dealing with difficult group members, the Adlerian





22



theory of human behavior, and suggestions for organizing the group are also included in this manual.



STEP Parent's Handbook. This 112-page full color,

cartoon-illustrated book contains the readings, charts, and exercises for the program. Each group participant is to have a parent handbook for himself; it is the only consumable material for the program. The handbook contains brief readings on democratic parent-child relationships. Topics such as encouragement and communication skills are presented. Each of the nine chapters contains a page called "My Plan for Improving Relationships," a personal form parents can use to privately assess their progress during the group. It is never discussed during the STEP group. The Parent's Handbook also contains a chart of the week's concept, and a page of points to remember, which highlight the reading.



Cassettes. Cassettes are used during the STEP session

to allow parents to practice the child-rearing principle they have just discussed in the poster reading and chart. The audio cassettes contain four or five parent-child vignettes. At the end of each scene a bell tone signals the leader to turn off the tape and start the discussion. For example, the audio tape examples in chapter one ask the parents to listen to a misbehavior incident and identify the goal of the child's misbehavior as attention, power, revenge, or to display inadequacy.





23



Discussion Guide Cards. Discussion guide cards are

introduced at the first session, and then prominently displayed around the room during the STEP sessions. They contain humorous illustrations of group conduct rules such as "Stay on the Topic," "Share the Time," and "Be Responsible for Your Own Behavior."



Posters. A poster illustrates the major point of each session. The nine posters are spiral bound in an easel so that the appropriate poster can be displayed at each session. The leader refers to the appropriate poster at the start of each session.



Charts. Charts summarize the major concepts presented in each session. These charts are displayed during the program and are replicated in the Parent's Handbook. Charts often contrast the Adlerian principle with the more commonly accepted parenting practice, e.g., the differences between encouragement and praise, and the differences between punishment and consequences. The materials are contained in a carrying case which enables the leader to bring the program materials to the meeting room in one package, excluding the audio tape player.





24



The STEP Group Session

Each session follows a suggested sequence of 12 activities which structure the group experience. The typical STEP group sessions last approximately one and one-half hours.

1. The leader briefly states the objectives for the session.

2. The discussion guide cards and session poster are

briefly introduced. After the first session, the discussion guide cards are not re-introduced, but are placed around the room.

3. Discussion of the previous week's activity assignment is an opportunity for each parent to report their efforts in carrying out the homework activity. Each activity asks the parents to apply the principles they have learned in the group to their own parent-child relationships. For example, at the end of the first session, parents are asked to assess at least one child misbehavior as to the goal of the misbehavior. This is discussed at the start of the second group session.

4. Discussion of the assigned reading. Each chapter is to be read before the group meeting. At the first meeting, if the leader has been unable to get the Parent Handbooks to the participants prior to the first meeting, 10 or 15 minutes is spent in a mini-lecture, or silent reading of the text. The purpose of the pre-reading is to give the STEP participants a common ground-practical theory of





25



parent-child relationships--so that the group discussion can focus on new ideas and behaviors.

The leader may structure this group discussion of the reading by asking open questions, such as "What ideas did you agree (or disagree) with?" or more specific questions on the concepts presented. As with all session activities, the leaders may choose to use the phrases outlined in boldface type in the leader's manual, or use their own language.

5. Charts are used as visual aids for presenting the major topics and principles of the program. The charts are most often used to clarify differences between the principles of the STEP program and common parenting practices. Each chart is reproduced in the Parent's Handbook.

6. Audio tape exercises are presented so that parents may practice the concepts they have just discussed. Parents practice applying the skills they are learning by responding to the incidents presented on the tape. Typical childrearing situations, such as power struggles, opportunities to encourage, and opportunities to apply logical consequences in discipline situations, are presented on the tapes.

7. The group next does the problem situation, similar to the audio tape exercise. It is contained in the Parent's Handbook. If the group does not have much time, this activity may be optional and suggested for individual completion after the STEP group.

8. The leader next asks group members to summarize the session, so that they may consciously assimilate the





26



materials presented during the session. A second purpose of the summarizing is to give the leader feedback on what was learned by the group members. It gives the leader an opportunity to clarify any questions or misconceptions. Summarization statements are structured by asking each group member to complete the sentence, "I learned. . ." Summarization can also be used at the leader's discretion to close any of the preceding group activities, such as the reading discussion or the discussion of the chart.

9. "The Activity for the Week" is the homework assignment. The activity allows parents to apply their group learning to behaviors with their children. The activity assignment is discussed by each group member as the third activity of each session.

10. "The Points to Remember" page is referred to

briefly as the group draws to a close. This page in the Parent's Handbook is detachable.

11. "My Plan for Improving Relationships" is referred to but not discussed in the group. It, too, is detachable from the Parent's Handbook so that parents may keep this page separate from the Parent's Handbook.

Both activities 10 and 11 may be excluded if group time is limited.

12. The final activity is the assignment of the next chapter in the Parent's Handbook. The leader may choose to preview the concepts in the next chapter, if time permits.





27



The authors of the STEP program do not suggest a specific time allotment for each of the group activities, but the Leader's Manual does suggest that the leader predetermine the amount of time to be spent in each activity. The experience of the researcher in conducting STEP groups suggests that a typical one and one-half hour session may be allocated as follows:



Activity Minutes

1. Statement of Objective 3 2. Discussion Guide Cards + Posters 2 3. Discussion of Activity Assignment 10 4. Discussion of Assigned Reading 15 5. Charts 5 6. Audio Tapes 15 7. Problem Situations 15 8. Summary 15 9. Activity for the Week 5 10. Points to Remember 1 11. My Plan for Improving Relationships 1 12. Reading Assignment 3 Total . . . . . . . . . . . 90





28



STEP Concepts

McKay (1976a) has outlined the STEP program session topics and the concepts which are emphasized in each of the nine sessions. This outline has been used by the investigator to shape the survey instrument to be used for this research.

Session 1--Understanding Behavior and Misbehavior.

This initial session discusses the effects of the movement toward social equality upon parent-child relationships. It also presents popular beliefs about the nature of behavior and introduces the parents to the concept of purposive behavior. The parents learn about the four goals of misbehavior, the goals of positive behavior, and the ingredients necessary for building a positive relationship with children.

Session 2--How Children Use Emotions to Involve

Parents/The "Good" Parent. In this session the parents learn about the purposive nature of emotions, and how children use emotions in negative ways to achieve the four goals of misbehavior. They also become familiar with the concept of life style formation. The family constellation and methods of training are emphasized. The remainder of this session is concerned with helping parents become aware of how many typical parent beliefs and behaviors are discouraging to children. The parents begin to learn more appropriate beliefs and behaviors which facilitate the development of responsibility in children.




29



Session 3--Encouragement. This session is concerned with helping parents learn how to encourage children. The parents become aware of attitudes and behaviors which discourage children as well as those attitudes and behaviors which encourage them. The crucial differences between praise and encouragement are emphasized. The parents also become familiar with the special language of encouragement.

Session 4--Communication: Listening. In this session participants become aware of the traditional roles parents play when children express their feelings. They learn how playing these roles often blocks children's willingness to share feelings, creates resistance, and fosters an ineffective relationship. They learn an alternative method of responding to children which helps children feel understood, and facilitiates mutual respect.

Session 5--Communication: Exploring Alternatives and Expressing Your Ideas and Feelings to Children. The first part of this session deals with a method for helping children explore alternative solutions to problems they face. The second part of the session deals with two concepts:

(1) how to recognize who--parents or children--are responsible, or "own" a problem, and (2) ineffective and effective methods for expressing feelings to children when they interfere with the parent's rights.

Session 6--Developing Responsibility. Session 6 discusses the differences between the autocratic, permissive, and democratic parent. The parents learn that reward and





30



punishment as a means of disciplining children do not help the children become responsible for their own behavior. The parents learn an alternative method of discipline--natural and logical consequences--which helps children learn responsibility. The differences between punishment and logical consequences are stressed. The parents learn the basic principles and the steps for applying natural and logical consequences. The participants discover how to apply natural and logical consequences to typical parent-child problems.

Session 7--Decision Making for Parents. In this session the parents learn more about natural and logical consequences. They also become familiar with how parents reinforce children's misbehavior by reacting in ways the children expect. They learn that doing the unexpected usually fosters more cooperative behavior. The session concludes with helping the parents learn how to select the appropriate approach to child-training concerns from among the approaches they have learned in previous sessions.

Session 8--The Family Meeting. In this session the parents become aware of the benefits of establishing regular family meetings where the family makes plans and solves problems together. Guidelines for establishing and maintaining family meetings, leadership skills, and alternative approaches for initiating family meetings are among the topics discussed.





31



Session 9--Developing Confidence and Using Your

Potential. This final session is concerned with aiding parents in developing confidence in themselves and their new child-training procedures. They will learn how to respond effectively to criticism and pressure from other adults concerning their new parenting methods. The participants will become familiar with self-defeating patterns in parent-child relationships, and examine their strengths for becoming an effective parent.



Research on STEP

Gary D. McKay, co-author of the STEP program, conducted the first investigation of the program (McKay, 1976a). A pretest-post-test control group design was used in this study. The dependent variables of the study were: 1) mothers' perceptions of their target child's behavior, and 2) the mothers' verbal behaviors.

The sample involved volunteer mothers from the Tucson, Arizona, area who had a child between the ages of 4 and 13 with whom they wished to improve their relationship. This child was designated the "target child" for the purposes of the research. Fourteen mothers were randomly assigned to the STEP group and 12 to the control group. Mothers who attended at least seven of the nine STEP group sessions were included in the study, resulting in 10 subjects in equal-size treatment and control groups.





32



Two instruments were used to measure the dependent

variables of the study: 1) Adlerian Parental Assessment of Child Behavior Scale (APACBS) and 2) Mother-Child Interaction Exercise. Both were developed by Gary D. McKay.

The APACBS (McKay, 1976b) is a 32-item scale which

utilizes a seven-point Likert-type behavior interval scale. Mothers indicated their perceptions of the frequency of typical child's behaviors which are dealt with in the STEP program. Both desirable and undesirable child's behaviors are listed in the scale.

The Mother-Child Interaction Exercise measured the

number of facilitative and non-facilitative statements made by mothers to their target child in a laboratory setting. The stimulus for the interaction between the mother and the target child was an audio-taped statement which suggested a number of topics for discussion. The subsequent verbal interaction was recorded on audio tape for later analysis by independent observers. No significant increases in facilitative statements by mothers were found at the conclusion of the STEP program.

There was a significant difference between the STEP mothers and the control group mothers in perceived child behaviors at the conclusion of the STEP program. Mothers who participated in the STEP group perceived their target child's behaviors as more positive than those in the control group. Positive behavior was defined as an increase in the frequency of desirable behaviors, and a decrease in





33



the frequency of undesirable behaviors, as measured by the APACBS. This instrument has become the most frequently used research instrument in investigations of the STEP program (Bauer, 1977; Moline, 1979; Weaver, 1980).

Bauer (1977) investigated differences in three types

of Adlerian parent education. Differences between the STEP group and an Adlerian book study group were measured. For this research, the STEP group was divided into two different types of experiences by giving different directions to the group leaders. One STEP group utilized a didactic approach, while the second utilized a process-orientation to the group experience. The third type of parent education for this study was a book study group which used Children: The Challenge (Dreikurs and Soltz, 1964). No specific directions were given to this group leader.

Thus, 90 parents were divided into 4 groups: 1) STEP/ didactic, 2) STEP/process, 3) Children: The Challenge, and 4) control group (no parent education experience). There were significant increases in the APACBS scores of parent group participants, but not in the control group. There were no significant differences in APACBS scores between the three types of parent education groups.

Moline (1979) investigated the effects of the STEP

group on parents who had been cited by the Salt Lake City, Utah, court system as having been abusive to their children. These parents were on the active caseload of the city's Department of Family Protective Services. This study is





34



the only one which utilized an "abnormal" population. The other studies on STEP were conducted with parents who were voluntarily participating in STEP. Parents were assigned to the Salt Lake City group by court order.

Significant positive changes in the parents' perceptions of the target child's behaviors were found at the .05 level of significance, as measured by the APACBS. Parent knowledge of Adlerian child rearing methods was measured in a 15-item test. Compared to a control group, STEP participants had greater knowledge of these principles.

Weaver (1980) investigated the differences between

parents based on their socio-economic status. Parent groups were classified as either upper-to-middle class, or lowerto-low-middle class. Both groups received the STEP program, administered by the same group leader. A one-way analysis of covariance on the APACBS showed significant results only for the upper-to-middle class parent group.

Losoncy (1978) compared Ivey's Microparenting (1971)

to STEP with 55 mothers of kindergarten children. The population was divided into three groups: STEP, Microparenting, and control. Both methods of teaching parent education to these mothers achieved significant results on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and a Parent Response Questionnaire.

The Parent Response Questionnaire consisted of 15 hypothetical child statements. Immediately following each written child statement were four parent responses.




35



Subjects were instructed to imagine that their child had just made each statement to them, and to choose their response to that child from the four possible statements.

One study of STEP sought to determine some long range effects of the group experience. Seynaeve (1977) conducted individual, face-to-face interviews with 20 parents who had completed the STEP program either immediately preceding the interview, or three months prior to the interview. She had been the leader for both groups.

Seynaeve indicated that the STEP groups were "contaminated" by additional materials. Transactional Analysis parenting concepts, in both written hand-outs and leader discussion, were introduced into the STEP group format. However, the suggested sequence of activities as outlined in the STEP leader's manual was followed. The inclusion of the additional materials was the result of the leader's prior experience and positive results with those materials.

The interview consisted of 25 prescribed questions. Analysis of the information collected by this interview technique was largely subjective. However, Seynaeve concluded that all of the parents had improved relationships with their children as a result of participation in the parent education group.

Seynaeve also suggested that there may be decreasing use over time of the concepts presented in the STEP program. This conclusion was based on differences she perceived between the two groups of parents. She indicated




36



that her perception of the two groups of parents was affected by her participation as leader of both groups. She had not, for example, met with the parents of the first group for three months, while the second STEP group had just been completed. She was more aware of the behaviors and attitudes of the parents in the second group, which contributed to her subjective perceptions and ultimate conclusions.















CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY



This chapter contains the research hypotheses, the population of the study, selection of the subjects, and research procedures and timetable. The research instrument for this study, the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT), is presented and its development is discussed. The data analysis procedures for this study are also presented.

This researcher contacted 915 parents who completed the STEP program in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. The length of time since completion of the STEP course ranged from 3 to 40 months.

Each parent received a copy of the research instrument, the SPAT. The SPAT posed 37 questions concerning parenting attitudes and behaviors, and perceived benefits of the STEP group experience.

Reported parenting attitudes and behaviors were

analyzed by reported demographic variables. Factor analysis of the responses was performed to indicate relationships, if any, between demographic variables and reported factors.









37





38



Population

During the period January 1977 through June 1980, the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) course was offered to parents in Gainesville, Florida. One hundred seven individuals participated in this course.

During the same period, parents in Tucson, Arizona, were also invited to participate in STEP groups. Eight hundred eight people completed the course. Thus, 915 parents have completed the STEP course in these two cities. Their names and addresses were available.



Gainesville, Florida

STEP groups were conducted from 1977 through 1979 by

elementary school counselors. Three counselors offered the STEP groups to parents of students at their respective schools: Littlewood, Terwilliger, and Glen Springs. In addition, the counselor at Glen Springs ran groups for parents of students at the Martha Manson Academy in Gainesville. They are included in this survey.

During the 1979-1980 school year, these counselors and others taught the course to parents through the Continuing Education program of the Alachua County schools. Any individual in the county could attend these classes.

Gainesville is the Alachua County seat and home of

the University of Florida. The population within a 50-mile radius of Gainesville has been estimated at 300,000. The Alachua County School System has 31 schools, of which 18 are





39



elementary. As of January 4, 1980, the student population at the three Alachua County schools used in the study was: Glen Springs, 544; Terwilliger, 522; and Littlewood, 625.



Tucson, Arizona

STEP groups were administered in the public schools by the Pima County Developmental Career Guidance Project. The project is the only career project in the nation to achieve federal exemplary status. It serves approximately 98,000 students in 130 elementary, junior, and senior high schools.

The project is a cooperative, multi-district career

guidance program. The staff of 40 coordinators, specialists, and secretaries offer seven major services to the schools, including in-service education, planning and integration, assistance in activity implementation, and parent education.

The selection process for STEP participants in Tucson has been largely a function of the willingness of elementary school principals to support a STEP group. The project supplies the program, materials, and leader; the school provides the site for the STEP meetings. Each fall, the project contacts the 80 elementary school principals and offers a STEP group as a service to parents of students at that school. When a principal accepts, publicity for the group is disseminated at the school, and interested parents are invited to the first group meeting.

STEP groups have been conducted by the project since January 1977. More than 800 parents have participated in





40



the group. The main office has maintained a central name and address file of these parents.

Tucson, Arizona, is the Pima County seat and home of the University of Arizona. The metropolitan area population is approximately 350,000, the second largest in the state.

Thus, in both cities, the STEP program was conducted at schools where a willingness to conduct the group was expressed, either by the school counselor or principal. No special interest group was the basis of forming a STEP group, with the exception of possible grade similarity for one child. For example, a STEP group may have been offered to the parents of kindergarten children in the school sponsoring the STEP group. Therefore, respondents to this research usually had at least one child in elementary school at the time they participated in the STEP group.



Sample

The SPAT survey instrument was mailed to the parents in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona, who had completed the STEP parent education program. STEP groups are generally conducted in either the fall (September to December) or spring (January to June) of a school year. It was returned by 76 percent of the Gainesville population, and 40 percent of the Tucson population for an overall 53 percent return rate.





41



Experimental Design

This descriptive study collected information concerning parenting attitudes and behaviors, and perceived benefits of the STEP program from participants from 3 to 40 months following completion of the group.



STEP Parenting Assessment Technique

The research instrument for this study was the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT). The SPAT was developed by the investigator after a review of available parenting instruments, particularly those that had been used in previous studies of the STEP program.

The SPAT (Appendix A) is a self-report instrument. It can be completed in approximately 15 minutes. It is printed on a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet and folded so that there are four 5 1/2 x 8 1/2 pages. This design makes the SPAT a "mini-booklet." It was printed on a colored paper to enhance its appeal to potential respondents.

The demographic information was collected from the respondent, or coded by the investigator. Respondents provided information on 1) sex, 2) age group, 3) current marital status, and 4) the number of children now living at home.

Information coded by the researcher included 1) the

location of the respondent (either Tucson or Gainesville), 2) the length of time since the STEP group was completed,





42



and 3) an identification number. This information was coded into the upper right hand corner of the first page of the SPAT.

There are twenty questions in the attitude subsection, and ten questions in the behavior subsection. In the attitude subsection, the subject responds to a five point Likert-type attitude scale. The behavior subsection has a five point Likert-type frequency scale.

The attitude scale was expressed as:

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Uncertain

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

The behavior scale was expressed as:

1 = Very Seldom

2 = Seldom

3 = Sometime

4 = Often

5 = Very Often

Seven questions which evaluated the perceived benefits of the STEP group experience follow the twenty questions in the attitude subsection. The first five statements have a five-point Likert-type attitude scale. The last two questions ask what the participant liked most and least during the STEP group. Space is provided for written responses.





43



Development of the SPAT

The STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) was

developed as a result of the investigator's review of instruments which have been used in previous investigations of Adlerian parent education groups. Specific attention was given to instruments and criterion measures which were used in studies of the STEP program.

The limitations of published instruments made it necessary for the investigator to develop an appropriate survey technique. Instruments measured only one of the three areas (attitude, behavior, and benefits) to be studied. For example, the Adlerian Parental Assessment of Children's Behavior Scale (McKay, 1976b) measures parental perception of a target child's behavior. Other instruments which have been used to assess child behaviors include the Family Relationship Index (Anderson et al., 1976) and the Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist (Walker, 1967). The Attitudes Towards Child Rearing Scale (Freeman, 1975) measures only parental attitudes. Five other parent attitude scales have also been used in Adlerian parent education research (Shoben, 1949; Rokeach, 1956; Schaeffer and Bell, 1958; Hereford, 1963; and Pumroy, 1966).

Considering the design of this study, it is highly

improbable that a respondent would take the time to complete two or three available instruments, which could easily total more than 100 items and approximately two hours of time.




44



Therefore, a new instrument, with a smaller number of selected responses, was needed.

A draft of the SPAT was constructed in March, 1979. This first draft consisted of 12 to 15 questions in each of 3 areas: attitude, behavior, and knowledge of the STEP program. The attitude and behavior sections were constructed on a five-point Likert-type scale.- True/false responses were used for the knowledge section.

There were originally seven demographic questions.

Some of these were subsequently dropped or altered: 1) the specific age of the respondent was solicited rather than assessment by ten-year intervals; 2) name, age and sex of each child were deleted. The final draft of the instrument requests the number of children living in the home. This allows for the testing of a hypothesis concerning family size.

The initial draft of the survey instrument was circulated to University of Florida doctoral students, several STEP group leaders, and the two authors of the STEP program. The SPAT was administered to five individuals who had completed the STEF program. This administration helped determine the clarity of the questions and the average length of time needed to complete the instrument.

The feedback from this first administration of the

instrument led to some rewriting of unclear items. It also indicated that 30-45 minutes were needed to complete the 50 questions. This period of time, in an unsupervised





45



setting, was deemed too long. As a result, the instrument was reduced to thirty-seven questions plus six demographic questions.

Feedback from the authors, Dr. Don Dinkmeyer, Senior and Dr. Gary D. McKay, was also considered. Several items were restructured to more accurately reflect the concepts taught in the STEP program. A suggestion to increase the behavior frequency scale to seven points was made, but not incorporated. It was deemed that a five-point scale was sufficient for the purposes of this research and less confusing than use of a seven-point scale for only one of the subsections.

An evaluation of the instrument was also made by the doctoral committee and a statistician who assisted in the analysis of the data. It was suggested that the true/false knowledge section of the instrument be changed to a fivepoint Likert-type attitude scale, parallel to the attitude section of the instrument. The purpose of this change was to allow for a factor analysis of all 30 survey questions. To preserve the factor analysis design, the knowledge section designation was removed and the questions were incorporated into the attitude section.

Seven questions concerning the impact of the STEP

program on the respondent were added. Five questions focus on the 1) interaction between respondent and children, 2) communication between respondent and children, and 3) whether the respondent would recommend the STEP course to other parents.





46



These assessment statements are:

1. The STEP course helped me increase my knowledge of parenting.

2. The STEP course helped improve relationships
in our family.

3. As a result of the STEP course, my communication with children has improved.

4. As a result of the STEP program, I have less
conflict with my children.

5. I would recommend the STEP program to other
parents.

In addition, two open-ended questions asked for the most-liked and least-liked aspect of the STEP group.

This revision of the instrument was administered to

four individuals who had completed the STEP program. They required 15 to 20 minutes to complete the SPAT.



Test-Retest Reliability

The test-retest reliability of the SPAT research instrument was determined through administration to a small population. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed.

Between ten to fifteen parents who had taken the STEP course and who reside in Broward County, Florida, were administered the SPAT. A second administration of the SPAT occurred one week later. The administrations were conducted on an individual basis via the mail. These parents completed the STEP course from three to





47



fifteen months prior to the test-retest administration of the SPAT.



Content Validity

The content validity of the SPAT was established prior to the administration of the SPAT. A rating form (Appendix C) was mailed to no less than 12 individuals familiar with the STEP program. They included the two authors of the program, two STEP group leaders from Gainesville, Florida, two STEP group leaders from Tucson, Arizona, two Adlerians familiar with the STEP program, and two parents who had completed the STEP program (who were neither part of the population of the study nor part of the test-retest group).

This rating form contained two sections. In the first section, the raters examine each of the SPAT items for their relative relationship to STEP program concepts. In the second section, raters are asked to agree or disagree, and to offer comments on six statements about the SPAT. A seventh statement solicited general comments. The SPAT was refined based on evaluations received from these twelve individuals. I



Construct (Factorial) Validity

The construct validity of the SPAT was established

through a factor analysis of the subjects' responses to the SPAT. A three-step factor analysis was performed to determine whether the two factors (attitudes and behaviors)




48



were significant, or if there were other dimensions which accounted for the intercorrelations between the 30 items in the two subsections of the SPAT.

The first step established an Intercorrelation Matrix, which told the relationship between each item and every other item. This was expressed as a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The second step was the computation of the Principal Axes Factor analysis with iteration to derive the dimensions which account for the intercorrelations among items.

In the third step, a decision to use either an oblique or orthogonal solution in rotating the factors obtained in the Principal Axes Factor analysis was made. The orthogonal solution assumes there is no relationship between the factors, while the oblique solution assumes that there is some degree of relationship between the factors.



Research Hypotheses

The purpose of this research was to investigate the

parenting attitudes and behaviors of parents who have completed the STEP program 3 to 40 months prior to the administration of the SPAT research instrument. Three major analyses were performed:

1. Item analysis for each of the 30 SPAT attitude and behavior statements.

2. Factor analysis for each of the factors derived from the 30 SPAT items.





49



3. Interaction analysis between the demographic

variables and two major delineations (geographic location and length of time since completion of the STEP group).

The research hypotheses are stated below in their null form:

1. There will be no significant differences between SPAT respondents based on their classification variables.

A. There will be no significant difference

between males and females, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

B. There will be no significant difference

between respondent ages, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

C. There will be no significant difference

between single parent and two parent homes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

D. There will be no significant difference

between family sizes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

E. There will be no significant difference

between respondents based on length of time since STEP, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

2. There will be no significant differences between SPAT respondents who reside in Gainesville, Florida.

A. There will be no significant difference

between males and females, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.





50



B. There will be no significant difference

between respondent ages, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

C. There will be no significant difference

between single parent and two parent homes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

D. There will be no significant difference

between family sizes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

3. There will be no significant differences between SPAT respondents who reside in Tucson, Arizona.

A. There will be no significant difference

between males and females, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

B. There will be no significant difference

between respondent ages, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

C. There will be no significant difference

between single parent and two parent homes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

D. There will be no significant difference

between family sizes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.





51



4. There will be no significant interaction between classification variables and geographic location (Gainesville or Tucson).

A. There will be no significant interaction

between sex and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

B. There will be no significant interaction between age groups and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

C. There will be no significant interaction between marital status and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

D. There will be no significant interaction

between family size and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

E. There will be no significant interaction

between length of time since STEP and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

5. There will be no significant interaction between classification variables and the number of years since completion of the STEP group.

Year 1: 3-12 months since STEP

Year 2: 13-24 months since STEP Year 3: 25-36 months since STEP Year 4: 37-40 months since STEP.





52



A. There will be no significant interaction

between sex and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

B. There will be no significant interaction between age groups and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

C. There will be no significant interaction between single and two-parent-home respondents and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.

D. There will be no significant interaction

between family size and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT.



Research Timetable and Procedures

1. Final revisions in the methods and procedures for this study followed the seminar held on Monday, July 21, 1980. Upon final approval of this study by the Doctoral Committee, the SPAT was administered to the population of this study (see Figure 1). The SPAT was typeset in Gainesville. Proofs of this final draft were shown to the Doctoral Committee Chairman for his approval.

2. The SPAT was mailed First Class to each survey

participant by July 28. Prior to the mailing, the return envelopes and postage, cover letter, and participant mailing faces were completed.





53









POPULATION OF THE STUDY
SPAT and cover letter mailed
(Appendices A and B)




SPAT is not SAMPLE OF SPAT is not


(Completed [ SPAT returned
SPAT is ,as
undeliverable returned) \ SECOND MAILING (Appendix D)





DATA ANALYSIS OF RETURNED SPAT SURVEYS









Figure 1. Flow chart illustrating the data collection
procedure.





54



3. The upper right hand of the first page of the SPAT contained a series of letters and numbers which identify all of the researcher-known variables:

A. Location of respondent (Tucson or Gainesville) B. Semester and year the respondent finished the STEP program. The respondent is classified as having completed the group in either the spring or fall, of the years 1977, 1978, 1979, or 1980.

C. An identification number to identify the subject.

4. The mailing to each survey participant will include:

A. Cover letter (Appendix B).

B. The SPAT research instrument.

C. A self-addressed, stamped First Class envelope for the return of the SPAT to the investigator in Gainesville, Florida.

The use of First Class mail for this study was imperative. All undeliverable pieces of mail, such as "left no forwarding address" or an incorrect address, were returned to the researcher. All known changes of address were automatically forwarded by the Post Office. Thus, the exact number of surveys which were actually delivered was determined. That number, and not the number of surveys initially sent, was used to determine the actual return rate of the survey.

5. There was an initial 4-week period for the return of the survey from the population. At the end of this





55



period, on Monday, August 25, the total number of acceptable returned surveys was determined.

6. This was less than 300. A follow-up letter was sent to those who had not yet responded. This letter (Appendix D) included another copy of the SPAT and a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. The follow-up mailing was completed by September 10.

7. There was a four-week period for the return of the survey after this follow-up mailing. This period ended on October 16.

8. The surveys were keypunched onto data cards. Responses to the two open questions were extracted for later analysis.

Upon completion of preparation of the surveys for computer analysis, the responses were subjected to the following data analysis.



Data Analysis

1. The mean and standard deviation of each of the

30 Likert-type scale questions in the SPAT subsections were compared on the demographic variables in order to determine if the subjects used the range of possible responses for each item.

2. A series of analyses of variance (ANOVA) or, t-tests where appropriate, were performed for each of the demographic variables by each of the items and the factors previously derived in the construct validity procedures.





56



If there was a significant overall F, a follow-up with multiple comparisons was performed.

The demographic variables are:

A. (Respondent Sex) Male, Female,

B. (Respondent Age) 23-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-65 C. (Marital Status) Single parent, two parent

home

D. (Family Size) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more

children

E. (Time Group) Year 1: 3-12 months since STEP,

Year 2: 13-24 months since STEP, Year 3: 2536 months since STEP, Year 4: 37-40 years

since STEP

months since completion of the STEP group

3. The mean and standard deviation of the five questions which evaluate the STEP program were computed (attitude section questions N21-25).

4. The written responses to questions 26 and 27 of the attitude section were compiled. These questions asked respondents for the most and least liked aspects of the STEP group.



Limitations of the Study

At this stage of the proposed research, there appear to be five limitations to this investigation:

1. The participants in this survey will be

reached only by mail.





57



2. The research instrument (SPAT) will be administered only once.

3. Parent response is limited to the research

instrument.

4. Parent response to the research instrument is

limited to the STEP program.

5. There is no control group.















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS



This study investigated the effects of parent education upon individuals who participated in organized parent education groups. Participants were from two cities: Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. The STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) was administered to all participants and provided data for the study.

The collected data were analyzed and hypotheses tested using analysis of variance and factor-analysis procedures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with each of the 35 SPAT items to investigate the variables of sex, age, marital status, family size and elapsed time since completion of the parent education group. Next, seven factors were derived from a factor analysis of the items. These factors were then used to examine the same variables and test the five major hypotheses. This chapter reports the findings.



Sample Distribution

A printed survey instrument (SPAT) was mailed to

915 individuals who had enrolled in parent education groups in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. There was a


58





59



difference between the two geographic populations in the percentage of undeliverable mail. In Gainesville 6 percent was returned as undeliverable; whereas, in Tucson 24 percent was undeliverable. Thus, 76 usable surveys (76 percent) were returned from Gainesville and 280 usable surveys (49 percent) from Tucson, resulting in 356 (53 percent) returned usable surveys (See Table 1). These returned instruments constituted the population of the study and were subsequently used for the analyses of the data.

The first section of the SPAT requested some descriptive information from each respondent. This included:

Sex,

Ethnic origin,

Age,

Marital status at the time of the STEP course,

Change, if any, in marital status,

Current marital status,

Number of children living at home, at the time of
the STEP course and at the time of responding to
the SPAT, and

Type of Adlerian parent education group.

The respondent's city (Gainesville or Tucson) and the time at which the parent education group was taken (1977 through 1980) were also available.

Table 2 shows three demographic characteristics (city, sex, ethnic origin) of the sample. It can be seen that the. population of this study was predominantly female (89 percent) and white (89 percent). These same three demographic





60







TABLE 1

RESULTS OF MAILING SPAT TO THE POPULATION



SPAT Gainesville Tucson Total Mailed 107 808 915 Undeliverable 7 210 217 Invalid 0 16 16 Sample used 76 280 356





61





TABLE 2

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE



N % Total


Location

Gainesville 76 21.3 Tucson 280 78.7



Sex*

Female 311 89.1 Male 38 10.9



Race*

Spanish American 17 4.9 American Indian 2 0.6 Black 9 2.6 Oriental 5 1.4 White 311 89.4 Other 4 1.1


*Report based on identifiable cases.





62



characteristics are also reported by city in Table 3. There were approximately equal percentages female and male respondents in both cities. However, Tucson had a significantly larger percentage of Spanish-American respondents than Gainesville.

The participants in this study completed their parent

education experience from three to forty months prior to the SPAT survey. Table 4 outlines the total population by city and time group. In addition, respondents were classified as having taken the course in either the fall or spring (see Table 5). These two tables show a varied time distribution across the total population, with more than half (51 percent) of the population completing the course more than two years prior to the SPAT survey.

Information on marital status is reported in Table 6. There was less than a 2 percent increase in the percentage of single parent homes since completion of the STEP course, and only 6.5 percent of the population indicated a change in their marital status during the time between the STEP course and the SPAT survey.

The reported number of children living at home is

summarized in Table 7. Slightly more than half of the population reported two children. One and three-child homes were indicated by approximately 15 percent of the population.

Respondents also disclosed their age. The age distribution of the population ranged from 23 to 65 years of age (see Table 8).





63




TABLE 3

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE BY CITY


Gainesville Tucson
Number % Number %

TOTAL 76 100% 280 100%

Sex
Female 67 90.5 244 88.7 Male 7 9.5 31 11.3

Race
Spanish American 1 1.4 16 5.8 American Indian 0 0.0 2 0.7 Black 3 4.1 6 2.2 Oriental 0 0.0 5 1.8 White 69 93.2 242 88.3 Other 1 1.4 3 1.1

Home status during
STEP course
Single parent home 7 9.5 27 10.0 Two parent home 67 90.5 244 90.0

Has marital status
changed?
Yes 5 6.8 18 6.6 No 69 93.2 253 93.4


Currently in
Single parent home 9 12.3 31 11.4 Two parent home 64 87.7 241 88.6












TABLE 4

TOTAL SAMPLE BY CITY AND TIME GROUP


Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring City N 1977 1977 1978 1978 1979 1979 1980 Gainesville 76 17 18 5 10 5 4 10 % of Gainesville
responses 100 22 24 7 13 7 5 13



Tucson 280 46 10 86 37 24 9 41 % of Tucson
responses 100 16 4 31 13 8 3 15



Total 356 63 28 91 47 29 13 51 % of Total
responses 100 18 8 26 13 8 4 14







.4~





65






TABLE 5

NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN STEP COURSE AND SPAT SURVEY



Time Between STEP Group and SPAT Survey
Less Than 1-2 2-3 3-4 City 1 Year Years Years Years


Gainesville 14 15 23 17 % of Gainesville
responses 18 20 30 22



Tucson 50 61 96 46 % of Tucson
responses 18 22 34 16



Total 64 76 119 63 % of Total
responses 18 21 33 18





66






TABLE 6

MARITAL STATUS



N % Total


Marital Status at the time of the
STEP course

Single parent home 34 9.6 Two parent home 311 87.4 Not reported 11 3.1



Marital Status has changed
since the STEP course

Yes 23 6.5 No 322 90.4 Not reported 11 3.1



Current Marital Status

Single parent home 40 11.2 Two parent home 305 85.7 Not reported 11 3.1





67





TABLE 7

NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME



Total Gainesville Tucson N=356 N=76 N=280 Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % At the time of the
STEP Course

0 20 5.6 2 2.7 17 6.1 1 63 17.7 11 14.7 52 18.6 2 187 52.5 50 66.7 137 48.9 3 54 15.2 9 12.6 45 16.1 4 26 7.3 2 2.7 24 8.6 5 4 1.1 1 1.3 3 1.1 6 2 0.6 2 0.7 At the time of the
SPAT survey

0 15 4.2 1 1.3 13 4.6 1 60 16.9 14 18.7 46 16.4 2 190 53.4 48 64.0 142 50.7 3 63 17.7 11 14.7 52 18.6 4 27 7.6 1 1.3 26 9.3 5 1 0.3 1 1.3 1 0.4




68




TABLE 8

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE



Total Gainesville Tucson
Age N % Total N % Total N % Total 23 1 0.3 1 0.4 24 2 0.6 2 0.7 25 3 0.8 3 1.1 26 3 0.8 3 1.1 27 13 3.7 3 4.0 10 3.6 28 5 1.4 1 1.3 4 1.4 29 16 4.5 3 4.0 13 4.6 30 15 4.2 2 2.7 13 4.6 31 20 5.6 6 8.0 14 5.0 32 23 6.5 3 4.0 20 7.1 33 27 7.6 3 4.0 24 8.6 34 28 7.9 9 12.0 19 6.8 35 16 4.5 5 6.7 11 3.9 36 24 6.7 9 12.0 15 5.4 37 21 5.9 7 9.3 14 5.0 38 20 5.6 4 5.3 16 5.7 39 21 5.9 3 4.0 18 6.4 40 23 6.5 4 5.3 19 6.8 41 11 3.1 2 2.7 9 3.2 42 8 2.2 3 4.0 5 1.8 Continued





69





TABLE 8

CONTINUED



Total Gainesville Tucson
Age N % Total N % Total N % Total


43 4 1.1 1 1.3 3 1.1 44 6 1.7 6 2.1 45 7 2.0 7 2.5 46 5 1.4 5 1.8 47 2 0.6 2 0.7 49 1 0.3 1 0.4 50 4 1.1 2 2.7 2 0.7 51 6 1.7 1 1.3 5 1.8 52 3 0.8 3 1.1 53 1 0.3 1 1.3 54 2 0.6 2 0.7 56 1 0.3 1 0.4 58 2 0.6 2 0.7 59 1 0.3 1 0.4 65 1 0.3 1 0.4 Not indicated 10 2.8 3 4.0 6 2.1





70



It was necessary to assess the type of parent education each respondent had completed as the researcher was informed that some of the Tucson population might have taken another, but similar, Adlerian course. The reported type of parent education is summarized in Table 9. It is evident that approximately 25 percent of the Tucson population took the Children: The Challenge book study group instead of the STEP group. When combined with the Gainesville respondents, this resulted in 20 percent of the SPAT survey respondents reporting this Adlerian book study group method of parent education.

