Citation
Perceptions of disturbed and disturbing behavioral characteristics by school personnel

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions of disturbed and disturbing behavioral characteristics by school personnel
Creator:
Ramsey, Roberta S., 1940- ( Designer )
Schmid, Rex E. ( Thesis advisor )
Algozzine, Robert F. ( Thesis advisor )
Forgnone, Charles J. ( Reviewer )
Kimbrough, Ralph B. ( Reviewer )
Mercer, Cecil D. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1981
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiv, 215 leaves ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Acting out ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Educational administration ( jstor )
Emotional disturbance ( jstor )
Rating scales ( jstor )
School personnel ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Self control ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
Mentally ill children ( lcsh )
Problem children ( lcsh )
School administrators -- Attitudes ( lcsh )
Special Education thesis Ph. D
Putnam County ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
The purpose of the study was to determine if similar behavioral characteristics are perceived by school personnel to be indicative of "emotional disturbance" and to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. Relative perceptions of different types of school personnel toward behavioral characteristics considered indicative of "disturbed" and "disturbing" were examined. A conceptual framework was established by returning to the pioneer study of disturbing behaviors performed by E. K. Wickman in 1928, and 33 replications and modifications which followed. Major effort was devoted in this study to the attainment of a truly global behavioral taxonomy. A composite behavior rating scale was assembled from definitional characteristics used by the 50 state departments of education to establish eligibility for services for emotionally disturbed, the Wickman Rating Scale, and the Walker Social Behavior Survival Program. A pilot study was performed at the University of Florida to determine reliability, validity, and item assessment. Three categories of educators were selected from the Florida Putnam County School District; teachers, administrators, and counselors, the first by random selection. These 189 participants rated a two-time questionnaire about one week apart under the alternating conditions of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing." The 80 behavioral items, rated in two ways, were factored into nine behavioral clusters for analysis and interpretation. Pearson correlations showed no relationship between perceptions of the two conditions. Differences revealed by t^ tests between independent groups of respondents showed significant differences between perceptions of teachers and administrators, and teachers and counselors for various behavioral clusters. No significant difference was found between administrators and counselors. Differences were concluded to have implications for decision making in the referral process. Acceptable reliability was established; construct validity determined at .90, and an 85 percent return of the matched questionnaire was achieved. Rankings formulated from mean scores, corroboration of aberrant behaviors by texts, and content of existing standardized behavior rating scales suggested a need for additional behavioral criteria in the Federal Regulations. The investigator recommended codification of "behavior disorders" and formulation of a nationally standardized definition for this special education category.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1981.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 202-213.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Roberta S. Ramsey.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. 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:
028148972 ( AlephBibNum )
08067004 ( OCLC )
ABS2682 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
















PERCEPTIONS OF DISTURBED AND DISTURBING
BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL







BY

ROBERTA S. RAMSEY


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
































Copyright 1981

by

Roberta S. Ramsey






















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The writer wishes to express appreciation to her entire doctoral

committee, who provided guidance and encouragement while this study

was being performed.

Dr. Rex E. Schmid, chairman, provided expert structure and direc-

tion for a philosophically complex topic, enabling the writer to

produce a unified study. Dr. Robert F. Algozzine, co-chairman, pro-

vided an inexhaustible supply of reference material and statistical

organization which gave the study substantive and scientific improve-

ment. The ability of the chairman and co-chairman to counsel,

encourage, and accommodate shifts in emphasis, made possible an ambi-

tious analysis of a difficult and much debated topic.

Dr. Charles J. Forgnone, committee member, provided insight for

a consistent rationale, giving the study consistency. Dr. Ralph B.

Kimbrough, committee member, rendered invaluable assistance by relat-

ing the themes of pupil behavior to administrative perspectives and

issues. Dr. Cecil D. Mercer, committee member, provided a means for

bringing the results into a scientific unity, thereby preventing an

unmanageable excess of variables.












The writer especially appreciates the willingness of her com-

mittee to allow a study which integrates a wide variety of her own

educational experience and research. A committee of scholars less

profound might have directed a study less ample and satisfying.

The writer wishes also to express her gratitude to her entire

family for their support and tolerance throughout her study. Fore-

most, deepest appreciation is given her husband, Russ. His ever

present encouragement and belief in the writer's abilities to con-

duct a study which would provide answers to deepest concerns were

demonstrated in infinite ways, all of which made it possible to com-

plete this work. Her children's display of sincere pride and interest

allowed pursuit of a professional status and career.

Her father, who encouraged the beginning of the study, but did

not live to witness its completion, is present in the writer's heart.

The writer's mother, husband's parents, and sister and her family all

deserve undying thanks for their patience, understanding, and en-

couragement in her work.


















TABLE OF CONTENTS



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . xi

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

CHAPTER I

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

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . S
Assumptions . . . . . . . . 6
Hypotheses .. . . . . . . . . ... 6
Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . 6
Corollary la . . . . . . . . . . 6
Corollary lb . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary Ic . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary Id . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary le . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary If . . . . . . 7
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary 2a . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary 2b . . . . . . . . . . 7
Corollary 2c . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 2d . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 2e . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 2f . . . . . . . . . . 8
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 3a . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 3b . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 3c . . . . . . . . . . 8
Corollary 3d . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 3e . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 3f . . . . . . . . . . 9













Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 4a . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 4b . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 4c . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 4d . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corollary 4e . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary 4f . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary Sa . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary 5b . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary 5c . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary 5d . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary 5e . . . . . . . . . . 10
Corollary 5f . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Corollary 6a . . . . . . . . . . 11
Corollary 6b . . . . . . . . . . 11
Corollary 6c . . . . . . . . . . 11
Corollary 6d . . . . . . . . . . 11
Corollary 6e .. . . . . . . . . 11
Corollary 6f . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Corollary 7a . . . . . . . . . ... 12
Corollary 7b . . . . . . . . . . 12
Corollary 7c . . . . . . . . . ... 12
Corollary 7d . . . . . . . . . . 12
Corollary 7e . . . . . . . . . . 12
Corollary 7f . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hypothesis 8 . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Corollary 8a . . . . . . . . . . 13
Corollary 8b . . . . . . . . . . 13
Corollary 8c . . . . . . . . . 13
Corollary 8d . . . . . . . . . . 13
Corollary 8e . . . . . . . . . . 13
Corollary 8f . . . . . . . . . . 13
Hypothesis 9 . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Corollary 9a .. . . . . . . . ... 13
Corollary 9b . . . . . . . . . . 14
Corollary 9c . . . . . . . . . . 14
Corollary 9d .. . . . . . . . . 14
Corollary 9e . . . . . . . . . . 14
Corollary 9f . . . . . . . . . 14
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Perceptions of School Personnel . . . . . . 14
Referral Process .. . . . . . . . ... 16
Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . 19
Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . 20
Limitations .. . . . . . . . . 20
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 21













CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 23

Selection of the Relevant Literature . . . . . 24
Nature of the Literature . . . . . . . . 26
Disturbed Behaviors .. . . . . . . 27
Disturbing Behaviors . . . . . . . . 31
Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviors . . . . . 37
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . 42

Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . 44
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . 44
Definitional Characteristics . . . . . . 45
Disturbing Behaviors . . . . . . . . 47
Maladaptive, Inappropriate Behaviors . . . . 47
Composite Checklist of Behaviors . . . . . 48
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 49
Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Research Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 51
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . 52
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . 55
Independent Variables . . . . . . . . 56
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Validity . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Summary of Experimental Procedures . . . . . . 69

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Hypothesis 1 . ..... . . . ... 74
Corollary la . . . . . . . . 89
Corollary lb . . . . . . . . . . 89
Corollary Ic . . . . . . . . . . 89
Corollary Id . . . . . . . . 90
Corollary le . . . . . . . . . . 90
Corollary If . . . . . . . . . . 91
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . 91
Corollary 2a .. . . . . . . . 91
Corollary 2b . . . . . . . . . . 92

vii












Corollary 2c . . . . . . . . . . 92
Corollary 2d . . . . . . . . . . 93
Corollary 2e . . . . . . . . . . 93
Corollary 2f . . . . . . . . . . 93
Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . 94
Corollary 3a . . . . . . . . . . 94
Corollary 3b . . . . . . . . . . 95
Corollary 3c ... . . . . . . 95
Corollary 3d . . . . . . . . . . 95
Corollary 3e . . . . . . . . . . 96
Corollary 3f .. . . . . . . . .... 96
Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . 96
Corollary 4a . . . . . . . . . . 97
Corollary 4b . .... . . . ... 97
Corollary 4c . . . . . . . . . . 98
Corollary 4d . . . . . . . . . . 98
Corollary 4e ... . . . . . . 98
Corollary 4f .. . . . . . . . 99
Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . 99
Corollary 5a . . . . . . . . . . 100
Corollary 5b . . . . . . . . . . 100
Corollary Sc . . . . . . . . . .. 100
Corollary 5d . . . . . . . . . . 101
Corollary 5e . . . . . 101
Corollary 5f . . . . . . . . . 101
Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . 102
Corollary 6a ... . . . . . . 102
Corollary 6b .. . . . . . . . ... 103
Corollary 6c . . . . . . . . . . 103
Corollary 6d .. . . . . . . . 103
Corollary 6e . . . . . . . . . . 104
Corollary 6f . . . . . . . . . . 104
Hypothesis 7 . . . . . . . . . . 104
Corollary 7a .... . . . . . 105
Corollary 7b . . . . . . . . . . 105
Corollary 7c .. . . . . . . . 106
Corollary 7d . . . . . . . . ... 106
Corollary 7e . . . . . . . . . . 106
Corollary 7f . . . . . . . . . . 107
Hypothesis 8 .. . . . . . . . ... 107
Corollary 8a . . . . . . . . . . 108
Corollary 8b . . . . . . . . . . 108
Corollary 8c . . . . . . . . . 108
Corollary 8d . . . . . . . . . 109
Corollary 8e . . . . . . . . . . 109
Corollary 8f . . . . . . . . . 109
Hypothesis 9 . . . . . . 110
Corollary 9a .. . . . . . . . ... 110
Corollary 9b . . . . . . . . . . III













Corollary 9c . . . . . . . . . . Ill
Corollary 9d . . . . . . . . . . 111
Corollary 9e . . . . . . . . . . 112
Corollary 9f . . . . . . . . . . 112
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 114

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Relationships between Respondents . . . . . 115
Differences between Groups of Respondents . . . 116
Cautionary Notes . . . . . . . . . 117
Teachers and administrators . . . . . . 119
Teachers and counselors . . . . . . . 121
Administrators and counselors . . . . . 124
Synthesis of a Behavioral Taxonomy . . . . . 124
Rankings of Aberrant Behavioral Clusters . . . 126
Poor relations . . . . . . . . 129
Emotionally withdrawn . . . . . . . 129
Inadequacy-Immaturity . . . . . . . 130
Poor academics . . . . . . . . . 130
Personality problems . . . . . . . . 131
Acting out . . . . . . . . . . 131
Weak self-control .. . . . . . . 132
Socialized delinquency . . . . . . . 133
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Need for Uniformity . . ... . . . . . 134
Commonality of Behavior Rating Scales . . . . 134
Controversial Issues . . . . . . . . 135
Relationships between "Disturbance" and "Disturbing". 136
Differentiations in Identification, Placement, and
Treatment . . . . . . . . . . 137
Establishment of National Criteria . . . . . 138
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 141

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A COMPILATION AND REFERENCE SOURCES OF BEHAVIORAL
ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . 146

B PERTINENT FACTS RELATING TO PUTNAM COUNTY,
FLORIDA . . . . . . . . . 153

C STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION REFERENCE SOURCES 158

D DEFINITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EMOTIONAL
DISTURBANCE BY STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION. 163













E REPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
WICKMAN STUDY . . . . . . . 171