Because these two parent education approaches were based on similar psychological principles, an identical theoretical philosophy, an equal number of training sessions with a similar group size, and lessons with a similar focus, it was decided to combine the groups as one population and include them in the sample.



Perceived Benefits of the STEP Program

The respondents were asked to evaluate their education group by reporting their perceived benefits. This was done using two procedures.

First, five questions (SPAT items N21-25) were posed. Respondents expressed their degree of agreement by marking on a five-point Likert-type scale. This scale was expressed from one (Strongly Agree) through five (Strongly Disagree). More specifically, these items focused on increased




71





TABLE 9

REPORTED TYPE OF PARENT EDUCATION



N % Total


Gainesville 76 100

STEP 76 100



Tucson 280 100

STEP 188 68 Children The Challenge 68 24 Not Sure 24 8



Total Sample 356 100

STEP 264 72 Children The Challenge 68 20 Not Sure 24 8




72



knowledge of parenting, improved family relationships, improved communication with children, and reduced conflict with children. The final item (N25) asked for a recommendation of the STEP program to other parents (see Table 10).

The second procedure consisted of two open questions (N26 and N27). Respondents described their most and least liked aspects of the STEP course. They were also encouraged to share additional comments concerning their group experience.

An increased knowledge of parenting was reported by

both the Gainesville (mean 1.70) and Tucson (mean 1.82) populations. Both the Gainesville and Tucson populations generally agreed (mean 2.10) with statement N22, "The STEP course helped improve relationships in our family." Both groups also reported improved communication with their children. Gainesville respondents' mean for this statement was 2.0; Tucson respondents' mean was 2.05.

The least agreed-with statement concerning perceived benefits of the STEP course was N24, "As a result of the STEP course, I have less conflict with my children." Yet both Gainesville (2.28) and Tucson (2.35) generally agreed with the statement.

The most positive response was to N25, "I would recommend the STEP course to other parents." Both Gainesville (1.58) and Tucson (1.59) had very similar mean scores. This statement received the second most favorable response of the 35 Likert-type scale questions on the SPAT.












TABLE 10

PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP



Total Gainesville Tucson Question Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

N21. The STEP course helped
me increase my knowledge
of parenting 1.80 0.78 1.70 0.67 1.82 0.81

N22. The STEP course helped
improve relationships
in our family 2.11 0.80 2.10 0.82 2.10 0.80

N23. As a result of the STEP
course, my communication
with children has improved 2.04 0.74 2.00 0.70 2.05 0.76

N24. As a result of the STEP
course, I have less conflict with my children 2.33 0.89 2.28 0.85 2.35 0.90

N25. I would recommend the
STEP course to other
parents 1.59 0.74 1.58 0.70 1.59 0.75





74



An examination of responses by percentage likewise

indicated the STEP was perceived as beneficial (see Table 11). Approximately 93 percent of the respondents recommended the STEP course to other parents. Respondents expressed their greatest uncertainty with the statement that the STEP course had reduced conflict with their children. More than onequarter of the respondents indicated they were uncertain, yet more than half agreed that conflict was less. Percentages for Gainesville (Table 12) and Tucson (Table 13) showed similar response patterns.

The open-ended responses (N26 and N27) were examined and general categories were derived. These general categories with respective frequencies and percentages are reported in Table 14. Approximately 24 percent wrote statements which indicated that they liked learning that other parents had similar parenting concerns. Another "liked aspect" was learning with other parents. About 22 percent wrote statements which indicated that they would have preferred more or better examples of parenting in the Parent's Handbook. Approximately 20 percent expressed a desire for a follow-up course and reported that the STEP course was too brief (see Table 14).











TABLE 11

PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE N=356


Percentages
Strongly Strongly Item Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Disagree

N21. The STEP course helped me
increase my knowledge of
parenting. 33.3 58.0 6.5 1.2 0.9

N22. The STEP course helped improve relationships in our
family. 20.0 55.8 18.5 4.8 0.9

N23. As a result of the STEP
course, my communication
with children has improved. 20.6 59.7 15.8 3.3 0.6

N24. As a result of the STEP
course, I have less conflict
with my children. 16.4 44.8 28.4 9.9 0.6

N25. I would recommend the STEP
course to other parents. 51.2 42.3 4.4 0.6 1.5






u-I












TABLE 12

PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE IN GAINESVILLE N=76


Percentages
Strongly Strongly Item Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Disagree

N21. The STEP course helped me
increase my knowledge of
parenting. 40.0 50.7 8.0 1.3 0

N22. The STEP course helped improve relationships in our
family. 20.0 56.0 18.7 4.0 1.3

N23. As a result of the STEP
course, my communication
with children has improved. 22.7 56.0 20.0 1.3 0

N24. As a result of the STEP
course, I have less conflict
with my children. 17.3 45.3 29.3 8.0 0

N25. I would recommend the STEP
course to other parents. 50.0 44.6 4.1 0 1.4











TABLE 13

PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE IN TUCSON N=280


Percentages
Strongly Strongly Item Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Disagree

N21. The STEP course helped me
increase my knowledge of
parenting. 31.4 60.2 6.1 1.1 1.2

N22. The STEP course helped improve relationships in our
family. 20.0 55.8 18.5 5.0 0.8

N23. As a result of the STEP
course, my communication
with children has improved. 20.0 60.8 14.6 3.8 0.8

N24. As a result of the STEP
course, I have less conflict
with my children. 16.2 44.6 28.1 10.4 0.8

N25. I would recommend the STEP
course to other parents. 51.5 41.7 4.5 0.8 1.5





78




TABLE 14

FREQUENCY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS: MOST AND LEAST
LIKED ASPECTS OF THE STEP COURSE


Percentage
of Total
Statement Frequency Responses


MOST LIKED ASPECT

1. Learned other parents had the
same parenting concerns 87 24
2. Group discussion; interaction
with other parents 69 19
3. Parent Handbook: easy to read,
interesting, presents positive
attitude 45 13 4. Parenting skills that work 27 8
5. Learned I'm not responsible for
child misbehaviors 18 5 6. Sibling relationships improved 12 3 7. STEP Group Leader 9 3 8. Other 18 5 9. No response 103 29


LEAST LIKED ASPECT

1. Need more or better examples of
parenting 78 22
2. No follow-up course; course too
brief 72 20
3. Not enough on how to get spouse
involved in STEP 33 9 4. Leader ineffective 16 4
5. Not enough preschool or teen
examples 14 4 6. Other 25 7 7. No response 148 42





79



SPAT Item Analyses

Analyses of the 30 attitude and behavior items in the SPAT survey provided data which were examined in terms of the five null hypotheses. The item analyses were performed separate from a factor-analysis, which also listed the hypotheses.

To test each of the major item hypotheses, a decision rule was adopted. It is assumed that two or three of the items on the SPAT would be significantly different by chance. Therefore, the decision to reject the null hypothesis in terms of the item null hypotheses was set at a minimum of more than 5 of the 30 items on the SPAT. This number was considered to be above chance, measurement error, and to best fit the purpose of the study description. The results of testing the hypotheses by item analyses are reported below.

Item means and standard deviations for the total and city populations are reported in Table 15. An examination of the means and standard deviations showed little difference between the Gainesville and Tucson populations and therefore, the total population.



Hypothesis One: Total Population

It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between respondents on the SPAT items based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status,











TABLE 15

SPAT ITEM MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TOTAL, GAINESVILLE AND TUCSON SAMPLES


Total Gainesville Tucson Item* Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Ql. Parents should make children do
their homework.** 2.70 1.19 2.48 1.13 2.76 1.20 02. All misbehavior has a purpose. 1.87 0.89 1.98 0.96 1.85 0.87 Q3. Parents should not get involved in
verbal arguments between children. 2.10 1.00 2.15 0.93 2.09 1.02 Q4. Effective communication with children
requires certain skills. 1.59 0.83 1.50 0.78 1.61 0.85 Q5. Giving rewards teaches children
to expect pay-offs for cooperation. 2.44 1.13 2.64 1.11 2.39 1.14 Q6. A child's messy room is not the
parent's problem. 2.50 1.12 2.72 1.13 2.44 1.11 Q7. Parents should make sure that
children eat all of their food.** 3.93 0.82 4.01 0.75 3.91 0.84 Q8. Encouragement is more effective than
praise in motivating children. 1.90 0.87 1.87 0.81 1.91 0.89 Continued
co










TABLE 15

CONTINUED


Total Gainesville Tucson Item* Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. 2.90 1.10 3.14 1.10 2.83 1.09 Q10. Children learn best when mistakes
are pointed out to them.** 3.31 1.07 3.37 1.04 2.29 1.07 Q11. A child's misbehavior is for one
of four goals. 2.30 0.74 2.37 0.82 2.29 0.72 Q12. Pity tells a child that she or he
is incapable. 2.06 0.87 2.00 0.82 2.07 0.88 Q13. Encouragement is a reward for
something well done.** 2.55 1.22 2.71 1.32 2.50 1.20 Q14. Reflective listening means telling a
child what you think they should
do.** 4.08 0.92 4.26 0.94 4.04 0.92 Q15. An I-message is a way of telling a
child what you want them to do.** 2.85 1.18 3.01 1.26 2.80 1.16 Q16. Logical consequences are punishments
that make sense. 2.09 1.09 2.00 1.11 2.11 1.08 Continued











TABLE 15

CONTINUED


Total Gainesville Tucson Item* Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Q17. Ignoring a misbehavior is a
consequence. 2.85 1.09 2.83 1.05 2.85 1.10 Q18. Each family member has an equal vote
in decisions at family meetings. 2.23 0.97 2.39 1.00 2.19 0.96 Q19. Disobedience is a personal challenge
to my authority as a parent.** 3.42 1.06 3.49 1.09 3.40 1.06 Q20. It is useful to determine problem
ownership in concerns about
children. 1.99 0.76 1.80 0.68 2.03 0.78 Il. Supervised or reminded about homework. 2.12 1.26 2.62 1.40 2.06 1.19 12. Used physical punishment. 1.47 0.84 1.26 0.63 1.53 0.89 13. Reminded a child they were late for something. 2.38 1.13 2.35 1.07 2.39 1.16 14. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 2.33 1.28 2.26 1.30 2.35 1.28 15. Encouraged a child by words or actions.** 3.86 0.92 3.97 0.85 3.82 0.94 Continued











TABLE 15

CONTINUED


Total Gainesville Tucson Item* Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 16. Used reflective listening in a conversation.** 3.38 0.92 3.44 0.87 3.36 0.94 17. Used a loud voice to show disapproval. 2.87 1.06 2.89 0.99 2.86 1.08 18. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments. 3.15 1.06 3.14 0.87 3.15 1.11 19. Had trouble with bedtime. 1.99 1.23 2.01 1.09 1.98 1.27 I110. Did not have a good response to a
child's misbehavior. 2.58 1.03 2.43 0.99 2.61 1.04



*Scales for response

Q1 0Q20 Ii I10

1 = Strongly Agree 1 = Very Seldom
2 = Agree 2 = Seldom
3 = Uncertain 3 = Sometimes
4 = Disagree 4 = Often
5 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Very Often

**A high mean on this item indicates agreement with the STEP concept. Therefore, low item means on all other items indicate agreement with the STEP concept. W





84



number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the amount of time between the STEP course and the SPAT.

Ho la. There is no significant difference between

males and females on each item of the SPAT. The mean, standard deviation and F value for each item by sex are reported in Table 16. Statistically significant differences at the .05 level were found for four items.

Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem.

Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed
out to them.

Q12. Pity tells a child that she or he is incapable.

Q18. Each family member has an equal vote in decisions
at family meetings.

In each of these four items, men were more in agreement with STEP concepts than were women. The greatest difference was expressed in Q18. Men were more in agreement with the concept of equal votes for all family members at family meetings. However, men constituted only 11 percent of the survey population. The null hypothesis was not rejected as there were no significant differences on the other 26 items.

Ho lb. There is no significant difference between respondents due to age on each item of the SPAT. The reported ages of respondents were placed into four groups:

Group 1 23-29, Group 2 30-35,

Group 3 36-40, and

Group 4 41-65.





85




TABLE 16

ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX


Female Male
Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Q1 2.73 1.19 2.46 1.24 1.09 Q2 1.84 0.86 2.11 0.95 1.21 Q3 2.08 1.00 2.32 0.87 1.32 Q4 1.59 0.83 1.43 0.50 2.76 Q5 2.43 1.13 2.37 1.05 1.15 Q6 2.45 1.10 2.86 1.16 1.10* Q7 3.95 0.81 3.68 0.84 1.07 Q8 1.88 0.88 2.03 0.82 1.14 Q9 2.87 1.08 3.00 1.11 1.06 Q10 3.35 1.07 2.95 1.00 1.15* Q11 2.27 0.74 2.50 0.65 1.27 Q12 2.01 0.82 2.39 1.00 1.50* Q13 2.52 1.23 2.79 1.04 1.39 Q14 4.09 0.93 3.97 0.91 1.03 Q15 2.85 1.19 2.79 0.99 1.45 Q16 2.06 1.08 2.26 1.11 1.06 Q17 2.86 1.11 2.63 0.91 1.47 Q18 2.19 0.94 2.71 1.09 1.33* Q19 3.42 1.08 3.36 1.02 1.10 Q20 1.98 0.77 1.89 0.46 2.80 Continued




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ESFFKYXRJ_D2F0OG INGEST_TIME 2015-01-06T21:32:54Z PACKAGE AA00026557_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

PARENT RESPONSES TO SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING (STEP) BY DON CARL DINKMEYER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1981

PAGE 2

Copyright 19 81 by Don Carl Dinkmeyer

PAGE 3

Dedicated to my parents, E. Jane and Don Dinkmeyer, Sr,

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With deepest gratitude, I would like to acknowledge some of the many people who have contributed to the completion of this dissertation. My doctoral committee chairman, Robert D. Myrick, has shared his wisdom, insight and patience since the beginning of my doctoral program. He has added much to my professional development through encouragement and example. A leader in our profession, I am fortunate to have experienced his guidance. My committee members, Paul Fitzgerald, Ellen Amatea, and Don Avila, each have contributed to the evolution of this dissertation. Their ideas and interest in my work have made my efforts go much more smoothly. Joyce McKay, Director of the Pima County Developmental Career Guidance Project, Tucson, Arizona, and Barbara Barkenbush have made it possible to utilize Tucson as a population for this study. Beth Dovell, Carolyn Fouts, and Sandy Jones, school counselors in Gainesville, Florida, have made the same effort with their populations. Sally Crater Chambers has served as my research consultant throughout the development of the SPAT research instrument, computer programs, and interpretation of the IV

PAGE 5

data. Her skills and patience added to the quality of this dissertation. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Computing was done using the facilities of the Northeast Regional Data Center of the State University System of Florida, located on the campus of the University of Florida in Gainesville. John P. Yackel, President, American Guidance Service, Inc., Circle Pines, Minnesota, and his staff have assisted in providing the study with information on their product, the STEP program. I would like to thank Rosie, Cash, and Chris Beechler for their expertise which made the SPAT research instrument a printed reality. Natalie Gamble assisted in the long process of mailing the instrument across the country. Katherine Williams was my typist and friend as the dissertation evolved. Her skills literally translated rough-hewn ideas and tables into eminently readable text. Dr. Gary D. McKay, co-author of STEP, shared his insights into the STEP program and the doctoral process. His friendship is a valued asset in my life. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, E. Jane and Don Dinkmeyer. These few lines only begin to acknowledge the years of love and encouragement which produced a responsible child capable of this effort. To all of you, my thanks. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES ix ABSTRACT xiii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Need for the Study 2 Purpose of the Study 5 Definition of Terms 5 Organization of Remainder of Study 6 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7 Adlerian Parent Education 7 Alfred Adler 7 Rudolf Dreikurs 9 Adlerian Book Study Groups 11 Adlerian Parent Education Research 14 Systematic Training for Effective Parenting ... 18 Don Dinkmeyer, Senior and Gary D. McKay ... 18 Program Components 21 The STEP Group Session 24 STEP Concepts ..... 28 Research on STEP 31 CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY 37 Population 38 Gainesville, Florida 38 Tucson, Arizona 39 Sample 40 Experimental Design 41 VI

PAGE 7

Page Step Parenting Assessment Technique 41 Development of the SPAT 43 Test-Retest Reliability 46 Content Validity 47 Construct (Factorial) Validity 47 Research Hypotheses 48 Research Timetable and Procedures 52 Data Analysis 55 Limitations of the Study 56 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS 58 Sample Distribution 58 Perceived Benefits of the STEP Program 70 SPAT Item Analyses 79 Hypothesis One: Total Population 79 Hypothesis Two: Gainesville 96 Hypothesis Three: Tucson 107 Hypothesis Four: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Geographic Location 118 Hypothesis Five: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Length of Time Since Completion of the Parent Education Group 140 SPAT Factor Analyses 155 Hypothesis One: Total Population 166 Hypothesis Two: Gainesville 175 Hypothesis Three: Tucson 178 Hypothesis Four: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Geographic Location 187 Hypothesis Five: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Length of Time Since Completion of the Parent Education Group 194 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 202 Summary 202 Perceived Benefits of STEP 203 SPAT Item Analyses 203 STEP Factor Analyses 205 vxx

PAGE 8

Page Limitations 209 Conclusions 210 Recommendations 213 APPENDIX A: STEP PARENTING ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE .... 215 APPENDIX B: COVER LETTER TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS FOR FIRST MAILING OF SPAT 219 APPENDIX C: CONTENT VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SPAT 220 APPENDIX D: FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS .222 APPENDIX E: SPAT ITEMS BY PERCENTAGE 223 APPENDIX F: SPAT ITEMS BY PERCENTAGE (GAINESVILLE RESPONDENTS) 227 APPENDIX G: SPAT ITEMS BY PERCENTAGE (TUCSON RESPONDENTS) 231 APPENDIX H: BRIEF HISTORY OF PARENT EDUCATION 235 BIBLIOGRAPHY 240 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 2 45 vxxi

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 RESULTS OF MAILING SPAT TO THE POPULATION 60 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE 61 3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE BY CITY 63 4 TOTAL SAMPLE BY CITY AND TIME GROUP 64 5 NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN STEP COURSE AND SPAT SURVEY 65 6 MARITAL STATUS 66 7 NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME 67 8 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE 68 9 REPORTED TYPE OF PARENT EDUCATION 71 10 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP 73 11 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE 75 12 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE IN GAINESVILLE 76 13 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF STEP BY PERCENTAGE IN TUCSON '. 77 14 FREQUENCY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS: MOST AND LEAST LIKED ASPECTS OF THE STEP COURSE 78 15 SPAT ITEM MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TOTAL, GAINESVILLE AND TUCSON SAMPLES 80 16 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX 85 17 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP 88 18 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS 92 lx

PAGE 10

Table Page 19 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY 94 20 ITEM ANALYSIS BY TIME GROUPS IN GAINESVILLE AND TUCSON 9 7 21 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX FOR GAINESVILLE 99 22 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP IN GAINESVILLE 102 2 3 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS FOR GAINESVILLE 105 2 4 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY IN GAINESVILLE 10 8 25 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX FOR TUCSON 110 26 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP IN TUCSON 113 2 7 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS FOR TUCSON 116 28 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY IN TUCSON 119 2 9 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND SEX 122 30 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND AGE GROUP 125 31 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) '129 32 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 133 33 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND YEAR 137 34 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND SEX 141 35 SUMMARY FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND AGE GROUP 144 36 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) 148 37 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) . 152 x

PAGE 11

Table Page 38 FACTOR LOADING FOR SPAT ITEMS FOLLOWING A PRINCIPAL-AXIS FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN ORTHOGONAL ROTATION TO VARIMAX CRITERION 156 39 BASIC CORRELATION MATRIX 158 40 HIGHEST FACTOR LOADINGS FOR SPAT ITEMS FOLLOWING A PRINCIPAL AXES FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN ORTHOGONAL ROTATION TO VARIMAX CRITERION .... 162 41 FACTOR ANALYSIS EIGENVALUE AND PERCENTAGE OF VARIANCE 167 42 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX 169 4 3 FACTOR ANOVA BY AGE GROUP 170 44 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS 171 45 FACTOR ANOVA BY FAMILY SIZE 173 46 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP 174 4 7 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX IN GAINESVILLE 176 48 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY AGE GROUP IN GAINESVILLE .... 177 49 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS IN GAINESVILLE 179 50 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY FAMILY SIZE IN GAINESVILLE 180 51 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP IN GAINESVILLE 181 52 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX IN TUCSON 183 53 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY AGE GROUP IN TUCSON 184 54 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS IN TUCSON .... 185 55 FACTOR ANOVA BY FAMILY SIZE IN TUCSON 186 5 6 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP IN TUCSON 188 57 SUMMARY TABLE OF FACTOR ANOVA BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SEX 189 58 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND AGE GROUP 191 XI

PAGE 12

Table Page 59 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) 192 60 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 19 3 61 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND YEAR 195 62 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND SEX .196 6 3 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND AGE GROUP X98 64 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) 19 9 6 5 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 201 xix

PAGE 13

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PARENT RESPONSES TO SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING (STEP) By DON CARL DINKMEYER June 1981 Chairman: Dr. Robert D. Myrick Major Department: Counselor Education The purpose of this study was to investigate the parenting attitudes and behaviors of individuals who completed Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) A research instrument developed for this study, the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) provided data that were analyzed by ANOVA and factor analysis procedures. The 30 items of the SPAT and 7 derived factors were used to test five major hypotheses. The SPAT also measured perceived benefits of the STEP program. The SPAT was mailed to individuals in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona, who had completed a STEP program 3 to 4 months prior to this study. The sample of the study consisted of 76 valid responses from Gainesville (76 percent return) and 280 valid responses from Tucson Xlll

PAGE 14

(49 percent return). Thus, 356 respondents (53 percent return) provided the total data for this study. SPAT respondents in both Gainesville and Tucson perceived STEP as a valuable experience. Participants (93 percent) recommended the program for other parents. They agreed that STEP increased their knowledge of parenting (91 percent) improved relationships in their families (76 percent) improved their communication with children (80 percent) and lessened conflict with their children (61 percent) In response to open questions asking for the most and least liked aspects of the STEP groups, participants indicated they most liked the group discussion, interaction with other parents and learning that other parents had similar parenting concerns. The lack of a follow-up course, need for more examples, and the brevity of the course were least liked aspects. The STEP group leader was indicated as the most, or least, liked aspect by less than five percent of the respondents. The five major null hypotheses investigated the (1) total sampl'e, (2) Gainesville sample, (3) Tucson sample, (4) interaction between the two cities, and (5) interaction between the number of years since completing STEP. Each hypothesis was tested by sex, age, marital status, number of children, and length of time since completion of STEP. There were no significant differences (.05 level) between males and females on the items and factors. Older xiv

PAGE 15

respondents (age 41-65) were significantly different from younger respondents on a parental intervention factor. They reported fewer negative interactions with their children. Both one-child and one-parent-home respondents reported fewer instances of negative parental interaction with their children, compared with all other groups of respondents. They also expressed stronger agreement with STEP concepts pertaining to parental interactions with children. There were no significant differences among all respondents based on the time span between completion of STEP and the administration of the SPAT. It was concluded that STEP had positive influences on participants, regardless of their sex, age, marital status, number of children, or number of years since completion of the STEP course. xv

PAGE 16

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Parents have a significant influence on the development of their children. They face many challenges when interacting with their children which produce "normal problems," yet they receive little, if any, training or education for their role. Consequently, most interaction between parents and children is often based on recall of their experiences as children, on trial and error, or perhaps from observation of other parents -In many ways, parenting is a profession which demands many skills of the practitioner. These skills need not be left to chance. Parenting skills can be taught. The proliferation of parent education materials in the past decade might suggest that attempts to teach parents are only recent phenomena. Yet interest in child care training and education in the United States can be traced to the nineteenth century. For example, the Society for the Study of Child Nature was formed in 1888 (Croake and Glover, 1977) It began as a series of informal discussions by groups of mothers about their role and responsibilities as a mother. Topics such as effective discipline and the moral responsibilities of parents were discussed.

PAGE 17

This interest in the training of children led to many books and booklets on the subject. One of the first widely distributed and accepted books on child development was The Care and Feeding of Children (Holt, 1896) The United States Children's Bureau published its first booklet, Infant Care in 1914. As interest grew and ideas proliferated, parents became more organized in their efforts to learn about, and to teach, child care. An organization still active today began just before the turn of the century. The Parent-Teachers Association (PTA) began in 189 7, as an outgrowth of a Washington, D.C., women's conference (Abbott, 19 38). Thus, organizations and materials on the parenting role have been available in this country for almost a century. Today, vast and rapid changes in the structure of the family unit have made child care even more challenging. The need for parent education has not diminished. Need for the Study Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) (Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1976) is a standardized, nine-session parent education, group program based in Adlerian psychology. Through a sequence of activities in each group session, STEP participants study child-rearing beliefs and behaviors. The program presents alternatives to ineffective, but common parenting beliefs and behaviors.

PAGE 18

STEP is possibly the most widely available Adlerian parent education program. It has been distributed in all 50 states, most Canadian provinces, Australia, Venezuela, and Japan. More than 750,000 parents have participated in STEP groups (McKay, 1980) Although training of leaders is not required, interest in the program has led to more than 50 leader training workshops in 25 states and three Canadian provinces in the past four years (Dinkmeyer, 1980) Several efforts to translate the materials into Spanish are making the STEP program available to more diverse populations in the United States and other countries. Teachers in San Antonio, Texas, translated materials into Spanish for their predominately Mexican-American population (Scanlon, 1980) A more formal Spanish translation of the program, intended for publication, is now in progress in Caracas, Venezuela (Yackel, 1980) Interest in a Japanese translation has been expressed (Sekan, 1980) Some research has been done on the effectiveness of the STEP program. Most of this research has focused on attitude and behavior changes during or immediately after, the nine-week STEP program. Studies have measured parental perception of a target child's behavior during the program (McKay, 1976a; Bauer 1977; Moline, 1979) Research has measured parenting attitudes of STEP participants while participating in the group (McKay, 19 76a; Losoncy, 1978; Weaver, 1980) Other

PAGE 19

research has measured the effectiveness of the program with minority (Chicana) mothers (Villegas, 1977) These changes in attitudes and behaviors can be attributed to the retention of the ideas and principles presented in the STEP program. Since many of the ideas presented in STEP--such as encouragement, consequences, and the family meeting--are new to the parent, most pre and posttest research designs also measure an increase in knowledge of the concepts presented in STEP. All but one of the research studies on the STEP program measured the participants during the course of the STEP program. This study had a limited sample, but suggested some fading three months after the completion of the program. Seynaeve (1977) conducted two STEP groups and then interviewed the participants. She suggested that three months after completing the group, participants seemed to be using fewer STEP concepts than those who had just completed the program. No research had been reported which measured a STEP participant more than three months after completion of the group. Since the STEP program is an approximate 20-hour intervention in an approximate 20-year responsibility, research must examine the long-term effects of the program. More meaningful conclusions about these long-term effects can be made if STEP group participants can be measured months and years after the group. Thus, there was a need for research which measured long-term effects.

PAGE 20

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to measure parenting attitudes and behaviors of participants who have completed the STEP program. Their perceived benefits of the STEP group experience were examined. The following question were investigated. 1. What are the self-reported parenting attitudes of participants who have completed STEP? 2. What are the self-reported parenting behaviors of participants who have completed STEP? 3. What effect will time have on the retention of of STEP concepts, by those who have completed the program? 4. What is participant perception of the STEP group benefits? Definition of Terms Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) — A copyrighted Adlerian parent education program consisting of standardized participant materials and group activities in a nine-session format. STEP is published by American Guidance Service, Inc., Publishers Building, Circle Pines, Minnesota 55014. Parenting -The attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge of concepts which characterize a person's interaction with his or her children.

PAGE 21

Parenting Attitude -An opinion about a child-rearing belief. Parenting Behavior -A specific, parent-child interaction that a parent takes with a child as part of the parenting process. Organization of Remainder of Study A review of the literature, providing a rationale for the study, is presented in Chapter II. In Chapter III, the research hypotheses, research design, data collection procedures, and discussion of the research instrument are outlined. The results of the study are reported in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary, conclusions, limitations of the study, and recommendations.

PAGE 22

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the related literature providing a rationale for the study will focus on Adlerian parent education and research, and the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program and research. Adlerian Parent Education Adlerian parent education is conducted throughout the United States and Canada, in virtually every state and province. More than twenty years ago, parent study groups were being conducted in each of the contiguous 48 states (Schulman, 1957). Adlerian psychology's commitment to parent education is demonstrated by its founder, Alfred Adler. Alfred Adler Alfred Adler (1870-1937) was a practicing physician in Vienna when he joined Sigmund Freud's discussion groups in 1902. Adler was invited by Freud after he came to the defense of Freud's psychoanalytic theories in a letter published in a newspaper. By 1910, Adler was President of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, only to resign that position within one year to start the Society for Individual

PAGE 23

Psychology in 1912. Contrary to popular belief, Adler was never a disciple of Freud, but a professional equal. His subsequent departure from Freud's group was based on profound philisophical differences (Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer, 1979) Adler 's commitment to educating parents and teachers in a useful theory of behavior is perhaps best known by the child guidance clinics which he began in the Vienna public schools. Following his tour of duty in World War I as a Medical Officer, the clinics were initiated as training vehicles for parents, teachers, social workers, physicians, and other professionals. He was the first to demonstrate his beliefs and techniques in front of large groups through the demonstration method. Adler would bring a family or its individuals up on stage with him, and they proceeded to "have therapy" in public. Adler first came to the United States in 1926, and settled permanently in 19 35 to escape the Nazi movement throughout Europe. His more than 50 child-guidance clinics, the backbone of the Individual Psychology movement, were eventually disbanded as his followers scattered across Europe and the world (Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer, 19 79) The destruction of Europe, coupled with the preeminent and pervasive grip which Freudians held on American psychological thought, resulted in a decline in the Adlerian movement throughout the world. The rebuilding task in the United States was largely spearheaded by Rudolf Dreikurs.

PAGE 24

Adler believed that misbehaving and nonachieving children were not ill, but simply lacking in courage — the courage to participate positively, and the courage to be imperfect. It was the teachers' and parents' duty to learn how to understand their children and to learn new ways of dealing with them which would build their courage (Adler, 1954) Rudolf Dreikurs Rudolf Dreikurs, M.D. (1897-1972) fled Europe in 1937, thus ending a long and productive relationship with Alfred Adler and the Vienna child guidance clinics. Upon his arrival in New York City, Dreikurs was warned of the obstacles Adlerian psychology faced in the United States. On his first night in America, at the home of one of Adler' s children, Dreikurs was told: do not admit your Adlerian beliefs to other professionals as they will only cause you trouble (Terner and Pew, 1977) So strong was the Freudian grip on America that Dreikurs continually fought for professional credibility in the psychiatric community. He settled in Chicago, and from there founded the Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago, and in 19 52, the American Society of Adlerian Psychology, later to become the North American Society for Adlerian Psychology (NASAP), reflecting the widespread application of the psychology throughout Canada. NASAP recently celebrated its 25th anniversary by exceeding the onethousand-member mark.

PAGE 25

10 Dreikurs continued the practice of public demonstration of principles and techniques. In 1939, he established the first Adlerian child guidance clinic in North America in Chicago. One of his contributions to Adlerian theory is the four goals of misbehavior, a perception of children's behavior which he elaborated in many articles and books, and countless lectures and public demonstrations. The most widely read discussion by Dreikurs of the four goals of misbehavior is contained in Children: The Challenge (Dreikurs and Soltz, 1964). Consistent with the Adlerian principle that all behavior has a purpose, Dreikurs found that children misbehaved for one of only four possible goals, or purposes: to gain attention, to be in control (power) to get even (revenge) and to give up (display of inadequacy) "Why do children misbehave?" parents and teachers would ask. This brought other Adlerian tenets such as each individual's search for a unique identity, and the need to belong to the group, into focus. A child misbehaves to seek attention because being attended to by others — parents or teachers--is vitally important, in their subjective perception. If it happens to be an unpleasant behavior for the adult, that does not stop the child from pursuing the goal. When the goal of the misbehavior is identified, the parent can act to stop the misbehavior. Dreikurs recommended that the parent recognize the positive aspect of the goal; for example, give the child a chance for appropriate

PAGE 26

11 attention. An immediate effective reaction to the attention misbehavior would be to ignore it. This would not meet the child's goal. For example, as "instinctive" as it may seem to tell the class clown to "Cut it out, Harold!" that verbal attending meets the child's need for attention. Dreikurs greatly advanced the Adlerian philosophy with his contributions on the four goals of misbehavior, discouragement and encouragement, and the courage to be imperfect--the middle part, or core, of motivation. In parent education, perhaps his greatest permanent contributions were the books which became texts for Adlerian book study groups. Adlerian Book Study Groups One estimate of Adlerian parent groups stated that more than 2,000 parents are involved in parent study groups at any one time (Schulman, 1957) Often these study groups are one of the major services of an Adlerian Family Education Center (FEC) In addition to providing diagnosis and treatment for troubled families and individuals, the FEC is a resource for education experiences. Adolescents, parents, and teachers are able to meet in groups which discuss Adlerian ideas. The application of these groups in the schools has been discussed by Carlson and Jarman (1975) Small groups of parents usually study one of three books: Children: The Challenge (Dreikurs and Soltz, 19 64), Raising a Responsible Child (Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1973), or The Practical Parent (Corsini and Painter, 1975). Dreikurs'

PAGE 27

12 first major book on parenting, The Challenge of Parenthood (1948) served as the first widely used book for study groups. Today, Children: The Challenge is the most widely used book for group study. Several supplementary guides have been published. Soltz (1967) developed a leader's manual which contains study and discussion questions. An outline for a nine-session group based on Raising a Responsible Child including session format and discussion questions, has been published (Dinkmeyer, McKay, and Dinkmeyer, 1978). Groups usually meet once a week on a regular basis, covering topics such as the four goals of misbehavior and natural and logical consequences. Other Adlerian ideas which are discussed include encouragement, discouragement, and the family meeting. The group experience, regardless of the book or materials chosen, is reflected in the Adlerian concept of social interest. Social interest is the caring for, and identification with, others by an individual. In Adlerian parent education, this process is an invaluable and integral part of the parent group experience. The parent education group represents not only a unique experience but also a unique approach that does not call for the prescription of "cures" or the onus of therapy. Instead, it allows parents to utilize powerful and often ignored forces in traditional learning settings. It does not consist of lectures, programmed learning, or other individual forms of learning. Parent education is essentially interaction

PAGE 28

13 among group members, because its goal is to improve interaction between parent and child. (Dinkmeyer, Pew, & Dinkmeyer, 1979, p. 207) However, there are several inherent problems in parent education groups which utilize books: 1. Use of a book tends to limit groups to higher socio-economic groups and more highly educated parents. 2. The three major texts have been available only in hardback editions. Their cost is continually increasing. In addition, the vocabulary level of some of these materials exceeds the grade school level. 3. The books are often sold in bookstores without any indication of a group experience as a complement to individual reading. 4. Adlerian book study groups are frequently only an outgrowth of an Adlerian Family Education Center (FEC) Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer (1979) list only 24 such centers throughout the United States and Canada. 5. Structuring a useful discussion from a book can be difficult, even with a set of questions or manual developed by the authors to supplement the book. 6. The success of a book study group is often highly dependent upon the structuring skills of the leader.

PAGE 29

14 Adlerian Parent Education Research It is difficult to draw conclusions from the published studies of Adlerian parent education. McKay, co-author of the STEP program, calls it "somewhat confusing and contradictory" (McKay, 1976a). Prior to publication of the STEP program, there was apparently no method of parent group education which was systematic among group leaders and easily replicable (Appendix H demonstrates the history of parent education). The length of the sessions, number of sessions, and materials presented vary from study to study. In large part this is due to the research opportunities for many investigators. Research is conducted on existing parent groups, offered by established Family Education Centers. For example, Agati and Iovino (1974) were able to establish a series of ongoing family counseling demonstrations as the result of a successful informal investigation. A questionnaire consisting of open ended questions and a rating scale were used to investigate an introductory fiveweek, parent study group. Other surveys of Adlerian parent groups have also found positive effects from the groups. Tindall (1974) found positive changes in the family atmosphere of her parent study group participants. Hillman (1968) studied the effect of lecture-discussion and demonstration sessions on participants in a Parent-Teacher Education Center. His questionnaire was intended to measure participant feelings about the overall

PAGE 30

15 effectiveness of the program, and also assessed changes in the participants' children. A total of 72 percent of the participants rated the program as excellent. No one rated the program as fair or poor. Less than 2 percent of the respondents to Hillman's questionnaire indicated that there had been "no growth" in their children as a result of the Parent-Teacher Education Center sessions. Thirtythree percent of the respondents indicated "much growth" in their children, and 64 percent indicated "some growth" as a result of their participation in the program. More formal investigations of the effects of Adlerian parent programs have also been conducted. Dinkmeyer (1959) did not find a significant improvement in children's adjustment in their families as a result of the family counseling process in an audience setting at a Family Education Center. While the mothers who participated in the study generally felt satisfied with their experiences, there was no evidence that this method was effective in the measured areas of child adjustment. A comparison of an Adlerian parent discussion group with an eclectic discussion group which utilized films found no significant difference between the two methods of education. Swenson (1970) studied changes in parent attitudes and parental perceptions of child adjustment as a result of the above education procedures. There were no reported changes in either parent attitudes or perceived child adjustment.

PAGE 31

16 Hillman and Perry (1975) studied the effects of a ten-week program on parents and teachers. The program was offered at an Adlerian Parent-Teacher Education Center, and consisted of three segments: a parent discussion group, a family counseling demonstration, and a discussion group for teachers. All participants viewed the family counseling demonstration each week, and then met their respective discussion groups. Measurements of participant attitudes toward adultchild relations, and perceptions of a specific child's behavior were made immediately before and after the ten-week series. The specific child for each of the parents and teachers was defined as "the child with whom they were most concerned." Analysis of the preand post-test scores of the participants on the attitude instrument showed a significant change in two areas. The parents and teachers reported that they were less overprotective and would not accept as many undesirable child behaviors. Positive changes in child behaviors were also reported. Hillman and Perry repeated the ten-week treatment twice, so that the attitude and behavior measures were applied to three different populations. In each of the two replications, significantly positive changes in parent and teacher attitudes were reported. Freeman (1975) found that mothers who participated in an Adlerian book study group became less controlling and less authoritarian in their attitudes in comparison with

PAGE 32

17 those who participated in a traditional (Non-Adlerian) discussion group and a control group. The mothers in the Adlerian group also reported significantly fewer child behaviors as bothersome. The Adlerian mothers in Freeman's study reported fewer incidents of spanking, withdrawal of privileges, confinement, and rewards for desirable behavior than the traditional study group or control group mothers. Adlerian mothers also reported improvements in their behaviors : they did fewer of the childrens' chores when the child did not finish these chores. Traditional group mothers used verbal suggestions with greater frequency than did the Adlerian mothers. It is difficult to interpret a final finding in Freeman's study as an improvement in parenting, but the Adlerian group mothers were also reporting less play time with their children. A study similar in purpose to this investigator's proposed research was a survey of book study group participants several years after completion of the group. Thorn (1974) conducted a follow-up survey of parents two years after the group experience. Three significant findings indicate that these parents did retain the concepts taught in the group. With a 40 percent response rate, 94 percent reported the group had helped them resolve problems with their children. More than 75 percent were still using methods taught in the course, such as logical consequences, and

PAGE 33

18 more than 50 percent of the respondents could specifically list the methods they were still using (Thorn, 1974) In response to the need for systematic and easily available Adlerian parent education, the STEP program was created. The historical antecedents to STEP, in both practice and research, indicate no single, widely reproducable group experience. The following section outlines the STEP program. Systematic Training for Effective Parenting The Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program was authored by Don Dinkmeyer, Senior, and Gary D. McKay. This section includes the authors of the program, the components of the STEP kit, the concepts contained in the STEP program, and research on the STEP program. Don Dinkmeyer, Senior and Gary D. McKay Don Dinkmeyer, Senior, was the first person to coauthor a book with Rudolf Dreikurs in the United States. Encouraging Children to Learn: The Encouragement Process (Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs, 1963) was a textbook intended to introduce graduate students and teachers to the Adlerian principles of encouragement and discouragement. His interest in working with parents and children was the foundation for a study of mothers who attended Adlerian family education centers. His dissertation was one of the first comprehensive studies in the United States to focus

PAGE 34

19 on the Adlerian approach to working with parents (Dinkmeyer, 1959) The historical antecedents to the STEP group were first expressed as group education experiences for small groups of teachers (Dinkmeyer, 19 71a, 19 71b; Dinkmeyer and Arciniega, 1972) The focus of these small groups was on the solution of classroom problems, after a practical theory of student behavior and misbehavior was taught. The purpose of the educational component was to provide a common and effective mutual basis from which the teachers could discuss and solve classroom concerns. The practical theory which was taught to teachers was Adlerian psychology. The application of this theory to students' behavior and misbehavior was expressed as Dreikurs' four goals of misbehavior. The term "C-group" was coined to express the different group processes which occurred. Counseling, collaboration, consultation, cooperation, concern, and commitment, for example, would occur in an effective C-group. In a C-group, the members were expected to apply the theory to specific challenges they wished to work on. The group members helped each other to understand the goals of the students' misbehavior. They brainstormed solutions with the other group members. This would help members generate and consider alternatives. After the education component, the focus was on problem solving. There were no planned topics after the first session, except those which the

PAGE 35

20 members of the group chose to discuss. Groups were conducted by elementary school counselors, and consisted of six to twelve one-hour sessions. The C-group method was also advocated as an appropriate group procedure for parents. School counselors were encouraged to offer the groups to parents (Dinkmeyer and Carlson, 19 73) This position has been expressed in many articles and has been recently summarized in two textbooks (Dinkmeyer, Pew, and Dinkmeyer, 1979; Dinkmeyer and Muro, 1979) Don Dinkmeyer, Senior, and Gary D. McKay wrote Raising a Responsible Child (1973) prior to their collaboration on the STEP program. The purpose of this book was to provide a "nontextbook" application of Adlerian psychology to everyday household concerns for parents. The book discussed many "typical concerns" and possible solutions. For example, topics such as getting to bed on time, getting chores done, and dealing with misbehaving children were discussed. Dinkmeyer' s collaboration with McKay arose out of coursework which Dinkmeyer taught, and McKay attended, at the Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago. At this time, Dinkmeyer had founded and was serving as Editor of the professional journal Elementary School Guidance and Counseling McKay was serving as a counselor in a Creve Coeur, Missouri, school and had been introduced to Adlerian psychology through the St. Louis Adlerian society.

PAGE 36

21 Program Components The STEP program is a nine-session course for small groups of parents. Major advantages of this program are the materials and group activities which help leaders organize parent study groups. The kit components include the following items Introductory Tape An eight minute audio tape presentation outlines the current need for parent education, the format of the STEP program, and ideas which stimulate interest in the STEP program. The tape is designed for use during brief presentations to groups such as the PTA. Invitational Brochure The invitational brochure is used in conjunction with the introductory tape. It presents a rationale for parent education, and outlines the nine session topics of the STEP program. The leader of a STEP program can use these two materials to stimulate interest in the STEP group. The following materials are used in the STEP group sessions. STEP Leader's Manual Detailed outlines of the STEP sessions are presented in the manual. The 139-page manual also contains the script of the introductory tape, and the 9 tapes for the session. Sections on group leadership skills, dealing with difficult group members, the Adlerian

PAGE 37

22 theory of human behavior, and suggestions for organizing the group are also included in this manual. STEP Parent's Handbook This 112-page full color, cartoon-illustrated book contains the readings, charts, and exercises for the program. Each group participant is to have a parent handbook for himself; it is the only consumable material for the program. The handbook contains brief readings on democratic parent-child relationships. Topics such as encouragement and communication skills are presented. Each of the nine chapters contains a page called "My Plan for Improving Relationships," a personal form parents can use to privately assess their progre'ss during the group. It is never discussed during the STEP group. The Parent's Handbook also contains a chart of the week's concept, and a page of points to remember, which highlight the reading. Cassettes Cassettes are used during the STEP session to allow parents to practice the child-rearing principle they have just discussed in the poster reading and chart. The audio cassettes contain four or five parent-child vignettes. At the end of each scene a bell tone signals the leader to turn off the tape and start the discussion. For example, the audio tape examples in chapter one ask the parents to listen to a misbehavior incident and identify the goal of the child's misbehavior as attention, power, revenge, or to display inadequacy.

PAGE 38

23 Discussion Guide Cards Discussion guide cards are introduced at the first session, and then prominently displayed around the room during the STEP sessions. They contain humorous illustrations of group conduct rules such as "Stay on the Topic," "Share the Time," and "Be Responsible for Your Own Behavior." Posters A poster illustrates the major point of each session. The nine posters are spiral bound in an easel so that the appropriate poster can be displayed at each session, The leader refers to the appropriate poster at the start of each session. Charts Charts summarize the major concepts presented in each session. These charts are displayed during the program and are replicated in the Parent's Handbook. Charts often contrast the Adlerian principle with the more commonly accepted parenting practice, e.g., the differences between encouragement and praise, and the differences between punishment and consequences. The materials are contained in a carrying case which enables the leader to bring the program materials to the meeting room in one package, excluding the audio tape player.

PAGE 39

24 The STEP Group Session Each session follows a suggested sequence of 12 activities which structure the group experience. The typical STEP group sessions last approximately one and one-half hours, 1. The leader briefly states the objectives for the session. 2. The discussion guide cards and session poster are briefly introduced. After the first session, the discussion guide cards are not reintroduced, but are placed around the room. 3. Discussion of the previous week's activity assignment is an opportunity for each parent to report their efforts in carrying out the homework activity. Each activity asks the parents to apply the principles they have learned in the group to their own parent-child relationships. For example, at the end of the first session, parents are asked to assess at least one child misbehavior as to the goal of the misbehavior. This is discussed at the start of the second group session. 4. Discussion of the assigned reading. Each chapter is to be read before the group meeting. At the first meeting, if the leader has been unable to get the Parent Handbooks to the participants prior to the first meeting, 10 or 15 minutes is spent in a mini-lecture, or silent reading of the text. The purpose of the pre-reading is to give the STEP participants a common ground-practical theory of

PAGE 40

25 parent-child relationships — so that the group discussion can focus on new ideas and behaviors. The leader may structure this group discussion of the reading by asking open questions, such as "What ideas did you agree (or disagree) with?" or more specific questions on the concepts presented. As with all session activities, the leaders may choose to use the phrases outlined in boldface type in the leader's manual, or use their own language. 5. Charts are used as visual aids for presenting the major topics and principles of the program. The charts are most often used to clarify differences between the principles of the STEP program and common parenting practices. Each chart is reproduced in the Parent's Handbook. 6. Audio tape exercises are presented so that parents may practice the concepts they have just discussed. Parents practice applying the skills they are learning by responding to the incidents presented on the tape. Typical childrearing situations, such as power struggles, opportunities to encourage, and opportunities to apply logical consequences in discipline situations, are presented on the tapes. 7. The group next does the problem situation, similar to the audio tape exercise. It is contained in the Parent's Handbook. If the group does not have much time, this activity may be optional and suggested for individual completion after the STEP group. 8. The leader next asks group members to summarize the session, so that they may consciously assimilate the

PAGE 41

26 materials presented during the session. A second purpose of the summarizing is to give the leader feedback on what was learned by the group members. It gives the leader an opportunity to clarify any questions or misconceptions. Summarization statements are structured by asking each group member to complete the sentence, "I learned. ..." Summarization can also be used at the leader's discretion to close any of the preceding group activities, such as the reading discussion or the discussion of the chart. 9. "The Activity for the Week" is the homework assignment. The activity allows parents to apply their group learning to behaviors with their children. The activity assignment is discussed by each group member as the third activity of each session. 10. "The Points to Remember" page is referred to briefly as the group draws to a close. This page in the Parent's Handbook is detachable. 11. "My Plan for Improving Relationships" is referred to but not discussed in the group. It, too, is detachable from the Parent's Handbook so that parents may keep this page separate from the Parent's Handbook. Both activities 10 and 11 may be excluded if group time is limited. 12. The final activity is the assignment of the next chapter in the Parent's Handbook. The leader may choose to preview the concepts in the next chapter, if time permits.

PAGE 42

27 The authors of the STEP program do not suggest a specific time allotment for each of the group activities, but the Leader's Manual does suggest that the leader predetermine the amount of time to be spent in each activity. The experience of the researcher in conducting STEP groups suggests that a typical one and one-half hour session may be allocated as follows: Activity Minutes 1. Statement of Objective 3 2. Discussion Guide Cards + Posters 2 3. Discussion of Activity Assignment 10 4. Discussion of Assigned Reading 15 5. Charts 5 6. Audio Tapes 15 7. Problem Situations 15 8. Summary 15 9. Activity for the Week 5 10. Points to Remember 1 11. My Plan for Improving Relationships 1 12. Reading Assignment 3 Total 90

PAGE 43

28 STEP Concepts McKay (1976a) has outlined the STEP program session topics and the concepts which are emphasized in each of the nine sessions. This outline has been used by the investigator to shape the survey instrument to be used for this research. Session 1 — Understanding Behavior and Misbehavior This initial session discusses the effects of the movement toward social equality upon parent-child relationships. It also presents popular beliefs about the nature of behavior and introduces the parents to the concept of purposive behavior. The parents learn about the four goals of misbehavior, the goals of positive behavior, and the ingredients necessary for building a positive relationship with children. Session 2 — How Children Use Emotions to Involve Parents/The "Good" Parent In this session the parents learn about the purposive nature of emotions, and how children use emotions in negative ways to achieve the four goals of misbehavior. They also become familiar with the concept of life style formation. The family constellation and methods of training are emphasized. The remainder of this session is concerned with helping parents become aware of how many typical parent beliefs and behaviors are discouraging to children. The parents begin to learn more appropriate beliefs and behaviors which facilitate the development of responsibility in children.

PAGE 44

29 Session 3 — Encouragement This session is concerned with helping parents learn how to encourage children. The parents become aware of attitudes and behaviors which discourage children as well as those attitudes and behaviors which encourage them. The crucial differences between praise and encouragement are emphasized. The parents also become familiar with the special language of encouragement. Session 4 — Communication: Listening In this session participants become aware of the traditional roles parents play when children express their feelings. They learn how playing these roles often blocks children's willingness to share feelings, creates resistance, and fosters an ineffective relationship. They learn an alternative method of responding to children which helps children feel understood, and facilitiates mutual respect. Session 5 — Communication: Exploring Alternatives and Expressing Your Ideas and Feelings to Children The first part of this session deals with a method for helping children explore alternative solutions to problems they face. The second part of the session deals with two concepts : (1) how to recognize who — parents or children — are responsible, or "own" a problem, and (2) ineffective 1 and effective methods for expressing feelings to children when they interfere with the parent's rights. Session 6 — Developing Responsibility Session 6 discusses the differences between the autocratic, permissive, and democratic parent. The parents learn that reward and

PAGE 45

30 punishment as a means of disciplining children do not help the children become responsible for their own behavior. The parents learn an alternative method of discipline — natural and logical consequences — which helps children learn responsibility. s The differences between punishment and logical consequences are stressed. The parents learn the basic principles and the steps for applying natural and logical consequences. The participants discover how to apply natural and logical consequences to typical parent-child problems. Session 7 — Decision Making for Parents In this session the parents learn more about natural and logical consequences. They also become familiar with how parents reinforce children's misbehavior by reacting in ways the children expect. They learn that doing the unexpected usually fosters more cooperative behavior. The session concludes with helping the parents learn how to select the appropriate approach to childtraining concerns from among the approaches they have learned in previous sessions. Session 8 — The Family Meeting In this session the parents become aware of the benefits of establishing regular family meetings where the family makes plans and solves problems together. Guidelines for establishing and maintaining family meetings, leadership skills, and alternative approaches for initiating family meetings are among the topics discussed.

PAGE 46

31 Session 9 — Developing Confidence and Using Your Potential This final session is concerned with aiding parents in developing confidence in themselves and their new childtraining procedures. They will learn how to respond effectively to criticism and pressure from other adults concerning their new parenting methods The participants will become familiar with self-defeating patterns in parent-chi-ld relationships, and examine their strengths for becoming an effective parent. Research on STEP Gary D. McKay, co-author of the STEP program, conducted the first investigation of the program (McKay, 1976a) A pretest-posttest control group design was used in this study, The dependent variables of the study were: 1) mothers' perceptions of their target child's behavior, and 2) the mothers' verbal behaviors. The sample involved volunteer mothers from the Tucson, Arizona, area who had a child between the ages of 4 and 13 with whom they wished to improve their relationship. This child was designated the "target child" for the purposes of the research. Fourteen mothers were randomly assigned to the STEP group and 12 to the control group. Mothers who attended at least seven of the nine STEP group sessions were included in the study, resulting in 10 subjects in equal-size treatment and control groups.

PAGE 47

32 Two instruments were used to measure the dependent variables of the study: 1) Adlerian Parental Assessment of Child Behavior Scale (APACBS) and 2) Mother-Child Interaction Exercise. Both were developed by Gary D. McKay. The APACBS (McKay, 1976b) is a 32-item scale which utilizes a seven-point Likert-type behavior interval scale. Mothers indicated their perceptions of the frequency of typical child's behaviors which are dealt with in the STEP program. Both desirable and undesirable child's behaviors are listed in the scale. The Mother-Child Interaction Exercise measured the number of facilitative and non-facilitative statements made by mothers to their target child in a laboratory setting. The stimulus for the interaction between the mother and the target child was an audio-taped statement which suggested a number of topics for discussion. The subsequent verbal interaction was recorded on audio tape for later analysis by independent observers. No significant increases in facilitative statements by mothers were found at the conclusion of the STEP program. There was a significant difference between the STEP mothers and the control group mothers in perceived child Jr behaviors at the conclusion of the STEP program. Mothers who participated in the STEP group perceived their target child's behaviors as more positive than those in the control group. Positive behavior was defined as an increase in the frequency of desirable behaviors, and a decrease in

PAGE 48

33 the frequency of undesirable behaviors, as measured by the APACBS. This instrument has become the most frequently used research instrument in investigations of the STEP program (Bauer, 1977; Moline, 1979; Weaver, 1980). Bauer (1977) investigated differences in three types of Adlerian parent education. Differences between the STEP group and an Adlerian book study group were measured. For this research, the STEP group was divided into two different types of experiences by giving different directions to the group leaders. One STEP group utilized a didactic approach, while the second utilized a process-orientation to the group experience. The third type of parent education for this study was a book study group which used Children: The Challenge (Dreikurs and Soltz, 1964). No specific directions were given to this group leader. Thus, 90 parents were divided into 4 groups: 1) STEP/ didactic, 2) STEP/process, 3) Children: The Challenge and 4) control group (no parent education experience) There were significant increases in the APACBS scores of parent group participants, but not in the control group. There were no signifi'cant differences in APACBS scores between the three types of parent education groups. Moline (1979) investigated the effects of the STEP group on parents who had been cited by the Salt Lake City, Utah, court system as having been abusive to their children. These parents were on the active caseload of the city's Department of Family Protective Services. This study is

PAGE 49

34 the only one which utilized an "abnormal" population. The other studies on STEP were conducted with parents who were voluntarily participating in STEP. Parents were assigned to the Salt Lake City group by court order. Significant positive changes in the parents' perceptions of the target child's behaviors were found at the .05 level of significance, as measured by the APACBS. Parent knowledge of Adlerian child rearing methods was measured in a 15-item test. Compared to a control group, STEP participants had greater knowledge of these principles. Weaver (1980) investigated the differences between parents based on their socio-economic status. Parent groups were classified as either upperto-middle class, or lowerto-low-middle class. Both groups received the STEP program, administered by the same group leader. A one-way analysis of covariance on the APACBS showed significant results only for the upperto-middle class parent group. Losoncy (1978) compared Ivey s Microparenting (1971) to STEP with 55 mothers of kindergarten children. The population was divided into three groups: STEP, Microparenting, and contro'l. Both methods of teaching parent education to these mothers achieved significant results on the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and a Parent Response Questionnaire. The Parent Response Questionnaire consisted of 15 hypothetical child statements. Immediately following each written child statement were four parent responses.

PAGE 50

35 Subjects were instructed to imagine that their child had just made each statement to them, and to choose their response to that child from the four possible statements. One study of STEP sought to determine some long range effects of the group experience. Seynaeve (19 77) conducted individual, face-toface interviews with 20 parents who had completed the STEP program either immediately preceding the interview, or three months prior to the interview. She had been the leader for both groups. Seynaeve indicated that the STEP groups were "contaminated" by additional materials. Transactional Analysis parenting concepts, in both written hand-outs and leader discussion, were introduced into the STEP group format. However, the suggested sequence of activities as outlined in the STEP leader's manual was followed. The inclusion of the additional materials was the result of the leader's prior experience and positive results with those materials. The interview consisted of 25 prescribed questions. Analysis of the information collected by this interview technique was largely subjective. However, Seynaeve concluded that all' of the parents had improved relationships with their children as a result of participation in the parent education group. Seynaeve also suggested that there may be decreasing use over time of the concepts presented in the STEP program. This conclusion was based on differences she perceived between the two groups of parents. She indicated

PAGE 51

36 that her perception of the two groups of parents was affected by her participation as leader of both groups She had not, for example, met with the parents of the first group for three months, while the second STEP group had just been completed. She was more aware of the behaviors and attitudes of the parents in the second group, which contributed to her subjective perceptions and ultimate conclusions.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter contains the research hypotheses, the population of the study, selection of the subjects, and research procedures and timetable. The research instrument for this study, the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) is presented and its development is discussed. The data analysis procedures for this study are also presented. This researcher contacted 915 parents who completed the STEP program in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. The length of time since completion of the STEP course ranged from 3 to 40 months. Each parent received a copy of the research instrument, the SPAT. The SPAT posed 37 questions concerning parenting attitudes and behaviors, and perceived benefits of the STEP group experience. Reported parenting attitudes and behaviors were analyzed by reported demographic variables. Factor analysis of the responses was performed to indicate relationships, if any, between demographic variables and reported factors. 37

PAGE 53

38 Population During the period January 1977 through June 1930, the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) course was offered to parents in Gainesville, Florida. One hundred seven individuals participated in this course. During the same period, parents in Tucson, Arizona, were also invited to participate in STEP groups. Eight hundred eight people completed the course. Thus, 915 parents have completed the STEP course in these two cities Their names and addresses were available. Gainesville, Florida STEP groups were conducted from 1977 through 19 79 by elementary school counselors. Three counselors offered the STEP groups to parents of students at their respective schools: Littlewood, Terwilliger, and Glen Springs. In addition, the counselor at Glen Springs ran groups for parents of students at the Martha Manson Academy in Gainesville. They are included in this survey. During the 1979-1980 school year, these counselors and others taught the course to parents through the Continuing Education program of the Alachua County schools. Any individual in the county could attend these classes. Gainesville is the Alachua County seat and home of the University of Florida. The population within a 50-mile radius of Gainesville has been estimated at 300,000. The Alachua County School System has 31 schools, of which 18 are

PAGE 54

39 elementary. As of January 4, 1980, the student population at the three Alachua County schools used in the study was: Glen Springs, 544; Terwilliger, 522; and Littlewood, 625. Tucson, Arizona STEP groups were administered in the public schools by the Pima County Developmental Career Guidance Project. The project is the only career project in the nation to achieve federal exemplary status. It serves approximately 98,000 students in 130 elementary, junior, and senior high schools. The project is a cooperative, multi-district career guidance program. The staff of 40 coordinators, specialists, and secretaries offer seven major services to the schools, including in-service education, planning and integration, assistance in activity implementation, and parent education. The selection process for STEP participants in Tucson has been largely a function of the willingness of elementary school principals to support a STEP group. The project supplies the program, materials, and leader; the school provides the site for the STEP meetings. Each fall, the project contacts the 80 elementary school principals and offers a STEP group as a service to parents of students at that school. When a principal accepts, publicity for the group is disseminated at the school, and interested parents are invited to the first group meeting. STEP groups have been conducted by the project since January 1977. More than 800 parents have participated in

PAGE 55

40 the group. The main office has maintained a central name and address file of these parents. Tucson, Arizona, is the Pima County seat and home of the University of Arizona. The metropolitan area population is approximately 350,000, the second largest in the state. Thus, in both cities, the STEP program was conducted at schools where a willingness to conduct the group was expressed, either by the school counselor or principal. No special interest group was the basis of forming a STEP group, with the exception of possible grade similarity for one child. For example, a STEP group may have been offered to the parents of kindergarten children in the school sponsoring the STEP group. Therefore, respondents to this research usually had at least one child in elementary school at the time they participated in the STEP group. Sample The SPAT survey instrument was mailed to the parents in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona, who had completed the STEP parent education program. STEP groups are generally conducted in either the fall (September to December) or spring (January to June) of a school year. It was returned by 76 percent of the Gainesville population, and 40 percent of the Tucson population for an overall 53 percent return rate.

PAGE 56

41 Experimental Design This descriptive study collected information concerning parenting attitudes and behaviors, and perceived benefits of the STEP program from participants from 3 to 40 months following completion of the group. STEP Parenting Assessment Technique The research instrument for this study was the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) The SPAT was developed by the investigator after a review of available parenting instruments, particularly those that had been used in previous studies of the STEP program. The SPAT (Appendix A) is a self-report instrument. It can be completed in approximately 15 minutes. It is printed on a single 8 1/2 x 11 sheet and folded so that there are four 5 1/2 x 8 1/2 pages. This design makes the SPAT a "mini-booklet." It was printed on a colored paper to enhance its appeal to potential respondents. The demographic information was collected from the respondent, or coded by the investigator. Respondents provided information on 1) sex, 2) age group, 3) current marital status, and 4) the number of children now living at home. Information coded by the researcher included 1) the location of the respondent (either Tucson or Gainesville) 2) the length of time since the STEP group was completed,

PAGE 57

42 and 3) an identification number. This information was coded into the upper right hand corner of the first page of the SPAT. There are twenty questions in the attitude subsection, and ten questions in the behavior subsection. In the attitude subsection, the subject responds to a five point Likert-type attitude scale. The behavior subsection has a five point Likert-type frequency scale. The attitude scale was expressed as: 1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3 = Uncertain 4 = Disagree 5 = Strongly Disagree The behavior scale was expressed as: 1 = Very Seldom 2 = Seldom 3 = Sometime 4 = Often 5 = Very Often Seven questions which evaluated the perceived benefits of the STEP group experience follow the twenty questions in the attitude subsection. The first five statements have a five-point Likert-type attitude scale. The last two questions ask what the participant liked most and least during the STEP group. Space is provided for written responses.

PAGE 58

43 Development of the SPAT The STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) was developed as a result of the investigator's review of instruments which have been used in previous investigations of Adlerian parent education groups. Specific attention was given to instruments and criterion measures which were used in studies of the STEP program. The limitations of published instruments made it necessary for the investigator to develop an appropriate survey technique. Instruments measured only one of the three areas (attitude, behavior, and benefits) to be studied. For example, the Adlerian Parental Assessment of Children's Behavior Scale (McKay, 1976b) measures parental perception of a target child's behavior. Other instruments which have been used to assess child behaviors include the Family Relationship Index (Anderson et al. 1976) and the Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist (Walker, 1967) The Attitudes Towards Child Rearing Scale (Freeman, 1975) measures only parental attitudes. Five other parent attitude scales have also been used in Adlerian parent education research (Shobe'n, 1949; Rokeach, 1956; Schaeffer and Bell, 1958; Hereford, 1963; and Pumroy, 1966). Considering the design of this study, it is highly improbable that a respondent would take the time to complete two or three available instruments, which could easily total more than 100 items and approximately two hours of time.

PAGE 59

44 Therefore, a new instrument, with a smaller number of selected responses, was needed. A draft of the SPAT was constructed in March, 1979. This first draft consisted of 12 to 15 questions in each of 3 areas: attitude, behavior, and knowledge of the STEP program. The attitude and behavior sections were constructed on a five-point Likert-type scale.True/false responses were used for the knowledge section. There were originally seven demographic questions. Some of these were subsequently dropped or altered: 1) the specific age of the respondent was solicited rather than assessment by ten-year intervals; 2) name, age and sex of each child were deleted. The final draft of the instrument requests the number of children living in the home. This allows for the testing of a hypothesis concerning family size. The initial draft of the survey instrument was circulated to University of Florida doctoral students, several STEP group leaders, and the two authors of the STEP program. The SPAT was administered to five individuals who had completed the STEP program. This administration helped determine the clarity of the questions and the average length of time needed to complete the instrument. The feedback from this first administration of the instrument led to some rewriting of unclear items. It also indicated that 30-45 minutes were needed to complete the 50 questions. This period of time, in an unsupervised

PAGE 60

45 setting, was deemed too long. As a result, the instrument was reduced to thirty-seven questions plus six demographic questions Feedback from the authors, Dr. Don Dinkmeyer, Senior and Dr. Gary D. McKay, was also considered. Several items were restructured to more accurately reflect the concepts taught in the STEP program. A suggestion to increase the behavior frequency scale to seven points was made, but not incorporated. It was deemed that a five-point scale was sufficient for the purposes of this research and less confusing than use of a seven-point scale for only one of the subsections An evaluation of the instrument was also made by the doctoral committee and a statistician who assisted in the analysis of the data. It was suggested that the true/false knowledge section of the instrument be changed to a fivepoint Likert-type attitude scale, parallel to the attitude section of the instrument. The purpose of this change was to allow for a factor analysis of all 30 survey questions. To preserve the factor analysis design, the knowledge section designation was removed and the questions were incorporated into the attitude section. Seven questions concerning the impact of the STEP program on the respondent were added. Five questions focus on the 1) interaction between respondent and children, 2) communication between respondent and children, and 3) whether the respondent would recommend the STEP course to other parents.

PAGE 61

46 These assessment statements are: 1. The STEP course helped me increase my knowledge of parenting. 2. The STEP course helped improve relationships in our family. 3. As a result of the STEP course, my communication with children has improved. 4. As a result of the STEP program, I have less conflict with my children. 5. I would recommend the STEP program to other parents. In addition, two open-ended questions asked for the most-liked and least-liked aspect of the STEP group. This revision of the instrument was administered to four individuals who had completed the STEP program. They required 15 to 20 minutes to complete the SPAT. Test-Retest Reliability The test-retest reliability of the SPAT research instrument was determined through administration to a small population. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was computed. Between ten to fifteen parents who had taken the STEP course and who reside in Broward County, Florida, were administered the SPAT. A second administration of the SPAT occurred one week later. The administrations were conducted on an individual basis via the mail. These parents completed the STEP course from three to

PAGE 62

47 fifteen months prior to the test-retest administration of the SPAT. Content Validity The content validity of the SPAT was established prior to the administration of the SPAT. A rating form (Appendix C) was mailed to no less than 12 individuals familiar with the STEP program. They included the two authors of the program, two STEP group leaders from Gainesville, Florida, two STEP group leaders from Tucson, Arizona, two Adlerians familiar with the STEP program, and two parents who had completed the STEP program (who were neither part of the population of the study nor part of the test-retest group) This rating form contained two sections. In the first section, the raters examine each of the SPAT items for their relative relationship to STEP program concepts. In the second section, raters are asked to agree or disagree, and to offer comments on six statements about the SPAT. A seventh statement solicited general comments. The SPAT was refined based on evaluations received from these twelve individuals. Construct (Factorial) Validity The construct validity of the SPAT was established through a factor analysis of the subjects' responses to the SPAT. A three-step factor analysis was performed to determine whether the two factors (attitudes and behaviors)

PAGE 63

48 were significant, or if there were other dimensions which accounted for the intercorrelations between the 30 items in the two subsections of the SPAT. The first step established an Intercorrelation Matrix, which told the relationship between each item and every other item. This was expressed as a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The second step was the computation of the Principal Axes Factor analysis with iteration to derive the dimensions which account for the intercorrelations among items. In the third step, a decision to use either an oblique or orthogonal solution in rotating the factors obtained in the Principal Axes Factor analysis was made. The orthogonal solution assumes there is no relationship between the factors, while the oblique solution assumes that there is some degree of relationship between the factors. Research Hypotheses The purpose of this research was to investigate the parenting attitudes and behaviors of parents who have completed the STEP program 3 to 40 months prior to the administration of the SPAT research instrument. Three major analyses were performed: 1. Item analysis for each of the 30 SPAT attitude and behavior statements. 2. Factor analysis for each of the factors derived from the 30 SPAT items.

PAGE 64

49 3. Interaction analysis between the demographic variables and two major delineations (geographic location and length of time since completion of the STEP group) The research hypotheses are stated below in their null form: 1. There will be no significant differences between SPAT respondents based on their classification variables. A. There will be no significant difference between males and females, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. B. There will be no significant difference between respondent ages, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. C. There will be no significant difference between single parent and two parent homes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. D. There will be no significant difference between family sizes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. E. There will be no significant difference between respondents based on length of time since STEP, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. 2. There will be no significant differences between SPAT respondents who reside in Gainesville, Florida. A. There will be no significant difference between males and females on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

PAGE 65

50 B. There will be no significant difference between respondent ages, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. C. There will be no significant difference between single parent and two parent homes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. D. There will be no significant difference between family sizes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. 3. There will be no significant differences between SPAT respondents who reside in Tucson, Arizona. A. There will be no significant difference between males and females, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. B. There will be no significant difference between respondent ages, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. C. There will be no significant difference between single parent and two parent homes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT. D. There will be no significant difference between family sizes, on each item and on the derived factors of the SPAT.

PAGE 66

51 4. There will be no significant interaction between classification variables and geographic location (Gainesville or Tucson) A. There will be no significant interaction between sex and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. B. There will be no significant interaction between age groups and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. C. There will be no significant interaction between marital status and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. D. There will be no significant interaction between family size and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. E. There will be no significant interaction between length of time since STEP and geographic location on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. 5. There will be no significant interaction between classification variables and the number of years since completion of the STEP group. Year 1: 3-12 months since STEP Year 2: 13-24 months since STEP Year 3: 25-36 months since STEP Year 4: 37-40 months since STEP.

PAGE 67

52 A. There will be no significant interaction between sex and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. B. There will be no significant interaction between age groups and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. C. There will be no significant interaction between single and two-parent-home respondents and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. D. There will be no significant interaction between family size and year groups on each item and the derived factors of the SPAT. Research Timetable and Procedures 1. Final revisions in the methods and procedures for this study followed the seminar held on Monday, July 21, 19 80. Upon final approval of this study by the Doctoral Committee, the SPAT was administered to the population of this study (see Figure 1) The SPAT was typeset in Gainesville. Proofs of this final draft were shown to the Doctoral Committee Chairman for his approval. 2. The SPAT was mailed First Class to each survey participant by July 28. Prior to the mailing, the return envelopes and postage, cover letter, and participant mailing faces were completed.

PAGE 68

53 POPULATION OF THE STUDY SPAT and cover letter mailed (Appendices A and B) SAMPLE OF THE STUDY (Completed SPAT is returned) SPAT is not returned SECOND MAILING (Appendix D) DATA ANALYSIS OF RETURNED SPAT SURVEYS SPAT returned as undeliverable Figure 1. Flow chart illustrating the data collection procedure.

PAGE 69

54 3. The upper right hand of the first page of the SPAT contained a series of letters and numbers which identify all of the researcher-known variables: A. Location of respondent (Tucson or Gainesville) B. Semester and year the respondent finished the STEP program. The respondent is classified as having completed the group in either the spring or fall, of the years 1977, 1978, 1979, or 1980. C. An identification number to identify the subject. 4. The mailing to each survey participant will include: A. Cover letter (Appendix B) B. The SPAT research instrument. C. A self-addressed, stamped First Class envelope for the return of the SPAT to the investigator in Gainesville, Florida. The use of First Class mail for this study was imperative. All undeliverable pieces of mail, such as "left no forwarding address" or an incorrect address, were returned to the researcher. All known changes of address were automatically forwarded by the Post Office. Thus, the exact number of surveys which were actually delivered was determined. That number, and not the number of surveys initially sent, was used to determine the actual return rate of the survey 5. There was an initial 4-week period for the return of the survey from the population. At the end of this

PAGE 70

55 period, on Monday, August 25, the total number of acceptable returned surveys was determined. 6. This was less than 300. A follow-up letter was sent to those who had not yet responded. This letter (Appendix D) included another copy of the SPAT and a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. The follow-up mailing was completed by September 10. 7. There was a four-week period for the return of the survey after this follow-up mailing. This period ended on October 16. 8. The surveys were keypunched onto data cards. Responses to the two open questions were extracted for later analysis. Upon completion of preparation of the surveys for computer analysis, the responses were subjected to the following data analysis. Data Analysis 1. The mean and standard deviation of each of the 30 Likert-type scale questions in the SPAT subsections were compared on the demographic variables in order to determine if the subjects used the range of possible responses for each item. 2. A series of analyses of variance (ANOVA) or, ttests where appropriate, were performed for each of the demographic variables by each of the items and the factors previously derived in the construct validity procedures.