F MEASUREMENT SCHEDULES INCLUDED IN THE
WICKMAN STUDY . . . . . . . 183

G "DISTURBANCE" RATING SCALE AND
"DISTURBING" RATING SCALE . . . . 186

H DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FORM . . . 199

I COMMONALITY OF BEHAVIORS ON SELECTED
INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . 201

REFERENCES .. .. . . . . . . . 202

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . 214













LIST OF TABLES


1 Pearson Correlations for Reliability Measures
for Total Behavior Rating Scale and
across Behavioral Clusters . . . . . . 61

2 Behavioral Items Comprising Behavioral
Clusters for Ratings for "Disturbance" and
"Disturbing" . . . . . . . . . . 62

3 Pearson Correlations for "Disturbance" and
"Disturbing" across Behavioral Clusters . . .. 75

4 t Scores and Probability Values for
"Disturbance" and "Disturbing" for
Behavioral Clusters across Independent
Groups of Respondents . . . . . . . 76

5 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for all
Responding School Personnel on Behavioral
Items Comprising "Disturbance" Behavioral
Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for all
Responding School Personnel on Behavioral
Items Comprising "Disturbing" Behavioral
Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . 82

7 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for
"Disturbance" across Behavioral Clusters . . . 87

8 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for
"Disturbing" across Behavioral Clusters . . .. 88

9 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance"
and "Disturbing" for Teachers and Administrators
for Behavioral Clusters . . . . . . . 120

10 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance"
and "Disturbing" for Teachers and Counselors
for Behavioral Clusters .. . . . . 122

11 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance"
and "Disturbing" for Administrators and
Counselors for Behavioral Clusters . . . . 125












12 Rankings of Mean Scores for "Disturbance" across
Behavioral Clusters . . . . . . .... 127

13 Rankings of Mean Scores for "Disturbing" across
Behavioral Clusters . . . . . . . 128












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



PERCEPTIONS OF DISTURBED AND DISTURBING
BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL

By

Roberta S. Ramsey

August 1981

Chairman: Rex E. Schmid
Co-chairman: Robert F. Algozzine
Major Department: Special Education

The purpose of the study was to determine if similar behavioral

characteristics are perceived by school personnel to be indicative of

"emotional disturbance" and to be "disturbing" in working with chil-

dren and youth. Relative perceptions of different types of school

personnel toward behavioral characteristics considered indicative of

"disturbed" and "disturbing" were examined.

A conceptual framework was established by returning to the pioneer

study of disturbing behaviors performed by E. K. Wickman in 1928, and

33 replications and modifications which followed. Major effort was

devoted in this study to the attainment of a truly global behavioral

taxonomy.

A composite behavior rating scale was assembled from definitional

characteristics used by the 50 state departments of education to estab-

lish eligibility for services for emotionally disturbed, the Wickman

Rating Scale, and the Walker Social Behavior Survival Program. A


xiii












pilot study was performed at the University of Florida to determine

reliability, validity, and item assessment.

Three categories of educators were selected from the Florida

Putnam County School District; teachers, administrators, and coun-

selors, the first by random selection. These 189 participants rated

a two-time questionnaire about one week apart under the alternating

conditions of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing."

The 80 behavioral items, rated in two ways, were factored into

nine behavioral clusters for analysis and interpretation. Pearson

correlations showed no relationship between perceptions of the two

conditions. Differences revealed by t tests between independent

groups of respondents showed significant differences between percep-

tions of teachers and administrators, and teachers and counselors for

various behavioral clusters. No significant difference was found

between administrators and counselors. Differences were concluded to

have implications for decision making in the referral process. Accept-

able reliability was established; construct validity determined at

.90, and an 85 percent return of the matched questionnaire was

achieved.

Rankings formulated from mean scores, corroboration of aberrant

behaviors by texts, and content of existing standardized behavior

rating scales suggested a need for additional behavioral criteria in

the Federal Regulations. The investigator recommended codification

of "behavior disorders" and formulation of a nationally standardized

definition for this special education category.





















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION



The development of the individual's independence, skill, and

purposefulness is assumed to be the focal point of the American

educational enterprise. It is assumed that society as a whole

develops and prospers when its citizens are well educated (Ramsey

& Ramsey, 1978). Education for all is based on the fundamental con-

cept of society's responsibility to educate every individual to the

full extent of his capacities, whatever they may be or however

attenuated by special circumstances (Reynolds, 1971). Subsequently,

educators have been charged with the responsibility for promoting the

emotional, social, and ethical growth of children, as well as foster-

ing intellectual development (Kaplan, 1952).

Special education evolved in response to this traditional com-

mitment to provide maximum opportunity for all persons in accordance

with their needs. It has been deemed the function of special educa-

tion to extend resources so that children who have unusual needs may

be identified and served effectively (Christoplos & Renz, 1969;

Stennett, 1966). In so doing, special education has been determined

to be an integral part of our educational enterprise.













Too often, school personnel have considered the behavior of

the child or youth as an entity apart from the conception of educa-

tion. When this attitude has prevailed, teachers and other school

personnel have been bothered or concerned about children's behavior

when their actions have only been disturbing within the context of

the school setting, in particular, the classroom (Pullias, 1934).

The behaviors of students become problematic if they conflict with

the ideals held by others for desirable behavior. Such ideals assume

significance when standards held for conduct influence measures taken

for prevention and correction of difficulties (Bain, 1934).

An exceptional student is stated to be one who deviates to an

arbitrary degree from the norm on a given emotional, intellectual,

physical, or developmental variable. Various methods have been used

by educational investigators to screen and to identify children with

behavior problems which deviate from the norm. Techniques have in-

cluded the direct observation of students by teachers (Flanagan, 1954;

Nelson, 1971; Werry & Quay, 1968); teacher responses to behavioral

questionnaires (Kaplan, 1952; Shotel, lano, & McGettigan, 1972);

observations of teacher-student interactions (Brophy & Good, 1970;

Good, 1970; Meichenbaum, Bowers, & Ross, 1969; Rothbart, Dalfen, &

Barrett, 1971); teacher and teacher trainee checklists (Algozzine,

1976; Foster, Algozzine, & Ysseldyke, 1979; Salvia, Clark, & Ysseldyke,

1973); combinations of Bower's teacher, peer sociometric, and self-

rating scales (Glavin, 1971; Maes, 1966; Salvia, Schultz, & Chaplin,

1974; Stennett, 1966; Zax, Cowen, Izzo, & Frost, 1964); correlations












between achievement and overt behavior (Spivack & Swift, 1966;

Swift & Spivack, 1968, 1969; Vacc, 1968) and completion of problem

behavior checklists (Algozzine, 1979; Dielman, Cattel, & Lepper,

1971; Noland & Gruber, 1978).

Traditionally, the identification of a student as emotionally

handicapped or emotionally disturbed has denoted a medical orienta-

tion. Assessments determining clinical maladjustment have included

the use of parent interviews (Beller & Neubaer, 1963; Lapouse & Monk,

1964; Mensh, Kantor, Domke, Gildea, & Glidewell, 1959); placement of

family figures during clinical play (DuHamel & Jarmon, 1971; Weinstein,

1965); information gathered from clinical intake records (McDermott,

Harrison, Schrager, Lindy, & Killins, 1967); use of personality sur-

veys (McFie, 1934); and observational data combined with referral

information (Patterson, 1964).

The identification of disturbed children in the educational realm

has typically been accomplished by the use of instrumentation in the

form of behavior rating scales and checklists (Burks, 1977; Lambert &

Bower, 1961; Pimm & McClure, 1969; Quay & Peterson, 1967; Spivack,

Haimes, & Spotts, 1967; Spivack & Spotts, 1966; Spivack F Swift, 1967;

Walker, 1970). These instruments suggest cutoff scores based on data

collected from behaviorally deviant and average behaving samples of

children. Generally, a child or youth who exhibits a deficiency or an

excess of behaviors indexed by these scales is a frequent candidate

for special education services in the category of disturbance, in the

behavioral realm (Algozzine, 1975; Kauffman, 1977). Rather than being












indicative of "emotional disturbance," such identification may be of

behavioral characteristics found "disturbing" to school personnel in

working with children. The child thought to be "disturbed" may be

one who arouses reactions in those around him (Rhodes, 1967).

The Problem

School personnel, in particular teachers, have been asked to

identify behaviors disturbing to them in working with children and

youth. Teachers have been asked to respond to behavioral items listed

on checklists or rating scales, and to list or record observed be-

haviors. Several investigations to determine perceptions of other

school personnel concerning behavioral characteristics have been

performed.

State departments of education have defined behaviors character-

istic of emotional disturbance for identification of students

qualifying for the category of special education services which

addresses behavioral disorders. These disturbed behavioral charac-

teristics have been substantiated by texts used in emotionally

handicapped or emotionally disturbed education.

Few researchers have made systematic application of studies

identifying disturbing behaviors. No relationships have been deter-

mined between perceptions of behaviors characteristic of emotional

disturbance, and of behaviors disturbing in working with children and

youth. The investigator attempted to determine whether relation-

ships existed between school personnel perceptions of "emotional

disturbance" and "disturbing" behaviors.













Purpose

The purpose for conducting this study was to determine whether

school personnel perceive similar behaviors to be characteristic of

"emotional disturbance," and "disturbing" in working with children

and youth. A behavior rating scale devised by the investigator was

used to ascertain those behaviors which school personnel perceive as

"disturbed" and those behaviors which school personnel perceive as

"disturbing." In addition, relationships of perceptions of "dis-

turbedness" and "disturbingness" among different types of school

personnel were examined.

Variables

The dependent variables in this study were the behavioral items

listed on the behavior rating scale. These items were compiled from

four sources as shown in Appendix A. The major portion of the scale

contained those behaviors stated as definitional characteristics by

50 state departments of education for the identification of children

and youth for special services in emotionally handicapped or emotion-

ally disturbed education.

The independent variables consisted of the conditions of "disturbed-

ness" and "disturbingness" which were assessed by different types of

school personnel. Relationships were discerned both within and between

the conditions, and both within and between the different types of

school personnel.













Assumptions

The assumptions necessary in this study reflected the ideas

and beliefs upon which the research problem was founded. These

assumptions were essential in systematically designing the research

investigation. The following assumptions were made:

1. School personnel perceive certain behavioral charac-

teristics to be indicative of emotional disturbance.

2. School personnel perceive certain behavioral charac-

teristics to be disturbing in working with children

and youth.

3. Behavioral characteristics outlined by state depart-

ments of education for the identification of students

for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed

education are the realm which is defined as emotional

disturbance for educators.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 1

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Emotionally Withdrawn when the character-

istics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary la. There is no significant difference between the

mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbance."












Corollary lb. There is no significant difference between the

mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary Ic. There is no significant difference between the

mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary Id. There is no significant difference between the

mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary le. There is no significant difference between the

mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary lf. There is no significant difference between the

mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Hypothesis 2

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Weak Self-Control when the characteristics

are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary 2a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and adminis-

trators for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 2b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and adminis-

trators for the category of "disturbing."












Corollary 2c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 2d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 2e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by administrators and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 2f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by administrators and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Hypothesis 3

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Appropriate Socialization when the charac-

teristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary 3a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 3b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 3c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."













Corollary 3d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers

and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 3e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by adminis-

trators and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 3f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by adminis-

trators and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Hypothesis 4

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Inadequacy-Immaturity when the charac-

teristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary 4a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Inadequacy-Immaturity rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 4b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Inadequacy-Immaturity rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 4c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Inadequacy-Immaturity rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 4d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Inadequacy-Immaturity rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."













Corollary 4e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Inadequacy-Immaturity rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 4f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Inadequacy-Immaturity rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Hypothesis 5

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Poor Academics when the characteristics

are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary Sa. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and adminis-

trators for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 5b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and adminis-

trators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 5c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 5d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 5e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by administrators and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."













Corollary 5f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by administrators and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Hypothesis 6

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Personality Problems when the character-

istics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary 6a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 6b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 6c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 6d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 6e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 6f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbing."