PAGE 71

56 If there was a significant overall F, a follow-up with multiple comparisons was performed. The demographic variables are: A. (Respondent Sex) Male, Female, B. (Respondent Age) 23-30, 31-35, 36-40, 41-65 C. (Marital Status) Single parent, two parent home D. (Family Size) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more children E. (Time Group) Year 1: 3-12 months since STEP, Year 2: 13-24 months since STEP, Year 3: 2536 months since STEP, Year 4: 37-40 years since STEP months since completion of the STEP group 3. The mean and standard deviation of the five questions which evaluate the STEP program were computed (attitude section questions N21-25) 4. The written responses to questions 2 6 and 2 7 of the attitude section were compiled. These questions asked respondents for the most and least liked aspects of the STEP group. Limitations of the Study At this stage of the proposed research, there appear to be five limitations to this investigation: 1. The participants in this survey will be reached only by mail.

PAGE 72

57 2. The research instrument (SPAT) will be administered only once. 3. Parent response is limited to the research instrument. 4. Parent response to the research instrument is limited to the STEP program. 5. There is no control group.

PAGE 73

CHAPTER IV RESULTS This study investigated the effects of parent education upon individuals who participated in organized parent education groups. Participants were from two cities: Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. The STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) was administered to all participants and provided data for the study. The collected data were analyzed and hypotheses tested using analysis of variance and factor-analysis procedures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with each of the 35 SPAT items to investigate the variables of sex, age, marital status, family size and elapsed time since completion of the parent education group. Next, seven factors were derived from a factor analysis of the items. These factors were then used to examine the same variables and test the five major hypotheses. This chapter reports the findings Sample Distribution A printed survey instrument (SPAT) was mailed to 915 individuals who had enrolled in parent education groups in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona. There was a

PAGE 74

59 difference between the two geographic populations in the percentage of undeliverable mail. In Gainesville 6 percent was returned as undeliverable; whereas, in Tucson 24 percent was undeliverable. Thus, 76 usable surveys (76 percent) were returned from Gainesville and 2 80 usable surveys (49 percent) from Tucson, resulting in 356 (53 percent) returned usable surveys (See Table 1) These returned instruments constituted the population of the study and were subsequently used for the analyses of the data. The first section of the SPAT requested some descriptive information from each respondent. This included: Sex, Ethnic origin, Age, Marital status at the time of the STEP course, Change, if any, in marital status, Current marital status, Number of children living at home, at the time of the STEP course and at the time of responding to the SPAT, and Type of Adlerian parent education group. The respondent's city (Gainesville or Tucson) and the time at which the parent education group was taken (19 77 through 1980) were also available. Table 2 shows three demographic characteristics (city, sex, ethnic origin) of the sample. It can be seen that the, population of this study was predominantly female (89 percent) and white (89 percent) These same three demographic

PAGE 75

60 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF MAILING SPAT TO THE POPULATION SPAT Gainesville Tucson Total Mailed Undeliverable Invalid Sample used 107 808 915 7 210 217 16 16 76 280 356

PAGE 76

TABLE 2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE 61 Location Gainesville Tucson N 76 280 Total 21.3 78.7 Sex* Female Male 311 38 89.1 10.9 Race* Spanish American American Indian Black Oriental White Other *Report based on identifiable cases, 17 4.9 2 0.6 9 2.6 5 1.4 311 89.4 4 1.1

PAGE 77

62 characteristics are also reported by city in Table 3. There were approximately equal percentages female and male respondents in both cities. However, Tucson had a significantly larger percentage of Spanish-American respondents than Gainesville. The participants in this study completed their parent education experience from three to forty months prior to the SPAT survey. Table 4 outlines the total population by city and time group. In addition, respondents were classified as having taken the course in either the fall or spring (see Table 5) These two tables show a varied time distribution across the total population, with more than half (51 percent) of the population completing the course more than two years prior to the SPAT survey. Information on marital status is reported in Table 6. There was less than a 2 percent increase in the percentage of single parent homes since completion of the STEP course, and only 6 5 percent of the population indicated a change in their marital status during the time between the STEP course and the SPAT survey. The reported number of children living at home is summarized in Table 7. Slightly more than half of the population reported two children. One and three-child homes were indicated by approximately 15 percent of the population. Respondents also disclosed their age. The age distribution of the population ranged from 2 3 to 6 5 years of age (see Table 8)

PAGE 78

TABLE 3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE BY CITY 63 TOTAL Gainesville Number % 76 100% Tucson Number 280 100% Sex Female Male 67 7 90.5 9.5 244 88.7 31 11.3 Race Spanish Amer ican 1 1.4 16 5.8 American Ind ian 0.0 2 0.7 Black 3 4.1 6 2.2 Oriental 0.0 5 1.8 White 69 93.2 242 88.3 Other 1 1.4 3 1.1 Home status during STEP course Single parent home Two parent home 7 67 9.5 90.5 27 10.0 244 90.0 Has marital status changed? Yes 5 6.8 18 6.6 No 69 93.2 253 93.4 Currently in Single parent home 9 12.3 31 11.4 Two parent home 64 87.7 241 88. 6

PAGE 79

64 9 o H I I En >H M H J H ffl U < H IX ffl W -i tr c o H co M CTl 0*H Cfl H en H >> to en fe rH dn C CTl H r^ M a-i &H CO rH CO rH ra (T> Pq H Cr> £ co •H l> Sh (Ti OjrH CO h > rH C(0 cn h rH &> C r•H [> M cn 0*H CO SB >i 4J •H u n in m m H m co H no CN CM =* CO H CM CO CO U5 o o O l£> o >> o CO O in o H 04 H ro H H H -H > CD CQ CO H CD CD H fi tfl H •H > rd o tfl o Oj CD tn G mh 0) -H U rd a o\o C tfl (D tfl tfl o c 3 c [H Cu o tfl tn m CD u o *H 3 En dP tfl H (D id tfl p a o EH a H w rd m CD P U o En o\

PAGE 80

TABLE 5 NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN STEP COURSE AND SPAT SURVEY 65 City Time Between STEP Group and SPAT Survey Less Than 1-2 2-3 3-4 1 Year Years Years Years Gainesville 14 15 23 17 of Gainesville responses 18 20 30 22 Tucson 50 61 96 46 % of Tucson responses 22 34 16 Total 64 76 119 63 of Total responses 18 21 33 18

PAGE 81

TABLE 6 MARITAL STATUS 66 N % Total Marital Status at the time of the STEP course Single parent home Two parent home Not reported 34 9.6 311 87.4 11 3.1 Marital Status has changed since the STEP course Yes No Not reported 23 6.5 322 90.4 11 3.1 Current Marital Status Single parent home Two parent home Not reported 40 11.2 305 85.7 11 3.1

PAGE 82

67 TABLE 7 NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME Total N=356 Freq. % Gainesville N-76 Freq. % Tuc N= Freq son 280 g. At the STEP time of Course the 20 5.6 2 2.7 17 6.1 1 63 17.7 11 14.7 52 18.6 2 187 52.5 50 66.7 137 48.9 3 54 15.2 9 12.6 45 16.1 4 26 7.3 2 2.7 24 8.6 5 4 1.1 1 1.3 3 1.1 6 2 0.6 2 0.7 At the SPAT time of survey the 15 4.2 1 1.3 13 4.6 1 60 16.9 14 18.7 46 16.4 2 190 53.4 48 64.0 142 50.7 3 63 17.7 11 14.7 52 18.6 4 27 7.6 1 1. 3 26 9.3 5 1 0.3 1 1.3 1 0.4

PAGE 83

68 TABLE 8 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE Total Gainesville N % Total Tucson Age N % Total N % Total 23 1 0.3 1 0.4 24 2 0.6 2 0.7 25 3 0.8 3 1.1 26 3 0. 8 3 1.1 27 13 3.7 3 4.0 10 3.6 28 5 1.4 1 1.3 4 1.4 29 16 4.5 3 4.0 13 4.6 30 15 4.2 2 2.7 13 4.6 31 20 5.6 6 8.0 14 5.0 32 23 6.5 3 4.0 20 7.1 33 27 7.6 3 4.0 24 8.6 34 28 7.9 9 12.0 19 6.8 35 16 4.5 5 6.7 11 3.9 36 24 6.7 9 12.0 15 5.4 37 21 5.9 7 9.3 14 5.0 38 20 5.6 4 5.3 16 5.7 39 21 5.9 3 4.0 18 6.4 40 23 6.5 4 5.3 19 6.8 41 11 3.1 2 2.7 9 3.2 42 8 2.2 Cont 3 inued 4.0 5 1.8

PAGE 84

69 TABLE 8 CONTINUED Total Gainesville Tucson Age N % Tota 1 N % Total N % Total 43 4 1.1 1 1. 3 3 1.1 44 6 1.7 6 2.1 45 7 2.0 7 2.5 46 5 1.4 5 1.8 47 2 0.6 2 0.7 49 1 0.3 1 0.4 50 4 1.1 2 2.7 2 0.7 51 6 1.7 1 1.3 5 1.8 52 3 0.8 3 1.1 53 1 0.3 1 1.3 54 2 0.6 2 0.7 56 1 0.3 1 0.4 58 2 0.6 2 0.7 59 1 0.3 1 0.4 65 1 0.3 1 0.4 Not indicated 10 2.8 3 4.0 6 2.1

PAGE 85

70 It was necessary to assess the type of parent education each respondent had completed as the researcher was informed that some of the Tucson population might have taken another, but similar, Adlerian course. The reported type of parent education is summarized in Table 9. It is evident that approximately 25 percent of the Tucson population took the Children: The Challenge book study group instead of the STEP group. When combined with the Gainesville respondents, this resulted in 2 percent of the SPAT survey respondents reporting this Adlerian book study group method of parent education. Because these two parent education approaches were based on similar psychological principles, an identical theoretical philosophy, an equal number of training sessions with a similar group size, and lessons with a similar focus, it was decided to combine the groups as one population and include them in the sample. Perceived Benefits of the STEP Program The respondents were asked to evaluate their education group by reporting their perceived benefits. This was done using two procedures. First, five questions (SPAT items N21-25) were posed. Respondents expressed their degree of agreement by marking on a five-point Likert-type scale. This scale was expressed from one (Strongly Agree) through five (Strongly Disagree) More specifically, these items focused on increased

PAGE 86

TABLE 9 REPORTED TYPE OF PARENT EDUCATION 71 Gainesville STEP N 76 76 % Total 100 100 Tucson STEP Children The Challenge Not Sure 280 100 188 68 68 24 24 8 Total Sample STEP Children The Challenge Not Sure 356 264 68 24 100 72 20 8

PAGE 87

72 knowledge of parenting, improved family relationships, improved communication with children, and reduced conflict with children. The final item (N2 5) asked for a recommendation of the STEP program to other parents (see Table 10) The second procedure consisted of two open questions (N26 and N27) Respondents described their most and least liked aspects of the STEP course. They were also encouraged to share additional comments concerning their group experience. An increased knowledge of parenting was reported by both the Gainesville (mean 1.70) and Tucson (mean 1.82) populations. Both the Gainesville and Tucson populations generally agreed (mean 2.10) with statement N22, "The STEP course helped improve relationships in our family." Both groups also reported improved communication with their children. Gainesville respondents' mean for this statement was 2.0; Tucson respondents* mean was 2.05. The least agreed-with statement concerning perceived benefits of the STEP course was N24, "As a result of the STEP course, I have less conflict with my children." Yet both Gainesville (2.28) and Tucson (2.35) generally agreed with the statement. The most positive response was to N25, "I would recommend the STEP course to other parents." Both Gainesville (1.58) and Tucson (1.59) had very similar mean scores. This statement received the second most favorable response of the 35 Likert-type scale questions on the SPAT.

PAGE 88

73 o H W m Eh Cm co Em O CO EH H Ph W 3 w PQ P H H g W Pm CO 0) • rH Q H • H CO > en cd G C H rd (0 CD O tr-H ^1 Hi p o Eh o •H +J CO 0) a rH o UD o lo 00 oo l> Ol I s B • • o o O o o c\ o m in en CO H o n LO o rco ro CO cm (M CO CM O CO rH rH CM CM O o o • CN o CM CM LO CO CO CM CM Ol oo m m CM o oo in in ^d cd CD c > 1 cn Cm Pm G n3 "0 t3 W -H SH M G cd cd cd co Eh P Dj Eh O CD CD QjrH a a CO id g CO Sh X! Sh H & rH -H -H co r CS P CD a) o OJ X! OJ H CL) CO rH XI x! a XI CO XI Gj CO XJ CU -H 13 P a P G id P rH XI G CD ai o e xi o a) CO >, en -h MH £ m cd s O iH g Sh P >i G > >i § P G cn G Id rH (D rd e CD G OH-H p U P XI u CD W -H O 0) § rH >iT3 r~\ XI CD 10 id -P sh id 2 SrH G H P Sh u pm C O CO En O SH Eh > U u CU CJ Sh cd rH O P co d id CO O 3 CO CO P 3 G •H & Sh o rS Sh xl rd Sh o Cm a) a) cd a G P G -H & ft Sh xi mw xi g a CO O "H CO O H Eh rd Eh S O Eh -H -H 3 O £ rtj CJ


PAGE 89

74 An examination of responses by percentage likewise indicated the STEP was perceived as beneficial (see Table 11) Approximately 93 percent of the respondents recommended the STEP course to other parents. Respondents expressed their greatest uncertainty with the statement that the STEP course had reduced conflict with their children. More than onequarter of the respondents indicated they were uncertain, yet more than half agreed that conflict was less. Percentages for Gainesville (Table 12) and Tucson (Table 13) showed similar response patterns. The open-ended responses (N2 6 and N2 7) were examined and general categories were derived. These general categories with respective frequencies and percentages are reported in Table 14. Approximately 24 percent wrote statements which indicated that they liked learning that other parents had similar parenting concerns. Another "liked aspect" was learning with other parents. About 22 percent wrote statements which indicated that they would have preferred more or better examples of parenting in the Parent's Handbook. Approximately 20 percent expressed a desire for a follow-up course and reported that the STEP course was too brief (see Table 14)

PAGE 90

75 H H & cq ft M |h CO M3 LT) O II CO Eh H H pq Q H W u M ft tn 0) tn id -p c CD u P CD ft >1 ID rH 0) CT> P a Cn o3 u cn -p •H en Q (D CI) P tJi cd cn •H cd +J p 0) u c D 0) CD M d cu O CD P P -P tn a) •P H o CN H in CO ro CTl O CO in CO CO in in o CN CD o m 4 CO in rH cn m yo o CN o CO T "* ft in cn io • • cn o e 3 CD rH W S

IW EH • ft O Ph G cn cn T3 fO a M •H rH w +J 0) 03 •H En +J a, Eh o cd a P-. CI a cn (C B cn Xi CD rH T3 H cn u •H cn -p p 0) 0) d) a cd H cd cn IB X! H x: -H JG c cn x! (D • ts a & X •P 3 rtj P rc; G CD O CD cn £ X T3 g X 3 3 H o CD rd rH O -P >i -P -P P -p X U g • o nj H ^-ci rH A CD tn rH 3 a rH 3 H O P ft 0) c ft 0) cn •H cn -P W cn H W P • cd K .C CD >1 TS Eh f0 +J EH >1 U CD o P 0) g H CD CO cu a CO cu H cn cn 3 cn p Cl) > -H cd H x cd P X! O P 0) o p CD o g 3 -p 3 +J & 3 x a cd Xi rH nj cn -H cn O -H O Eh -H a, Eh am < u & d O £ H O rH CN m <* • CN CN CN CN CN a S3 S3 55 S5

PAGE 91

76 CM H Hi H > W N O H H u w PM pq Pm W EH Eh H m p M > H w I Pm >i 0) H 0) tn P G tn rd U CO -P -H W Q CD 0) u tn rd Cfi •H Q CD CU G Cn •H (0 rd +J -P a P, 0) i H tr G QJ CD P P -P tn CO < 00 o CO o m o o m o • • "0< H 00 00 o in o CM O CN in CM CTi CN ro ro rH "* KD o m P • o 1 M T3 H Pm 0) g G CD H W e m P G > tp Eh • Pm PU a co en 15 TS G H H P w •P CD 0) 0) -H Eh -P Cm Eh o CD G Q< tn a CO rd g CO X! CD rH n3 H cn U -H en P P 0) CD CD & CD P CD en rd XI H Xi-H 3 G CQ X! a) • D & & XI P PS rd -P rG CD Q) CD § xi CD CD P en a cn G IW g lp CD M I CD P P* u o G > Ti g X G PJ-H CD rd H -P >i O -P -p P -P ,i : U O g O 03 rH >iT3 rH xi CD tn H G g H G H U pm a) G PL, CD m H Cfi -P w en •H M P • CD -X! 0) >1 Xi Eh rd -P EH >i P CD P CD g r-\ CD CO CD G CO CD H cn CO 3 en P CD > P rd u xi rd P XI P CD O M CD B G -P G -P & G x a rd XI P rd CT] -H CO -H O Eh -H a ^ am < & < O & H O g # ( • • • cu rH CN m "* in -p CN CN CN CN CN H 23 B 23 2 23

PAGE 92

77 m H W eg < 2 O co o B a H H w o caei w ft CQ O oo ft i cu rH cu tn M £ cn O ta H Cfi -P H CO Q cu 0) M &> 10 tO •H Q S-l cu o G D cu M CD >1 tn C 0) o cu H U -P tn CO < CM rH CM o tf CO CO o IT) LD OO rH CO in in o CM CO CO LD • • • o o rH 00 CO rH CO O o CM o rH CO CM SO t CM IX) CO tn rH in H m u • o 1 U T3 •H CM CU s 3 CU H W S 4-1 •H a > 4-H &H • PH o o Oj c cn tn Tj T3 a M •H H W o -P cu CU H Eh +J & Eh o CU fl a tn Q) CO to a CO £1 CU H T3 rH CO U -H cn -P rH CU CD CD a 0) -H (U cn RJ Xl r-: A H ^ fl tn ,£ cu • -d a, 5 £ -P 3 rcj -P rH a a CU cu M 1 (U 0) rH W a en s 4-1 IW CU U i cu rH ^ M c o > TJ S £ ^ 3 •H u cu cci ^ -P O >i 4J -p M 4J x: -CJ u s • o (0 rH >|T3 H A cu tn rH 3 S rH 3 H O rH ft (1) a a. CD ra -H cn H-) W tn •H w M • cu -X5 cu • >H T3 EH rt -p B >i m CU M cu S rH CU CO a CO CU rtn tn 3 tn u 0) > H rd U A (0 rH XI rH CU o M a) 6 3 -p 3 -p 5 3 A el (0 XI M 3 CO -H tn -H o Eh •H & Eh 05P LD -P CM CM
PAGE 93

78 TABLE 14 FREQUENCY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS: MOST AND LEAST LIKED ASPECTS OF THE STEP COURSE Statement Frequency Percentage of Total Responses MOST LIKED ASPECT 1. Learned other parents had the same parenting concerns 87 24 2. Group discussion; interaction with other parents 69 19 3. Parent Handbook: easy to read, interesting, presents positive attitude 45 13 4. Parenting skills that work 27 8 5. Learned I'm not responsible for child misbehaviors 18 5 6. Sibling relationships improved 12 3 7. STEP Group Leader 9 3 8. Other 18 5 9. No response 103 29 LEAST LIKED ASPECT 1. Need more or better examples of parenting 2. No follow-up course; course too brief 3. Not enough on how to get spouse involved in STEP 4. Leader ineffective 5. Not enough preschool or teen examples 6. Other 7. No response 78 22 72 20 33 9 16 4 14 4 25 7 148 42

PAGE 94

79 SPAT Item Analyses Analyses of the 30 attitude and behavior items in the SPAT survey provided data which were examined in terms of the five null hypotheses. The item analyses were performed separate from a factor-analysis, which also listed the hypotheses. To test each of the major item hypotheses, a decision rule was adopted. It is assumed that two or three of the items on the SPAT would be significantly different by chance. Therefore, the decision to reject the null hypothesis in terms of the item null hypotheses was set at a minimum of more than 5 of the 30 items on the SPAT. This number was considered to be above chance, measurement error, and to best fit the purpose of the study description. The results of testing the hypotheses by item analyses are reported below. Item means and standard deviations for the total and city populations are reported in Table 15. An examination of the means and standard deviations showed little difference between the Gainesville and Tucson populations and therefore, the total population. Hypothesis One: Total Population It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between respondents on the SPAT items based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status,

PAGE 95

80 O En co CO W s PI O Pm H 2 En < < CO H > S W O Q CO U Q p Eh < IT) Q Q H W Eh i-l CO M m J CO co M S £ < H W < g U g H J Eh < H Eh O EH EH < A CO o rCN LD i* rH ^r en Q CM 00 O CO rH H CO CO C CO H o H o H rH o o o en o 3 C CO in a> H en •=3" H H EH rd rCO o co CO H CO IT) rH H Q rH ch 0"! r^ rH rH r> CO H •H CO rH o o o H rH o o > CO cu fi a CO CO in o "* CN H r•H rd "^ en H LD ^0 ro CO rd cu O g ON rH CN rH CM CN ^r H • (Tt en O CO n CN CN r Q rH CO o CO H rH CO CO H CO H o rH o H rH o o rd -P Eh CJ o ro en ><* o CO o aS r00 H lo IT) ai en cu g CN rH CN rH CN CN CO rH CI G • CU ti c fl u rd a CU 13 •H rC •H H •H -P rd T3 -p •0 -: X! ti u cu Q) C T3 CU H u CU CU SI o > 0) CU > J. P ft -p -P M•rH M a CO H O 4=: 13 rd -P TS CU o O -p rH o p) £ p U rH M Qj > S3 •H I •H o o -p H 0) •H -d P c CU 3s CO £! c 0) MH Xi H P •H cu H o u CU X M-l •H 04 5 a ro CO u -P ,a P 4J H CO M-l •H 3 Cn o fd CU 0) H ^ 0) CO

EA fl £3 fl rd -P i H g rrj to H M M CO 3 -P >H >iX} •H -P 13 O d g g U CO ft! CO o 13 -P o H & H H 3 g cu X3 a. to u rH rd P a a 0) > 3 en o M cu Qa 3 cu a S rrj O P O crj p g a) G A o J3 43 rrj co 5 CO £ G g •rH to xi cu CO CU cu CU CU to CO CU 03 X! H > U M ft -p !-l fin 0) CO P to co CCS H H X H -H -P X2 P =5 Cn 01 H CU -P H U -H a 0) g S M CJ D 1 fi •H 5-1 C •H P rd CU .£ QJ CU CU 0) •H o x; m X! M M -P H U > H U > +J fii SH ft rd H as H •H rrj c s CU rt! Cm W a KJJ Pm w cu H CM en LO VJD rCO •p a a a a a Of a a H 13 3 C H -P o u

PAGE 96

81 Q in H rH P 2 H H P3 Eh Z at O M u C\ r> CM CO O CM i£> CO Q O o rCO CM oi rH o • • • • • i • • • c CO rH m o o rH o rH rH en u G G ro en cr> r> o <3" o rH E-i rd 00 CM CM o m O 00 rH CD • • • • • • • g CM CM CM CM CM ^ CM CM 0) • rH Q H • H L0 > CO CU c G -H m CCS 0) O a CQ O rH H <* rH ro o rH ro ro CM CO CO CN CM CO o o CM CM ro rCM CT> O CM •cj< o [— •^ rCM CM H O rCO CM cn CM rH o ro CO rH rH O o CM en o g o r-i o ^JD LT1 CO in en T5 G •H cu m >1 CD G nd e 9 m X! CO cu •P g a, r-\ s co d C X! CD G g (1) co P tti +J m XI cu CD X H 4-1 rrj cu -P p X! x -p rd & t g M rrj CO & P x cP -P P C Cn-iH rrj G co -P • -p -p •H o G xi •$. m t3 rd i •H >, D 1 cu •H -H P T3 co rrj rH -P & H cu CO fl X m CD H O fti X: C rH -P CU -P CO G O CU -P g tn rd cu Sn (TS CT> rrj G a) CU rH c CO p. S C CD ^ fO X X G rH to P rH rd cu •p > & CO 5 O rd rH fl 3 rH o six iH CO g CCS cu Pj i Cfl o H^O H X •H X >( 3 H rd u o -P iH o co mod O CH4-) X X2 •H G CD G g ft u < Cm W ec; ; PI • • 0) cr> o rH CM ro "5* in K£> 4-1 a rH rH r^ rH rH rH •-\ H a a a a a a a

PAGE 97

82 Q in W H D Z W H h-l H PQ 2 •3 O H o o U3 & co 01 0> \a CO ^ Q rH CTi o O rH CO rH CM 0\ a W H O rH o H O rH rH O ta u 3 a LO T, o ro kO CO O^ in CN Eh rtf 03 H o O in CO CO CO CD • • • • • • • £ OJ CM CO CM OJ rH CN CN CO 0) • LT) O Cn CO o CO P o in H Q O O O CO "* ^D o CO CO H H CO H rH rH O rH O rH rH o > tfl 0) G g ro en cn O OJ U5 in ^£> r* •H rd 00 ro •* 00 co CM CO CN cn rrj CD • • • • • • • O £ CN CN CO rH OJ rH CN CN ro CT> t> CO y3 CO >* CO 00 CM Q O o\ o l> CN CO H CN cn rH CO H o rH o rH o rH rH O rd +J O H g LT) ro 04 cn CN rCO CO CD (0 CO OJ ^ On rH "St< CO CO CO tn O M o • G 5 4J > 0) tn 0) rH g 0) s M-J rH G rH rH 0) a m •H (0 • X) £1 4-) u 3 4-> .G 4-1 O 4-> rd 4-J rj 1 (D o g U 3 4-) rH rd rd a) G CD 5 M w H co frj g G ^ 0) xt rd g u M n d) g >i CO >i -H ,G rd Q) co CD a) TS 5 d) H J3 > m a, re 4-> a U) jG G a M QJ g -H -H 4-> H n3 Xi a) -P rrj >1 T3 g G CH rH 0) X) rd 4J a) 3 n^ -H £ i co •H M a. rH 43 to • a) CD •H M 4-1 G •H 4-1 u -H CD g G H M rH £1 £h o o a; x rH rd o • T3 nj g >t •H o 4J 3 a • O tn H rH n3 a) H en c G IW H g T3 H rd G •H rd T3 • 3 •H H CD rd (D ,G CD a> cn H X3 a) m Cn g o •H co co m co >i T5 X u g CP a G 03 rd CD T5 >1 3 M T3 H A a) 4J rd o •H 03 m 'a 0) g 0) rH > Ph -a 0) rd rd M H S-l G .Q CO G H S-l G g 3 4-> xi g O o •H £ .G 0) T! H t> MO C u •H CO 4-> o CM (0 H 4-1 3 W 0) G H w Q H CO D 04 B W • v v i CD r~CO CT\ o rH CN ro ^ m 4-) rH rH rH OJ H H H H H H a a a a Td (D G -H 4-> O CJ

PAGE 98

83 Q ID H H D S W H 3 H CQ 3 3 O H u ^ CO rH l> Q en o rH CN O c en o rH rH rH rH w o 3 G vr> VO LD 00 rH Eh rd a) co CO rH cn \o S co CM CO rH CM (1) r en rC^ a\ rH Q CO Cn 00 o en H •H en o O o rH O > CO CD £ c "* en *f rH CO •H (0 ** CO rH o •tf rd a) O S co CM CO CM CM • CM to \o n CO a en o o CM O • • • % • • H en O rH rH rH rH rd p Eh a CO r LT) 0> CO tO CO CO rH en in CD a m CM CO rH CM H fd > u rd a, M a to td CO to -P C •H CD CD •H ^0 u o CO a Cn 13 X • o tf o u CD cu •H XI S co co 4J H CD cd 3 • -P U u -P O O CO T5 CO -4-1 X) U CO T3 -H -H rd a X> > H CD CD rd o rrj e XI enX cu • rH rH p 4J CD > G H H H td X' •rH > X! s & CO 4-3 H § CU H +J T3 0) > s CU fd 3 td o H td H CO X> X! LQ M-i !h H 13 u 3 CD CD CD CD o P t M > res fO xi u O rH a a P -p G -H n3 o CO Cn o +J H H H H rH H H & rH CD M U J 0) M CD XI • En P CX CD • O p a a CD o C ft w U Eh en A W CD Eh £ cn -P CD X! Xj P P -H > XI P P H fi 3: CD S P CD g fl CD a CD U T3 CO CD g en rH CD p CD rd CD S MH CD en e -H O U CD P G tnP i'C CD CD >1 td rd in H g P rH O o CD CD MH CD CO -H rH > en en CD n3 H P S 1 li II II II II rd -h H CM CO m H CO rH xi g H CD CD u CD CD M en rd CO ti CD •H P H g CD rH P CD •H Xi P CO CD CJi •H H CO Q X H a C P H >i •H CD >i rd a, H rd CD rH a to en -P U Cn o a 0) fi CD M en a U CD CD rd a rH M O CO rH rd co u O P tP G H P cd a CM en < D Q CO g rd M-l o CD ll II II II II X g CO 1 en CD rH CM m ^r in H g H H X CD td a P u
PAGE 99

84 number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the amount of time between the STEP course and the SPAT. Ho la. There is no significant difference between males and females on each item of the SPAT The mean, standard deviation and F value for each item by sex are reported in Table 16. Statistically significant differences at the .05 level were found for four items. Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Q12. Pity tells a child that she or he is incapable. Q18. Each family member has an equal vote in decisions at family meetings. In each of these four items, men were more in agreement with STEP concepts than were women. The greatest difference was expressed in Q18. Men were more in agreement with the concept of equal votes for all family members at family meetings. However, men constituted only 11 percent of the survey population. The null hypothesis was not rejected as there were no significant differences on the other 26 items. Ho lb. Th'ere is no significant difference between respondents due to age on each item of the SPAT The reported ages of respondents were placed into four groups: Group 1 2 3-29, Group 2 30-35, Group 3 36-40, and Group 4 41-65.

PAGE 100

85 TABLE 16 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX Female Male Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ql 2.73 1.19 2.46 1.24 1.09 Q2 1.84 0.86 2.11 0.95 1.21 Q3 2.08 1.00 2.32 0.87 1.32 Q4 1.59 0.83 1.43 0.50 2.76 Q5 2.43 1.13 2.37 1.05 1.15 Q6 2.45 1.10 2.86 1.16 1.10* Q7 3.95 0.81 3.68 0.84 1.07 Q8 1.88 0.88 2.03 0.82 1.14 Q9 2.87 1.08 3.00 1.11 1.06 Q10 3.35 1.07 2.95 1.00 1.15* Qll 2.27 0.74 2.50 0.65 1.27 Q12 2.01 0.82 2.39 1.00 1.50* Q13 2.52 1.23 2.79 1.04 1.39 Q14 4.09 0.93 3.97 0.91 1.03 Q15 2.85 1.19 2.79 0.99 1.45 Q16 2.06 1.08 2.26 1.11 1.06 Q17 2.86 1.11 2.63 0.91 1.47 Q18 2.19 0.94 2.71 1.09 1.33* Q19 3.42 1.08 3.36 1.02 1.10 Q20 1.98 0.77 1.89 0.46 2.80

PAGE 101

TABLE 16 CONTINUED 86 Female Item Male N21 N22 N2 3 N2 4 N25 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 Mean S.D. Mean S.D. 1.78 2.11 2.01 2.33 1.56 2.37 2. 30 3.89 3.41 2.89 3.15 1.94 0.76 0.80 0.70 0.87 0.70 2.17 1.27 1.48 0.84 1.13 1.27 0.93 0.91 1.07 1.06 1.92 0.73 2.06 0.79 2.23 2.43 1.34 2.47 3.17 2.78 3.08 1.22 2.33 0.88 0.92 1.80 0.87 2.26 1.12 0.68 1.23 2.67 1.29 3.58 0.81 2.58 1.04 2.64 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.24 0.83 1.09 1.03 1.56 1.11 1.56 1.27 1.52 1.19 1.02 1.33 1.16 1.17 1.08 1.04 1.57 : p < .05

PAGE 102

87 The results of the ANOVA by these groups are reported in Table 17. Seven of the items had a statistically significant difference at the .05 level. Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. Qll. A child's behavior is for one of four goals. Q20. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. 12. Used physical punishment. 14. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 19. Had trouble with bedtime. 110. Did not have a good response to a child's misbehavior. Differences between Group 4 (the older respondents) and Group 1 (the younger respondents) were found in the majority of these items. For example, Group 4 respondents were more in agreement than Group 1 with the statement that physical punishment should not be used on children (Q9) They also reported a significantly more seldom use of physical punishment than Group 1 and 2 respondents (12) Older respondents also reported significantly less frequent mealtime reminders (14) and less trouble at bedtime (19) Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho lc. There is no significant difference between single-parent homes and two-parent homes (at the time of the SPAT survey) on each item of the SPAT The null hypothesis was not rejected, as only 2 of the 30 items had a significant difference at the .05 level.

PAGE 103

88 TABLE 17 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP Group Sum of Mean Item Source df Squares Square Ql Between Within 3 340 4.21 484.35 1.40 1.42 0.98 Q2 Between Within 3 351 2.38 277.66 0.79 0.79 1.00 Q3 Between Within 3 349 4.85 347.47 1.62 1.00 1.62 Q4 Between Within 3 349 2.09 241.35 0.70 0.69 1.01 Q5 Between Within 3 348 5.56 445.18 1.85 1.28 1.45 Q6 Between Within 3 348 1.86 440.14 0.62 1.26 0.49 Q7 Between Within 3 349 1.27 235.10 0.42 0.67 0.63 Q8 Between Within 3 350 4.91 263.82 1.64 0.75 2.17 Q9 Between Within 3 348 13.82 407.29 4.61 1.17 3.94* Q10 Between Within 3 348 1.57 397.29 0.5] 1.14 0.46 Qll Between Within 3 339 4.78 183.69 1.59 0.54 2.94* Q12 Between Within 3 346 1.03 259.83 0.34 0.75 0.46 Q13 Between Within 3 346 Cont 3.21 517.46 inued 1.07 1.50 0.71

PAGE 104

89 TABLE 17 CONTINUED Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Q14 Between Within 3 345 6.24 290.35 2.08 0.84 2.47 Q15 Between Within 3 345 3.93 479.71 1.31 1.39 0.94 Q16 Between Within 3 345 7.21 405.03 2.40 1.17 2.05 Q17 Between Within 3 345 4.97 408.67 1.66 1.18 1.40 Q18 Between Within 3 347 0.74 328.10 0.25 0.95 0.26 Q19 Between Within 3 144 1.13 391.77 0.38 1.14 0.33 Q20 Between Within 3 335 5.30 190.59 1.77 0.57 3.11* 11 Between Within 3 303 1.68 481.98 0.56 1.59 0.35 12 Between Within 3 334 12.65 227.61 4.22 0.68 6.19* 13 Between Within 3 334 0.63 432.90 0.21 1.30 0.16 14 ] 15 Between Within 3 337 26.08 531.13 8.69 1.58 5.52* Between Within 3 341 5.39 287. 37 1.80 0.84 2.13 16 Between Within 3 322 Conti 2.02 272.57 nued 0.67 0.85 0.79

PAGE 105

TABLE 17 CONTINUED 90 Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square 17 18 19 110 Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within 3 341 3 338 3 334 3 338 14.93 372.20 0.92 384.47 13.86 497.06 17.78 341.74 4.98 4.56 1.09 0.31 0.27 1.14 5.62 3.10* 1.49 5.93 5.86* 1.01 c p < .05

PAGE 106

91 Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Means, standard deviations, and the F value for marital status are reported in Table 18. Ho Id. There is no significant difference between family sizes on each item of the SPAT Table 19 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA which was performed on each item by the number of children reported living at home at the time of the SPAT survey by each respondent. Parents reporting one child were significantly more in agreement with the statement that physical punishment should not be used on children. They were also more in agreement that misbehavior has a purpose. Six of the 30 items had a significant difference at the .05 level. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Q8. Encouragement is more effective than praise in motivating children. Qll. A child's misbehavior is for one of four goals. Q19. Disobedience is a personal challenge to my authority as a parent. Q20. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. 18. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 107

92 TABLE 18 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS Single Parent Home Two Parent Home Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ql 2.72 1.17 2.70 1.20 1.06 Q2 1.95 0.96 1.85 0.86 1.24 Q3 2.03 0.93 2.11 1.00 1.15 Q4 1.52 0.68 1.59 0.84 1.52 Q5 2.65 1.19 2.39 1.11 1.14 Q6 2.20 0.88 2.54 1.13 1.65 Q7 4.20 0.56 3.89 0.84 2.24* Q8 2.00 0.68 1.89 0.90 1.75 Q9 2.62 1.09 2.90 1.09 1.01 Q10 2.92 1.13 3.36 1.05 1.16* QH 2.36 0.58 2.29 0.75 1.66 Q12 2.24 0.88 2.04 0.85 1.07 Q13 2.36 1.04 2.57 1.23 1.41 Q14 4.13 0.86 4.08 0.93 1.16 Q15 2.59 1.12 2.89 1.18 1.11 Q16 1.97 0.97 2.09 1.09 1.26 Q17 3.00 1.04 2.82 1.09 1.11 Q18 2.25 0.95 2.24 0.97 1.03 019 3.33 1.30 3.43 1.03 1.59 Q20 2.08 0.65 1.96 0.76 1.37 Continued

PAGE 108

93 TABLE 18 CONTINUED Single Parent Home Two Parent Home Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. N21 1.82 0.72 1.79 0.77 1.13 N22 2.13 0.80 2.10 0.80 1.01 N23 2.08 0.77 2.03 0.72 1.15 N24 2.41 0.97 2.33 0.87 1.24 N25 1.59 0.75 1.58 0.72 1.10 11 2.22 1.42 2.18 1.24 1.31 12 1.31 0.58 1.48 0.85 2.13 13 2.37 1.16 2.40 1.13 1.05 14 2.23 1.24 2.35 1.28 1.08 15 3.83 0.84 3.85 0.93 1.22 16 3.49 0.89 3.36 0.93 1.10 17 2.67 0.96 2.89 1.07 1.26 18 2.86 0.99 3.18 1.07 1.17 19 2.09 1.29 1.97 1.22 1.12 HO 2.53 0.97 2.60 1.03 1.13

PAGE 109

94 TABLE 19 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Mean Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares Ql 2.28 Q2 2.99 Q3 4.71 Q4 2.89 Q5 2.30 Q6 7.39 Q7 9.46 Q8 1.90 Q9 14.46 Q10 0.63 Qll 5.52 Q12 1.05 Q13 7.28 Q14 1.63 Q15 3.35 Q16 2.14 Q17 1.02 0.2C 390.27 Q18 3.82 Q19 11.28 Q20 7.25 0.57 472.29 0.75 254.26 1.18 327.02 0.72 225.29 0.58 411.53 1.85 409.10 2.37 221.38 0.48 260.95 3.61 381.71 0.16 380.12 1.38 169.62 0.26 238.19 1.82 480.05 0.41 278.65 0.84 443. 77 0.54 390. 80 0.26 390.27 0.95 306.13 2.82 367.51 1.81 174.55 Continued 1.45 0.39 0.76 0.99 0.98 1.20 0.67 1.07 1.24 0.47 1.23 1.50 0.66 3.57* 0.78 0.61 1.15 3.15* 1.14 0.14 0.52 2.64* 0.72 0.36 1.45 1.25 0.84 0.48 1.34 0.62 1.18 0.45 1.18 0.22 0.92 1.03 1.11 2.53* 0.55 3.32*

PAGE 110

95 TABLE 19 CONTINUED Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Mean Sura of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares F N21 0.92 0.23 182.94 N22 0.82 0.21 202.42 N23 0.35 0.09 164.13 N24 2.74 0.69 242.34 N25 2.54 0.63 161.24 11 8.04 2.01 464.88 12 6.01 1.50 220.19 13 4.69 1.17 419.66 14 8.99 2.25 531.98 15 1.43 0.36 283.73 16 0.91 0.23 269.31 17 7.59 1.90 371.92 18 17.55 4.39 359.55 19 7.09 1.77 489.83 HO 6.81 1.70 341.81 *p < .05 0.57 0.40 0.63 0.33 0.51 0.17 0.76 0.91 0.50 1.27 1.58 1.27 0.68 2.22 1.29 0.91 1.62 1.38 0.85 0.42 0.86 0.26 1.12 1.69 1.09 4.01* 1.50 1.18 1.04 1.64

PAGE 111

96 Ho le. There is no significant difference between time groups on each item of the SPAT Item analyses by time group (Table 20) produced only one difference which was not due to large difference in the size of the time groups. Q5. Giving rewards teaches children to expect pay-offs for cooperation. On this item, those who had taken the STEP course in Gainesville in the Spring, 1979, differed significantly at the .05 level with those in Gainesville who had taken the course in the Spring, 1980. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Hypothesis Two: Gainesville It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between respondents in Gainesville on the SPAT items based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status, and number of children living at home. Ho 2a. There is no significant difference between males and females in Gainesville on each item of the SPAT An examination of the item means by sex in Gainesville (Table 21) shows that four items had a significant difference at the .05 level. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Q17. Ignoring a misbehavior is a consequence. Q18. Each family member has an equal vote in decisions at family meetings. N2 5. I would recommend the STEP course to other parents.

PAGE 112

97 TABLE 20 ITEM ANALYSIS BY TIME GROUPS IN GAINESVILLE AND TUCSON ONEWAY ANOVA 1.74 375.94 0.80 227.94 2.28 281.58 0.78 184.08 3.22 337.68 1.78 342.91 0.56 189.61 0.97 203.12 1.41 324.34 1.33 318.56 1.11 141.70 0.64 215.90 2.96 374.66 1.07 233.05 1.95 361.62 2.07 323.45 0.63 336.00 0.88 253.57 0.95 302.24 0.70 150.03 Continued Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Mean Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares F Ql 17.37 Q2 8.00 Q3 22.79 Q4 7.80 Q5 32.22 Q6 17.77 Q7 5.63 Q8 9.71 Q9 14.12 Q10 13.25 Qll 11.12 Q12 6.38 Q13 29.62 Q14 10.66 Q15 19.55 Q16 20.69 Q17 6.32 Q18 8.80 Q19 9.52 Q20 6.96 1.41 1.23 0.83 0.96 1.03 2.21* 0.69 1.15 1.24 2.60* 1.26 1.41 0.69 0.81 0.74 1.31 1.19 1.18 1.17 1.13 0.53 2.08* 0. 80 0.80 1.38 2.15 0.87 1.23 1.33 1.46 1.19 1.73 1.24 0.51 0.94 0.94 1.12 0.85 0.58 1.20

PAGE 113

98 TABLE 2 CONTINUED ONEWAY ANOVA Between Sum of Groups Mean Within Groups Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares F N21 8.20 0.82 163.13 0.63 1.30 N2 2 5.94 0.59 157.91 0.61 0.97 N23 4.03 0.40 140. 33 0.55 0.74 N2 4 5.29 0.54 205.01 0.80 0.66 N25 4.49 0.45 143.23 0.55 0.81 11 27.20 2.72 341.11 1.46 1.86* 12 9.49 0.95 191.01 0.73 1.31 13 22.86 2.29 331.34 1.27 1.79 14 15.91 1.59 423.30 1.61 0.99 15 11.90 1.19 217.75 0.82 1.46 16 8.34 0.73 225.21 0.90 0.82 17 13.41 1.34 309.54 1.16 1.16 18 18.19 1.82 308.70 1.17 1.56 19 8.81 0.88 394.10 1.51 0.58 110 8.91 0.89 273.65 1.03 0.86 •'p < .05

PAGE 114

99 TABLE 21 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX FOR GAINESVILLE Item Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Qll Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2 Female Mai e Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 2.55 1.16 1.86 0.69 2.82 1.94 0.92 2.14 1.34 2.14 2.18 0.96 2.00 0.58 2.76 1.54 0.80 1.29 0.49 2.71 2.59 1.07 3.14 1.46 1.88 2.64 1.12 3.14 0.90 1.54 4.03 0.72 3.71 0.95 1.73 1.82 0.76 2.29 1.25 2.74 3.08 1.11 3.57 0.98 1.29 3.45 1.04 2.43 0.53 3.79* 2. 37 0.83 2.43 0.79 1.11 1.97 0.77 2.43 1.13 2.17 2.66 1.34 2.86 0.90 2.20 4.27 0.94 4.00 1.00 1.14 3.03 1.28 2.57 0.79 2.66 1.94 1.08 2.57 1.40 1.67 2.92 1.06 2.00 0.58 3.36* 2.27 0. 95 3.57 0.79 1.47* 3.45 1.11 3.71 0.95 1.37 1.80 0. 71 1.71 0.49 2.10 Continued

PAGE 115

100 Item N21 N22 N2 3 N2 4 N25 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 *p < .05 TABLE 21 CONTINUED Female Male Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 1.69 0.63 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.09 0.83 2.29 0.76 1.21 1.96 0.68 2.43 0.79 1.32 2.25 0.86 2.57 0.79 1.19 1.52 0.59 2.14 1.34 5.23* 2.60 1.42 2.57 1.27 1.25 1.27 0.65 1.29 0.49 1.77 2.38 1.03 2.29 1.38 1.78 2.20 1.28 3.00 1.41 1.22 3.97 0.88 4.14 0.69 1.61 3.45 0.83 3.29 1.25 2.26 2.85 1.00 3.29 0.95 1.10 3.17 0.87 2.86 0.90 1.07 2.00 1.12 2.29 0.76 2.19 2.43 1.01 2.57 0.53 3.61

PAGE 116

101 Men were more in agreement with the STEP concept that mistakes should not be used as a learning process. They also were more in agreement with the concept of equal votes for all members at a family meeting. However, they did not have as strong an agreement with a basic STEP concept: ignoring a misbehavior can be considered a consequence. Gainesville men were significantly more in agreement with the recommendation of the STEP course for other parents. However, there were only seven men, in contrast to sixtyseven women, in the Gainesville sample. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho 2b. There is no significant difference between respondents in Gainesville due to age on each item of the SPAT The results of the ANOVA by the four age groups are reported in Table 22. There was no significant difference between any of the age groups on any of the 30 items of the SPAT. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho 2c. There is no significant difference between oneand two-parent homes in Gainesville on the items of the SPAT The item analyses by marital status for Gainesville (Table 23) showed that only two of the items on the SPAT were significantly different at the .05 level. Q5. Giving rewards teaches children to expect pay-offs for cooperation. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Although these two questions produced statistically significant differences, the small number of single parent

PAGE 117

TABLE 2 2 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP IN GAINESVILLE 102 Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Qll Q12 Q13 Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within 3 69 3 71 3 70 3 71 3 70 3 70 3 70 3 71 3 69 3 70 3 67 3 69 1.09 92.13 0.47 67.32 1.59 61.78 1.04 43.70 7.12 82.03 7.54 85.50 1.10 39.88 1.26 47.41 8.46 78.17 1.71 77.44 2.13 44.35 0.14 47.86 8.40 114.47 0.36 0.27 1.32 0.16 0.16 0.95 0.53 0.60 0.88 0.35 0.56 0.62 2.37 2.02 1.17 2.51 2.06 1.22 0.37 0.64 0.57 0.42 0.63 0.67 2.82 2.49 1.13 0.57 0.51 1.11 0.71 1.07 0.66 0.05 0.07 0. 69 2.80 1.66 1.68

PAGE 118

TABLE 2 2 CONTINUED 103 Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q2 II 12 13 14 15 16 Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within 3 4.97 70 59.15 3 3.52 67 107.47 3 9.35 68 78.65 3 0.46 68 77.54 3 1.48 70 72.15 3 2.86 68 81.12 3 3.43 70 30.53 3 4.95 67 131.79 3 0.59 68 27.39 3 0.62 70 82.25 3 2.30 70 121.82 3 1.03 70 51.95 3 5.41 68 49.37 Cont. Lnued 1.66 1.96 0.84 1.17 0.73 1.60 3.12 2.69 1.16 0.15 0.13 1.14 0.49 0.48 1.03 0.95 0.80 1.19 1.14 2.62 0.44 1.65 0.84 1.97 0.20 0.49 0.40 0.21 0.17 1.17 0.77 0.44 1.74 0.34 0.46 0.74 1.80 2.53 0.71

PAGE 119

TABLE 22 CONTINUED 104 Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square 17 Between 3 0.12 0.04 0.04 Within 70 71.02 1.01 18 Between 3 2.69 0.90 1.21 Within 70 51.96 0.74 19 Between 3 1.67 0.56 0.46 Within 69 83.32 1.21 110 Between 3 3.37 1.12 1.16 Within 69 66.47 0.96

PAGE 120

105 TABLE 23 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS FOR GAINESVILLE Single Parent Home Two Parent Home Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F Ql 2.00 1.00 2.53 1.14 1.30 Q2 2.11 0.93 1.95 0.97 1.08 Q3 2.67 1.22 2.10 0.87 1.96 Q4 1.67 1.00 1.48 0.76 1.75 Q5 3.67 0.71 2.51 1.09 2.38* Q6 2.56 0.88 2.73 1.12 1.63 Q7 4.00 0.71 4.00 0.76 1.16 Q8 2.33 0.71 1.81 0.81 1.33 Q9 3.00 1.41 3.14 1.07 1.73 Q10 2.67 1.00 3.44 1.03 1.06* QH 2.37 0.52 2.38 0.86 2.76 Q12 2.50 0.93 1.95 0.79 1.37 Q13 2.33 0.71 2.74 1.36 3.73 Q14 4.33 0.87 4.24 0.96 1.24 Q15 2.67 1.12 3.05 1.27 1.29 Q16 1.67 0.50 2.05 1.19 5.66 Q17 2.78 0.83 2.82 1.09 1.70 Q18 2.22 1.09 2.43 1.01 1.17 Q19 3.33 1.32 3.49 1.07 1.52 Q20 2.00 0.50 1.76 0.71 2.03 Continued

PAGE 121

106 TABLE 23 CONTINUED Item Single Parent Home Two Parent Home Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 1.89 0.60 1.70 0.68 1.29 2.00 0.50 2.12 0.86 2.98 2.00 0.50 2.00 0. 73 2.16 2.22 0.67 2.30 0.88 1.76 1.67 0.50 1.57 0.73 2.16 2.78 1.56 2.60 1.38 1.28 1.11 0.33 1.30 0.67 4.00 2.44 1.01 2.38 1.07 1.11 2.44 1.24 2.24 1.33 1.16 4.22 0.67 3.94 0.88 1.73 3.78 0.67 3. 38 0.90 1.81 2.78 0.83 2.90 1.03 1.52 3.33 0.71 3.11 0.90 1.62 2.00 1.00 2.02 1.11 1.23 2.44 0.88 2.47 0.99 1.25 N21 N2 2 N23 N2 4 N25 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 *p < .05

PAGE 122

107 homes in Gainesville makes these results not substantively significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho 2d. There is no significant difference between family sizes in Gainesville on each item of the SPAT Only one of the items (Table 24) produced a significant difference at the .05 level. Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Hypothesis Three: Tucson It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between respondents on the SPAT items, based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status, and number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey. Ho 3a. There is no significant difference between males and females in Tucson on each item of the SPAT This null hypothesis was not rejected. Only one of the items on the SPAT (see Table 25) showed a significant difference (.05). Q12. Pity tells a child that she or he is incapable. Men were significantly more in agreement with the STEP concept which suggests that parents avoid use of pity. However, this survey did not receive a large percentage of responses from males. The ratio of females to males responding to the SPAT survey for this study was nine to one.

PAGE 123

108 TABLE 2 4 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY IN GAINESVILLE Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Mean Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares Ql 4.99 Q2 0.79 Q3 5.76 Q4 1.77 Q5 3.56 Q6 12.29 Q7 0.25 Q8 0.96 Q9 4.50 Q10 1.07 Qll 0.23 Q12 1.41 Q13 9.16 Q14 0.91 Q15 11.12 Q15 0.45 Q17 3.11 Q18 0.85 Q19 5.67 Q20 1.52 1.66 87.00 0.26 66.09 1.92 56.26 0.59 42.71 1.19 85.18 4.10 75.46 0.08 39.75 0.32 47.69 1.50 81. 38 0.36 77.67 0.08 46.11 0.47 45.58 4.58 108.39 0.30 62.65 3.71 95.86 0.15 87.55 1.04 74.86 0.28 72.63 2.84 78.04 0.51 32.40 Continued 1.28 1.30 0.94 0.28 0.82 2.36 0.61 0.97 1.23 0.96 1.09 3.75* 0.58 0.14 0.68 0.47 1.20 1.25 1.13 0.32 0.70 0.11 0.67 0.70 1.59 2.87 0. 91 0.33 1.45 2.55 1.31 0.11 1.12 0.93 1.05 0.27 1.15 2.47 0.47 1.08

PAGE 124

109 TABLE 2 4 CONTINUED Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Mean Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares N21 1.30 0.43 31.74 N22 1.12 0.37 48.02 N23 1.59 0.53 34.41 N24 1.50 0.50 51.54 N25 3.14 1.05 32.70 11 12.04 4.01 122.76 12 0.23 0.08 27.68 13 0.26 0.09 80.76 14 5.49 1.83 117.03 15 2.36 0.79 50.63 16 0.37 0.12 53.10 17 2.91 0.97 68.21 18 1.91 0.64 52.72 19 1.34 0.45 82.60 110 1.26 0.42 66.51 *p < .05 0.45 0.95 0.69 0.54 0.49 1.08 0.74 0.68 0.47 2.21 1.86 2.16 0.41 0.19 1.17 0.07 1.70 1.08 0.73 1.07 0.79 0.15 0.99 0.98 0.76 0.83 1.21 0.37 0.98 0.43

PAGE 125

110 Item Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Qll Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 TABLE 25 ITEM ANALYSIS BY SEX FOR TUCSON Female Mai e Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 2.78 1.19 2.60 1.30 1.19 1.81 0.85 2.10 0.87 1.05 2.05 1.01 2.39 0.92 1.21 1.60 0.84 1.47 0.51 2.76 2.38 1.14 2.19 0.87 1.71 2.40 1.09 2.80 1.21 1.23 3.93 0.84 3.68 0.83 1.01 1.90 0.91 1.97 0.71 1.66 2.81 1.07 2.87 1.12 1.08 3. 33 1.08 3.07 1.05 1.06 2.24 0.71 2.52 0.63 1.26 2.02 0.83 2.39 0.99 1.42* 2.48 1.20 2.77 1.09 1.22 4.04 0.92 3.97 0.91 1.02 2.81 1.17 2.84 1.04 1.27 2.09 1.07 2.19 1.05 1.06 2.84 1.12 2. 77 0.92 1.48 2.16 0.94 2.52 1.06 1.27 3.41 1.07 3.29 1.04 1.06 2.03 0.78 1.93 0.45 3.00 Continued

PAGE 126

Ill Item N21 N22 N2 3 N24 N25 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 *p < .05 TABLE 25 CONTINUED Female Male Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 1.80 0.80 1.90 0.67 1.40 2.12 0.80 2.00 0.80 1.01 2.03 0.71 2.18 0.90 1.63 2.35 0.87 2.39 0.96 1.20 1.57 0.72 1.71 0.71 1.03 2.04 1.19 2.17 1.09 1.20 1.54 0. 88 1.36 0.73 1.45 2.37 1.16 2.52 1.21 1.10 2.33 1.27 2.59 1.27 1.01 3.87 0.94 3.45 0.78 1.46 3.39 0.94 3.14 0.93 1.01 2.90 1.09 2.66 0.97 1.26 3.15 1.11 3.14 1.06 1.10 1.92 1.25 2.34 1.34 1.16 2.62 1.05 2.66 0.90 1.37

PAGE 127

112 Ho 3b. There is no significant difference between respondents in Tucson due to age on each item of the SPAT Table 26 indicates that there were significant differences between age groups on 6 of the 30 items of the SPAT. Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. 12. Used physical punishment. 14. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 17. Used a loud voice to show disapproval. 19. Had trouble with bedtime. 110. Did not have a good response to a child's misbehavior. Significant differences were found between the older respondents (Age Group 4) and younger respondents on all of the six items. For example, Group 4 respondents reported less frequent use of physical punishment (12) troubles at mealtime (14), or use of a loud voice to show disapproval. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 3c. There is no significant difference between oneand two-parent homes in Tucson on the items of the SP AT. The item analyses by marital status for Tucson respondents (Table 2 7) showed that only two items on the SPAT were significantly different at the .05 level. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Q8. Encouragement is more effective than praise in motivating children. Single-parent homes had less agreement with the concept of making sure that their children ate all of their food.

PAGE 128

113 TABLE 2 6 ITEM ANOVA BY AGE GROUP IN TUCSON Group Sum of Mean Item Source df Squares Square Ql Between Within Q2 Between Within Q3 Between Within Q4 Between Within Q5 Between Within Q6 Between Within Q7 Between Within Q8 Between Within Q9 Between Within Q10 Between Within Qll Between Within Q12 Between Within Q13 Between Within 3 267 4.31 387.62 3 276 3.64 208.06 3 275 5.76 283.00 3 274 1.25 196.79 3 274 5.49 352.55 3 274 1.10 343.48 3 275 2.17 192.59 3 275 4.88 215.05 3 275 15.17 313.91 3 274 1.07 318.33 3 268 3.68 137.95 3 273 1.44 211.12 3 274 7.12 388.36 Cont. Lnued 1.44 0.99 1.45 1.21 1.61 0.75 1.92 1.86 1.03 0.42 0.58 0.72 1.83 1.42 1.29 0.37 0.29 1.25 0.72 1.03 0.70 1.63 2.08 0.78 5.06 4.43 1.14 0.36 0.31 1.16 1.23 2.38 0.51 0.48 0.62 0.77 2.37 1.67 1.42

PAGE 129

TABLE 26 CONTINUED 114 Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 II 12 13 14 15 16 Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within Between Within 3 271 2.93 226.70 3 277 4.26 365.85 3 273 2.59 320.94 3 273 5.10 330.53 3 273 0.75 252.11 3 272 1.48 307.07 3 261 3.62 155.07 3 232 7.45 322.60 3 262 14.70 193.56 3 260 0.44 350.15 3 263 25.48 407.12 3 267 4.80 233.34 3 250 1.69 218.71 Con tinued 0.98 1.17 0.84 1.42 1.06 1.34 0.86 0.73 1.18 1.70 1.40 1.21 0.25 0.27 0.92 0.49 0.44 1.13 1.21 2.03 0.59 2.48 1.78 1.39 4.90 6.63* 0.74 0.15 0.11 1.35 8.49 5.49* 1.55 1.60 1.83 0.87 0.56 0.64 0.87

PAGE 130

TABLE 26 CONTINUED 115 Item Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square 17 Between Within 3 267 18.42 297.53 6.14 1.11 5.51* 18 Between Within 3 264 1.77 328.95 0.59 1.25 0.47 19 Between Within 3 261 13.82 412.05 4.61 1.58 2.92* 110 Between Within 3 265 19.91 267.65 6.64 1.01 6.57*


PAGE 131

116 TABLE 27 ITEM ANALYSIS BY CURRENT MARITAL STATUS FOR TUCSON Single Parent Home Two Parent Home Item Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 2.93 1.14 2.75 1.21 1.13 1.90 0.98 1.83 0.83 1.38 1.83 0.75 2.12 1.03 1.90 1.48 0.57 1.62 0.86 2.26 2.35 1.14 2.36 1.12 1.05 2.10 0.87 2.49 1.13 1.70 4.26 0.51 3.87 0.86 2.81* 1.90 0.65 1.91 0.92 1.99* 2.52 1.00 2. 84 1.08 1.18 3.00 1.17 3.33 1.06 1.22 2.35 0.61 2.26 0.72 1.41 2.17 0.87 2.06 0. 87 1.02 2.37 1.13 2.53 1.20 1.12 4.07 0. 87 4.03 0.92 1.12 2.57 1.13 2.85 1.15 1.03 2.07 1.07 2.10 1. 07 1.00 3.06 1.09 2.82 1.10 1.01 2.26 0.93 2.18 0. 95 1.05 3.33 1. 32 3.41 1.02 1.66 2.11 0.70 Continued 2.01 0.76 1.20 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Qll Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

PAGE 132

117 TABLE 27 CONTINUED Item Single Parent Home Two Parent Home Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F 1.80 0.76 1.81 0. 79 1.08 2.17 0.87 2.10 0.79 1.23 2.10 0. 84 2.04 0.72 1.38 2.47 1.04 2.34 0.86 1.46 1.57 0. 82 1.59 0.71 1.32 1.94 1.30 2.07 1.18 1.22 1.38 0.64 1.53 0. 89 1.94 2. 35 1.23 2.40 1.15 1.14 2.15 1.25 2.38 1.27 1.03 3.70 0.87 3.83 0.95 1.19 3.38 0.94 3.35 0.94 1.00 2.63 1.01 2.89 1.09 1.17 2.70 1.03 3.20 1.12 1.17 2.12 1.39 1.96 1.25 1.24 2.56 1.01 2.63 1.04 1.06 N21 N22 N2 3 N24 N25 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 110 *p < .05

PAGE 133

118 However, the small number of single-parent homes in Tucson makes these results not substantively significant. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho 3d. There is no significant difference between family sizes in Tucson on each item of the SPAT Item analyses of the items (Table 28) by family size showed that there was a significant difference at the 05 level on four of the SPAT items. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Qll. A child's misbehavior is for one of four goals Q20. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. 18. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments. An examination of these differences showed that onechild families most frequently differ with other family sizes. For example, respondents with one child reported significantly fewer incidents (2.7) of reminding a child about chores or other commitments, as compared with respondents reporting four children (3.7). However, the null hypothesis was not rejected for the Tucson respondents based on reported family size. Hypothesis Four: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Geographic Location It was hypothesized that there would be no significant interaction on the SPAT items between the demographic

PAGE 134

119 TABLE 28 ITEM ANALYSIS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME AT THE TIME OF THE SPAT SURVEY IN TUCSON Between Sum of Groups Mean Within Groups Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares F Ql 3.12 0.78 374.98 1.48 0.53 Q2 2.88 0.72 186.54 0.71 1.01 Q3 3.89 0.97 265.57 1.02 0.95 Q4 2.57 0.64 180.61 0. 69 0.93 Q5 4.15 1.04 315.91 1.21 0.85 Q6 5.64 1.41 319.92 1.23 1.15 Q7 9.75 2.44 180.51 0.69 3.52* Q8 2.38 0.59 211.53 0.81 0.73 Q9 10.29 2.57 295.10 1.13 2.27 Q10 0.42 0.10 301.43 1.16 0.09 Qll 6.68 1.69 121.47 0.48 3.49* Q12 1.36 0.34 190.79 0.74 0.46 Q13 4.70 1.18 363.52 1.40 0.84 Q14 3.19 0.80 210.67 0.82 0.97 Q15 1.29 0.32 337. 37 1.30 0.25 Q16 3.24 0.81 300. 88 1.16 0.70 Q17 0.81 0.20 312.51 1.21 0.17 Q18 5.34 1.33 228.57 0.88 1.51 Q19 7.39 1.85 287.20 1.11 1.67 Q20 6.86 1.71 Continued 137.95 0.56 3.07*

PAGE 135

120 >p < .05 TABLE 28 CONTINUED Between Sum of Groups Mean Within Groups Sum of Mean Item Squares Squares Squares Squares F N21 0.55 0.14 149.72 0.60 0.23 N22 0.74 0.19 153.37 0.62 0.30 N2 3 0.33 0.08 128.00 0.52 0.16 N24 2.39 0.60 189.34 0.77 0.77 N25 2.59 0.65 125.34 0.50 1.29 11 3.37 0.84 318.89 1.42 0.59 12 5.36 1.34 189.22 0.74 1.80 13 5.97 1.49 337.34 1.34 1.11 14 8.66 2.17 409.35 1.61 1.35 15 2.63 0.66 228.00 0.88 0.75 16 1.56 0.39 214.79 0.89 0.44 17 6.57 1.64 301.79 1.17 1.41 18 20.06 5.02 302.40 1.18 4.25* 19 9.53 2.38 403.28 1.59 1.50 110 6.97 1.74 271.85 1.06 1.65

PAGE 136

121 variables of sex, age, marital status, number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the geographic location (Gainesville and Tucson) of the respondents. Ho 4a. There is no significant interaction between sex and geographic location of the respondent on each item of the SPAT An examination of the two-way analysis of variance of the items by sex and location (Table 29) shows that four of the items have sex as the source of significant variation at the .05 level. Q2. All misbehavior has a purpose. Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Q12. Pity tells a child that she or he is incapable. Three of the items had location as their source for significant variation. Q4. Effective communication with children requires certain skills. Q2 0. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. II. Supervised or reminded about homework. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 4b. There is no significant interaction between age groups and geographic location of the respondent on each item of the SPAT. Table 30 indicates that three of

PAGE 137

122 TABLE 29 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND SEX Source of Variation Sura of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Ql Location 1 4.33 4.33 3.07 Sex 1 2.93 2.93 2.08 Q2 Location 1 1.21 1.21 1.60 Sex 1 3.54 3.54 4.68* Q3 Location 1 0.32 0.32 0.33 Sex 1 2,01 2.01 2.06 Q4 Location 1 0.23 0.23 0.36 Sex 1 0.80 0.80 1.23 Q5 Location 1 4.45 4.45 3.70 Sex 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 Q6 Location 1 3.02 3.02 2.46 Sex 1 4.91 4.91 3.99* Q7 Location 1 0.58 0.58 0.88 Sex 1 1.31 1.31 1.99 Q8 Location 1 0.08 0.08 0.10 Sex 1 0.59 0.59 0.77 Q9 Location 1 5.17 5.17 4.37 Sex 1 0.55 0.55 0.47 Q10 Location 1 0.27 0.27 0.24 Sex 1 5.97 5.97 5.24* Qll Locat'ion 1 0.10 0.10 0.20 Sex 1 1.75 1.75 3.35 Q12 Location 1 0.51 0.51 0.76 Sex 1 4.33 4. 33 6.45* Q13 Location 1 1.11 1.11 0.75 Sex 1 1.37 1. 37 0.93 Continued

PAGE 138

123 TABLE 29 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Q14 Location 1 4.42 4.42 5.18* Sex 1 0.44 0.44 0.51 Q15 Location 1 1.26 1.26 0.90 Sex 1 0.17 0.17 0.12 Q16 Location 1 0.18 0.18 0.15 Sex 1 1.72 1.72 1.45 Q17 Location 1 0.06 0.06 0.05 Sex 1 1.67 1.67 1.43 Q18 Location 1 1.32 1.32 1.46 Sex 1 11.30 11.30 12.55 Q19 Location 1 0.43 0.43 0.37 Sex 1 0.19 0.19 0.16 Q20 Location 1 2.19 2.19 4.02* Sex 1 0.25 0.25 0.47 11 Location 1 14.53 14.53 9.36* Sex 1 0.23 0.23 0.15 12 Location 1 2.19 2.19 3.52 Sex 1 0.26 0.26 0.42 13 Location 1 0.08 0.08 0.06 Sex 1 1.32 1.32 0.99 14 Location 1 0.47 0.47 0.31 Sex 1 3.79 3.79 2.47 15 Location 1 1.12 1.12 1.29 Sex 1 1.23 1.23 1.41 16 Location 1 0.33 0.33 0.38 Sex 1 1.68 1.68 1.95 Conti nued

PAGE 139

124 TABLE 29 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F 17 Location 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 Sex 1 0.23 0.23 0.21 18 Location 1 0.10 0.10 0.09 Sex 1 0.09 0.09 0.08 19 Location 1 0.26 0.26 0.18 Sex 1 6.54 6.54 4.48 110 Location 1 1.29 1.29 1.26 Sex 1 0.04 0.04 0.04 c p < .05

PAGE 140

125 TABLE 30 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND AGE GROUP Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Ql Location 1 4.60 4. 60 3.25 Age Group 3 4.41 1.47 1.04 Q2 Location 1 0.84 0. 84 1.06 Age Group 3 1.50 0.50 0.63 Q3 Location 1 0.17 0.17 0.17 Age Group 3 4.22 1.41 1.40 Q4 Location 1 0.48 0.48 0.69 Age Group 3 2.68 0.89 1.28 Q5 Location 1 3.99 3.99 3.24 Age Group 3 5.33 1.78 1.44 Q6 Location 1 3.83 3.83 3.07 Age Group 3 1.48 0.49 0.39 Q7 Location 1 0.63 0.63 0.95 Age Group 3 1.01 0.34 0.51 Q8 Location 1 0.15 0.15 0.20 Age Group 3 5.70 1.90 2.48 Q9 Location 1 4.69 4.69 4.07* Age Group 3 11.61 3.87 3.36* Q10 Location 1 0.36 0.36 0.31 Age Group 3 1.71 0.57 0.49 Qll Location 1 0.05 0.05 0.10 Age Group 3 2.97 0.99 1.85 Q12 Location 1 0.82 0.82 1.14 Age Group 3 1.60 0.53 0.74 Q13 Location 1 1.93 1.93 1.31 Age Group 3 3.17 1.06 0.72 Continued

PAGE 141

126 TABLE 30 CONTINUED Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Q14 Location Age Group 1 3 4.05 3.84 4.05 1.28 4.85* 1.53 Q15 Location Age Group 1 3 1.70 4.41 1.70 1.47 1.21 1.05 Q16 Location Age Group 1 3 0.40 5.96 0.40 1.99 0.33 1.65 Q17 Location Age Group 1 3 0.01 4.02 0.01 1. 34 0.01 1.12 Q18 Location Age Group 1 3 1.08 1.32 1.08 0.44 1.14 0.46 Q19 Location Age Group 1 3 0.34 0.55 0.34 0.18 0.30 0.16 Q20 Location Age Group 1 3 2.25 4.87 2.25 1.62 3.98* 2.87* 11 ; Location Age Group 1 3 16.70 3.02 16.70 1.01 10.88* 0.66 12 Location Age Group 1 3 2.85 10.19 2.85 3.40 4.57* 5.44* 13 Location Age Group 1 3 0.21 0.92 0.21 0.31 0.16 0.23 14 Location Age Group 1 3 0.50 17.55 0.50 5.85 0.33 3.90* 15 Location Age Group 3 0.89 4.39 0.89 1.46 1.01 1.67 16 Location Age Group 1 3 0.42 1.95 0.42 0.65 0.50 0.77 Continued

PAGE 142

127 TABLE 30 CONTINUED Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F 17 Location Age Group l 3 15.17 5.06 4.89* 18 Location Age Group 1 3 0.21 1.49 0.21 0.50 0.19 0.44 19 Location Age Group 1 3 0.04 12.45 0.04 4.15 0.03 2.83* 110 Location Age Group 1 3 1.84 16.13 1.84 5.38 1.86 5.44*


PAGE 143

128 the items had both location and age group as a source of significant variation at the .05 level. Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. Q2 0. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. 12. Used physical punishment. Location was the source of variation in one item. Q14. Reflective listening means telling a child what you think they should do. Age groups were the source of variation for four of the SPAT items. 14. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 17. Used a loud voice to show disapproval. 19. Had trouble with bedtime. 110. Did not have a good response to a child's misbehavior. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 4c. There is no significant interaction between location and current marital status on each item of the SPAT On interaction between location and marital status, eight of the it,ems had a significant interaction effect (Table 31). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Five of the items had location as the source of the significant variation at the .05 level. Q5. Giving rewards teaches children to expect pay-offs for cooperation. Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children.

PAGE 144

TABLE 31 129 £ UMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA CURRENT MARITAL STATUS BY LOCATION AND (CURMARST) Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sura of Squares Mean Square F Ql Location CURMARST 1 1 5.28 0.04 5.28 0.04 3.75 0.03 Q2 Location CURMARST 1 1 1.49 0.44 1.49 0.44 1.97 0.58 Q3 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.39 0.29 0.39 0.29 0.40 0.30 Q4 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.38 0.07 0. 38 0.07 0.56 0.10 Q5 Location CURMARST 1 1 4.80 1.99 4.80 1.99 4.04* 1.67 Q6 Location CURMARST 1 1 3.46 5.62 3.46 5.62 2.83 4.61* Q7 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.49 3.76 0.49 3.76 0.75 5.78* Q8 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.05 0.57 0.05 0.57 0.06 0.74 Q9 Location CURMARST 1 1 5.70 2.53 5.70 2.53 4.82* 2.14 Q10 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.24 6.17 0.24 6.17 0.21 5.38* Qll Locat'ion CURMARST 1 1 0.13 0.37 0.13 0.37 0.24 0.71 Q12 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.65 0.92 0.65 0.92 0.93 1.32 Q13 Location CURMARST 1 1 Continued 1.21 0.95 1.21 0.95 0.82 0.64

PAGE 145

130 TABLE 31 CONTINUED Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Q14 Location CURMARST 1 1 4.27 4.27 5.04* Q15 Location CURMARST 1 1 1.33 1.86 1.33 1.86 0.96 1.34 Q16 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.17 0.89 0.17 0.89 0.14 0.75 Q17 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.82 0.82 0.69 Q18 Location CURMARST 1 1 1.42 0.01 1.42 0.01 1.52 0.01 Q19 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.28 0.08 0.28 0.08 0.24 0.07 Q20 Location CURMARST 1 1 2. 28 0.65 2.28 0.65 4.11* 1.17 11 Location CURMARST 1 1 15.61 0.02 15.61 0.02 9.97* 0.01 12 Location CURMARST 1 1 1.72 1.37 1.72 1.37 2.79 2.23 13 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.02 0.18 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.13 14 Location CURMA'RST 1 1 0.47 1.38 0.47 1.38 0.30 0.89 15 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.79 0.53 0.79 0.53 0.90 0.60 16 Location CURMARST 1 1 0.33 0.35 0.33 0. 35 0.37 0.40 Continued

PAGE 146

TABLE 31 CONTINUED 131 Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sumof Squares Mean Square 17 19 110 Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.04 1.42 0.07 1.86 0.07 0.12 0.92 0.14 0.04 1.42 0.07 1.86 0.07 0.12 0.92 0.14 0.03 1.31 0.06 1.66 0.04 0.08 0.88 0.14 .05

PAGE 147

132 Q14. Reflective listening means telling a child what you think they should do. Q20. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. II. Supervised or reminded about homework. Three of the items had single-parent home or two-parent home as the source of the significant variation at the .05 level. Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Ho 4d. There is no significant interaction between location and the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey on each item of the SPAT There was significant interaction on eight of the SPAT items, with one of these items having both location and number of children as the source of the main effects variation at the .05 level (Table 32) Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. Five of the items had significant interaction by the number of children living at home at the .05 level. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Qll. A child's misbehavior is for one of four goals. Q2 0. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children.