Hypothesis 7

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Poor Relations when the characteristics

are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Corollary 7a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and adminis-

trators for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 7b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and adminis-

trators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 7c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 7d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 7e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by administrators and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 7f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by administrators and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Hyporthsis 8

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Acting out when the characteristics are

presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."













Corollary 8a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and administrators

for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 8b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and administrators

for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 8c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 8d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and counselors

for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 8e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Acting Out rating scores produced by administrators and counselors

for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 8f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Acting Out rating scores produced by administrators and counselors

for the category of "disturbing."

Hypothesis 9

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Socialized Delinquency when the charac-

teristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "dis-

turbing."

Corollary 9a. There is no significant difference between the

mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbance."












Corollary 9b. There is no significant difference between the

mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and

administrators for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 9c. There is no significant difference between the

mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 9d. There is no significant difference between the

mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and

counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Corollary 9e. There is no significant difference between the

mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

Corollary 9f. There is no significant difference between the

mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by administrators

and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

Rationale

The purpose of this investigation was to address the behaviors

which are perceived as "emotional disturbance" and those perceived

as "disturbing" in working with children and youth. The perceptions

of these categories are seen as particularly important in the referral

of a student for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed

education.

Perceptions of School Personnel

The teacher has been seen to be the primary source of referral

of students (Hersh, 1971) and has been considered to be in an












opportune position for making recommendations for special education

services (Kelly, Bullock, & Dykes, 1974). The importance of

teachers' perceptions of problem behaviors becomes magnified when

it is recognized that this act may be culminated by the placement

of a special label upon the referred student (Robbins, Mercer, &

Meyers, 1967).

Investigators of previous studies have produced contradictory

results concerning the perceptions of teachers toward problem behav-

iors. Teachers have been deemed proficient in distinguishing between

children exhibiting normal behaviors and those exhibiting behavior

disorders (Harth & Glavin, 1971; Nelson, 1971). Conversely, studies

have shown that one teacher's perception of a problem child has not

been another teacher's perception across the school setting (Epstein,

1941). Not only do teacher expectations bias perceptions (Jones,

1977; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1966), but it has been shown that teachers'

tolerance levels vary toward behaviors considered aberrant (Curran,

1977).

The perceptions of other school personnel are also important,

as the referral process encompasses the perceptions of these indivi-

duals as well. Concern has been shown that the influence of the

referring person upon the perceptions of other significant persons

in a position to make judgments and recommendations has scantily

been investigated (Hersh, 1971). Other local school center personnel

who may be most influential in assessing behaviors of children in-

clude the principal, assistant principal, dean, and guidance counselor.













In one study, perceptual changes in school administrators did occur

following consultation with guidance personnel about problem children

(Kitano, 1961).

Investigators have produced contradictory results in perceptions

of problem behaviors by teachers and personnel versed in the field of

mental health. Teachers and community mental hygienists have dif-

ferred in their perceptions of maladjustment in numerous studies

(Aaron, 1958; Boynton & McGaw, 1934; Clark, 1950; Hunter, 1957;

Kaplan, 1952; Mansergh, 1968; Stouffer, 1956; Thompson, 1940; Ullmann,

1952; Wickman, 1928; Yourman, 1932). School personnel most involved

in the mental health counseling role have been found to hold con-

flicting perceptions. Needs of problem children have been perceived

in a similar manner to teachers (Stewart, 1957; Stouffer, 1952;

Whetstone, 1965), and perceived differently to teachers but similarly

to community mental hygienists (Mansergh, 1968).

In addition, research has dealt only slightly with the involve-

ment of the school psychologist in response to a referral for special

education services. The extent to which the school psychologist can

divest himself of personal bias in the administration and scoring of

tests has made a difference in student evaluations (Masling, 1959),

and can become a determinant factor in qualifications and recommenda-

tions for special education services.

Referral Process

The referral process for evaluation for special education ser-

vices for the category of behavior disorders is fairly uniform across













school districts. Typically, a student is assessed a misfit (Major,

1961) by one of his teachers if his/her behavior fails to meet expec-

tations for classroom achievement and/or conduct. Local school

center personnel are alerted to the problems incurred by the identi-

fying teacher. Other teachers, administrators, and counselors become

involved by completing demographic information forms, attending con-

ferences with parents and/or school personnel, rating behavior rating

scales and checklists, and administering screening instruments for

the purpose of eliminating intellectual, sensory, and physical im-

pairments as primary contributors to the bothersome or disturbed

behavior observed. The school psychologist, following evaluation of

the student, makes recommendations for appropriate placement or non-

placement of the referred student. This recommendation is then re-

viewed by the district's Director of Special Education, who legally

renders the ultimate decision.

Several major issues arise from the aforementioned referral

process. First, once identification has been made, the self-fulfill-

ing prophecy phenomenon may occur. Conditions can be created by

which the prophecy is realized (Palardy, 1969). The manner in which

the student is viewed may be biased (Robbins et al., 1967). Teachers

have been determined to possess differing tolerance levels for coping

with aberrant behaviors (Curran, 1977), to demonstrate personal

traits which lend to harmonious interactions with students (Flanders,

Morrison & Brode, 1968; Swap, 1974; Tiedeman, 1942; Walberg, 1968),













and to have differential effects on academic performance (Ryans,

1961a, 1961b; Veldman & Brophy, 1974).

Secondly, ethical and legal concerns have abounded over the

issue of placement and labeling (Combs & Harper, 1967; Dunn, 1968;

Hammons, 1972; Johnson, 1969; Jones, 1972; Lilly, 1970). Deter-

mined qualification for placement has resulted in the labeling of

students as emotionally disturbed, emotionally handicapped, be-

havior disordered, or with some synonymous term denoting emotional

disturbance. Siders (1979) cautioned school personnel to differ-

entiate between identification and placement. Traditionally,

identification and placement have been equated to provide for the

end product, treatment. Special education placement has been based

upon the handicapping disability and the need for special treatment,

which in essence are separate entities. The stigma of labeling and

erroneous placement have been determined intolerable (Garrison &

Hammill, 1971).

Subsequently, the third major concern involves appropriate

treatment. Professionals in education have established hierarchies

of services in a classification system tailored to meet needs of

students (Deno, 1970; Reynolds, 1962). Legislation has mandated

education occur in the least restrictive environment. This environ-

ment has typically been considered the point on the continuum of

least to most restrictive options. If treatment and programming are

provided based on individual needs, the individual becomes the primary

source of defining the least restrictive environment (Gallagher, 1972).












Researchers have recommended components be included in the curriculum

for teacher training, such as behavior management (Kelly et al.,

1974). Thus treatment or remediation may be provided in the level of

service most appropriate for the individual student.

Importance of the Study

Behavioral characteristics of emotional disturbance have been

defined by state departments of education. Texts used in the field

of emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education have

substantiated these behaviors as being indicative of emotional dis-

turbance.

Writers have identified categories of behaviors found most

bothersome to teachers. One study used a modified Quay-Peterson

Behavior Rating Scale, referred to as the Disturbing Behavior Check-

list, in which behavioral items indicative of emotional disturbance

were rated by their degree of bothersomeness to teacher trainees and

school personnel (Algozzine, 1979). Another investigation was con-

ducted to determine which behaviors of children were perceived as

immediately troublesome to teachers and which were indicators of

future maladjustment (Sparks, 1952). Two groups of teachers and

teacher trainees rated the behavior characteristics under two sets

of instructions.

No one has performed the research proposed by this investigation.

Specifically, school personnel have not been asked to respond to the

same behavior rating scale in two different ways. If a relationship

exists between ratings of "disturbed" and "disturbing" behavior,












implications for referral exist. Most teachers may have a genuine

desire to refer disturbed children or youth for special education

services, but their motives are entangled with the need to maintain

order and to provide instruction in the classroom. If a teacher is

prompted to refer a student due to his/her disturbing behavior in

the classroom, the motive may be a justification for removal of the

child from the classroom environment (Towbin, 1960). Different

types of school personnel participate in the referral process and

make decisions reflective of their perceptions of behavior.

An identification of those behaviors characteristic of emotional

disturbance which are most disturbing to school personnel is essen-

tial to effective remediation. Methods of behavior management inherent

to specific behaviors can be taught to school personnel.

Delimitations

This study was delimited to the following:

1. One school district in Florida.

2. School personnel employed by the Putnam County

District School Board.

Limitations

Results obtained in one school district in Florida may not be

generalized to all school districts in Florida or to all school dis-

tricts in the United States. Pertinent facts relating to the location,

education, population, economics, and industry of the county are

summarized in Appendix B.












Though a random sample of elementary, secondary, and excep-

tional education teachers was selected, perceptions may not be

representative of all teachers. Perceptions of behavioral charac-

teristics by the county level administrators, principals, assistant

principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists in

this study may not be representative of all school personnel in

these positions.

Summary

State departments of education have defined behavioral charac-

teristics of emotional disturbance in the educational realm. These

characteristics have been substantiated by texts used in emotionally

handicapped or emotionally disturbed education.

Teachers have been the main source of referral for special

education services which address disturbance in the educational set-

ting. Other school personnel are involved in the referral process

and make recommendations. Instrumentation in the form of behavior

rating scales and checklists has been used by school personnel in

the identification of children and youth for referral to the category

of emotional disturbance in special education.

Behavioral characteristics found disturbing or bothersome in

working with children and youth have been identified by teachers and

other school personnel. The relationship between these disturbing

behaviors and behaviors indicative of emotional disturbance has not

been explored by prior investigators.






22





A behavior rating scale devised by the investigator was used

to determine whether similar behavioral characteristics were per-

ceived by school personnel to be indicative of "emotional distur-

bance" and to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth.

In addition, the relative perceptions of "disturbedness" and "dis-

turbingness" by school personnel (teachers, principals, assistant

principals, deans, and guidance counselors) at the local school

level, administrators and school psychologists at the district level,

were examined.




















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE



The body of literature concerning those behavioral characteris-

tics perceived as bothersome or disturbing in working with children

or youth has proliferated rapidly since the mid 1920's. The state

departments of education have defined emotional disturbance in the

educational setting. Each state has formulated definitional charac-

teristics of behavior to be used in the identification of students

qualifying for special education services in the behavioral realm.

Texts used in colleges or universities have tended to standardize

these behaviors as indicators of emotional disturbance. Since emo-

tionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed students characteristi-

cally display aberrant behaviors, it was important to determine the

relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness." The

following is a review of the literature related to behavioral

characteristics indicative of "emotional disturbance," and behavioral

characteristics found to be "disturbing" in working with children

and youth.












Selection of the Relevant Literature

A concerted effort was made to locate those sources most

appropriate in the study of perceptions of "disturbed" and "dis-

turbing" behavior. These sources included Exceptional Child

Education Resources (ECER) and Educational Resources Information

Clearinghouse (ERIC) computer searches, the Current Index of Journals

in Education, and Dissertation Abstracts International. Descriptors

employed in this search include (a) disturbing behaviors, (b)

disturbed behaviors, (c) behavior problems, (d) socially deviant

behavior, (e) emotionally disturbed children, (f) emotionally

handicapped, (g) teacher attitudes, (h) teacher behavior, (i)

behavior rating scales, and (j) mental hygiene.

Following the review of significant investigations, the biblio-

graphy of each was examined for further references. The search

located texts and journal articles extending from the mid 1920's to

the present time. The texts primarily dealt with student-teacher

interaction in the classroom, theories of mental hygiene, and

emotional disturbance in the educational realm. Journal articles

were mainly concerned with "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" in

the clinical and educational sectors.

A survey of publications relating to the study was made through

use of the card catalog at the University of Florida's main library,

Library West. Pertinent books were located relating to teacher

attitudes toward behaviors of children and youth, including Pygmalion

in the Classroom (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), Looking in Classrooms












(Good Brophy, 1978), and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies (Jones, 1977).

Clinical perceptions of maladjusted children and youth were proposed

in Mental Hygiene: The Dynamics of Adjustment (Carroll, 1969),

Mental Hygiene: A Survey of Personality Disorders and Mental Health

(Klein, 1944), and Mental Hygiene in School Practice (Fenton, 1949).