PAGE 148

TABLE 32 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 133 Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Ql Location 1 4.46 4.46 3.13 NOCHNOW 4 2.70 0.67 0.47 Q2 Location 1 1.19 1.19 1.59 NOCHNOW 4 2.58 0.64 0.86 Q3 Location 1 0.48 0.48 0.49 NOCHNOW 4 5.15 1.29 1.32 Q4 Location 1 0.13 0.13 0.20 NOCHNOW 4 3.27 0.82 1.21 Q5 Location 1 4.16 4.16 3.49 NOCHNOW 4 1.77 0.44 0.37 Q6 Location 1 3.16 3.16 2.62 NOCHNOW 4 8.43 2.11 1.75 Q7 Location 1 0.22 0.22 0.34 NOCHNOW 4 7.21 1.80 2.74* Q8 Location 1 0.37 0.37 0.47 NOCHNOW 4 1.86 0.47 0.59 Q9 Location 1 4.55 4.55 3.93* NOCHNOW 4 13.17 3.29 2.85* Q10 Location 1 0.25 0.25 0.21 NOCHNOW 4 0.76 0.19 0.16 Qll Location 1 0.44 0.44 0.87 NOCHNOW 4 6.57 1. 64 3.22* Q12 Location 1 0.50 0.50 0.72 NOCHNOW 4 1.17 0.29 0.43 Q13 Location 1 0.69 0.69 0.48 NOCHNOW 4 6.56 1.64 1.14 Continued

PAGE 149

134 Item Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 II 12 13 14 15 16 TABLE 32 CONTINUED Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 Continued 5.00 2.19 0.67 3.33 0.25 2.58 0.08 1.81 2.11 5.67 0.21 9.64 1.75 6.89 14.12 8.12 1.33 7.86 0.02 5.96 0.33 8.37 1.21 1.10 0.63 1.12 Mean Square 5.00 0.55 0.67 0. 83 0.25 0.65 0.08 0.45 2.11 1.42 0.21 2.41 1.75 1.72 14.12 2.03 1.33 1.96 0.02 1.49 0. 33 2.09 1.21 0.28 0.63 0.28 6. 01* 0. 66 0. 50 0. 62 0. 21 0. 54 0. 06 0. 38 2. 31 1. 55 0. 19 2. 15 3. 26 3. 20* 9. 19* 1. 32 2, 21 3. 25* 0. 01 1. 13 0. 21 1. 37 1. 38 0. 31 0. 72 0. 32

PAGE 150

135 TABLE 32 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Sq [uares Square F 17 Location 1 0. .07 0. ,07 0. ,06 NOCHNOW 4 7. .39 1. 85 1. ,71 18 Location 1 0. ,03 0, ,03 0. 03 NOCHNOW 4 15. ,47 3. 87 3, 58* 19 Location 1 0. 55 0. 55 0, 38 NOCHNOW 4 7, ,55 1. 89 1. 29 110 Location 1 1. 09 1. 09 1. 07 NOCHNOW 4 6. 52 1. 63 1. 60 .05

PAGE 151

136 12. Used physical punishment. 18. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments. Two of the items had significant interaction by the geographic location. Q14. Reflective listening means telling a child what you think they should do. II. Supervised or reminded about homework. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 4e. There is no significant interaction between location and the number of years since the STEP course on each item of the SPAT There was significant interaction on five of the SPAT items at the .05 level (Table 33). The null hypothesis was not rejected. Three of the items had significant interaction with location (Gainesville and Tucson) as the source of the main effects variation. Ql. Parents should make children do their homework. Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. II. Supervised or reminded about homework. Two of the items had the number of years since the STEP course as the source of the main effects variation. Q3. Parents should not get involved in verbal arguments between children. Q13. Encouragement is a reward for something well done.

PAGE 152

137 TABLE 3 3 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY LOCATION AND YEAR Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Ql Location 1 7. 62 7. 62 5. 42* Year 3 5. 20 1. 73 1, 23 Q2 Location 1 1. 63 1. 63 2, 06 Year 3 1. 27 0. 42 0. 54 Q3 Location 1 2. 12 2. 12 2, 12 Year 3 9, 11 3. 04 3. 04* Q4 Location 1 0. 30 0. 30 0, 42 Year 3 3, 97 1. 32 1. 85 Q5 Location 1 4, 24 4. 24 3, 48 Year 3 5. 82 1. 94 1. 59 Q6 Location 1 3, 12 3. 12 2. 48 Year 3 1. 62 0. 54 0. 43 Q7 Location 1 0. 12 0. 12 0, 18 Year 3 0. 75 0. 25 0. 38 Q8 Location 1 01 0. 01 0, 02 Year 3 4. 50 1. 50 1. 93 Q9 Location 1 12. 72 12. 72 10. 96* Year 3 5. 46 1. 82 1. 57 Q10 Location 1 0. 14 0. 14 0. 12 Year 3 9. 14 3. 05 2. 59 Qll Location 1 1. 50 1. 50 2. 85 Year 3 3. 05 1. 02 1 = 93 Q12 Location 1 C ) Year 3 3. 67 1. 22 1. 68 Q13 Location 1 2. 13 2. 13 1. 54 Year 3 11. 44 3. 81 2. 75* Continued

PAGE 153

138 TABLE 33 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Sq uares Square F Q14 Location 1 1. 05 1. 05 1. 28 Year 3 4. 25 1. 42 1. 72 Q15 Location 1 0. 20 0. 20 0. 15 Year 3 2. 49 0, 83 0. 61 Q16 Location 1 0. 08 0. 08 0. 07 Year 3 2. 97 0. 99 0. 80 Q17 Location 1 0. 21 0. 21 0. 17 Year 3 1. 38 0. 46 0. 38 Q18 Location 1 1. 00 1. 00 1, 07 Year 3 7. 09 2. 36 2. 54 Q19 Location 1 0. 13 0. 13 0. 11 Year 3 2. 55 0. 85 0. 72 Q20 Location 1 0. 07 0. 07 0. 12 Year 3 1. 87 0. 62 1. 09 11 Location 1 16. 72 16. 72 10. 95* Year 3 3. 00 1. 00 0. 65 12 Location 1 2. 22 2. 22 3. 20 Year 3 2, 75 0. 91 1. 32 13 Location 1 55 0. 55 0. 41 Year 3 1. 76 0. 58 0. 44 14 Location 1 Year 3 2. 49 0. 83 0. 53 15 Location 1 1. 85 1. 85 2. 09 Year 3 4. 07 1. 36 1. 54 16 Location 1 Year 3 Continued 2. 70 0. 90 1. 01

PAGE 154

139 TABLE 33 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F 17 Location 1 0.12 0.12 0.11 Year 3 2.51 0.83 0.76 18 Location 1 0.10 0.10 0.08 Year 3 7.68 2.56 2.23 19 Location 1 1.82 1.82 1.22 Year 3 5.93 1.98 1.33 110 Location 1 1.80 1.80 1.74 Year 3 0.58 0.19 0.19 05

PAGE 155

140 Hypothesis Five: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Length of Time Since Completion of the Parent Education Group It was hypothesized that there would be no significant interaction between the demographic variables of sex, marital status, and the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the number of years since the respondent had completed the STEP group. Ho 5a. There is no significant interaction between sex and number of years on each item of the SPAT An examination of the two-way analysis of variance of the items by sex and years (Table 34) showed that three of the items had significant variation at the .05 level. One of these items' effects source was due to year. Q13. Encouragement is a reward for something well done. Two of the items had sex as the source of their main effects variation. Q2. All misbehavior has a purpose. Q18. Each family member has an equal vote in decisions at family meetings. One of the items had both sex and year as the source of main effects variation. Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho 5b. There is no significant interaction between age groups and number of years since completion of the STEP course on each item of the SPAT. Examination of Table 35

PAGE 156

TABLE 34 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND SEX 141 Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Ql Year 3 3.13 1.04 0.72 Sex 1 3.25 3.25 2.24 Q2 Year 3 0.97 0.32 0.42 Sex 1 3.14 3.14 4.05* Q3 Year 3 6.44 2.14 2.14 1.54 Sex 1 1.55 1.55 Q4 Year 3 3.02 1.01 1.46 Sex 1 1.05 1.05 1.52 Q5 Year 3 4.73 1.58 1.29 Sex 1 0.18 0.18 0.14 Q6 Year 3 2.28 0.76 0.59 Sex 1 3.27 3.27 2.55 Q7 Year 3 1.30 0.43 0.65 Sex 1 1.42 1.42 2.15 Q8 Year 3 4.77 1.59 2.04 Sex 1 0.27 0.27 0.34 Q9 Year 3 2.50 0.83 0.69 Sex 1 0.22 0.22 0.18 Q10 Year 3 10.45 3.48 3.01* Sex 1 6.13 6.13 5.30* Qll Year 3 2.77 0.92 1.77 Sex 1 1.16 1.16 2.23 Q12 Year 3 3.53 1.18 1.72 Sex 1 3.54 3.54 5.17 Q13 Year 3 13.83 4.61 3.29* Sex 1 0.94 0.94 0.67 Conti nued

PAGE 157

142 TABLE 34 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Q14 Year 3 5. ,51 1. 84 2, 20 Sex 1 0. .38 0. 38 0. 46 Q15 Year 3 3. ,33 1. 11 0. ,80 Sex 1 0. .18 0. 18 0. ,13 Q16 Year 3 3. ,84 1. 28 1. 03 Sex 1 1. ,03 1. 03 0. ,82 Q17 Year 3 1. ,41 0. 47 0. 39 Sex i 1. ,61 1. 61 1. 33 Q18 Year 3 6. ,14 2. ,04 2. ,31 Sex 1 9. ,82 9, ,82 11. ,09* Q19 Year 3 2. ,65 0. 88 0. ,75 Sex 1 0, ,19 0, 19 0. ,16 Q20 Year 3 1. ,71 0. 57 1. ,05 Sex 1 0. ,51 0. 51 0. ,95 11 Year 3 0. 53 0. 18 0. 11 Sex 1 0, ,27 0. 27 0. 17 12 Year 3 2. ,26 0. 75 1. 14 Sex 1 0. 40 0. 40 0. 61 13 Year 3 2. ,30 0. 77 0. 57 Sex 1 1, ,24 1. 24 0. 93 14 Year 3 1. 87 0. 62 0. 41 Sex 1 3. ,96 3. 96 2. 59 15 Year 3 3. 79 1. 26 1. ,44 Sex 1 2. 11 2. 11 2, 41 16 Year 3 2. 82 0. 94 1. 07 Sex 1 2, 14 2. 14 2. 43 Continued

PAGE 158

143 TABLE 34 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F 17 Year 3 2.06 0.68 0.63 Sex 1 0.32 0.32 0.29 18 Year 3 7.21 2.40 2.13 Sex 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 19 Year 3 5.29 1.76 1.22 Sex 1 5.04 5.04 3.49 110 Year 3 0.86 0.29 0.28 Sex 1 0.01 0.01 0.01


PAGE 159

144 TABLE 35 SUMMARY FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND AGE GROUP Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ql Year Age Group 3 3 3.31 4.05 1.10 1.35 0.76 0.93 Q2 Year Age Group 3 3 1.16 1.41 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.58 Q3 Year Age Group 3 3 8.37 3.45 2.79 1.15 2.75* 1.13 Q4 Year Age Group 3 3 3.79 3.27 1.26 1.09 1.74 1.50 Q5 Year Age Group 3 3 5.10 4.06 1.70 1.35 1.37 1.10 Q6 Year Age Group 3 3 2.32 1.39 0.77 0.46 0.60 0.36 Q7 Year Age Group 3 3 1.26 2.28 0.42 0.76 0.62 1.13 Q8 Year Age Group 3 3 4.35 5.12 1.45 1.70 1.87 2.19 Q9 Year Age Group 3 3 3.21 11.29 1.07 3.76 0.90 3.15* Q10 Year Age Group 3 3 8.34 0.83 2.78 0.28 2.34 0.23 Qll Year Age Group 3 3 3.34 4.07 1.11 1.36 2.13 2.59 Q12 Year Age Group 3 3 3.73 1.37 1.24 0.46 1.75 0.64 Q13 Year Age Group 3 3 18. 61 11.16 6.20 3.72 4.73* 2.84 Conti nued **

PAGE 160

145 TABLE 35 CONTINUED Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F Q14 Year Age Group 3 3 4.60 2.30 1.53 0.77 1.86 0.93 Q15 Year Age Group 3 3 2.85 7.06 0.95 2.35 0.69 1.72 Q16 Year Age Group 3 3 3.16 2.32 1.05 0.77 0.85 0.63 Q17 Year Age Group 3 3 1.03 4.00 0.34 1.33 0.28 1.10 Q18 Year Age Group 3 3 6.60 0.59 2.20 0.19 2.38 0.21 Q19 Year Age Group 3 3 2.42 0.80 0.81 0.26 0.68 0.22 Q20 Year Age Group 3 3 1.74 4.57 0.58 1.52 1.04 2.74 11 Year Age Group 3 3 0.29 3.09 0.10 1.03 0.06 0.68 12 Year Age Group 3 3 0.83 9.51 0.28 3.17 0.41 4.68* 13 Year Age Group 3 3 2.21 0.75 0.74 0.25 0.56 0.19 14 Year Age Group 3 3 0.87 16.19 0.29 5.39 0.19 3.54* 15 Year Age Group 3 3 4.00 3.09 1.33 1.03 1.52 1.17 16 Year Age Group 3 3 3.01 2.18 1.00 0. 73 1.11 0.80 Conti nued

PAGE 161

146 TABLE 35 CONTINUED Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F 17 Year Age Group 3 3 0.98 14.33 0.33 4.78 0.31 4.51* 18 Year Age Group 3 3 9.10 2.11 3.03 0.70 2.65* 0.61 19 Year Age Group 3 3 4.04 13.78 1.35 4.59 0.92 3.14* 110 Year Age Group 3 3 0.71 13.90 0.24 4.63 0.23 4.58* c p < .05

PAGE 162

147 indicated that nine of the items had a significant interaction at the .05 level. Three of these items had year as the source of the interaction. Q3. Parents should not get involved in verbal arguments between children. Q13. Encouragement is a reward for something well done. 18. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments. Six of the items had the age group as the source of the variation. Q9 Physical punishment should not be used on children. 12. Used physical punishment. 14. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 17. Used a loud voice to show disapproval. 19. Had trouble with bedtime. 110. Did not have a good response to a child s misbehavior Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 5c. There is no significant interaction between current marital status and number of years since completion of the STEP course Table 36 indicates that four of the items on the SPAT had significant interaction due to current marital status, or age. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Two of the interaction main effects were due to number of years since completion of the STEP course. Q13. Encouragement is a reward for something well done.

PAGE 163

148 TABLE 36 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Ql Year 3 2.13 0.71 0.49 CURMARST 1 0.04 0.04 0.03 Q2 Year 3 0.90 0.30 0.39 CURMARST 1 0.25 0.25 0.33 Q3 Year 3 7.29 2.43 2.48 CURMARST 1 0.47 0.47 0.48 Q4 Year 3 2.83 0.94 1.34 CURMARST 1 0.21 0.21 0.29 Q5 Year 3 3.38 1.13 0.92 CURMARST 1 1.18 1.18 0.96 Q6 Year 3 3.18 1.06 0.84 CURMARST 1 5.15 5.15 4.10* Ql Year 3 1.63 0.54 0.83 CURMARST 1 4.92 4.92 7.51* Q8 Year 3 4.09 1.36 1.74 CURMARST 1 0.10 0.10 0.13 Q9 Year 3 2.32 0.77 0.63 CURMARST 1 2.57 2.57 2.09 Q10 Year 3 7.62 2.54 2.17 CURMARST 1 2.33 2.33 1.99 Qll Year 3 2.61 0.87 1.62 CURMARST 1 0.10 0.10 0.19 Q12 Year 3 3.03 1.01 1.42 CURMARST 1 0.49 0.49 0.69 Q13 Year 3 13.89 4.63 3.30* CURMARST 1 0.07 0.07 0.05 Continued

PAGE 164

149 TABLE 36 CONTINUED Source of Variation Sum of Mean Item Main Effects df Squares Square F Q14 Year 3 4.19 1.40 1.66 CURMARST 1 0.01 0. 01 0.01 Q15 Year 3 2.46 0.82 0.59 CURMARST 1 1.64 1.64 1.19 Q16 Year 3 3.45 1.15 0.93 CURMARST 1 0.90 0.90 0.73 Q17 Year 3 1.05 0.35 0.29 CURMARST 1 0.40 0.40 0.34 Q18 Year 3 7.34 2.45 2.67* CURMARST 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 Q19 Year 3 2.58 0.86 0.74 CURMARST 1 0.03 0.03 0.02 Q20 Year 3 1.37 0.46 0.82 CURMARST 1 0.55 0.55 0.98 11 Year 3 0.75 0.25 0.16 CURMARST 1 0.01 0.01 0.01 12 Year 3 1.97 0.66 1.01 CURMARST 1 1.07 1.07 1.64 13 Year 3 2.78 0.93 0.70 CURMARST 1 0.04 0.04 0.03 14 Year 3 2.48 0.83 0.53 CURMA'RST 1 1.11 1.11 0.72 15 Year 3 3.68 1.23 1.38 CURMARST 1 0.49 0.49 0.56 16 Year 3 2.26 0.74 0.84 CURMARST 1 Conti 0.22 nued 0.22 0.25

PAGE 165

150 TABLE 36 CONTINUED Source of Variation S am of Mean Item Main Effects df s< guares Square F 17 Year 3 2. 36 0. 79 71 CURMARST 1 0. 79 0. 79 0. 71 18 Year 3 7. 89 2, 63 2. 26 CURMARST 1 2. 43 2. 43 2. 09 19 Year 3 4. 43 1. 48 0. 99 CURMARST 1 0. 04 0. 04 0. 03 110 Year 3 0. 69 0. 23 0. 22 CURMARST 1 0. 09 0. 09 0. 08 05

PAGE 166

151 Q18. Each family member has an equal vote in decisions at family meetings. Two of the main effects were due to years since the course. Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Ho 5d. There is no significant interaction between the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey and the number of years since completion of the STEP course An examination of Table 37 indicates that one of the items of the SPAT had the number of years as the source of main effects, and four of the items had main effects due to the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey. The significant interaction by year at the .05 level for year was Q13, "Encouragement is a reward for something well done." Four of the items had the number of children as the source of the main effects. Q7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. Qll. A child's misbehavior is for one of four goals 12. Used physical punishment. 18. Had trouble with bedtime. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

PAGE 167

TABLE 37 SUMMARY TABLE FOR ITEM ANOVA BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 152 Item Source of Variation Main Effects Sum of Mean df Squares Square F 3 3.03 1.01 0.68 4 2.43 0.61 0.41 3 1.51 0.51 0.66 4 4.14 1.04 1.36 3 6.85 2.28 2.25 4 4.44 1.11 1.09 3 2.67 0.89 1.24 4 3.49 0.87 1.22 3 5.63 1.88 1.57 4 2.20 0.55 0.46 3 3.20 1.07 0.83 4 7.14 1.79 1.38 3 1.11 0.37 0.56 4 7.59 1.90 2.88* 3 4.62 1.54 1.98 4 2.32 0.58 0.74 3 1.76 0.59 0.49 4 10.03 2.51 2.09 3 7.79 2.60 2.19 4 0.56 0.14 0.12 3 3.44 1.15 2.27 4 6.96 1.74 3.45* 3 3.40 1.13 1.65 4 1.15 0.29 0.42 3 14.96 4.99 3.65* 4 4.47 1.12 0.82 Conti nued Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Qll Q12 Q13 Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW

PAGE 168

153 TABLE 37 CONTINUED Source of Item Variation Main Effects Sum of df Squares Mean Square F Q14 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 3.91 2.66 1.30 0.67 1.58 0.81 Q15 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 3.58 2.48 1.19 0.62 0.90 0.47 Q16 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 3.88 3.19 1.29 0.80 1.03 0.64 Q17 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 0.55 2.08 0.18 0.52 0.15 0.43 Q18 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 5.79 4.50 1.93 1.12 2.11 1.23 Q19 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 2.03 7.49 0.68 1.87 0.57 1.58 Q20 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 1.10 4.95 0.36 1.24 0.66 2.24 11 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 0.92 6.62 0.31 1.65 0.20 1.06 12 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 2.30 8.94 0.76 2.23 1.19 3.47* 13 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 2.03 5.07 0.68 1.27 0.51 0.95 14 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 1.94 8.17 0.65 2.04 0.42 1.31 15 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 3.11 1.24 1.04 0.31 1.16 0.35 16 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 Continued 1.97 1.27 0.66 0.32 0.75 0.37

PAGE 169

154 TABLE 37 CONTINUED Item Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F 17 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 2.70 6.35 0.90 1.59 0.83 1.47 18 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 5.32 14.35 1.77 3.59 1.57 3.18* 19 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 4.17 8.38 1. 39 2. 09 0.97 1.46 110 Year NOCHNOW 3 4 0.11 6.80 0.03 1.70 0.03 1.64 •'p < .05

PAGE 170

155 SPAT Factor Analyses The 30 attitude and behavior items on the SPAT were factor analyzed. These analyses provided data which were examined in terms of the five null hypotheses. The results of procedures which produced the factors, the factor analyses, and the testing of the null hypotheses by the factors are reported below. Table 38 shows the factor structure yielded by the principal axes factor analyses of the 30 by 30 item correlation matrix, following an orthogonal rotation to the Varimax Criterion. Factors that emerged from an oblique rotation to simple loadings were also inspected but were not correlated. Therefore, the orthogonal solution is appropriate. The basic correlation matrix for all SPAT items is reported in Table 39. Only seven of the nine factors which resulted from the orthogonal solution were interpretable. Thus, only seven factors are reported. The seven factors were labelled after consideration of the content of the items that loaded highest on each factor. The seven factor labels are: Negative Parental Interaction STEP Knowledge Non-intervention Coercion Positive Verbal Behaviors Control/Consequences and Authority The seven orthogonal factors with their highest loading items are included in Table 40. The first factor, Negative Parental Interaction underlines the unnecessary and negative interactions between

PAGE 171

156 TABLE 38 FACTOR LOADING FOR SPAT ITEMS FOLLOWING A PRINCIPAL-AXES FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN ORTHOGONAL ORTATION TO VARIMAX CRITERION Factors Item I II in iv V Ql -.22 -.18 -.51 .29 -.05 Q2 .03 .36 .13 -.07 .09 Q3 .10 .37 .13 -.01 .02 Q4 .02 .59 -.05 -.04 -.07 Q5 -.05 .17 .06 .04 -.06 Q6 .12 .28 .43 -.03 -.03 Q7 -.18 -.16 -.14 .20 -.01 Q8 .03 .34 .08 .01 -.21 Q9 .15 .15 .43 -.01 .10 Q10 .02 -.06 -.14 .64 .08 QH .09 .51 .26 -.14 -.03 Q12 .03 .39 .14 -.17 -.05 Q13 -.16 -.09 .15 .34 -.13 Q14 -.16 -.32 .04 .36 .11 Q15 -.05 -.23 -.02 .28 .02 Q16 .04 .04 -.07 .04 -.05 Q17 .02 .11 .07 -.04 .02 Q18 .02 .05 .35 -.02 .01 Q19 .03 -.05 -.08 .21 .09 Q20 .10 .45 .13 -.05 .01 Continued CorranunVI VII alities .09 -.29 .53 .19 -.06 .30 .03 -.03 .19 .01 .10 .42 -.05 .01 .39 .05 .14 .31 .04 -.11 .36 .01 .17 .22 -.03 .02 .36 .07 -.03 .46 .08 -.06 .40 .20 .25 .40 .42 .01 .37 .09 -.24 .39 .39 .01 .29 .55 -.04 .34 .30 -.04 .12 .04 .01 .13 .15 -.34 .30 -.15 .12 .27

PAGE 172

157 TABLE 38 CONTINUED Factors CommunItem I II III iv V VI VII alities 11 -17 .17 .14 -.01 .23 -.05 .47 .36 12 .46 .18 -.03 .02 -.01 -.19 -.03 .41 13 .50 .03 .08 -.03 -.03 .16 .23 .34 14 .52 .08 .07 -.17 .10 .01 .01 .34 15 .05 -.07 .07 .07 .60 .01 .05 .38 16 -.10 -.03 -.01 .01 .67 -.08 .02 .48 17 .66 .07 .18 .02 .03 -.01 -.11 .50 18 .55 .15 .24 .14 .04 -.11 .27 .52 19 .53 .14 .04 -.09 -.11 .01 .08 .34 HO .73 -.05 -.07 .03 -.05 -.03 .01 .55

PAGE 173

158 H I 01 O on H Ej w st! l-l J CQ w Kfl 2 Fh 3 o u u H CO < o H a a CO a a a a ro a CM a H a m CO H H IX) l> 5J 1 3 CTi H C\ 10 o ** CO a\ kO CM en o o rH o o H o H o o 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o o 1 o 1 o "3 1 ro CO ro cxi ro < H LT) H r(N CO •5P o rH H H CM rH rH o o 1 O o O o o o 1 CO <* UO H H CO rkO CO rH o> cm rH rH CM o H o o 1 O 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 rH r-> <5P LO Ch ro CM LO *# ro CM CM rH o o 1 o O o o ro H ro r- ro 01 o CM o H H O • • • o 1 o O o r o CO LD o LO rH a o a HCMro^in'sDi^-cocTiOHCNiro^m oaoooaoiaOHrH^HHHrH a o o o o o

PAGE 174

159 cr\ D CO W P H 3 i-q H CD H < £ R O u o CM O CTN H a CO H a rrH a H a in rH a H a oo rH a CM H O .-1 H a 00 CM CXi in h in CM O rH m ro O CM CM O I CO <* CM o I o CO o ro <& m cm o o o CO ro O CTi V£> CO CTi O rH CM O t^Q "* CM co r o rH H in u3 o o o I CO CTi in co h o o o o o o o l I CM CM CM O *3" ro o in ro o rH ro O o I rin ro ^P CM O o o o ud m H o o o I I us in CM O O rH OOOOOOOO I I UD vT 00 O CT* CM rH O O in Lfl o CM o in m o 00 00 o CM O O I r-\ CM sf in O o o in o rH 00 00 O O CM 00 \o O r-\ O CM "^ o m x* rH O o in ^c in O H o kd m rH O O rH o o I 00 -^ CTi CO o o CO rH CM O VD CO rH 00 rH O o rCM O I CO CM o I 00 CM ^O CO CM O O O I I ^O CM CTi rO CM O I o I cm cr> CO CM o H CO CM CM O I m m o I (Ti CM o CM o o I I o CM 00 CM CO o CM o I ro o ca in o o o o I I cm r00 •* o o kO CM O O CM O I o o I rH 00 O CM O CM O O O I I <-{ CO rus o o o ro CM O O I I H CM co r~ co ro H CM o co CM co ro CM o i
PAGE 175

160 rCO r^ o 00 CN o o rH o rH o O o o rH o o CN o o I o 1 o o o 1 O o 1 o o o 1 O o o 1 o 1 o 1 rH rH rH cn LD m \o O ^o CN cn 00 CO <* ^ CO *# CN CO CO 0O CN CN CN VD ro KD CO CO r\i o rH o O CN H H H O H rH O o o o l o O o O o O 1 o o o o o O 1 o 1 o I H H LT> CO 00 <* ro "S# in 00 00 kO rH 00 CM O O o o r-i CN o CN o o o o H o o 1 o O o o I o O 1 o O o 1 o o o I o 1 o I r- rH LD 00 rH CO ro CO k0 en \o U0 o CO o o CM CN CN cn m o r~ CO *r kO "5f cn CO "* o O O O o o o H o o o O o o o T3 o 1 O 1 O 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o o I o o o 1 o 1 o I o o 1 CD C •H CN LD o ID 03 00 o\ ro r> V£> 00 cn cn cn m +J kO in rH o O o W3 o ix) CO r0O 00 CO CO a o o O rH o o O rH o O o o o o o a o 1 o o o 1 o 1 o o O 1 o O O 1 o 1 o 1 O o CO le ren m r* tf o rVfl 00 cn o CO 0O M 3" <* r-i CN rH rCN o CO o ^ CN >* CN CN rH o O o H CN O rH o rH H rH rH rH o 1 O o o o i o O 1 o O o 1 o o o 1 o 1 O 1 CN ffl H m r* U0 o CN IT! CO o CN CO ^p rO CO CO ^o ^ VO 00 o r* CN CN ro m H CM o o o o rH H o -H o rH rH o H o O 1 o o o o 1 o o 1 o 1 o o 1 O o o o o in H in CN rH rt> r\D CN pin r H cn >tf CM o LT> o o rH rH ^ o CO CO CN rH rH O rH rH rH rH CN o CN o o o rH CN rH O 1 o o o O 1 O o I o O o 1 o o o 1 O 1 o o en CO CN 00 H O eD ^ji o 00 # 00 o o rn CN CO m U0 CO CO CO U0 CN
PAGE 176

161 Q CT> W ro O S w H J H CQ S 3 O En u CO H 10 in n H CM H o m o o o m m o CO in o CN O rH rH o CO U3 CO CO CO CO H o o rCO o CN o m Ci m rco co o o 1 o o 1 O O O o o o o 1 o o o o o CN o H O CO o o CN m rH O co CN CO CN in CN CO W3 CM o rH m CO rco CM o o 1 o o 1 o O o O o o 1 o 1 o o CN r o IT) CN O rH rH co ro "5C CN 00 CM <7\ rH rH o in CN o o H o en rH i3< o 1 O o o 1 o O O o o o o 1 O H CN o o o co o CO o o UD o CO CO o CO CO O CN o CO CO CO 00 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1 m o o CN o o o o o o^ o m -** rH rH o o o o H o CO o o o o 1 o i o 1 o 1 o 1 O O o o o CM LD O rH H o co o o o o in rrH CN O rH O O CO o o 1 o 1 o o o O o 1 O I o m rH O co <* o CN o m o rH CM O H o CN in CO CO o o 1 o o I o o O o H ro o rH o en o CO in o CO o CN o CM o o o 1 o 1 o O o o IT) co o CO o rH ro o rH o 1 o 1 o 1 o 1 o O o o o o CO rH rH o 1 o o o 1 O ^D r CO a\ o rH CN CO ** in <£> [• CO CTi rH rH rH H CM H H H H H H H H H O o o a a

PAGE 177

162 TABLE 40 HIGHEST FACTOR LOADINGS FOR SPAT ITEMS FOLLOWING A PRINCIPAL AXES FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH AN ORTHOGONAL ROTATION TO VARIMAX CRITERION Loading on Item This Factor Factor 1 Negative Parental Intervention 12. Used physical punishment. .46 13. Reminded a child they were late for something. 50 14. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 52 17. Used a loud voice to show disapproval. .66 18. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments 55 19. Had trouble with bedtime. .53 110. Did not have a good response to a child's misbehavior. .73 Factor 2 STEP Knowledge Q2. All misbehavior has a purpose. .36 Q3. Parents should not get involved in verbal arguments between children. .37 Q4. Effective communication with children requires certain skills. .59 Q8. Encouragement is more effective than praise in motivating children. .34 Continued

PAGE 178

163 TABLE 40 CONTINUED Loading on Item This Factor Qll. A child's misbehavior is for one of four goals 51 Q12. Pity tells a child that she or he is incompatable. .39 Q20. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. .45 Factor 3 Non-intervention Ql. Parents should make children do their homework. .51 Q6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. 43 Q9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. 43 Q17. Ignoring a misbehavior is a consequence. .35 Factor 4 Coercion Q10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. 64 Q14. Reflective listening means telling a child what you think they should do. .36 Factor 5 Positive Verbal Behaviors 15. Encouraged a child by words or actions. .60 16. Used reflective listening in a conversation. .67 Continued

PAGE 179

TABLE 40 CONTINUED 164 Item Loading on This Factor Factor 6 Control/Consequences Q13. Encouragement is a reward for something well done. .42 Q15. An I-message is a way of telling a child what you want them to do. .39 Q15. Logical consequences are punishments the make sense. .55 Q17. Ignoring a misbehavior is a consequence. .30 Factor 7 Authority Q19. Disobedience is a personal challenge to my authority as a parent. II. Supervised or reminded about homework. .34 .46

PAGE 180

165 parents and their children. Factor 1 includes seven of the ten items of the reported behaviors subsection of the SPAT. These behaviors include use of physical punishment, reminding children, using a loud voice to show disapproval, trouble with children's bedtime, and a lack of an adequate response to a child's misbehavior. Seven items load on Factor 2, STEP Knowledge These items reflect Adlerian parenting concepts which are taught in the STEP program. Purposive and goal-directed behavior, communication skills, encouragement, and problem ownership are included in this factor. Non-intervention characterized Factor 3. Four items in this factor deal with parenting concepts in which the parent does not intervene in the child's behavior: homework, messy children's rooms, and physical punishment. Items which load on Factor 4 Coercion underline useless, forceful interactions by the parent. The two items in this factor deal with the misuse of reflective listening and pointing out mistakes to children. Two items load on Factor 5, Positive Verbal Behaviors Encouraging a child by words or actions, and using reflective listening comprise this factor. Both items require communication skills, potentially in both the verbal and non-verbal aspects of parent-child interaction. Four items load on Factor 6, Control/Consequences Using encouragement as a method of reward, and using I-message to tell a child what to do are both misuses of

PAGE 181

166 STEP parenting concepts characterized by their controlling nature. The final two items in this factor underline the use and misuse of consequences. Factor 7, Authority is comprised of two items in which parents are in authority roles. Thus, disobedience as a personal challenge to parent authority, and homework supervision include elements of authority. Twenty-eight of the thirty attitude and behavior items on the SPAT are included in the seven reported factors. Two items did not fit into the seven factors. The items deal with making sure children eat all of their food, and cooperation resulting from the use of rewards. Table 41 reports the Eigenvalues and percentage of the variables for each of the nine potential factors. The seven reported factors account for 92.4 percent of the SPAT items. The five null hypotheses, after testing by the items on the SPAT, were examined by the seven factors derived from these items. To test each of the major factor hypotheses, the null hypothesis was rejected if one factor showed a significant difference. Hypothesis One: Total Population It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between respondents on the derived factors of the SPAT based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status, and the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey.

PAGE 182

167 TABLE 41 FACTOR ANALYSES EIGENVALUE AND PERCENTAGE OF VARIANCE Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Eigenvalue % of Variables Cumulative 3.97 36.9 36.9 1.72 16.0 52.8 1.30 12.1 64.9 1.11 10.3 75.2 .73 6.8 82.0 .60 5. 6 87.6 .51 4.8 92.4 .43 4.0 96.4 .39 3.6 100.0

PAGE 183

168 Ho la. There is no significant difference between males and females on each factor An examination of the factor analyses by sex for the total population revealed that there are no significant differences for any of the seven factors (see Table 42) Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho lb. There is no significant difference between age groups on each factor of the SPAT Table 43 indicates that there were significant differences on four of the seven factors at the .05 level of significance: Factor 1. Negative Parental Interaction, Factor 3. Non-intervention, Factor 4. Coercion, and Factor 5. Positive Verbal Behaviors. On each of the factors, age group four (41-65) had a lower mean than other age groups. Specifically, the older respondents had significantly less negative interaction with their children, did not intervene inappropriately with their children, and did not coerce their children. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho lc. There is no significant difference between oneand two-parent homes on the factors of the SPAT The factor analyses by marital status (see Table 44) indicated that significant differences at the .05 level do exist for Factor 1, Negative Parental Interaction, and Factor 7, Authority. In both cases, the single-parent homes had a smaller mean than the two-parent homes on the factors.