Educational theories indigenous to characteristics of behavior

disordered children were set forth in The Child and His Curriculum

(Lee & Lee, 1940), Early Identification of Emotionally Handicapped

Children in School (Bower, 1969), A Psychological Approach to Abnormal

Behavior (Ullmann & Krasner, 1969), Characteristics of Children's

Behavior Disorders (Kauffman, 1977), Teaching Children and Youth with

Behavior Disorders (Shea, 1978, Children in Conflict (Reinert, 1976),

and Conflict in the Classroom (Long, Morse, & Newman, 1965).

The mid 1920's to the present time encompassed the time parameter

used in this review. In 1928, a pioneer study was published by

Wickman which as been replicated and modified in numerous investi-

gations. This study of teacher attitudes toward the behavior

problems of children has been described as a classic investigation

(Fenton, 1949) and as one of the most illuminating studies in the

area of problem behaviors (Lee & Lee, 1940). Though conducted over

a half century ago, it exerts considerable influence on contemporary

thinking in this field with the most recent follow-up study conducted

by Bunting in 1978. Due to the inaccessibility of the earliest

replications and modifications, retrieval of publications was

accomplished through the University of Florida's main library. Such












facilities and services included the Library Interloan Office and

the Government Documents Branch.

More recently, a grant proposal and instrumentation currently

being performed, entitled Development, Testing and Replication of a

Social Behavior Survival (SBS) Program for Mainstreaming Handicapped

Children, was requested and secured from Walker and Rankin (unpublished)

at the University of Oregon. An integral factor in the current

emphasis on mainstreaming has been the identification of those

behaviors which school personnel find difficult in integrating

handicapped children within the regular classroom.

The most current definitional characteristics formulated by the

50 state departments of education were extracted from statutes and

regulations received from each state (see Appendix C for state

departments of education reference sources). A request was made

by this investigator for the definitional criteria utilized by each

state to determine qualification for emotionally handicapped or

emotionally disturbed services in special education. These defini-

tional characteristics are considered to be the behavioral realm for

emotional disturbance in education.



Nature of the Literature

The procedure used in reviewing the related research produced

differing state regulations containing definitional characteristics

for students qualifying for emotionally handicapped or emotionally

disturbed services in special education. Appendix D is a grid












displaying definitional characteristics by states. Texts were

employed to verify the validity of these behaviors.

In addition, the comprehensive review of the related litera-

ture revealed 33 replications and modifications relating to the

Wickman (1928) study. These investigations have studied the

perceptions of teachers, teacher trainees, principals, assistant

principals, school psychologists, guidance counselors, community

mental hygienists, parents, and/or students toward maladjusted,

bothersome, and disturbing behaviors of children and youth. Only

a few researchers have explored the "disturbingness" of behaviors

indicative of "emotional disturbance." None have attempted to find

a relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness."

Disturbed Behaviors

The term "emotionally disturbed" appears in the professional

literature, undefined, in the early 1900's. Education has used the

term to label a variety of behavioral problems (Reinert, 1976). An

official or widely accepted definition of emotional disturbance in

the educational realm has yet to be written (Kauffman, 1977). The

detrimental effect of a child's or youth's behavior upon self or

others, in terms of development, adjustment, and education, has been

used as a criterion for disturbance (Kauffman, 1977; Kirk, 1962;

Reinert, 1976).

Contrasting theories concerning the nature of emotional distur-

bance have been proposed by authors of texts used in teacher training

in special education. Long et al. (1965) stated that emotional












disturbance is a part of a person's life. Kauffman (1977) stated

that it is the degree of disturbedness which connotes emotional

disturbance, and that within the degree, there are levels of mild,

moderate, and severe disturbance. Redl (1965) stated that there is

a difference between the "emotionally disturbed child" and behavior

which indicates "a state of emotional disturbance."

Relative agreement has been found in the classification of

aberrant behaviors by text authors. Kauffman (1977) identified

four facets of disordered or disturbed behavior, including hyper-

activity, distractibility, impulsivity; aggression; withdrawal,

immaturity, inadequacy; and deficiencies in moral development.

Reinert (1976) divided deviant behaviors into four basic types to

include acting out, withdrawing, defensive, and disorganized

behaviors.

Shea (1978) identified numerous specific behaviors inherent

to the classification of affective learning handicaps. Problem

behaviors in the affective dimension are identified as the following:

anxiety, attention seeking, disruptiveness, physical and verbal

aggression, inflexibility, instability, overcompetitiveness,

inattentiveness, impulsivity, perseveration, poor self-concept,

negativism, hyperactivity, hypoactivity, withdrawal, passive-

suggestible behavior, social immaturity, inefficient interpersonal

relations, sexual complaints, chronic disobedience, motivational

problems, and hypersilient behavior.

The compilation of 48 definitional characteristics by states

shown on the grid in Appendix D and displayed by frequency, reveal












five behaviors to be identified by at least 60 percent of the states.

The remaining 41 definitional characteristics find commonality among

less than 20 percent of the states. The behavioral characteristics

most frequently defined by states as indicative of emotional dis-

turbance in education are as follows: unsatisfactory interpersonal

relationships; unhappiness, depression; physical illnesses; unable

to learn commensurate with ability; and inappropriate behaviors under

normal circumstances. These characteristics were termed by Bower

(1960, 1969) and are stated in Federal Regulations (Federal Register,

1977) as definitional characteristics for the category of behavioral

disorders in special education.

The remaining behavioral characteristics identified by states

are shown on the grid. Responses other than specific behavioral

characteristics include: seven states with materials received but

no criteria stated, three states having services for emotionally

handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but no materials available at

time of request for distribution, and three states defined as non-

categorical.

The most frequently identified characteristic was that of an

inability to build or maintain satisfactory relationships with others.

Bower (1960, 1969) found this characteristic to encompass demonstra-

tions of sympathetic feelings or warmth toward others, the ability

to stand alone when necessary, to have close friends, be aggressively

constructive, and to participate in activities with others as well

as by oneself.













The second most frequent characteristic defined by the states

was a general, pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. These

children are purported by Bower to seldom smile and to lack a viva-

ciousness in performing their school work. A tendency to develop

physical symptoms, pains, or fears associated with personal or school

problems was found to be of equal frequency by states. An avoidance

of activities may be inherent in psychosomatic illnesses.

Third in frequency were two characteristics, an inability to

learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health

factors, and inappropriate behaviors under normal circumstances.

Bower considered the former to be the single most significant charac-

teristic of emotionally disturbed children, and though found to be of

high frequency in this study, was not the most important to the states.

The latter characteristic was termed by Bower to describe the child

who is perceived as acting funny by peers, and who reacts dispropor-

tionately to simple commands.

Much ambiguity is reflected in the aforementioned characteris-

tics most frequently defined by states as indicative of emotionally

disturbed behaviors. Specific behaviors may be incorporated into

each of the characteristics or deleted at will. For example, poor

interpersonal relationships may include aggression and withdrawal,

avoids participation with others. These two behaviors are noted by

texts in the field (Kauffman, 1977; Kirk, 1972; Reinert, 1976; Shea,

1978) to be primary determinants of emotional disturbance,and though













listed high in frequency by states as separate entities,these behav-

ioral characteristics are identified by less than 20 percent of the

states.

Disturbing Behaviors

Numerous educators and clinicians recognize the investigation

by Wickman (1928) to be the first major study which attempted to iden-

tify specific behaviors found bothersome or disturbing in working with

children. Subjects for this study included 511 teachers from 13

elementary schools in Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota, three

undergraduate classes at the Teachers College, Columbia University,

and 30 mental hygienists from child guidance clinics in Pennsylvania,

Ohio, and New Jersey. Subjects rated 50 teacher identified behavioral

items considered to cause difficulty, noting the frequency and serious-

ness of each behavior.

Results identified discrepancy between ratings by teachers and

clinicians. Teachers found antisocial, aggressive, acting out behav-

iors to be of most concern; whereas, clinicians were concerned with

recessive, withdrawn behaviors. Of the total 50 behavioral items,

those determined most disturbing in working with children are listed

in order of total ratings: heterosexual activity; stealing; mastur-

bation; obscene notes, pictures; untruthfulness, lying; truancy;

impertinence, defiance; cruelty, bullying; cheating; and destroying

school materials. These behaviors identified as most disturbing by

teachers were stated to be those affronting the teacher's moral













standards and challenging the teacher's authority and instructional

performance in the classroom.

Many of the early studies following the classic Wickman (1928)

investigation reiterated the feelings of the time that mental hy-

gienists were presumed to be the experts in the field as they dealt

clinically with problem children. It was presumed the training of

teachers must include more of the mental hygienists' theoretical

perceptions. Teachers must be led to understand the importance of

attention to wholesome personality development along with intellec-

tual growth (Carroll, 1969; Fenton, 1949; Klein, 1955; Lee & Lee,

1940). An emphasis on treating the whole child was advocated.

A comprehensive review of the related literature revealed 33

replications and modifications relating to the Wickman (1928) study

(see Appendix E). These investigations have studied the perceptions

of teachers, teacher trainees, principals, assistant principals,

school psychologists, guidance counselors, community mental hygienists,

parents, and/or students toward bothersome, maladjusted, or disturbing

behaviors of children and youth.

The Wickman study confined its subjects to be representative

of teachers at the elementary level. In order to determine if dif-

ferences in perceptions would be obtained, secondary level teachers

were queried (Ellis & Miller, 1936; Stewart, 1957; Stouffer, 1956;

Ullmann, 1952). Numerous studies replicated the selection of

teachers from the elementary level (Aaron, 1958; Boynton & McGaw,

1934; Bunting, 1978; Epstein, 1941; Laycock, 1934; McClure, 1929;













Mitchell, 1942; Penzer, 1962; Young-Masten, 1938; Yourman, 1932).

Some studies assessed both elementary and secondary levels (Kelly

et al., 1974; Mansergh, 1968; O'Malley, 1935; Peck, 1935; Schrupp &

Gjerde, 1953), and some were nonspecific to the teaching levels

represented (Hunter, 1957; Qaisar, 1975; Thompson, 1940; Whetstone,

1965). In general, the most serious behaviors reflected those found

disturbing to the order and routine of the classroom. The professional

success of the teacher is most often recognized by the educational

achievement of students, thus the emphasis and concern for classroom

orderliness and recognition of authority.

Teacher trainees were selected as subjects for various types of

treatment. Types of behavioral solutions for items listed on Wickman's

rating scale were solicited from graduates and undergraduates (Pullias,

1934). Teachers enrolled in university courses identified problem

behaviors through the writing of case studies (Peck, 1935), and by

defining irritating and annoying situations (O'Malley, 1935). Per-

ceptions of teachers and teacher trainees toward aggressive and with-

drawn behaviors were assessed in two different investigations (Clark,

1950; Sparks, 1952). The former was concerned with comparisons of

previous studies reporting attitudes of teachers and mental hygienists,

and the latter attempted to distinguish troublesome behaviors and

behaviors indicative of future maladjustment. Davis (1958) sought to

determine if teacher trainees' attitudes toward aggressive and with-

drawn behaviors would be affected by a period of course instruction.

A listing of problem behaviors and rating of checklists to compile












behavioral items were completed by teachers enrolled in a college

course (Kaplan, 1952). A five year follow-up study was conducted by

Bain (1934) to determine behavioral perceptions of teacher trainees

in three college courses at Teachers College, Columbia University,

in contrast to those of Wickman's teacher trainees enrolled in three

comparable courses at the same institution.

The relationship between teacher perceptions and clinical per-

ceptions was investigated in a number of studies (Dickson, 1932;

Mitchell, 1942; Penzer, 1962; Qaisar, 1975; Schrupp & Gjerde, 1953;

Stewart, 1957; Whetstone, 1965). Investigators have interpreted the

category of mental hygienist to include mental health professionals

in community child guidance clinics (Wickman, 1928), community related

psychiatrists and psychologists (Mitchell, 1942; Penzer, 1962; Ullmann,

1952), psychiatric social workers (Ullmann, 1952), community social

workers (Penzer, 1962), and a mental health nurse (Ullmann, 1952).

More recent studies have included school personnel who received

training in the field of mental health as "mental hygienists" in an

attempt to reproduce the categories of professionals investigated by

Wickman (1928). Specifically, the positions are those of school

guidance counselors (Mansergh, 1968; Stewart, 1957; Whetstone, 1965)

and school psychologists (Penzer, 1962; Thompson, 1940).

Other professional groups selected for inclusion in studies

dealing with the identification and rating of behavior problems in-

clude principals, assistant principals, parents, and children. These

groups have shown perceptions similar to those of teachers (Mansergh,












1968; Thompson, 1940); however, parents were found to perceive be-

havior problems differently than teachers (MacClenathan, 1933). All

of the aforementioned groups perceived problems of behavior in chil-

dren differently from mental hygienists (Stogdill, 1931).

The Wickman Rating Scale has been employed in nine of the

follow-up studies. Modified Wickman Rating Scales have been utilized

in seven of the follow-up studies, these modifications primarily re-

garding changes in behavioral items and in instructions given subjects

for ratings of items.

A major criticism of the Wickman study was the fact that dif-

ferent questions and instructions were given to the teachers, and to

the mental hygienists. Some studies have administered identical

directions to both groups of professionals (Ellis & Miller, 1936;

Mitchell, 1942; Stouffer, 1952) to determine if perceptions in problem

behavior would resemble or differ from findings by Wickman. Other

studies used the original instructions to determine possible changes

in professional perceptions over the decades (Schrupp & Gjerde, 1953).

Studies have replicated individual schedules employed by Wickman.

A total of 11 measurement schedules were devised in the original in-

vestigation (Appendix F).

Schedules A-1 and A-2 were performed in an attempt to discover

which behaviors teachers would identify as problem behaviors. The

refined compilation of items secured by these two schedules became

the content for the Wickman Rating Scale. In a similar vein, Peck

(1935) asked teachers to write case studies of problem children so













that behaviors might be identified. Ullmann (1952) and Stewart

(1957) requested descriptions of ninth grade problem students.

Epstein (1941) compiled lists of desirable as well as undesirable

behaviors, since problem children were not identified as such across

the school setting.

A five year follow-up of an assessment of teacher trainees'

perceptions was performed by Bain (1934) at Teachers College,

Columbia University. Schedule B-3 was replicated in an attempt to

determine changes in behavioral perceptions of teacher trainees

enrolled in three courses comparable to those of Wickman's subjects.

More awareness of withdrawn, recessive behaviors was shown by the

follow-up study.

Wickman's Schedule D listed problem children and asked teachers

to state the behaviors of these children. Clark (1950) located be-

havioral items in the literature in related fields of education,

psychology, and sociology. Kelly et al. (1974) secured listings of

behavior disordered pupils from teachers' rosters, and O'Malley (1935)

probed situations producing irritations in student-teacher inter-

actions. Problem children were recorded (Boynton & McGaw, 1934;

Yourman, 1932) and selected for observation (Epstein, 1941; Young-

Masten, 1938). Young-Masten (1938) found types of behavior observed

in problem children, and in children selected as average in behavior,

not to show a difference in types of behaviors but in frequency of

behaviors.













Although defects in the research by Wickman (1928) have been

noted by critics (Watson, 1933), the study remains the pioneer work,

held in esteem, and seen to be of value. Major criticisms were

found in the instructions administered teachers and mental hygienists,

including differences in directions, phrasing of questions, and time

constraints. Schedules B-4 and B-5 were given teachers and mental

hygienists, respectively, on two different occasions and under two

differing sets of instructions. The immediate effect of problem be-

haviors was asked of teachers, and the future effects of problem

behaviors relating to the adjustment of children was asked of mental

hygienists. The limited time constraint of 30 minutes allowed

teachers in the rating of the 50 behavioral items in contrast to the

unlimited time given mental hygienists in which to express professional

judgments procured differing responses. Ambiguity of items and non-

specifications of differences between ratings were also mentioned.

Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviors

In an effort to determine which behaviors of children were per-

ceived as immediately troublesome to the teacher, and which were

indicators of future maladjustment, teachers and graduate students

at the State University of Iowa were asked to rate the Wickman Rating

Scale (Sparks, 1952). Results indicated that those subjects rating

"disturbing" behavior characteristics and those subjects rating be-

havior characteristics indicative of "disturbance" rated the behavioral












items differently under two differing sets of instructions. Problem

behaviors which teachers considered most troublesome were representa-

tive of behavior which frustrates the teacher in attempting to educate

children, including disturbances in the classroom and lack of appli-

cation to school work. Behaviors which teachers considered most

detrimental to the future adjustment of the child were associated with

violations of the school community's social and moral code. Specifi-

cally, the behavioral characteristics deemed most "disturbing" were

as follows: interrupting, carelessness in work, inattention, rest-

lessness, silliness, whispering and note writing, tattling, thought-

lessness, disorderliness, and inquisitiveness. Behavior characteristics

found most indicative of later "disturbance" included: stealing,

untruthfulness, unreliableness, cruelty and bullying, cheating, hetero-

sexual activity, impertinence, impudence, selfishness, and laziness.

Most states exclude socially maladjusted students in their

definitional criteria for emotionally disturbed or emotionally handi-

capped educational services. One state included delinquent behavior

as a definitional characteristic, specifically, lying, stealing, and

fighting. Kirk (1962) found differentiation between social maladjust-

ment, emotional disturbance, and delinquency, a subcategory of socially

maladjusted, to be difficult because the dynamics of behavior in all

three classifications may be similar. Some children who are emotionally

disturbed may, through conflict with peers and teachers at school and

with siblings and parents at home, be considered socially maladjusted.

The maladjustment may lead to aggressive behavior, stealing, or property












destruction, resulting in entanglement with the law. Such a child

or youth may legally become a delinquent.

Numerous studies have attempted to define behavioral character-

istics of delinquent youth. The Gough-Peterson Scale, a self-rating

scale, was determined effective by Quay and Peterson (1958) in dif-

ferentiating delinquents from normal adolescents. Factor analyses of

ratings by teachers and cottage parents identified four dimensions

of delinquent behavior which revealed counterpart dimensions in other

investigations. These dimensions include psychopathic-unsocialized,

characterized by aggression and overt hostility; disturbed-neurotic,

characterized by withdrawal, submissiveness, and anxiety; inadequacy-

immaturity, a sense of incompetency; and unsocialized-subcultural, a

syndrome of gang activities (Jenkins & Glickman, 1946; Peterson, 1961;

Peterson, Quay, & Cameron, 1959; Quay, 1964; Quay & Quay, 1965). Quay,

Werry McQueen, and Sprague (1966) identified the unsocialized aggres-

sive, conduct disordered dimension as the type of child or youth most

troublesome in the school setting; therefore, the most likely to be

referred for special services in the category of emotionally handi-

capped or emotionally disturbed education.

The Quay-Peterson Behavior Problem Checklist was determined to

be a reasonably efficient and accurate instrument for screening

populations of school children to select those needing services for

the emotionally disturbed (Qaisar, 1975). A modified form of this

checklist, containing behavioral items indicative of emotional dis-

turbance, was devised for use in a study by Algozzine (1979). The












Disturbing Behavior Checklist was administered to teachers, teacher

trainees, and other school personnel who were asked to respond to

the relative "disturbingness" of behaviors portrayed in the behavioral

items. A factor analytic procedure was used to derive disturbingness

dimensions, each dimension containing behaviors considered "disturbing"

relative to certain constructs which were determined bothersome in

working with children. Results indicated that the socially deviant

behaviors were more bothersome than those of immature, physically

disturbing, or socialized delinquent behaviors. The differential

"disturbingness" of children's behaviors was concluded, and bias in

the referral process was questioned.

Summary

A review of the literature encompassed definitional character-

istics of emotional disturbance in the statutes or regulations of 50

state departments of education. The detrimental effect of these

behaviors upon the affective and educational development of self and

others appeared to be the sole definitional agreement among authors

of texts.

The Wickman (1928) study has been followed by 33 replications

or modifications attempting to identify behaviors considered bother-

some to school personnel. Teachers have primarily rated aggressive,

antisocial, acting out behaviors to be those most disturbing in

working with children and youth. Relationships of ratings given by

school personnel and mental health clinicians have been of primary

interest.






41






Researchers have attempted to define dimensions of behavioral

characteristics differentiating social maladjustment, emotional dis-

turbance, and delinquency. The dynamics of behavior have been deter-

mined to create an overlap between the three classifications.

Behavior rating scales have been administered to assess the

"emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" of problem behaviors.

Prior to this investigation, statistical analyses by writers have

not dealt with the relationship between the conditions of "disturbed-

ness" and "disturbingness," or with the relationship between the

conditions as perceived by various types of school personnel.




















CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES



Researchers have investigated the perceptions of school per-

sonnel and clinicians concerning behaviors which are characteristic

of emotional disturbance, and those which are disturbing to the

learning environment of children and youth. However, the studies

have asked different questions to several types of school personnel

and mental health professionals; they have evaluated either the

behaviors characteristic of emotional disturbance, or the behaviors

disturbing in working with children and youth.

Prior to determining a relationship between the professional

types of school personnel and the behaviors they perceive as "dis-

turbed" and "disturbing," several questions needed to be answered, one

of which was examined in this study: Do school personnel perceive

the same behaviors to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance,"

also to be "disturbing" in working with children? Two related

questions were: Do various types of school personnel perceive

different behaviors as characteristic of emotional disturbance, and

do these same types of school personnel perceive different behaviors

to be disturbing in working with children?












This chapter describes the setting and subjects in the study,

and it states the research questions. The development of instrumen-

tation is outlined. The research procedures and data collection are

delineated. The dependent and independent variables are presented,

along with substantive data analysis.

Setting

This study was conducted in the Putnam County School District,

one of the 67 school districts in Florida. A description of this

school district from which data were collected is included in Appendix B.

Subjects

The subjects for this study were school personnel employed in

the Putnam County School District in Florida. Specific personnel

categories selected for participation included: elementary classroom

teachers (pre K-5), secondary level teachers (6-12), and exceptional

education teachers, all levels; instructional administrators, non-

instructional administrators, supervisors classified as county level

administrators; principals and assistant principals of elementary and

secondary schools, and deans of secondary schools; guidance counselors

of elementary and secondary schools; and school psychologists. A

random sample of elementary and secondary classroom teachers and

exceptional education teachers was selected by use of a random table

(Borg & Gall, 1979).

Participation of all county level administrators, principals,

assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psycho-

logists was sought. The total number of subjects asked to participate













were 112 teachers, 17 county level administrators, 16 principals,

12 assistant principals, 7 deans, 21 guidance counselors, and 4

school psychologists. Of the 234 elementary teachers and 231

secondary teachers in the district, a sample of 20 percent from the

category of general education teachers (47 elementary and 46 second-

ary) were randomly selected. A sample of 25 percent of the 74

exceptional education teachers, totaling 19, were selected from use

of the random table. Questionnaires were administered to a total

of 189 persons classified as school personnel.

Research Questions

The following research questions were examined in this

study:

1. Do school personnel perceive similar behaviors

to be characteristic of emotionall disturbance"

and to be "disturbing" in working with children?

2. Do various types of school personnel perceive

different behaviors to be characteristic of

emotional disturbance?

3. Do various types of school personnel perceive

different behaviors to be disturbing in work-

ing with children?

Instrumentation

A behavior rating scale was developed to facilitate the process

of determining the relative "emotional disturbedness" and "disturb-

ingness" of behavioral characteristics. Differences among behaviors













thought to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and "dis-

turbingness" were analyzed from rating scores obtained, as were

differences between those behaviors characteristic of both groups.