PAGE 184

TABLE 42 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX 169 Factor Sex Mean Standard Deviation 1 Female Male 2 Female Male 3 Female Male 4 Female Male 5 Female Male 6 Female Male 7 Female Male 16.08 5.62 1.18 16.37 6.10 13.42 3.36 1.97 14.45 2.39 10.71 2.14 1.94 10.82 1.54 7.34 1.76 1.18 6.84 1.62 6.91 2.05 1.22 6.32 2.27 10.09 2.95 1.37 10.47 2.52 5.24 1.68 1.02 5.21 1.69

PAGE 185

TABLE 4 3 FACTOR ANOVA BY AGE GROUP 170 Group Factor Source 1 Between Within 2 Between Within 3 Between Within 4 Between Within 5 Between Within 6 Between Within 7 Between Within df Sum of Squares Mean Square 3 352 3 352 3 352 3 352 3 352 3 352 3 352 468.62 11063.34 54.48 4315.68 41.68 1640.42 33.57 1090.99 45.65 1522.89 23. 87 3148.90 19.93 1020.24 156.21 4.97* 31.43 18.16 1.48 12.26 13.89 2.98* 4.66 11.19 3.61* 3.10 15.22 3.52* 4.33 7.96 0.89 8.95 6.64 2.29 2.90 05

PAGE 186

TABLE 44 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS 171 Factor Reported Type of Home Mean Standard Deviation F 1 Single parent Two parent 14.25 16.35 6.85 5.50 1.55* 2 Single parent Two parent 13.75 13.52 2.34 3.43 2.15 3 Single parent Two parent 10.40 10.77 1.79 2.12 1.40 4 Single parent Two parent 6.87 7.34 1.81 1.73 1.09 5 Single parent Two parent 6.50 6.87 2.70 1.99 1.83 6 Single parent Two parent 9.70 10.21 3.01 2.89 1.08 7 Single parent Two parent 4.75 5.31 2.00 1.64 1.48* r p < .05

PAGE 187

172 However, the difference between means for Factor 1, 2.10, is spread across seven SPAT items which comprise this factor. In addition, the difference in means between the oneand two-parent homes for Factor 7 is less than one point across the two questions which comprise this factor. However, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho Id. There is no significant difference between family sizes on each derived factor of the SPAT On analyses by family size, the factors which did produce a significant difference at the .05 level were Factor 1, Negative Parental Interaction, and Factor 3, Non-intervention (see Table 45) Respondents indicating one child had a significantly smaller mean score on the first factor than those indicating three children. The mean score for one-child respondents was the smallest of all five respondent groups. This same situation exists for the significant differences recorded for Factor 3, Non-intervention. One-child respondents had a smaller mean score for this factor than the other four respondent groups, and was significantly smaller than the mean score for respondents with three children. However, an examination of all possible differences between family sizes on the seven factors indicated that most family sizes have no significant differences on the derived factors of the SPAT. Ho le. There is no significant difference between time groups on each factor of the SPAT An examination of Table 46 indicates that there was a significant difference

PAGE 188

173 TABLE 45 FACTOR ANOVA BY FAMILY SIZE Sum of Mean Factor Source df Squares Squares 1 Between Groups 4 474.98 Within Groups 336 9095.14 2 Between Groups 4 59.14 Within Groups 336 3718.97 3 Between Groups 4 36.35 Within Groups 336 1411.39 4 Between Groups 4 9.55 Within Groups 336 1013.85 5 Between Groups 4 14.36 Within Groups 336 1201.97 6 Between Groups 4 10.22 Within Groups 336 2779.88 7 Between Groups 4 14.09 Within Groups 336 950.61 : p < .05 118.74 4.39* 27.07 14.78 1.34 11.07 9.09 2.16* 4.20 2.39 0.79 3.02 3.59 1.00 3.58 2.55 0.31 8.27 3.52 1.24

PAGE 189

174 TABLE 46 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP Sum of Mean Factor Source df Squares Squares F 1 Between Groups 10 265.37 26.54 0.82 Within Groups 274 8809.07 32.15 2 Between Groups 10 184.36 18.44 1.60 Within Groups 2 74 3155.29 11.52 3 Between Groups 10 41.47 4.15 1.01 Within Groups 274 1128.13 4.12 4 Between Groups 10 51.74 5.17 1.76 Within Groups 274 805.05 2.94 5 Between Groups 10 50.79 5.08 1.21 Within Groups 274 1146.41 4.18 6 Between Groups 10 184.17 18.42 2.44* Within Groups 274 2065.09 7.54 7 Between Groups 10 29.43 2.94 1.05 Within Groups 274 766.48 2.80 : p < .05

PAGE 190

175 between time groups on Factor 7, Authority, at the .05 level of significance. There were no other significant differences between all time groups and all other factors on the SPAT. However, the null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Two: Gainesville It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference between respondents in Gainesville on the derived factors of the SPAT based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status, the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the Gainesville time groups. Ho 2a. There is no significant difference between males and females in Gainesville on each factor of the SPAT The factor analyses by sex in Gainesville (Table 47) showed that there were no significant differences at the .05 level. Ho 2b. There is no significant difference between age groups on the factors of the SPAT An examination of Table 48 indicates that there is a significant difference at the .05 level on three of the seven factors of the SPAT: Factor 3. Non-intervention, Factor 4. Coercion, and Factor 6. Control/Consequences. In each factor, the significant difference was between the older respondents to the SPAT (age group 4) and the respondents in age groups 1 and 2.

PAGE 191

176 TABLE 4 7 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX IN GAINESVILLE Factor Sex 1 Female Male 2 Female Male 3 Female Male 4 Female Male 5 Female Male 6 Female Male 7 Female Male Standard Mean Deviation 15.94 4.54 17. 57 4.15 13.36 3.48 14.29 3.25 10.85 2.51 10.57 0.98 7.61 1.79 6.43 1.40 7.21 1.71 7.43 1.71 10.03 3.37 10.00 2.45 5.75 1.87 6.29 2.14 1.19 1.15 6.59 1.64 1.01 1.89 1.30

PAGE 192

177 TABLE 4 8 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY AGE GROUP IN GAINESVILLE Group Sum of Mean Factor Source df Squares Square 1 Between 3 14.25 Within 71 1493.70 2 Between 3 20.63 Within 71 859.37 3 Between 3 45.07 Within 71 385.59 4 Between 3 24.45 Within 71 210.27 5 Between 3 18.83 Within 71 192.85 6 Between 3 107.0 3 Within 71 703.31 7 Between 3 6.76 Within 71 259.99 05 4.75 0.23 21.04 6.88 0.57 12.10 15.02 2.77* 5.43 8.15 2.75* 2.96 6.28 2.31 2.72 35.68 3.60* 9.91 2.25 0.61 3.66

PAGE 193

178 Ho 2c. There is no significant difference between oneand two-parent homes in Gainesville on the factors of the SPAT Table 49 indicates that this null hypothesis is not rejected as there are no significant differences at the .05 level on all seven of the SPAT factors. Ho 2d. There is no significant difference between family sizes in Gainesville on each derived factor of the SPAT Based on an analysis of variance there was a statistically significant difference between oneand three-child homes on Factor 3, Non-intervention (see Table 50) This difference is the same as was found for the total population. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 2e. There is no significant difference between time groups and the factors of the SPAT for Gainesville respondents An examination of Table 51 indicates that this null hypothesis was not rejected, as there were no significant differences at the .05 level for all seven factors. Hypothesis Three: Tucson It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between respondents in Tucson on the derived factors of the SPAT based on the classification variables of sex, age, marital status, the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the Tucson time groups

PAGE 194

TABLE 49 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS IN GAINESVILLE 179 Factor Reported Type of Home Mean Standard Deviation F Single parent Two parent Single parent Two parent Single parent Two parent Single parent Two parent Single parent Two parent Single parent Two parent Single parent Two parent 16.56 3.05 2.40 16.05 4. 72 15.11 1.69 4.52 13.23 3.60 10.00 2.00 1.51 10.92 2.46 7.00 1.12 2.79 7.56 1.87 8.00 1.12 2.43 7.09 1.74 9.44 2.13 2.62 10.11 3.44 6.11 2.20 1.38 5.77 1.87

PAGE 195

180 TABLE 50 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY FAMILY SIZE IN GAINESVILLE Sum of Mean Factor Source df Squares Squares F 1 Between Groups 3 18.42 6.14 0.29 Within Groups 70 1463.92 20.91 2 Between Groups 3 1.22 0.41 0.03 Within Groups 70 867.07 12.39 3 Between Groups 3 42.65 14.22 2.63* Within Groups 70 378.06 5.40 4 Between Groups 3 11.48 3.83 1.21 Within Groups 70 221.02 3.16 5 Between Groups 3 18.38 6.13 2.22 Within Groups 70 192.71 2.75 6 Between Groups 3 50.06 16.69 1.59 Within Groups 70 735.89 10.51 7 Between Groups 3 21.72 7.24 2.11 Within Groups 70 240.24 3.43 : p < .05

PAGE 196

181 TABLE 51 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP IN GAINESVILLE Sum of Mean Factor Source df Squares Squares F 1 Between Groups 3 92. 62 30 87 2 63 Within Groups 20 235. 00 11. 75 2 Between Groups 3 60 60 20. 20 2. 46 Within Groups 20 163. 90 8. 19 3 Between Groups 3 9. 22 3. 07 0. 67 Within Groups 20 91. 40 4. 57 4 Between Groups 3 4. 56 1. 52 52 Within Groups 20 58. 40 2. 92 5 Between Groups 3 1. 63 0. 54 0. 30 Within Groups 20 36. 20 1. 81 6 Between Groups 3 17. 73 5. 91 0. 75 Within Groups 20 158. 10 7. 90 7 Between Groups 3 0. 63 0. 21 0. 04 Within Groups 20 105. 20 5. 26

PAGE 197

182 Ho 3a. There is no significant difference between males and females in Tucson on each factor of the SPAT The factor analyses by sex in Tucson showed that there were no significant differences at the .05 level (see Table 52). Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. Ho 3b. There is no significant difference between age groups on the factors of the SPAT Examination of Table 5 3 indicates that there are significant differences at the .05 level between age groups on three of the seven factors of the SPAT: Factor 1. Negative Parental Interaction, Factor 3. Non-intervention, and Factor 7. Authority. In each case, the older respondents to the SPAT have a significantly smaller mean factor score than younger respondents. On Factor 1, they have a significantly lesser mean factor score than all three of the remaining age groups. Ho 3c. There is no significant difference between oneand two-parent homes in Tucson on the factors of the SPAT The factor analyses by marital status for Tucson residents (see Table 54) 'indicates that Factors 1 and 7 do exhibit a significant difference at the .05 level between singleand two-parent homes. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Ho 3d. There is no significant difference between family sizes in Tucson on the derived factors of the SPAT An examination of factor analyses by family size (Table 55)

PAGE 198

TABLE 52 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY SEX IN TUCSON 183 Factor Sex Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Mean Standard Deviation 16.12 5.89 1.21 16.10 6.48 13.44 3.33 2.25 14.48 2.22 10.67 2.04 1.53 10.87 1.65 7.27 1.75 1.09 6.94 1.67 6.83 2.13 1.18 6.06 2.32 10.11 2.84 1.22 10.58 2.57 5.10 1.59 1.11 4.97 1.52

PAGE 199

184 TABLE 5 3 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY AGE GROUP IN TUCSON Factor Group Source df Sum of Squares Mean Square F 1 Between Within 3 276 551.70 9213.41 183.90 33.38 5.51* 2 Between Within 3 270 66.83 3235.99 22.28 11.72 1.90 3 Between Within 3 270 30.70 1104.20 10.23 4.00 2.56* 4 Between Within 3 270 15.00 816.91 5.00 2.96 1.69 5 Between Within 3 270 30.33 1265.14 10.11 4.58 2.21 6 Between Within 3 270 0.41 2258.65 0.14 8.18 0.02 7 Between Within 3 270 19.87 694.53 6.62 2.52 2.63* 05

PAGE 200

TABLE 54 FACTOR ANALYSIS BY MARITAL STATUS IN TUCSON 185 Factor Reported Type of Home Mean Standard Deviation 1 Single parent Two parent 13.58 16.44 7.51 5.69 1.74* 2 Single parent Two parent 13.35 13.59 2.37 3.39 2.04 3 Single parent Two parent 10.52 10.73 1.75 2.03 1.35 4 Single parent Two parent 6.84 7.29 1.98 1.70 1.37 5 Single parent Two parent 6.06 6.81 2.87 2.05 1.96 6 Single parent Two parent 9.77 10.24 3.24 2.74 1.40 7 Single parent Two parent 4.35 5.19 1.78 1.56 1.31* r p < .05

PAGE 201

TABLE 55 FACTOR ANOVA BY FAMILY SIZE IN TUCSON 186 Factor Source df Sura of Squares Mean Squares 1 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 497.65 7581.03 124.41 28.93 4.30* 2 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 60.11 2848.55 15.03 10.87 1.38 3 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 13.10 1013.57 3.27 3.87 0.85 4 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 7.68 778.83 1.92 2.97 0.65 5 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 6.52 991.64 1.63 3.78 0.43 6 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 4.64 1997.83 1.16 7.63 0.15 7 Between Groups Within Groups 4 262 4.46 671.70 1.12 2.56 0.43 05

PAGE 202

187 revealed that there was a significant difference between oneand three-child homes on the first factor, Negative Parental Interactions. As was the case for the total population, this difference indicates that single parents had a smaller mean score for the first factor than did the three-child respondents. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 3e. There is no significant difference between time groups and the factors of the SPAT for Tucson respondents An examination of Table 5 6 indicates that there was a significant difference at the .05 level for two of the seven SPAT factors: Factor 4. Coercion, and Factor 6. Control/Consequences. The null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Four: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Geographic Location It was hypothesized that there would be no significant interaction on the SPAT factors between the demographic variables of sex, age, marital status, number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, the number of years since the STEP group, and the geographic location (Gainesville and Tucson) of the respondents. Ho 4a. There is no significant interaction between sex and geographic location of the respondent on each factor of the SPAT An examination of Table 5 7 indicates that only location on Factor 7, Authority, was the source of a main

PAGE 203

TABLE 56 FACTOR ANOVA BY TIMEGROUP IN TUCSON Sum of Mean Factor Source df Squares Squares 1 Between Groups 6 170.08 28.35 0.84 Within Groups 2 Between Groups 6 123.56 20.59 1.75 Within Groups 3 Between Groups 6 29.47 4.91 1.20 Within Groups 4 Between Groups 6 41.90 6.98 2.38* Within Groups 5 Between Groups 6 40.61 6.77 1.55 Within Groups 6 Between Groups 6 148.81 24.80 3.30* Within Groups 7 Between Groups 6 6.86 1.14 0.44 Within Groups 6 254 170.08 8574.07 28.35 33.76 6 254 123.56 2991.39 20.59 11.78 6 254 29.47 1036.73 4.91 4.08 6 254 41.90 746.65 6.98 2.94 6 254 40.61 1110.21 6.77 4.37 6 254 148.81 1906.99 24.80 7.51 6 254 6.86 661.28 1.14 2.60 •'p < .05

PAGE 204

189 TABLE 57 SUMMARY TABLE OF FACTOR ANOVA BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND SEX Factor Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square F 1 Location Sex 1 1 0.02 2.80 0.02 2.80 0.09 2 Location Sex 1 1 0.49 35.44 0.49 35.44 0.05 3.30 3 Location Sex 1 1 1.01 0.40 1.01 0.40 0.23 0.09 4 Location Sex 1 1 4.00 8.14 4.00 8.14 1.32 2.68 5 Location Sex 1 1 13.08 11.49 13.08 11.49 3.05 2.68 6 Location Sex 1 1 0.93 4.88 0.93 4.88 0.11 0.57 7 Location Sex 1 1 29.37 29.37 10.69* *p < .05

PAGE 205

190 effects variation on the interaction analyses at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Ho 4b. There is no significant interaction between age groups and geographic location of the respondents on each factor of the SPAT The two-way ANOVA by location and age group shows that location was a significant source of variation for Factor 7, Authority, and age group a significant source of variation by age group for four of the factors at the .05 level of significance (see Table 58): Factor 1. Negative Parental Interaction, Factor 3. Non-intervention, Factor 4. Coercion, and Factor 5. Positive Verbal Behaviors. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 4c. There is no significant interaction between location and current marital status on the factors of the SPAT The analyses (see Table 59) revealed that there was significant interaction by both location and current marital status for Factor 7, Authority, at the .05 level of significance. Current marital status was the source of variation at the .05 leve'l in Factor 1, Negative Parental Interaction. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 4d. There is no significant interaction between location and number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey on each factor of the SPAT Table 60 indicates that the number of children was a significant source of main effects variation at the 05 level for

PAGE 206

191 TABLE 58 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND AGE GROUP Source of Variation Factor Main Effects Sum of Mean f Squares Square F 1 11. 93 11. 93 0. 38 3 475. 07 158. 36 5. 03* 1 11. 53 11. 53 0. 94 3 55. 86 18. 62 1, 51 1 0. 19 0. 19 0. 04 3 41. 86 13. 95 2. 98* 1 1. 25 1. 25 0. 40 3 32. 68 10. 89 3. 51* 1 6. 88 6. 88 1. 59 3 42. 87 14. 29 3. 31* 1 4. 21 4. 21 0. 48 3 25. 23 8. 41 0. 96 1 25. 88 25. 88 9. 15* 3 20. 27 6. 76 2. 39 Location Age Group Location Age Group Location Age Group Location Age Group Location Age Group Location Age Group Location Age Group 05

PAGE 207

192 TABLE 59 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) Source of Variation Factor Main Effects Sum of Mean f Squares Square F 1 0.02 0.02 0.01 1 156.58 156.58 4.88* 1 0.61 0.61 0.05 1 1.93 1.93 0.17 1 0.69 0.69 0.16 1 4. 81 4.81 1.10 1 3.96 3.96 1.30 1 7.92 7.92 2.60 1 13.32 13.32 3.11 1 5.09 5.09 1.19 1 1.32 1.32 0.16 1 9.11 9.11 1.07 1 29.36 29.36 10.68* 1 11.71 11.71 4.26* Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST Location CURMARST *p < .05

PAGE 208

TABLE 60 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) 193 Factor Source of Variation Main Effects df Sum of Squares Mean Square 1 2 3 4 Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 2.42 468.26 0.28 58.25 0.61 36.60 4.17 9.33 2.42 117.07 0.28 14.56 0.61 9.15 4.17 2.33 0.09 4.30* 0.02 1.30 0.15 2.18 1.38 0.77 *p < .05 Location NOCHNOW 1 4 7.27 14.55 7.27 3.64 2.04 1.02 6 7 Location NOCHNOW Location NOCHNOW 1 4 1 4 2.62 11.14 24.27 11.77 2.62 2.79 24.27 2.94 0.32 0.34 8.84* 1.07

PAGE 209

194 Factor 1, Negative Parental Interaction. Factor 7, Authority, had location as a significant source at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 4e. There is no significant interaction between location and the number of years since the STEP course on each factor of the SPAT An examination of Table 61 indicates that both year and location were a significant source of variation at the .05 level for one of the seven factors. Location was the source for Factor 7 Authority, and year was the source for Factor 4, Coercion. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Five: Interaction Between Demographic Variables and Length of Time Since Completion of the Parent Education Group It was hypothesized that there would be no significant interaction between the demographic variables of sex, age, marital status, the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, and the number of years since the respondent had completed the STEP group. Ho 5a. There was no significant interaction between sex and number of years on each factor of the SPAT On interaction by year and sex, each had one significant interaction on the seven factors (see Table 62) Year was the source for Factor 4, Coercion, and sex was the source for Factor 5, Positive Verbal Behaviors. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 210

195 TABLE 61 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY LOCATION AND YEAR Source of Variation Sum of Mean Factor Main Effects df Squares Square F 1 Location 1 0.57 0.57 0.02 Year 3 120.32 40.11 1.20 2 Location 1 9.97 9.97 0.85 Year 3 56.60 18.87 1.60 3 Location 1 1.78 1.78 0.40 Year 3 18.63 6.21 1.39 4 Location 1 0.46 0.46 0.15 Year 3 29.28 9.76 3.19* 5 Location 1 4.80 4.80 1.08 Year 3 30.69 10.23 2.30 6 Location 1 0.32 0.32 0.04 Year 3 35.79 11.93 1.48 7 Location 1 13.52 13.52 4.71* Year 3 6.03 2.01 0.70 *p < .05

PAGE 211

196 TABLE 62 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND SEX Source of Variation Sum of Mean Factor Main Effects df Squares Square F 1 Year 3 121.07 40.36 1.23 Sex 1 0.57 0.57 0.02 2 Year 3 26.22 8.74 0.84 Sex 1 18.22 18.22 1.74 3 Year 3 20.08 6.69 1.66 Sex 1 0.16 0.16 0.04 4 Year 3 35.91 11.97 4.11* Sex 1 9.28 9.28 3.18 5 Year 3 29.72 9.91 2.34 Sex 1 17.76 17.76 4.19* 6 Year 3 50.49 16.83 2.12 Sex 1 1.93 1.93 0.24 7 Year 3 5.73 1.91 0.68 Sex 1 0.07 0.07 0.03 p < 05

PAGE 212

197 Ho 5b. There is no significant interaction between age groups and the number of years since completion of the SPAT on each factor of the SPAT An examination of Table 63 indicates that age groups were the source at the .05 level on three factors : Factor 1. Negative Parental Interaction, Factor 5. Positive Verbal Behaviors, and Factor 7. Authority. Number of years since completion of the STEP group was the source of significant interaction at the .05 level on one other factor: Factor 4. Coercion. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. Ho 5c. There is no significant interaction between current marital status and the number of years since compleof the STEP course Current marital status was the source of significant interaction at the .05 level for two of the seven factors (see Table 64) : Factor 1. Negative Parental Interaction, and Factor 7. Authority. Number of years since completion of the STEP course was the source of significant interaction at the 05 level for Factor 4, Coercion. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 213

198 TABLE 6 3 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND AGE GROUP Source of Variation Factor Main Effects 1 Year Age Group 2 Year Age Group 3 Year Age Group 4 Year Age Group 5 Year Age Group 6 Year Age Group 7 Year Age Group *p < .05 Sum of Mean f Squares Square F 3 84. 04 28. 01 0. 88 3 436. 30 145. 43 4. 57* 3 54. 34 18. 11 1. 52 3 57. 08 19. 03 1. 59 3 13. 17 4. 39 0. 98 3 25. 25 8. 42 1. 87 3 24. 66 8. 22 2. 69* 3 18. 05 6. 02 1. 97 3 28. 36 9. 45 2. 19 3 35. 29 11. 76 2. 73* 3 40. 86 13. 62 1. 69 3 25. 42 8. 47 1. 05 3 3. 87 1. 29 0. 46 3 22. 28 7. 43 2. 67*

PAGE 214

199 TABLE 64 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND CURRENT MARITAL STATUS (CURMARST) Source of Variation Factor Main Effects Sum of Mean f Squares Square F 3 108.06 36.02 1.10 1 153.77 153.77 4.72* 3 22.74 7.58 0.70 1 0.08 0.08 0.01 3 19.08 6.36 1.59 1 5.92 5.92 1.48 3 28.28 9.43 3.21* 1 3.67 3.67 1.25 3 26.93 8.98 2.05 1 7.50 7.50 1.72 3 47.39 15.80 2.01 1 8.29 8.29 1.05 3 7.26 2.42 0.86 1 16.51 16.51 5.87* 1 Year CURMARST 2 Year CURMARST 3 Year CURMARST 4 Year CURMARST 5 Year CURMARST 6 Year CURMARST 7 Year CURMARST *p < .05

PAGE 215

200 Ho 5d. There is no significant interaction between the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey and the number of years since completion of the STEP course An examination of Table 65 indicates that there is only one significant interaction main effect at the .05 level. It is for the number of children living at home at the time of the SPAT survey, for Factor 1, Negative Parental Interaction. The null hypothesis was rejected.

PAGE 216

201 TABLE 65 SUMMARY TABLE FOR FACTOR ANOVA BY YEAR AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN NOW LIVING AT HOME (NOCHNOW) Source of Variation Factor Main Effects Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW Year NOCHNOW *p < .05 Sum of Mean f Squares Square F 3 40.35 13.45 0.49 4 365.22 91.30 3.31* 3 15.12 5.04 0.46 4 38.48 9.62 0.89 3 14.06 4.69 1.21 4 28.35 7.09 1.83 3 25.43 8.48 2.36 4 6.71 1.68 0.47 3 54.91 18. 30 2.43 4 5.49 1.37 0.18 3 7.32 2.44 0.86 4 8.94 2.23 0.79

PAGE 217

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to investigate the parenting attitudes and behaviors of individuals who had completed the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program. More specifically, the dependent variables of sex, age, marital status, number of children, and the length of time since completion of the STEP course were analyzed by the 30 items and 7 factors derived from the research instrument, the STEP Parenting Assessment Technique (SPAT) Perceived benefits of the STEP course were also measured. Summary The SPAT was mailed to individuals in Gainesville, Florida, and Tucson, Arizona, who had completed the STEP course. The population of this study consisted of 76 valid responses from Gainesville (76 percent return) and 280 valid responses from Tucson (49 percent return) Thus, 356 respondents (53 percent return) provided the data for this study. 202

PAGE 218

203 Perceived Benefits of STEP The SPAT respondents, in both Gainesville and Tucson, perceived the STEP course as a valuable experience. Ninetythree percent recommended the course for other parents. Respondents agreed that the STEP course helped them increase their knowledge of parenting (91 percent) improve their relationships in their family (76 percent) improve their communication with children (80 percent) and lessen conflict with their children (61 percent) When asked what they liked most about the STEP course, 25 percent of the respondents stated that they benefited from the process of learning with and from other parents. They were also encouraged to discover that their parenting concerns were similar to other parents. When asked what they liked least about the STEP course, 2 percent of the respondents expressed a desire for more group sessions and indicated that the course was too brief. Some expressed a desire for a follow-up course. Less than 5 percent of the respondents indicated the leader as the most, or least, liked aspect of the group. SPAT Item Analyses The 30 items were analyzed using ANOVA procedures on the variables of sex, age, marital status, number of children, and length of time since completion of STEP. Each of the five major hypotheses are discussed by these dependent variables.

PAGE 219

204 Sex There is no significant difference between men and women on the 30 SPAT items on four of the five major hypotheses. There was significant interaction between sex and location on 6 of the 30 SPAT items (Ho 4) The reader is cautioned that males were just 11 percent of the population of this study. However, this percentage is similar to the ratio of men and women who attend the STEP course. Age Results suggested that there is a difference in unpleasant parenting behaviors between respondents 40 or more years of age, and younger respondents. Specifically, older respondents (age 41-65) reported fewer negative interventions with their children than younger parents. For example, they used less physical punishment. They also believed that physical punishment should not be used with children. They used a loud voice less often to show disapproval, had fewer bedtime troubles, and had more appropriate responses to children's misbehaviors. Four of the five major null hypotheses related to age were rejected. Marital Status There were no significant differences between the two types of parenting situations. However, it is noted that single-parent home respondents indicated more agreement with STEP concepts such as non-intervention in a child's messy room, or making sure that children eat all of their food. Their reported behaviors were not significantly different from the two-parent home respondents. One of the five hypotheses related to marital status was

PAGE 220

205 rejected. There was significant interaction between marital status and location on 8 of the 30 items (Ho 4) Number of Children The significant differences on this variable were between respondents with one child, and all other respondents. One-child respondents indicated stronger agreement with the concept that physical punishment should not be used on children. The two-way ANOVA by location and number of years since completion of the STEP course also indicated that these parents reported fewer uses of physical punishment. Two of the null hypothesis related to number of children were rejected. The null hypotheses for the total population (Ho 1) was rejected, as 6 of the 30 items had significant differences. There was also a significant interaction between the number of children and location on 7 of the 30 items and this null hypothesis (HO 4) was also rejected. Years since STEP There were no significant differences between respondents based on the number of years since completion of the STEP course. The null hypothesis was not rejected. Differences between Gainesville and Tucson ANOVA on the items by respondent location revealed no significant differences. The null hypothesis was not rejected. SPAT Factor Analyses In order to better understand the response patterns of the participants in this study, the 30 items on the SPAT

PAGE 221

206 were factor analyzed. Seven factors, which account for 28 of the 30 items, were used to test the five major null hypotheses with ANOVA procedures on the variables of sex, age groups, marital status, number of children, and the number of years since completion of the STEP group. Factor 1: Negative Parental Interaction The seven items which loaded on this factor are characterized by their unpleasant and unacceptable characteristics as STEP parenting behaviors. There were no significant differences by sex and the null hypotheses related to this variable was not rejected. Respondents age 41-65 had significantly fewer unpleasant interactions with their children. Thus, the null hypothesis related to age was rejected. Significant differences h : > current marital status suggested that single-parent home respondents had fewer negative interactions with their children. This significant difference was found in four of the five null hypotheses (Gainesville excluded) These four null hypotheses related to marital status were rejected. Significant differences by number of children on Factor 1 center on differences between one-child respondents and all others. One-child respondents had significantly fewer negative interactions with their child. Four of the five null hypotheses related to number of children were rejected (Gainesville excluded)

PAGE 222

207 There were no significant differences by number of years since completion of the STEP group for Factor 1. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected by age group, marital status, and number of children, but was not rejected by sex and number of years since STEP. Factor 2: STEP Knowledge This factor is characterized by the attitude questions which sought to determine whether respondents understood the STEP concepts which are the basis for effective parenting skills. There were no significant differences on any of the demographic variables and the null hypotheses were not rejected. Moreover, there were no significant differences by the number of years since completion of the STEP group. This suggests that many parents can learn the concepts and they can retain these concepts over a period of time. Factor 3: Non-intervention This factor consisted of four attitude items which are characterized by nonintervention by the parent in situations which are the child's responsibility (e.g., homework or condition of the child's room). These null hypotheses for sex, current marital status, number of children, and number of years since completion of the STEP group were not rejected. Differences by age group again indicate that respondents age 41-65 had significantly greater agreement with the STEP concept and this null hypothesis concerning age was rejected.

PAGE 223

208 Factor 4: Coercion The two items which constitute this factor are characterized by a misuse of reflective listening and the idea that mistakes are the best way to help children learn. The null hypothesis was rejected by age because respondents age 41-65 used significantly less coercion. The remaining four null hypotheses were not rejected. Factor 5: Positive Verbal Behaviors The two items in this factor are behavior frequency items dealing with encouragement and the use of reflective listening. The null hypotheses were not rejected by current marital status, number of children, or number of years since the STEP group. It was rejected by age group. Factor 6: Control/Consequences The four items which loaded on this factor had no significant differences by sex, age group, current marital status, number of children, and number of years since STEP. The null hypotheses were not rejected. Factor 7: Authority The two items which loaded on this factor include the attitude statement that disobedience is a personal challenge to authority as a parent, and the behavior frequency item which indicated whether the parent supervised or reminded about their children's homework. The null hypotheses were not rejected by sex, number of children, and number of years since STEP. They were rejected by age group and marital status.

PAGE 224

209 Limitations 1. The SPAT was returned by 5 3 percent of the initial population. The 356 valid responses were used as representative of the parents who participated in STEP courses and in the two cities. In addition, the respondents were 89 percent female and 85 percent from two-parent families. 2. Twenty percent of the respondents took Children: The Challenge not STEP. However, these book study groups had a similar philosophical foundation, group size and number of meetings. Similar skills were taught in both groups. ANOVA by the items on the SPAT indicated no significant differences between the book study and STEP group participants. The few differences that emerged seemed to be in the area of "communicaton skills," which were not a part of the book study group. 3. This study is the first time the SPAT has been administered to STEP group participants, as it was developed by the researcher for the study. Data on the reliability and validity of the SPAT are limited. Yet, the SPAT is basically a survey instrument that appears to have the necessary reliability and validity needed for this investigation. 4. No attempt to administer pre and post group comparisons was made. It was not possible to identify the level of skill or the parenting attitudes of respondents prior to the STEP course, or to assess any gains. Nevertheless, it

PAGE 225

210 is possible to comprehensively assess and conclude what the respondent attitudes and behaviors are currently. Conclusions The data collected and analyzed in this investigation strongly suggests that the STEP program was predominately attended by white, married women. This is not too surprising, since many parent education programs in schools and agencies serve this type of population. This study made no attempt to control for race, sex, marital status, or other dependent variables. However, many males traditionally do not take time to become involved in parent education. In this sense the population of this study was representative of many STEP groups. Nevertheless, the reported attitudes and behaviors in this study probably reflects the female parenting perspective as to the value of STEP and what is taking place at home. While the STEP program may be no different from other programs in methods by which it is advertised to parents, it is possible that the program may be more appealing to women than men.' Those who offer the STEP program may want to examine their approach on the conditions under which STEP is advertised, so that more males and/or couples will be inclined to participate. Because there were few significant differences among the dependent variables on both the items and the derived factors of the SPAT, STEP appears to be a viable parent

PAGE 226

211 education experience regardless of the participants' sex, age, marital status, or number of children. It is also noted that few significant differences were found between the Gainesville and Tucson populations. This is another indication that STEP could be a viable parent education for many parent groups or specific populations. The result of this study may be encouraging to individuals contemplating the future use of STEP where there is now no parent education program. The structured activites within the STEP sessions are apparently standardized enough to be used with equal success with varied populations. In addition, this study also suggests that the STEP program is sufficiently structured so that the parent education experience is consistent across leaders. Approximately 25 to 30 different individuals led the STEP groups in this study. None had extensive group leadership training as a condition for leading the STEP groups. Thus, the STEP program may compensate for variances in leader style and personality. This is not to say that leaders are not important in the success of the program as facilitators ofthe STEP structure. But the leader, as an important individual, was mentioned by less than 5 percent of the respondents as the most or least liked aspect of the course. The opportunity to meet in a group, interaction with other parents, and the STEP Parent's Handbook were indicated as the most liked aspect of the course.

PAGE 227

212 Examination of the SPAT item responses by percentage for the total population (Appendix E) Gainesville population (Appendix F) and Tucson population (Appendix G) provides some evidence that the participants in the STEP course can learn new parenting concepts and can behave relatively consistent to these concepts. For example, more than 8 4 percent of the respondents agreed that misbehavior has a purpose. This concept is one conerstone of the STEP program. The respondents agreed that effective communication with children requires certain skills (91 percent) They also reported frequent use of encouragement with their children in the week prior to the SPAT survey (71 percent) Respondents not only remembered concepts taught in the course, but reported using these skills with their children. When the SPAT items within the seven factors are examined, findings suggest that respondents were generally consistent in both attitude and behavior. For example, 81 percent of the respondents agreed that it is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns with their children. They agreed that certain typical parental interventions are not necessary. • As educated in the STEP course, less than 17 percent reported the need to supervise homework; less than 12 percent felt the need to remind a child they were late for something, and less than 13 percent reminded their children about bedtime. In this study, parents were asked to report whether they used the skills taught in the STEP course. Future

PAGE 228

213 studies may want to actually observe parent behaviors and perhaps assess more specific parental attitudes toward their children. Also, this study made no attempt to ask children if they perceived a change in their parents' attitudes, or how often the parents may have used behaviors consistent with STEP concepts in their interaction with them. Nevertheless, the findings in this study suggest that participants remembered parenting concepts taught in the STEP group and they reported use of these skills. Perhaps one of the most significant findings in this study is that 9 3 percent would recommend the STEP course to other parents. Only 2 percent would not do so. Recommendations 1. STEP group leaders could use the SPAT as a preand post-group test of their participants' parenting attitudes and behaviors. 2. More research is needed on STEP groups and the SPAT. For example, efforts might focus on the relationship between the age's of the parents and their children. Or, research might focus on males who participate in STEP groups. Also, future research might assess the impact of the STEP group on spouses who do not attend the group, and the impact on the relationship between attending and nonattending spouses. In addition, future research could focus on the child's perception of parents who attend the STEP group.

PAGE 229

214 3. Future research could include observations of actual parenting behaviors, instead of self-reported behavior assessments. 4. Research could focus on the effects of the STEP group experience by comparing group participants with individuals who read the STEP Parent's Handbook, but attend no group sessions. 5 The SPAT could be used to compare and contrast STEP participants with individuals who choose to not attend STEP groups. This research could focus on parenting attitudes and behaviors. The Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program is a popular parent education program. It is being widely used throughout the United States and foreign countries. It is likely that its use will continue to grow. This study provided some evidence to its effectiveness, regardless of participants* sex, age, marital status, number of children, or number of years since completion of the STEP course.

PAGE 230

APPENDIX A STEP PARENTING ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE STEP Parenting Assessment Technique I. Please provide the following information about yourself. Your name WILL NOT be used in any way. Your responses are confidential. 1. Female or Male. 2. Ethnic Origin (check one): Spanish American Oriental American Indian ___White Black Other 3. What is your age? You were in, at the time you took the STEP course: a single parent home OR a two parent home Has your marital status changed since the STEP course? Yes or Nn You are currently in: a single parent home OR a two parent home When you took the STEP course, how many children were living at home? Write that number here: How many children are living at home NOW? Write that number here: ______ (Answer only if you did NOT take the STEP course) Please complete all four pages, and indicate the type of parent education course you took: Children the Challenge book study group ____ Not sure Other (Please specify): PLEASE TURN THE PAGE TO PART II 215

PAGE 231

216 II. Directions: Circle the number which is closest to your reaction to each statement. Use the following numbers to indicate your response. 1 SA Strongly Agree 2 = A = Agree 3 U • Uncertain 4 D Disagree 5 = SD = Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 SA A y D SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 Parents should make children do their homework. 2. All misbehavior has a purpose. 3. Parents should not get involved in verbal arguments between children. 12 3 4 5 4. Effective communication with children requires certain skills. 12 3 4 5 5. Giving rewards teaches children to expect pay-offs for cooperation. 12 3 4 5 6. A child's messy room is not the parent's problem. 12 3 4 5 7. Parents should make sure that children eat all of their food. 12 3 4 5 8. Encouragement is more effective than praise in motivating children. 12 3 4 5 9. Physical punishment should not be used on children. 12 3 4 5 10. Children learn best when mistakes are pointed out to them. 12 3 4 5 11. A child's misbehavior is for one of four goals. 12 3 4 5 12. Pity tells a child that she or he is incapable. 12 3 4 5 13. Encouragement is a reward for something well done. 12 3 4 5 14. Reflective listening means telling a child what you think they should do. 12 3 4 5 1 5. An l-message is a way of telling a child what you want them to do. 12 3 4 5 16. Logical consequences are punishments that make sense. 12 3 4 5

PAGE 232

217 1 2 3 4 5 SA A U D SD 17. Ignoring a misbehavior is a consequence. 12 3 4 5 18. Each family member has an equal vote in decisions at family meetings. 12 3 4 5 19. Disobedience is a personal challenge to my authority as a parent 12 3 4 5 20. It is useful to determine problem ownership in concerns about children. 12 3 4 5 21. The STEP course helped me increase my knowledge of parenting. 12 3 4 5 22. The STEP course helped improve relationships in our family. 12 3 4 5 23. As a result of the STEP course, my communication with children has improved. 12 3 4 5 24. As a result of the STEP course, I have less conflict with my children. 12 3 4 5 25. I would recommend the STEP course to other parents. 12 3 4 5 26. What did you like the most about the STEP course? 27. What did you like the lean about the STEP course? PLEASE GO ON TO SECTION III TURN THE PAGE

PAGE 233

218 III. DIRECTIONS: Indicate how frequently each of your behaviors occurred with all your children in the past week: 1 • VS Very Seldom 2 = S = Seldom 3 S = Sometimes 4 O Often 5 = VO Very Often 1. Supervised or reminded about homework. 2. Used physical punishment. 3. Reminded a child they were late for something. 4. Told a child to finish or eat part of a meal. 5. Encouraged a child by words or actions. 8. Used reflective listening in a conversation. 7. Used a loud voice to show disapproval. 8. Reminded a child about chores or other commitments. 9. Had trouble with bedtime. 10. Did not have a good response to a child's misbehavior. 12 3 Please feel free to make any other comments about your experiences before, during, or after the STEP Group. You may enclose a separate page if you wish: 1 2 3 4 5 VS 1 S yo 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 A postage-paid envelope has been provided for the return of this survey. Thank you for your heipt Copyright Don Dinkmeyer jr. 1980 Reprinted with permission.