The behavior rating scale was developed to be an indicator of

the relative "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" of

behaviors characteristic of disturbed and disturbing children, as

perceived by several categories of school personnel. The first

step in deriving the scale was to choose appropriate behavioral

items.

Definitional Characteristics

Each state department of education in the United States main-

tains its own definitional characteristics used in the identification

of students for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed

educational services. A letter was sent to each of the 50 state

departments of education requesting a copy of their behavioral

criteria used in the identification of students for emotionally

handicapped or emotionally disturbed education for the current 1980-

1981 school year. As materials were received, a grid listing the

behavioral characteristics by state was made so that the most fre-

quent, overlapping behaviors could be identified. It was noted that

a majority of states use some or all of the characteristics of

emotional disturbance determined by Bower (1960, 1969), which in

turn appear in the Federal Bureau of Education for the Handicapped

Regulations (Federal Register, 1977).












Two months later, a second letter was sent to those states

from which behavioral characteristics from Federal Regulations had

been received, and to those states from which no response had been

received. This letter asked specifically for a listing of be-

haviors used in the identification of students for emotionally

handicapped or emotionally disturbed services in their state. Some

of the states responded by sending additional lists of behavioral

characteristics, and others replied to the effect that the charac-

teristics found in the Federal Regulations were the sole criteria

employed in the identification of students from emotionally handi-

capped or emotionally disturbed services in their state.

Six telephone conversations were held with the consultant for

emotionally handicapped education of each state from which responses

had not been received, requesting their state's behavioral charac-

teristics. By these means, 100 percent response was made by all

state departments of education in the United States within six months

following the original request.

Behavioral items were written from all behavioral characteris-

tics listed on the grid, defining behaviors of students identified as

qualifying for emotionally handicapped services by all 50 state

departments of education. Criterion used was inclusion of all

behaviors which could be easily recognized by school personnel. A

few states are listed as being noncategorical, with no specific

behavioral characteristics used in obtaining special education ser-

vices. Other states reported that they offer the services, but have













no materials available for distribution at this time. Representa-

tives of these states suggested the existence of legislative or

administrative controversy surrounding the topic. See Appendix D

for a listing of behavioral characteristics by state.

Disturbing Behaviors

The problem of identifying and rating disturbing behaviors

investigated by E. K. Wickman (1928) was replicated in this study.

An identification of behaviors thought to be characteristic of

"emotional disturbance" and "disturbing" in working with children

was rated by school personnel.

The original study by Wickman employed 11 schedules for mea-

suring children's behavior and teachers' attitudes. These measurement

parameters are summarized in Appendix F.

The major portion of the Wickman study evolved from Schedules

B-4 and B-5, rated by 511 teachers and 30 mental hygienists, respec-

tively. The compiled listing of 50 behavioral items was rated by

each of the two professional groups.

Maladaptive, Inappropriate Behaviors

Communication with Dr. H. M. Walker, Project Director for the

Development, Testing and Replication of a Social Behavior Survival

(SBS) Program for Mainstreaming Handicapped Children resulted in a

grant proposal and copy of instrumentation being sent to this in-

vestigator. The Social Behavior Survival Program (SBS) is intended

to serve as a facilitative tool in the mainstreaming of severely and

mildly handicapped children. The initial portion of this project












(Walker & Rankin, unpublished) was planned to assess the social

behavior standards and expectancies of regular classroom teachers.

Section I of the SBS Project contained descriptions of adaptive,

appropriate behavior(s) to be evaluated by teachers as critical,

desirable, or unimportant in successful adjustment to the classroom.

Section II was composed of descriptions of maladaptive, inappropri-

ate child behavior(s) to be evaluated as unacceptable, tolerated,

or acceptable in the classroom.

Composite Checklist of Behaviors

A comparison was made by this investigator to determine which

behaviors listed by the state departments of education as behavioral

characteristics of emotional disturbance were also listed as dis-

turbing behaviors by Wickman (1928) and as maladaptive, inappropriate

behaviors by Walker and Rankin (unpublished). Appendix A displays a

comparison of these items. To produce variations in the rating of

importance assigned behaviors, adaptive, appropriate behaviors from

the Walker checklist and desirable behaviors from the Epstein (1941)

investigation were included. Appendix A displays a comparison of

behavioral items by reference source.

A total of 80 items were selected for inclusion on the behavior

rating scale to be used in this study. Of this number, 52 behavioral

characteristics were taken from the grid compiled by definitional

characteristics. These were extracted from the information received

from the 50 state departments of education. Seven characteristics

were selected from the Wickman scale indicative of students' behaviors












disturbing to teachers, and five behavioral characteristics were

chosen from Section II of the Walker checklist of maladaptive, in-

appropriate behaviors. The remaining 16 items were chosen from

Section I of the Walker checklist of adaptive, appropriate behaviors

and from desirable behaviors listed by Epstein's teachers, to be

interspersed with the 64 inappropriate behaviors. It was thought

the combination of inappropriate and appropriate behaviors would

lend itself to more careful rating by school personnel.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of the 80 item behavioral rating

scale devised by the investigator. Two sets of instructions were

written to be administered on two different occasions using the same

behavior rating scale (see Appendix G for "Disturbed" and "Disturbing"

Rating Scales). A demographic information form (see Appendix H) was

attached to each behavior rating scale, requesting information about

the rater: age group, position, level of position, professional

experience, sex, race, marital status, number of children, and educa-

tional training. In addition, classification and classroom setting

were asked of teachers. This information was important in analyzing

between and within group differences. Directions were concisely

written on each form, so that questionnaires were self-explanatory

and maintained an anonymity for the respondents.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted to assess the questionnaire which

was prepared for distribution in the main study. The behavioral













items included on the behavior rating scale, the two sets of

instructions to be administered on two different occasions, and

the information requested on the demographic form were the com-

ponents selected for evaluation.

Permission was obtained to ask students enrolled in four

courses in the Special Education Department, University of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida, to participate in evaluating the behavior

rating scale and the demographic information form, both comprising

the questionnaire in the main study. The students were classified

as teachers and teacher trainees in graduate and undergraduate pro-

grams relating to special education. A total of 60 students were

enrolled in these four special education courses.

Students in two of the courses were administered the question-

naire in the manner proposed for the main study. That is, during two

class sessions, one week apart, half of the 33 participants received

instructions to rate the behavioral items as "disturbance" and the

other half as "disturbing," with the alternate instructions received

the following week. The remaining 27 participants, comprising the

other two classes chosen for the pilot study, were administered the

questionnaire to obtain reliability measures. Approximately half of

the participants received instructions to rate the behavioral items

as "disturbance" and the other half as "disturbing," with the same

instructions given each of these participants the following week.

Sufficient reliability was reported to indicate a level of internal

consistency needed to perform the main study. Pearson correlation











coefficients are shown for total behavior rating scale and behavioral

clusters in Table 1 in the Data Analysis section of this chapter.

When asked to check which of the following was true, "I rated

the extent to which the items were characteristic of emotional dis-

turbance," and "I rated the extent to which the items were bothersome

or disturbing in working with children," 55 of the total 60 partici-

pants responded correctly to the two-time questionnaire. The behavior

rating scale was determined to measure the constructs "disturbance"

and "disturbing" as purported, with a computed construct validity

measure at .92.

Following the administration of the behavior rating scale in

two ways, and the completion of the demographic information form,

suggestions for inclusion of additional items, removal of existing

items, rewording of items, and renumbering of items were solicited. A

few minor revisions were made following recommendations by these

participants, none of whom were included in the main study or classified

as school personnel in the Putnam County School District.

Research Procedure

Written permission to conduct this study in Putnam County, Florida,

was secured from Superintendent C. L. Overturf, Jr. It was explained

that 189 persons classified as school personnel and employed by the

Putnam County District School Board would be asked to complete the

questionnaire, consisting of behavior rating scale and demographic

information form, under two different sets of instructions approximately

one week apart. An overview of the investigation was given and ques-

tions answered in a manner designed to inform but not bias the results.












Following approval by the Superintendent, a listing of total

district school personnel was obtained from Mr. J. Elrod, Personnel

Director. Each of the elementary classroom teachers (pre K-5),

secondary level teachers (6-12), and exceptional education teachers

was assigned a number in the Table of Random Numbers located in

Appendix C of Educational Research (Borg & Gall, 1979). From these

listings of general education teachers and exceptional education

teachers, the category of teachers was randomly selected. All county

level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans,

guidance counselors, and school psychologists were included from the

district roster to participate as subjects in the study.

Personal letters were written to each of the 16 building prin-

cipals stating generalized purposes and procedures in order to gain

their active support for the study. In addition, personal visits

and phone calls were made to selected school administrators, again

for the explicit purpose of procuring support. Every effort was

made to reassure participants that no professional controversy or

loss of anonymity would occur, and that their responses would com-

prise a serious advancement in the understanding of behavioral taxon-

omies used by educators.

Data Collection

One set of instructions asked school personnel to respond to

each of the behavioral items indicating how characteristic the be-

havior is of "emotional disturbance." The other set of instructions

asked school personnel to respond to each of the behavioral items












indicating how "disturbing" the behavior is in working with children.

Ratings were marked on a scaled continuum ranging from one to five,

with codings for "disturbed" and for "disturbing" instructions:

(1) coded as not very characteristic of emotional disturbance (NVC-ED)

and (5) as very characteristic of emotional disturbance (VC-ED); and

(1) coded as not very disturbing (NVD) and (5) as very disturbing (VD).

Half of the subjects received the questionnaire with the in-

structions for rating "emotional disturbance," and the other half

received the questionnaire with instructions for rating "disturbing-

ness." One week later, a questionniare with the other set of in-

structions was received by each participating subject for rating.

Behavior rating scales with attached demographic information

forms were sent by school internal distribution to all participants.

A cover letter accompanied each questionnaire, requesting partici-

pation. Directions were self-explanatory. Participants were informed

that their participation was voluntary and could be discontinued at

any time, that the questionnaires would be coded for data collection

and analysis, and that their responses would remain anonymous. The

avoidance of discussion concerning ratings of behavioral items with

other school personnel was requested. Participants were asked to com-

plete the questionnaires and return the behavior rating scales and

attached demographic information forms through their building princi-

pal, or by use of the envelope enclosed in each questionnaire addressed

to be returned by school internal distribution to the investigator in

care of the Exceptional Education Department.












Following a one week time interval, coded questionnaires con-

taining the second set of instructions for rating the behavior rating

scale were sent with attached demographic forms by school internal

distribution from the Exceptional Education Office. The second

demographic form was sent for identification and reliability pur-

poses. Participants were again asked to complete the behavior rating

scale and demographic information form and return the questionnaire

to their respective building principal, or to the Exceptional Educa-

tion Department. A record of completed questionnaires was maintained

throughout, so that additional behavior rating scales and demographic

information forms might be sent to those who did not respond within

five school days.

An 87 percent return of the questionnaire to be completed under

the first set of instructions was received at the conclusion of the

first week. An additional 2 percent of first-time respondents re-

turned questionnaires the following week. The second week produced

a return of 66 percent of matched questionnaires, or those completed

under both sets of instructions. A second mailing was necessitated

to increase the number of matched returns. At the conclusion of the

third week of data collection, a total of 160 participants, or 85

percent, had returned questionnaires completed under two sets of

instructions.

A selected number of participants were chosen to test for

reliability. A proportionate number of each type of school personnel

was sent a third questionnaire with alternating instructions for











rating the behavioral items. Subjects, selected from the previous

responding sample, included: three county level administrators, two

principals, two assistant principals, one dean, three guidance coun-

selors, and two school psychologists. Twenty percent of the total

participating teachers were included in this test for reliability,

which comprised 21 teachers from the elementary, secondary, and ex-

ceptional education sectors. Of the 34 subjects, a total of 29

responded, concluding an 85 percent participation. Table 1 in the

Data Analysis section contains comparisons of Pearson correlation

coefficients for total behavior rating scale and behavioral clusters

computed for the pilot study and the main study.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables selected for investigation in this

study are the 80 behavioral items which were rated by subjects repre-

sentative of differing types of school personnel. These behavioral

items were rated according to their perceived degree of "disturbed-

ness" and "disturbingness" to county level administrators, principals,

assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, school psychologists,

and teachers. Fifty-two of the behavioral items were compiled from

the grid containing definitional characteristics of emotional dis-

turbance extracted from materials received from the 50 state depart-

ments of education. The remaining behavioral items were selected

from previous studies measuring the maladaptiveness, inappropriateness,

and disturbingness of children's behavior, and the adaptiveness, ap-

propriateness, and desirability of children's behavior as perceived

by school personnel. Four reference sources were used in selecting












behavioral items characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and "dis-

turbing" in working with children.

Independent Variables

The variables selected for manipulation by the investigator of

this study were those of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness."

Two sets of instructions were administered on two occasions. One

set of instructions directed each of the participants to rate the

degree of "emotional disturbance" characteristic of the 80 behavioral

items. The other set of instructions directed each of the partici-

pants to rate the degree of "disturbingness" of the 80 behavioral

items. Half of the subjects, totaling 95, were given instructions to

rate the "emotional disturbance" characteristic of the behavioral

items, and 94 subjects were given instructions to rate the "disturb-

ingness" of the behavioral items. One week later, those subjects

who previously rated the "emotional disturbance" characteristic of

the behavioral items were directed to rate the "disturbingness" of

the behavioral items. Conversely, those subjects who previously

rated the "disturbingness" of the behavioral items were directed to

rate the "emotional disturbance" determined characteristic of the

behavioral items.

Data Analysis

The behavior rating scale, comprised of a checklist of 80 be-

havioral items, was rated on a scaled continuum of one to five (1-5).

The "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" of these behavioral items

were rated by types of school personnel. A random sample of the













elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers were selected

as participants in rating these behavioral items. All county level

administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance

counselors, and school psychologists employed by the Putnam County

District School Board were asked to participate in rating the behav-

ioral items. A questionnaire consisting of a behavior rating scale

and demographic information form was received by the participants on

two different occasions, giving two different sets of instructions

for the two conditions of "disturbance" and "disturbing."

To facilitate data analysis, the various types of school per-

sonnel participating in the study were grouped into three distinct

categories. The category of teacher was used to include ratings by

responding elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers.

The category of administrator encompassed ratings by district level

and local school center administrators, including: county level ad-

ministrators, principals, assistant principals, and deans. The term

counselor was designated the category for responding guidance counse-

lors and school psychologists.

The primary relationship to be analyzed was the scores of be-

havioral items rated for degree of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness"

in working with children and youth. To further facilitate data

analysis, behavioral clusters were formulated to factor the items

into categories of behaviors. Existing behavior rating scales and

checklists were utilized in this process (Burks, 1977; Lambert & Bower,

1961; Pimm & McClure, 1969; Quay & Peterson, 1967; Spivack, Haimes,












4 Spotts, 1967; Spivack & Spotts, 1966; Spivack & Swift, 1967;

Walker, 1970). Nine behavioral clusters were formed and termed as

follows: Emotionally Withdrawn, Weak Self-Control, Appropriate

Socialization, Inadequacy-Immaturity, Poor Academics, Personality

Problems, Poor Relations, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency.

An overview of the 80 behavioral items factored into the nine behav-

ioral clusters is shown on Table 2.

The relationship between the ratings of behavioral items and

of behavioral clusters characteristic of "emotional disturbance"

and "disturbing" in working with children and youth, was analyzed by

Pearson correlations. Statistical options were selected to compute

mean scores and standard deviations for "disturbance" and "disturbing"

for behavioral items and behavioral clusters across the three cate-

gories of school personnel. The t test for two independent samples

was utilized to test for significant differences between the mean

"disturbance" scores and the mean "disturbing" scores between the

three independent groups of responding school personnel.

In using the aforementioned forms of analyses, relationships

among behaviors thought to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance"

and "disturbing" in working with children and youth were analyzed.

In addition, differences between perceptions of types of school per-

sonnel were analyzed to determine their relatedness.

Reliability

A third questionnaire was received by a proportionate number

of participants chosen for the main study in Putnam County School













District. This sample was asked to rerate the behavior rating scale

under one of the previous instructions given for "disturbedness" or

"disturbingness." Approximately half of the participants rated the

behaviors to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and half

to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. This third

administration of the behavior rating scale was performed to test

for reliability. Procedures for distribution and collection of

questionnaires was the same as described in the section on Data Col-

lection. Of the 34 subjects selected for the main study, a total of

29, or 85 percent, responded. The three categories of school person-

nel were represented by 17 teachers, 7 administrators, and 5 counselors.

A number of subjects were administered a third behavior rating

scale during the pilot study performed at the University of Florida,

Gainesville, Florida. Of the 60 students enrolled in the four courses

of study in the Department of Special Education, 27 were asked to

rerate the behavior rating scale given to them during the class ses-

sion one week earlier. The categories represented in this study

included 7 teachers and 20 teacher trainees. No persons classified

as school administrators or counselors were enrolled in these four

special education courses.

Reliability measures were secured from samples representative

of both groups, the main study and the pilot study, to test for in-

ternal consistency of results. A comparable number of participants

were re-administered the behavior rating scale under the same set of

instructions given one week prior. Respondents numbered 29 and 27












for the main study and for the pilot study, respectively. Pearson

correlations were obtained from rating scores produced by the respon-

dents of both groups. The relationships computed for total behavior

rating scale and the nine behavioral clusters are shown as correla-

tion coefficients in Table 1.

Overall, higher correlations were obtained from participants

in the main study, especially in the ratings of behavioral items com-

prising the behavioral clusters Appropriate Socialization, Inadequacy-

Immaturity, Poor Academics, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency.

The highest correlations produced from ratings by participants in the

pilot study were in the areas of Inadequacy-Immaturity, Personality

Problems, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency. Both groups showed

highest correlations for the areas denoting aggressive, antisocial

behaviors, as well as dependent, immature behaviors. Some ambivalency

was indicated in the ratings for behaviors denoting relationships with

others and for withdrawn, self-controlling behaviors by both groups of

respondents. Conclusions and recommendations are prefaced by possible

limitations shown by reliability coefficients reflective of a weak internal

consistency. Adequate internal consistency was concluded for the total

rating scale and the majority of the behavioral clusters.

Validity

At the conclusion of each behavior rating scale, participants

were asked to check which of the following was true, "I rated the ex-

tent to which the items were characteristic of emotional disturbance,"

and "I rated the extent to which the items were bothersome or disturbing














Table 1

Pearson Correlations for Reliability Measures
for Total Behavior Rating Scale and across Behavioral Clusters


Main Studyb Pilot Studyb
Total Scale and Clusters N=29 N=27
a a
r r


Total Behavior Rating Scale .79 .70

Behavioral Clusters:

1. Emotionally Withdrawn .43 .50

2. Weak Self-Control .52 .23

3. Appropriate Socialization .90 .60

4. Inadequacy-Immaturity .83 .72

5. Poor Academics .78 .22

6. Personality Problems .69 .81

7. Poor Relations .58 .50

8. Acting Out .84 .72

9. Socialized Delinquency .86 .87


a Correlation coefficients for "Disturbance with Disturbance" and

"Disturbing with Disturbing"


b
Test-retest reliability measures














Table 2

Behavioral Items Comprising Behavioral Clusters
for Ratings for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing"





Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items


1. Emotionally Withdrawn

a. Is acutely shy or withdrawn; avoids social contact.

b. Displays a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

c. Daydreams to a significant degree.

d. Is unresponsive to others; ignores social initiations

by peers.

e. Maintains an aloofness from others.

f. Displays a disinterest in the environment; appears to

be unmotivated, lethargic.


2. Weak Self-Control

a. Lacks self-control; indicates poor impulse control.

b. Has impulsive, compulsive behaviors (excessive movement);

appears unable to perceive consequences.

c. Displays restless, hyperactive behaviors; is constantly moving.

d. Has difficulty listening and/or paying attention; is easily

distracted.

e. Appears restless; displays a short attention span.













Table 2--Continued



Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items


3. Appropriate Socialization

a. Is polite, respectful of others.

b. Takes his/her turn appropriately.

c. Is truthful, honest with others.

d. Shares materials with others in a work situation.

e. Seeks teacher attention at appropriate times.

f. Demonstrates self-reliance, independence.

g. Appears happy and cheerful; seems good natured.

h. Produces work of acceptable quality given his/her skill level.

i. Uses free time appropriately.

j. Cooperates with peers in group activities or situations.

k. Follows established classroom rules.

1. Attempts to answer a question when called on by the teacher.

m. Ignores the distractions or interruptions of other students

during academic activities.

n. Resolves peer conflicts or problems adequately on his/her own.

o. Compliments peers regarding some attribute or behavior.

p. Has a close friendss; initiates conversation.














Table 2--Continued



Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items


4. Inadequacy-Immaturity

a. Complains of physical illnesses or impairments.

b. Demands excessive attention; engages in silly, attention

seeking behavior.

c. Has frequent temper tantrums.

d. Expresses feelings of inferiority; debases personal feats.

e. Has a slovenly appearance.

f. Is deficient in self-help skills; demands excessive individual

attention and/or assistance.

g. Acts in a childish, immature manner; whines, sulks, pouts.

h. Displays high levels of dependence; lacks self-confidence.

i. Is unreliable or irresponsible when asked to perform.

j. Acts easily frightened, fearful, intimidated by events or

other persons.

k. Is overly sensitive, over-reacts; is easily discouraged.

1. Follows the group; is suggestible, easily led into

trouble.













Table 2--Continued



Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items


5. Poor Academics

a. Seems unable to learn commensurate with intellectual,

sensory, or physical development.

b. Starts but does not complete tasks.

c. Demonstrates poor academic achievement, non-commensurate

with ability.

d. Appears frustrated by tasks or school routine.

e. Procrastinates; delays beginning tasks or activities.


6. Personality Problems

a. Shows inappropriate types of behaviors, feelings,

and/or responses under normal circumstances.

b. Exhibits a poor self-concept.

c. Engages in behavior considered dangerous to himself/

herself and/or to others.

d. Engages in bizzare behaviors and/or speech.

e. Shows extreme interest in the morbid.

f. Fantacizes or exaggerates occurrences.















Table 2--Continued




Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items


6. Personality Problems--Continued

h. Engages in repetitive, stereotyped motor behavior.

i. Acts in a self-derogatory manner; is physically

and/or verbally abusive toward self.

j. Has inappropriate vocalizations, unusual language

context; babbles.

k. Self-stimulates; masturbates.

1. Is suspicious of others; acts paranoid.

m. Engages in inappropriate sexual behavior.




7. Poor Relatons

a. Is unable to build or to maintain satisfactory inter-

personal relationships.

b. Lacks effective communication skills; has speech

problems.

c. Manipulates other persons and/or situations to get

his/her way.

d. Is overly affectionate toward peers and/or adults.













Table 2--Continued



Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items



8. Acting Out

a. Talks incessantly, out of turn.

b. Reacts negatively to instructions or commands; refuses

to correct mistakes, complete work.

c. Exhibits severe acting out behavior; is physically

aggressive toward others.

d. Resists, defies authority or structure; challenges

teacher imposed limitations; acts defiant.

e. Disrupts the classroom; creates a disturbance during

class activities.

f. Demonstrates angry, temperamental, irritable behaviors.

g. Is verbally aggressive toward others.

h. Makes irrelevant remarks and/or asks irrelevant

questions.

i. Forces the submission of peers by being dominant, bossy,

and/or overbearing.

j. Interrupts the teacher when engaged in a presentation

or activity.

k. Uses property of others without asking permission.