PAGE 234

APPENDIX B COVER LETTER TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS FOR FIRST MAILING OF SPAT Dear STEP program participant: Congratulations l You have been selected to participate in a nationwide survey of parents who have completed the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program. Enclosed is a survey which will take very little time-ten to fifteen minutes — to complete. There are no right or wrong answers, and there is no attempt to judge you as a parent. The purpose of my research is only to learn from the many parents who have completed the STEP program. Enclosed is: 1. An 8 1/2 by 5 1/2 survey on colored paper. The directions are on each page. 2. A postage-paid envelope addressed to me, for your return of the survey. Thank you for participating in this research. Sincerely, Don Dinkmeyer, Jr. 219

PAGE 235

APPENDIX C CONTENT VALIDITY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SPAT DIRECTIONS: There are two parts to this questionnaire. (ONE) For the first part, please turn to the attached copy of the SPAT. Examine each of the 35 statements, and for each statement, please circle one of the numbers on the Likert scale according to the relationship between that statement and the concepts in the STEP program. The scale is : 5 There is a very strong relationship to STEP program concepts. 4 There is a strong relationship to STEP program concepts 3 There is a moderate relationship to STEP program concepts. 2 There is a slightly relevant relationship to STEP program concepts. 1 The statement is irrelevant to STEP program concepts As there is already a five-point Likert scale following each statement in the SPAT, please circle the appropriate number, according to the above scale. Please keep in mind this definition of "STEP program concepts." The concept of encouragement, for example, is contrasted with praise in the STEP program. Therefore, the STEP concept and its contrasting counterparts are, in fact concepts of the program, as both are discussed and charted. (TWO) Please react to the SPAT in general. Space for specific comments has been provided on the following page. Please turn to the second page. 220

PAGE 236

221 1. The language used in the statements is understandable. Agree Disagree Comments : 2. The meaning of the statements will be easily understood by the STEP participants. Agree Disagree Comments: 3. The format of the SPAT is appropriate for assessing the parenting attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge of STEP concepts of past participants in the STEP program. Agree Disagree Comments: 5. The statements appear to be relevant to attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. Agree Disagree Comments : 6. The SPAT would be a useful tool in assessing STEP participants. Agree Disagree Comments: 7. Any other comments you wish to make: Your participation inthis research is deeply appreciated. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you! Sincerely, Don Dinkmeyer, Jr. Encl : SPAT SASE to DDjr.

PAGE 237

APPENDIX D FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS (date) Dear STEP program participant: We need your help. You were selected to participate in a nationwide survey of parents who completed the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) program. According to our records, you were sent a survey which is needed in order to study the STEP program. We are anxious to receive your response, but we have not yet heard from you. Since there are no right or wrong answers, and there is no attempt to judge you as a parent, we hope to hear from you soon. Your answers, of course, are confidential and names are not used in examining the results of the survey. Another copy of the survey is enclosed. For your convenience, another postage-paid envelope is enclosed. Please tak'e a few minutes to complete the survey and return it to us. Thanking you for your help, I remain, (signed) Don Dinkmeyer, Jr. Enclosed: Survey Return envelope. 222

PAGE 238

223 w o < En a W U w W VO X ft m H n Q i* 2 PQ II w ft en £ ft 2 rf: H B H En i cd H CD tn p. G tn o td U to +J -H CA Q CD CD u tn (0 CO •H a w CU c in •H rd n3 -P +J a P. i rH &1 G a) 0) P p, -P tn en x • g U T3 H 3 O Xi 03 O 1) g o .a w p g cu P rd o CI) Td CD .a -p CO o CO VO a LO CO LO LT> rCD co O P a, CO td X! P o •H > rd ,G 0) X) co •H g rH <: a C\l O rH vo 9 CXl VO CO CN T3 > rH O > G -H -P (U tn -P O C! Tl rH fl o X! en co -P G a) iH rd ft G CD CD -p CO -p C CD i 3 Cn P rd ro G X! CD in P CD id > rH •H G JG •H O rH rH CN CO CM V£> CO LO LTl -p H G P G rd O -P H P P CD rd O o -H 3 LO a g 3 O tj 1 CJ CD P CD > G rH CD -p p O T3 rH CU rH rH m -H -H < ,g ,*: wow a o CO CO rH vo rH VO o rH CM G I CD rd U P 1 U rd rd a CD -P U U CD tn a rl 0) c > o H O -H O -P -P LO a rj< rH CM CJ1 CO CD XI -p O CO -H s o o n • S >i CD CO rH CO X! CD O g U T3 rH rH X! u -< p a CU u rd o CM m CN VD rH en ffl CO t 4 IT) o -p rd xl •P CD U CO o O MH M •H CD XI -P CD MH ^4 O rH XI CO CO -p 0) P. rd ft rH rH rd -P rd cu a CD M fd rH •H X! O o LO VD O rH CM LD en CD > H -P U CD rl -P o g c H P e CD CD g CO •H CD tn rd rd M C a) M 13 VD a O 3 O G O rd -H C £ 4^ W -P U CO a

PAGE 239

224 to a) tn id +j a 03 O H a) ft >i a> H to tn M £ cn rd 5-1 w 4-1 H CA Q QJ o S3 D qj u >i 00 oo cn cn IT) 00 cn O O CM LO ID m cn o H LO cn -a o H kO oo CM CM LO CO CN CO in CO o H cn tn cn >=* H cn O ro t 3 H m CO 3* 3 cn CM LO o WJ VO ^D CN tn • • a a UD CM m CN H CTi CN ^r CM H CNJ CO rrH CO cn CO tn a p^ <* cn ro d> • • • • o • o H U cn •sji cn CM cn rH r> o r4-> fji CM rH 00 1X1 4 1 g 54 i g H QJ PI cn QJ 54 O •H rH X •H X o 0) m XI CD 4-1 QJ -a g 4J m X cn 4-i 4J CO H cn a c 4-1 S to 3 C cn u rd 3 MH C CD QJ H QJ 4-1 •H 4-J rd QJ rd 54 cn X X rtj £ g >s S rd 5-1 C & 4-> 54 X QJ >i QJ • 3 4-1 54 • tP4-> rd ^ cn X H 4-> a 4-1 O -H QJ C rd 5 QJ rd > a QJ cn > • is QJ rd a H X >1 g rd rjj 5-1 CD T3 cd cn H rH C £ rd d X g ^ X QJ XI H •H XI cn t QJ 4-1 CU 4-> QJ X! H •P QJ rd X! rd -H 4-) 'd • cn rd 3 rd X! cn -i-t fl fl X! o u Qj rH cn H o H X tnx cn • •H X! 54 -H cn Cn rd 4-> rH -H -H T3 3= (1) 4-) •H QJ a O rd •H rrj u d (1) H X QJ cn g O 3 QJ Q, g U a QJ 5 O t3 ind ti cn a a a H 3 cn -H g QJ rH rd H 4-J rd QJ o QJ cn rH rd 3 cn -h U G 3 iH C 5-1 MH m CO tn a H O cn X QJ tn tn rd V3 0) rd 54 XI u c cn g rd X h cn h cn tj cn -H o QJ 3 +J QJ -H 1 rd O o cn 54 a cn 3 H QJ X >iX o QJ HH>i H T5 H -H >i •H ^ o QJ 4-> o g WHO tn tn a c u £ QJ x rd a H U c CD QJ X C cl 3 tn Ph X! U 4-1 < Ph O W cn 4-1 4-> < -H +J t-^ Cu H rd g # # • • • m • QJ cn o rH CN 00 ^P m yo r4-> a rH rH ,-4 rH rH rH rH rH H a a a a a a a a

PAGE 240

225 >i CD rH CD &i M g Cn O fO M en 4-> -H en Q CD CD U Cn rcS en H Q en CD fl tn •H (0 fij +J 4-> fl M CD O u M a CD D cx, CD CD U Oi < O O O H co en O H m o ID CN m CM o CN "5* CM rin CM "tf LO C CD • o O CD O m i CD O CO G P a a en -H •H co a en U g U to U P £|-H CD X3 cd a en &,P P -H Sh -h 3 CD CL) O (0 (0 d ex A CD 1 T3 • en en >i O £ • CD Cn H g -P en a g a a P CD H H CD H CD P >1 P O 4-) a a tJ rH CD 0) e >W SH H -U CD CD CD • CD O -H g o e •H Cn-P en xi CO > Ti a a ago m >i CD CD 0) CD H rH X) H p en H +J A tO •H O M nj •H £) a 3 s en to PL| O to tr 1 to •H £ P P £! W cd 4h a o tO h a ifl e • t < CD CO a\ o -P rH H CN H a a O

PAGE 241

226 rd +j G o M a, a >i u -P m > o G r* in CO CN rr CN ro W CTl 0) 4-> rH rH m H ^ in CN rH o o Ch rCN rH ro CN CN SJ< *r rH ^r g en S UD rH CN o 10 o r- o t> co n3 rH in m CN O CN H cn r> in CI 0) H rH CN <-i rH rH H rH <-[ cn g VO t> ro rH in H CO ro rH en >iTJ M rH 00 o CT\ CO ro ro CN r CN cn (L) *}< rCN ro rH LD >H > CO CO CD u CO CU G • in M Cn 3! X! i O • +J CD a U CD &4 U a 5 H XI g CO O 13 XI C CO 4-> H -H CU e >i CO >i CD 3 • -P U > -d X! CD -H X! 4-1 CO 13 rd g co X! • G • CO 4-> X! 4-1 n3 X! •H H 4-1 Cn •H <-i Tj •H • rd G X> O e C g m rd rH rH G CD CD O X! a) 3 T3 •H •H CO O TS g XJ Cn co M • Cu H X g XI G CD •H •H rH 4J 4J H ^ •H X> +j O O > 4-1 O •H H •H cd g !h H rH X! CD rd H H rd > X! g & o rd o g T3 rrj 4-> 4-> co • U g CO 3* U rH m O U T3 !-. O >>d 0) H rrj co •rH o T3 rd CD CD 3 rd rd u rH rd T3 S CO X) CU rH > O > X! X! rH CO >i id u +) tn M 4H G :-] O T3 !H 2 •iH H X! X! CU o u rd O CD u CU CU O 4-) X! > a ^d tw rd rd U W rd a r d X! u O U !H 4-) G cu 3 CO a, G 4J 4-> G 0) 3 TJ •H CD 13 t3 Td rd T3 rd •H rd Oj CO g 4-> rH 4-1 O M CD CD CO g T) T3 3 .12 CO CD rd O rd a o CO G CO •rH CD >H rd •H O CO rd P tf rH E-h CU M £ D •H ID <3 ed IS a 4-j S H CN ro <* in D r00 CTl o 4-> H H H H H H H H H rH

PAGE 242

227 h X H Q ES W ft S3 I w Q o Hi CO W 3 w H > CO w a H O rw a t PQ co g W Eh H Eh << P4 en ii >i CD H 0) CD U f5 en rd M co -P -H cd a a) p di 03 CO •H Q CO a) a Cn H rd CO P P a M O) i rH CD fi a) O CD u u -P Cn co < CD 4J oo CM CO CM H ro cr> CM CD u TJ •H o CD ^ • rd M S M O & CD g O 45 t3 H X! co P H 0) 45 4-> co -P G CD M rd O a CM 3 O o co m ro CD co O & P a. CO rrj X! Jh O H > rd CD 43 CO -H g < CM o CM rH 00 CO o H co in en o CM CD > H O > -rH P CD Cn P O £ H O 45 CO co P a CD P rd Pm C a) CD P CD 43 CO p CD 1 Cn P rd rd a 45 CD P U CD ^3 > rH H fl 45 H U ro H o CM ro ro UD ro a a CM 01 \o T CM CM rH a i CD rd P P T3 CD H 04 H O 45 O O O CO P CD O 45 m o rd CO a> hh p m o CO I V >i P rd rd a O -H O -H O P P LO a rH CM tjl CO LO ro m ro rH CD 45 p p o a CO -H g o o p g >1 •H P O a) m en H P CD rd P O g P O co g H (5 -P -H (5 CD CD g CD Cn rd rd P P 3 co •H • f4 CD Ck P rQ O £ rH O rd -H W -P o co O

PAGE 243

228 >i CD rH CD tn M a Cn o ni P. cn P "H CO Q CD CD M Cn (0 w •H Q CO G en H rd CO +J P G 5-1 CD o U M G CD D Ph CD CD P. Cn rtj >1 CO t >43 CT> in o CM to CM in n co m r-CM rH CO "3" CM r> CN H rCM cn rH m CM rH in r> LO CM CM m CO CO CO CO co LD O <3< in rH D 0> M3 in CM CM CO t H co to LO CO CM CM in CO o • CO in CM CN CM CM rH a CD CO r- m r*> CO rvo r-i to CD • • • • • a • u U to CM CO <* o CM in VD in •p Cn CM CM n CO < -p G nd rH I g en cd H £1 5 4J P 43 en M MH T3 44 G -H 43 en -P G 1 rH rH CD p g CD 43 -P -P CD CO co pi G CO P cd ^ tp a CD CD •H CD -P •H -P (0 CD o t0 u CO X! X! (0 & £ >i & rd M cn 5 -P P 43 CD >1 O • 3 -P P Cn-P (0 3 CO 44 •H •P g •P H • CD S3 co & CD rd > a CD en > • 13 CD t0 a H 43 >i g (6 CD p CD T3 rd en rH r-i G £ to fl 43 § T3 X! CD 43 rH H 43 en i CD -p CD p £ H •P CD f0 43 a •H -P T3 • en cd fl fti 43 CO •H ,a a X! O a, h en rH o H 4: ^43 en • H XI U -H CO cn td -P r-, -H -H T3 & CD p •H G t0 O •H CO 2 en -H G 3 rH G P m H CO en g •H O en 43 0) cn (j 1 rd T5 CD fO 13 CD •H f0 •H -P tn43 CD O rH g G o CD !H rH <4H -P M 43 G en g • t0 43 •H en -H to t3 en -rH CD 3 -p CD -H 1 t0 O co rH G CO 2 rH CD 43 >l43 CD rH H >i H a •H •H >1 •H X o CD -P o s 4H rH CD e en a G O 43 CD A tO G -H P G o CD CD 43 £3 E3 O Q 35 Cn dl 43 U -P < O Ph w co 06 +> -P < •H +> h3 a H tO e B t c • CD CI o rH CM m ^ m W3 r4J a rH ^-\ rH H rH rH rH <-i H a a a O a a a O

PAGE 244

229 >i 1 cri H i0 CM cm CN O if) o in en ^o cn CM CM 00 CO in Cn CN CO ^r B t CD O rd B P B B 03 O -H •H O cn a cn p g O cti M O 5-1 A -H CD XX CD B cn CU-P P -H P -H B CD CD id cd ^d & £ CD g n3 i CO cn >, H O Xi • CD fcn h g p in B g B B S-l CD •H •H CD O rH Q) 5-1 >i P O P 3 Cd rH CD OJ B ip 5 H •H -p CD 0) CD • C) OH g O g -H fcnp cn xi cd > t3 B B B g u m >i CD CD CD CD H rH A rH M W rH +J ,B cd •H O H cd rlfl3 O 3 6 cn cd a O rd U 1 cd •h ^ P P £! H CD in Q cd h ftnj g t • • CD CO Ch o -P rH rH CN H a a a

PAGE 245

230 to CD tn id 4-1 c CD o M (1) c >t CD U -P CD M-4 > O d r* tn 00 CM rr— CM ro m Cn CD -M H rH en co co rH *& ^D Cn 4-1 rH rH T ro CM CN O CN if) CN ID ^5 CM CM in in in TO CD g 00 in CO CM o rH CTi ^ 00 H •H -P cn H "fl< m CM rH o O en r~ 01 CN rH ro CN CM *tf ^f rH t g O en g U3 rH CM o *-o o e'o [•* c£> U rH in in CM r> CN H en rin en it3 P. H ro o o\ 00 CO CO CM p CN en 0) 0) •>* P* CN ro rH m rH > CO tn CD CD U to CD O d • P P tn & 45 • o • 4-> CD d O o CD &, p a & •H 45 g CO Id CD 45 d to 4-> H CD -H CD s >1 to >1 CD 3" 4-1 P > U 45 CD -H 42 4J to 13 rd a CO -d • d • to 4-> 43 4-1 CD 13 45 -H •H •P tn H rH 13 -H • rd d 42 O CD g c d 4-1 rd H • rH d CD CD 43 CD 3 'a -h CD H CO O T3 g 45 tn to P • a H 45 g 45 d CD -H H rH 4-1 4-1 •H M H -P -p > -P •H -H H rd g U U H 45 CD rd H -H rd > 45 g 5 fd g T3 rd 4-) 4-> CO o O g rrj 0) •H rd co H 13 rd CD CD d rd rd o rH rd 13 CD g TO 45 CD rH > o > X! 45 -H CO >1 13 P O 4-> tn U 4-1 d rH O T3 P P -H •H 45 43 CD u rd O CD O P Q, 13 4-1 (fl rd P P O rd Cu 13 45 P O U U 4-> d a, 3 to &, d P 4-1 d (D d 13 •H CD T) O 13 13 rd 13 rd H O rd CU CD g 4-1 rH 4-> M CD CD to g U 13 tf X) co CD rd rd d o CO £ CO -H CD P rd •H O CO rd D & H B CD m ss P -H D 13 tf S5 Q 4J g rH CN ro •* in UD r> 00 en o 4-1 H H H H H H H H H rH H H

PAGE 246

231 O X H Q a H PM Hi 3 CO Eh 3 W Q a o CM 2 a o w u D Eh — o CO W CM < II a a w u & w CM >H pq en w En Eh CM CO >i cu h a) tr> P, ti tn as P, tQ -P -H en a CD a) p tn (d CO -H Q m 0) fi in H rfl d -P -p G P 0) CD o P s (U D Cm (1) a) P en < >i H en C Q) as P P P tn en (T> ro ro CM CO rH ci QJ P rH -H 4^ O as ^ • as ^ "~ p o & QJ g o T5 H O J3 £! CO P CO -H -P cu as -P P as O Cm T3 "5f o en o\ e • CN 00 rH a "5T in co co co co O CM P 3 Cm co 03 A U o -H > aj X! Q) Xi co -H g < CN a CM CN rH O ro Cn CO r^ ^ CN T5 CU > H O > a •H -P 0) tn -P o T5 H o X! co CO -p a 0) P 03 CM c cu & -P CD X! CO -p a CD tn P 05 as a x> as u u CU T3 > rH H C X! •H CJ CN CO co CO CO O -P U co O tS rH CU rH rH >4H -H -H MH ,C! 34 MOW a 00 in CD en m co CN C I CU as !h M n3 a) H Cm H O xi o O CQ P as o £ 4H o as co cu <4H -P cw O CO I P as a) Cm & cu -p P as en Cm C X • •H CU fi > o H O -H O -P +j CO r• en m CO in O 00 rH t • • • • f CM CO rH ^r ro ro rH rH CN CO in in CD 03 jC -P -P o a CO •H g O u • a >1 cu CO rH CO X! CU O g U Cm co CO Ti rH -P •H 0) p < Cm CD CD en en -P o ca o xi 4H -p p cu -H p cu 2 xi to -P 0) MH X o m a CO a rH rH aj -P 03 CD a 0) p CU rH P -H 03 A Cm U l> a TS rH P o xi CO CQ -P a o CO CD CO o CD CD LO CO as > H -P CD m en in cu C H -P -H -P O B G •H CI cu as co H as Cn as as P as Cm P Ofirl O 03 -H -P O w CO a

PAGE 247

232 M &i rd -p o M CD ft >1 CD H iJ> M CN r~ rCN rH ^ -* o H a Cn • i • • • • • a rd ro CTi o CN U3 CN oi ^ in M to ro -P -H Cfl Q a) CO u ro if ro LT) G1 CT\ ia\ r~ Cn • • • • • • fd CM CN 00 U3 O VQ CN rH o CO H Q ro "* CN "3* CN rH ro C H (0 o CO rH P* rH ^r r> rH ^> -P • • • • • • • u a\ cn a G\ O CN m '-£> CO H H 00 rH rH rH rH o S3 D CO LD ^r in ^D LD <}\ ro m ^ CO • • t • • u LD ro LT> Ch ro ia m 01 cn Cn ro CN in LO TP ^r xr ro < >i H Cn C CO o rro o "V H m s ro CO • • • a • • M M o m# o CN CT\ rH !* a\ CO 4-i Cn rH rH CN rH CN co < -P i • g r4 44 J5 1 H g CO a CO CO u -H H 45 •H .£3 o CO 44 45 CO 4-1 13 g 4J 4-1 45 co 4-1 4-1 CO H CO 13 a 4-1 f5 CO 3 Pi CO H rd 3 4-4 c -H CO 4-1 H 4-) rd CO O rd u CO £ & ft S g >1 £ rd M CO £ + U 45 CO >i 1 3 O 4-1 M c cn-P rd 3 CO 4. -H -p a +J H • CD (5 rd £ o rd > a CO to > 6 13 CO fd a H 45 >i O s rd CO m CO 13 rd CO H rH o 55 3 rd PI 45 g 13 ,3 CO X! ^H •H 45 co 13 CO -P 4-> X! H 4-) CO rd 3 CO -H o C 3 H C M m rH CO Cn a H o CO 45 cn o to 13 CO n> T) H rd •H 4-1 Cn45 CO rH e ci o CO M H m 4-) M 45 O Pi CO g • rd 45 H CO •H CO 13 CO H o CO 3 4-1 CO H 1 td O O CO r4 Pi W 3 H CO 45 >i45 o co rH rH >1 H 13 H -H O >H h a; CO 4-> o g M-l rH (D tn cn c Pi O £ (0 43 (0 pj H rH (5 CO CO 45 C Pi 3 Cn ft X! u 4-> < ft W CO 4-1 4-J 3 H 4J rHOi H rd g „ # 9 # CO CTi o r-l CN ro *tf in lO r+1 a H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH H a a a a a O O o

PAGE 248

233 >i co rH CD tn M fl Gn rti U to 4-1 -H CQ Q 0) 0) u in (0 CO -H Q en CD a tji H rd td -P 4-1 G M CO Q) O M fl 0) 13 ft CD CD H Cn < >1 o H o <* a^ CN o in rH CO CM CM rH • rH U3 CM rH in tn m 5 CO a cd • o CD H ci CM H u CM CM -P tn w < L0 co C rd H -P rH cd e rd rd >i CD O n3 G 4J c c CO O -H H O co a CO U g O (B U H X! -H CD & cd c to Oj4-> 4-> -H M -H 3 CD CD rd rd T3 Oj £} CD • H g , O rC i tj •H g 4-1 CO C g fl R M CD •H H CD O rH CD M >i 4-> O 4-1 ^ fifl H CU QJ G 4-1 ^ rH H 4-> 0) CD CD CD O -H g g H tP4J CO X5 (0 > T5 d G 3 g U m >i QJ CD CD CD H H X3 rH M CO rH 4-> £! (0 H O H rd rl£l 3 U 3 g CO (0 Cu O rd b 1 rd h .c +-> 5h XJ H 0) m Q U rd H CU rd g (1) CO o^ o 4-> rH rH CM H o a a

PAGE 249

234 c CM CNi # LD CN H in rH CI in >i CD M -P in rH ^T ^ oo o in rH Lf) m cd m CN rH rH > o c cu -p MH o CO cu CO m 0) rd g -p -H c -P a; CD g u CD cn Oj g T3 rH cu CO o M rH CD CD > cn CO in rH VD CO m oo CTi CN CO rr~ CM cn oo CM CM m oo CM cn m H CM CM OO CM rH rH cn rH rH O cn CM 00 oo in OO oo CM oo rVX3 CO m rH cm in cn cn m rH <3< in CM rH O o cn r^ CM rH O0 CM CM ^ TJ =? rH 3 U3 rH CM O ^D o ro r1 CO >1 a) 3 • P M > tJ 45 CD H X! p CO T3 rrj f5 CO £j • d • CO •p rQ -P CD H M f -H -P -p o o > -P O H -H -H rd g M U r-\ £ CD rrj H -H rrj > 45 § S O CO O g T3 rrj -P -P CO • U g CD CO & u o rH CH O O in 'd rCD >T3 CD H rO co -H O > 42 45 rH CO o >1 T3 U o •P cn U m fl rH O TS M 3 •H •H jj-j X! CD O H rrj O CD in CD CD -P 45 > a T3 4H Rj rcj U w o rrj cu T3 45 M O O M -P a a 3 CO Cu fl -P -P a CD 3 T3 •H CD ^ T3 T3 rrj T3 rrj H rd Cu O CD g -P rH p u (D CD CO g T3 TJ 3 X) CO CD cc! rrj G CO a CO •H CD M rrj H CO rcj O C4 H Eh CD W 3: D -H D T5 PS K Q -P g CD rH CN 00 i* LO CO f* CO cn o P H H H H H H H H H rH

PAGE 250

APPENDIX H BRIEF HISTORY OF PARENT EDUCATION The purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate the extensive chronology of parent education in the United States, to highlight its periods of intense activity and inactivity, and to provide a perspective on the current modes of Adlerian parent education. Croake and Glover (1977) have published the most extensive chronology of eighteenth and early nineteenth century parent education activities. This researcher provides the chronology of Adlerian parent education over the past two decades. 1815 The first recorded group meeting of parents occurred in Portland, Maine (Bridgman, 1930) Group meetings, concerned with the religious and moral improvement of children, began to spread across the northeastern United States. The me'etings were attended primarily by mothers and are the basis for "maternal association" study groups (Sunley, 1955) 1832 First Publication of Mother's Magazine. 235

PAGE 251

236 1840 Parents' Magazine is first published. It ceases publication in 1850. In 1841, another parenting publication, Mother's Assistant is published. Sunley (1955) states that these and many other mass media efforts begun in the mid nineteenth century eventually disbanded. 1888 The oldest continuous parent education program in the United States is begun under the auspices of the Society for the Study of Child Nature. The society also began that same year. It is functioning today as the Child Study Association of America. 1896 The Care and Feeding of Children (Holt, 1896) is published and becomes one of the first widely accepted books on parenting procedures. 1897 The Parent-Teacher's Association (PTA) is formed as the result of a Washington, D.C. women's conference. 1909 The first White House Conference on Child Welfare convenes 1912 The United States Children's Bureau is established. In that same year, Alfred Adler establishes Individual Psychology in Vienna after breaking from Freud's Psychoanalytic Society.

PAGE 252

237 1914 The United States Children's Bureau issues its first publication, Infant Care 1918 Parent education programs, focusing on health care, are established by the United States Public Health Service. 1929 Preschool and Parent Education is published as the twenty-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Educators (White House Conference, 1932) 1930 The English translation of Alfred Adler's The Education of Children is published. 1930 The United States Office of Education mails questionnaires to 2,533 organizations they believe may be conducting parent education. More than 600 questionnaires are returned. They indicate that 378 organizations are conducting some form of parent education. Of these 378 organizations, 126 are classified as conducting major parent education programs (White House Conference, 1932) 1932 An entire volume of the report of the 19 30 White House Conference on Child Health and Protection is devoted to parent education. The depression apparently enhances the growth of parent education. The Works Progress Administration sponsors child

PAGE 253

238 behavior presentations to interested groups so that teachers and professors can be employed. Research and training in child study and parent education is being conducted at major universities such as Columbia, Minnesota, Cornell, and Iowa (Croake and Glover, 1977) 1932 The White House Conference reports five major types of parent education, including group education and reading assignment. In the late 19 30 's, there was a decline in interest for parent education, as the permanency of traditional family life is questioned. The desirability of parental versus institutional child rearing is debated by some scholars (Brim, 1965). 1938 The National Council of Parent Education loses its financial support and is subsequently forced to disband. The tremendous financial and personnel needs of World War II contribute to the decline in parent education services. The chronology of significant Adlerian parent education activities' following World War II follows. 1952 Rudolf Dreikurs founds the American Society for Adlerian Psychology.

PAGE 254

239 1957 A survey of the country determines that Adlerian study groups are taking place in every state of the nation (Schulman, 1957) 1964 Dreikurs and Soltz publish Children; The Challenge It becomes the most widely used text for Adlerian child study groups. 1967 Soltz publishes a Leader's Manual to facilitate group discussions of Children: The Challenge (Soltz, 1967). It contains study questions and group formats. 1973 Dinkmeyer and McKay publish Raising a Responsible Child: Practical Steps to Successful Family Relationships Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs had previously published Encouraging Children to Learn: The Encouragement Process (Dinkmeyer and Dreikurs, 1963). 1975 Corsini and Painter publish The Practical Parent (Corsini and Painter, 1975) 1976 Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (Dinkmeyer and McKay, 1976) is published. It is the first multi-media Adlerian parent education program, and is specifically designed for small groups.

PAGE 255

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, G. The child and the state Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. Adler, A. What life should mean to you New York: Capricorn, 1954. Agati, G. J. and Iovino, J.W. Implementation of a parent counseling program. School Counselor 1974, 2_2 (2) 126-129. Anderson, J., Arueson, E. Brown, S., and Fischer, J. Adlerian family counseling: An evaluation Unpublished manuscript, Family Education Center of Hawaii, 1976. Bauer, M.T. A study of the effects of a group education program, Systematic Training for Effective Parenting, on self concept and assessment of child behavior Doctoral dissertation, the College of William and Mary, 19 77. Bridgman, R.O. Postwar progress in child welfare. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1930, 151, 32-45. Brim, O.G., Jr. Education for child rearing New York: Free Press, 1965. Carlson, J., and Jarman, M. Parent consulting: Developing power bases and helping people. Psychology in the Schools 1975, 12(3), 358-364. Corsini, R. and Painter, G. The practical parent New York: Harper and Row, 1975. Croake, J.W. and Glover, K.E. A history and evaluation of parent education. The Family Coordinator 1977, 26(2), 151-157. Dinkmeyer, D.C. Study of Adlerian child guidance counseling as measured by child-mother responses to problem inventories Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. 240

PAGE 256

241 Dinkmeyer, D. The "c" group: Focus on self as instrument. Phi Delta Kappan 1971a, 52(10), 617-619. Dinkmeyer, D. The "c" group: Integrating knowledge and experience to change behavior. The Counseling Psychologist 1971b, 3(1), 63-72. Dinkmeyer, D.C. Personal communication, May 18, 1980. Dinkmeyer, D., and Arciniega, G.M. Affecting the learning climate through "c" groups with teachers. The School Counselor 1972, 19(4), 249-253. Dinkmeyer, D., and Carlson, J. Counsulting: Facilitating human potential and change processes Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1973. Dinkmeyer, D, and Dinkmeyer, D.C, Jr. Systematic parent education in the schools. Focus on Guidance 1976, 8(10) 1-12. J Dinkmeyer, D, and Dreikurs, R. Encouraging children to learn: The encouragement process Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Dinkmeyer, D.C, and McKay, CD. Systematic training for effective parenting Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc. 1976. Dinkmeyer, D. and McKay, CD. Raising a responsible child: Practical steps to effective family relationships New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973. Dinkmeyer, D.C, McKay, CD., and Dinkmeyer, D.C, Jr. Parent education resource manual Coral Springs, Florida: CMTI Press, 1978. Dinkmeyer, D., and Muro, J. Group counseling: Theory and practice (2nd ed) Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1979. Dinkmeyer, D.C, Pew, W.L. and Dinkmeyer, D.C, Jr. Adlerian counseling and psychotherapy Monterey, California: Brooks Cole, 1979. Dreikurs, R. The challenge of parenthood New York: Hawthorn Books, 1948. Dreikurs, R. and Soltz, V. Children: The challenge New York: Meredith Press, 1964.

PAGE 257

242 Freeman, C. Adlerian mother study groups: Effects on attitudes and behavior. Journal of Individual Psychology 1975, 31(1), 37-50. Hereford, C. Changing parental attitudes through group discussion Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1963. Hillman, B.W. The parentteacher education center: A supplement to elementary school counseling. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling 1968, 3_(2) 111-117. Hillman, B.W. and Perry, T. The parentteacher education center: An evaluation of a program for improving family relations. Journal of Family Counseling 1975, 3, 11-16. Holt, L. The care and feeding of children New York: Appleton, 1926 (1896). Ivey, A. Microparenting Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1971. Losoncy, L. A comparison of two methods of teaching mothers parenting Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, 1978. McKay, G.D. Systematic Training for Effective Parenting: Effects on behavior change of parents and children Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1976a. McKay, G.D. Adlerian Parental Assessment of Children's Behavior Scale (APACBS) Unpublished instrument, 1976b. McKay, G.D. Personal communication, March 28, 198 0. McKay, G.D., and Hillman, B.W. An Adlerian multimedia approach to parent education. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling 1979, 14(1), 28-35. Moline, S.D. Systematic Training for Effective Parenting: A study of the effects of the STEP program on abusive parents' perceptions of their children's behaviors and attitudes toward the freedom of children Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1979. Pumroy, D. Maryland ParentAttitude Survey: A research instrument with social desirability controlled. Journal of Psychology, 1966, 64, 73-78.

PAGE 258

243 Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the authoritarian personality. Psychology Monograph 1956, 70 (18) Scanlon, L. Personal communication, June 27, 1980. Schaeffer, E.S., and Bell, R.Q. Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Development 1958, 29(3) 339-361. Schulman, E.D. Analysis of characteristics of 66 parentchild study groups in nine Maryland counties during 1954-1955 Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1957. Sekan, Y. Personal communication, January 1980. Seynaeve, E. Research on the effects of the systematic training for effective parenting program. Unpublished study, July 1977. Shoeben, E. Jr. The assessment of parental attitudes in relation to child adjustment. Genetic Psychology Monographs 1949, 39./ 101-148. Soltz, V. Study group leader's manual Chicago: Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago, 1967. Sunley, R. Early nineteenth century American literature on child-rearing. In M. Mead & M. Wolfenstein (eds.) Childhood in contemporary cultures Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Swenson, S.S. Changing expressed parental attitudes toward child-rearing practices and its effect on school adaptation and level of adjustment perceived by parents Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1970. Terner, J., and Pew, W.L. The courage to be imperfect: The life and work of Rudolf Dreikurs New York: Hawthorn, 19 77. Thorn, P. An evaluation of the long-term effects of Adlerian study groups. Unpublished master's thesis, Bowie State College, 1974. Tindall, J. Middle and junior high school counselors' corner. Elementary School Guidance and Counseli ng, 1974, 9(2) 159-164.

PAGE 259

244 Villegas, A.V. The efficacy of Systematic Training for Effective Parenting with chicana mothers Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1977. Walker, H.M. Construction and validation of a behavior checklist for the identification of children with behavior problems Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1967. Weaver, C. Personal communication, March 21, 1980. White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, Section III: Education and Training, Committee on the Family and Parent Education. Parent education: Types content and method New York: Century, 1932. Yackel, J. P. Personal communication, March 20, 1980.

PAGE 260

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Don Carl Dinkmeyer was born on June 2, 1952, in Oak Park, Illinois. He graduated from New Trier West High School, Northfield, Illinois, in 1970. He graduated from Lake Forest College in 1974 with a psychology major and the Illinois Elementary School Teaching Certificate. His M.S. in guidance and counseling from Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was completed in 1975. He has co-authored more than a dozen professional articles Adlerian Counseling and Psychotherapy and the Systematic Training for Effective Teaching (STET) program. He has conducted workshops, consultations, and convention presentations across the United States since 1975. He is a member of the Delegate Assembly of the North American Society of Adlerian Psychology, serves as the coordinator of their annual Region III Conference, and is the Associate Editor of the Individual Psychologist He is the son of E. Jane and Don Dinkmeyer, Sr. of Coral Springs, Florida. His younger brother, Jim, and wife also live in Coral Springs. 245

PAGE 261

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. Myrick, Chaizfti of Counselor. 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. ,-7 Paul W. Fitzgerald 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. .4? x /Z2M. m^ Ellen S. Amatea Assistant Professor of Counselor Education

PAGE 262

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. Donald L. Avila Professor of Foundations of Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Counselor Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 1981 Dean, Graduate School