Table 2--Continued


Behavioral Clusters:
Behavioral Items

9. Socialized Delinquency

a. Is truant, tardy, or absent excessively.

b. Is destructive of personal property; damages property of others.

c. Uses profane, obscene language, gestures.

d. Lies, distorts the truth.

e. Cheats; copies work of others.

f. Steals; takes property belonging to others.

g. Does not follow rules; is willfully disobedient.












in working with children." Construct validity was computed for both

the main study and for the pilot study, with measures of ,90 and .92

reported, respectively. The behavior rating scale was determined to

measure the constructs "disturbance" and "disturbing" as purported.

Summary of Experimental Procedures

The following experimental procedures were used in this study:

1. Requests were made to all state departments of education in

the United States for behavioral characteristics of children and

youth to qualify for special education services in the category of

emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education.

2. Definitional characteristics submitted by state were

listed on a grid.

3. A behavior rating scale was devised from the behavioral

characteristics listed on the grid defining criteria for "emotional

disturbance" and from three studies of "disturbingness" perceived by

school personnel in working with children or youth.

4. A questionnaire was developed to include a behavior rating

scale with two sets of instructions for rating "disturbedness" and

"disturbingness" of behavioral items, with a demographic information

form attached.

5. Permission to do the research was obtained from the Super-

intendent of Putnam County, Florida.

6. A summarized roster of school personnel by position was

obtained from the personnel director.













7. Local building principals were contacted in order to des-

cribe purposes and procedures for the investigation, and to secure

support for the study at each school center.

8. Names of elementary, secondary, and exceptional education

teachers were listed in the Random Table of Numbers (Borg & Gall,

1979). Subjects were randomly selected, and names coded for distri-

bution and retrieval of questionnaires.

9. All names of county level administrators, principals,

assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psycho-

logists were coded for distribution and retrieval of questionnaires.

10. Internal county distribution was used to distribute

questionnaires to teachers, county level administrators, principals,

assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psycho-

logists.

11. Arrangements were made to collect returned questionnaires

from building principals at each of the 16 school centers, or through

school internal distribution to the Exceptional Education Department.

12. A second questionnaire was distributed and collected using

the same procedures (10-12).

13. A sample of school personnel was selected to complete the

questionnaire to test for reliability. Distribution and collection

was made using the same procedures (10-12).

14. Behavioral clusters were formulated to factor behavioral

items for data analysis.













15. Data were analyzed by Pearson correlations to obtain rela-

tionships as shown by correlation coefficients for the rating scores

of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" for behavioral items

and for behavioral clusters across respondents.

16. Statistical options were selected to compute mean scores

and standard deviations for "disturbance" and "disturbing" for be-

havioral items and behavioral clusters across school personnel.

17. Data were analyzed by t tests to determine calculated t

values, degrees of freedom, and probability values, for "disturbance"

and "disturbing" for behavioral clusters between independent groups

of school personnel.






















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS



The relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness"

perceived by various types of school personnel was examined by the

investigator. Subjects representative of three distinct positional

categories were selected for participation in this investigation. All

participants in the study were employed by the Putnam County District

School Board. The categorical position of teacher was represented by

elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers, all chosen

by random selection. The categorical position of administrator sub-

sumed county level administrators as well as local school center

administrators, including principals, assistant principals, and deans.

Guidance counselors and school psychologists comprised the categorical

position termed counselor. The latter two positional categories in-

cluded all school personnel employed in these categories.

A return of 160 matched questionnaires, rated for "disturbedness"

and "disturbingness," was received from the total 189 subjects. An

85 percent response rate was determined. The categorical positions were

represented by 95 teachers, 42 administrators, and 23 counselors.













Data consisted of rating scores produced by the participants

on a two-time questionnaire administered about one week apart under

different instructions. Approximately half of the participants were

directed to rate the 80 behavioral items characteristic of "emotional

disturbance," and the remaining half were asked to rate the behav-

ioral items considered "disturbing" in working with children and

youth. The opposite instructions were given with the administration

of the second questionnaire.

Statistical analyses were performed using the rating scores of

"disturbance" and "disturbing" by the groups of school personnel of

the behavioral items included on the behavior rating scale. To

facilitate analyses, the 80 behavioral items were factored into nine

behavioral clusters.

Data Analyses

The Pearson correlation was used to obtain relationships between

the rating scores for "disturbed" and "disturbing" behavioral items

and behavioral clusters, rated by all participating school personnel

and by participants in the categorical positions of teachers, adminis-

trators, and counselors. Table 3 contains a display of the computed

correlation coefficients.

The t test for two independent samples was utilized to test for

significant differences between the mean rating scores produced by

teachers and administrators, teachers and counselors, and administra-

tors and counselors for behavioral items and behavioral clusters.

Table 4 displays calculated t scores and probability values for













"disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral clusters across inde-

pendent groups of respondents.

Statistical options were selected to compute mean scores and

standard deviations for the behavioral items and for the behavioral

clusters composed of the behavioral items for all participating

school personnel and for three distinct groups of school personnel,

including teachers, administrators, and counselors. Table 5 con-

tains mean scores and standard deviations for all responding school

personnel on behavioral items comprising "disturbance" behavioral

clusters. Table 6 shows mean scores and standard deviations for all

responding school personnel on behavioral items comprising "disturb-

ing" behavioral clusters. Mean scores and standard deviations for

"disturbance" across behavioral clusters are presented in Table 7,

and mean scores and standard deviations for "disturbing" across be-

havioral clusters are exhibited in Table 8.

Hypothesis 1

There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores

for the behavioral cluster Emotionally Withdrawn when the character-

istics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

Hypothesis 1 was evaluated by correlating the scores of "dis-

turbedness" and "disturbingness" derived from ratings performed by

all participants for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral

cluster Emotionally Withdrawn. The Pearson correlation coefficient

was calculated at .19 for all participating school personnel, with























40 00 N t) 10 N C7 0 LM
o c LO N t4 cM













N N t O 0 N Mt
N 10 to to CM 0 o













L Lf) '0 tO 0 C4 r-N '0
" LI) CM N CO CM N N








0 N 0 0O 0 Ln Ln0 n
'4 N in to N to N N N


o

0N
4O





41 u 00







*4 0
0 -4
Va I



o n o c

2 0 0 0

































Uol









< . .
N N 0- N^o / CT C C t- N







I N^ N N/ Nw N N N' No N


N- 0 N N N 07 N^ \ 0 -l C /
'c






004 -^ 0 N 0

-o0 N N C 1 N


-. NO N- 0~ N N C N^ 0












o=t~




O 40 N


)-4 0: ) N N 0 N N
04-l _______________


r: 4J1

a)

4-1 03
ts N


















.4 1
*H 0







4 0
- 4




; 0.











44
M M
0
co u











'n
A u
.0


4-4 0

Ln 0
Q 0

h 0
00C
54+5-S -






> 0

"F-i/
+.' 0
*H 41
.4< Nt
.0- 0n




0. as



0t>
c0
N .0
00)0

0
05-
(O 0
.1-1-
l-il


c


.0 0 4' .



o 0 05o
4- U 4 0 0. *

0- 0 U 50
0 N 0. 0) N C

0 0- ) 0. 0 O 5

0 0 0o 01 0 0
N 50 N 0. 0.


i- fN N N N Co


00 4
V v






















in


(N (N (N 00


(N!N(N (O Nt (N 1
mm I- m


9'~ ~(N (N 04 C 00 (Nit r-r-.



- zi
0 iPQi(N (Nr.i(N r~-00 it 00 itit
lxi -
0 (Nitit (Nit (N (N (N (N (Nit 00
.4






~ -9~. 99 9 9 9 9 19
iii-, -- -
(N 04
zi
4-. (N0( (Nit (N (N 00 t- Ott i-(4t-.
lxi -


*iu c





a

0
+V -H P.




ci 0 4:











m0 0
to .4S




w 00 040
00 0 4-i-.4
if ; r -tic-.
1.(4- it (- TI c

.00.4.10 tit1 -i-

3.. 0 01-t>

C0.-.4i0l4> 04.4


IN- tP.-. 0 B> r nn
>.iWi (40 iil 00 *-..
-r U-4 00 04i"04

O+ .40. ^ -.4.4
OiOOO t- Ci.0200^

(NO00 04(44d&,c <


(N 00 0P (Nit








BO. 040 P0 .







4010.0 0 P.


-iOn .4-i 0




P.0 U0 4-B 4.



00. 0 -) 4-v.*
-P. i-i0 s (d4-v
0 -f ti -i



*i-iA .4--.0
0000 i w 0if

4- I 00 4-* C4t


it .141 00 0) C0 .40

3-Z0 .4r-i<0

S O. Uf V 04 U*


- zi



















n oo
lxo



















1x0


CO- 0

















0.4








o .



"e, uY

Pt0
0-F.



























ST mm -. n in!M n T r- NMO


04 0440 004 0





o 04'0 r- .0 4-4
04 0404 -4-4 04


tin- *o 0 0 o r- 1.n t o O I c a. 0 r- t0 9





Tui -- i|| 1 19 T 1 i ,li o9 1! t" t T I


i. 1 0!4 n T'- 04 1: 0 1 11


















i *T










p 0-
00
4 44I 0 .0
0 44 4. .0 0 04
o .C -^ S>4 4 .0









if too %cot I- e 1 j
040 lu 4.0 0 0 0 4- -^
440r .4 0t c0J4 t w3
444400 44> 44 0> 0 0- 040
.Cg0t W & Co- 0 4
0.4440o4 -H to E AT O>
O043TV0 >.0 0 .J C
3-404&4l >4 -404) 40 0

-^ 40 r- t44 44.- 440 El
004t .. C0 4. 44 C > 0 044

.004 >4,0 00 .40t -4
444. .~ -i1Q -4.0 44 044.

o0404 a>>** *--4 00 0 0 r f

.. -r44444U 4. 0 0044 111 ..^
0.0.0-4444 0.0 -0t 1 440 434..-.

4-4.4001 444. C0o.03 M -> 0 4444
04 .44. 0...4 kOr c C 440f-

l-4. >.i/ C, 4 0.. 0 44 .044 0.4.m
-44040.-44i .43a / v J 0 4404 t44 1 0n
04000.0 >444444i 441 0C00
4004440 44 4 400 0 44.4i^ titt' n*-



044 0/ /1Q- 0.04 0l3UL-~ 0.44 *04 0000C^

U 40 U40<44.0ZL444.r^<44.400C 0UG


04 0m 4o0 0




0 00 04 040
0 M0 0o o 04











0 0 0 -
0 04 4 0










44 4. n4
.4>. 44
0. 0. 44








02 .4 -0 w

U V
.-.040 440...
>00 0440*"ir




440 44 -44 0 .4 0



04004400.040 *0


444 44 = i 0 -= a

4440 0.0J "- 4401


0441

lxi











I- ZI
lxi


















0 It N -: o* -.4


N '0.44 nO 0
444 .44fl 40444 444


M ti0 C! ( tr
tON OfiN no, nw f


44 04 04Th 00 0 0Th 000 04444 O4~.04N
44 44 0 444 44 044



O ~ 00 44)t 0 004 ONN On Th0mAIfl
lxi .
0 .44 044444 44404 .44 4'4N .444.4N .44444 04~.4444fl








~ ~I ~ 004 04404 0444 0...444 0404 4004004
040 ,-. -

44 zI
F- 04 ~444 NTh 444 fiN 44440 .44N NNOON
1441 .
444 fin 444444 444 044444 444t44n nfl fln4444'4


O 0T O CQ o 0













o 406

444 044-
44 u c'

.- *a *a

O> 44 -44 4.
0 0 440 ca .4



0 U .U il -

'4 4, i- 44.0
4, *44 4,3 u 44
'4 .-. 44i 444-
44 4 .Q 444 444,H



4o 444' -
- 44044- 0 >

*4 O,44440.


440 U..-...44>.4

0^ *J4.4>400 4444.40


44^ 0 U0 -. < 4.

04 o4 4444%r .44.44


1o 9- .i i C i on


4, 5


'4 0 44 1
*4 44 44
*4 0
44 '4 4


*4 .44> U



.0 U f 00l




^ 44 44 0 ; 4
t>0.0 E 440 c


.44 ..0 u44 0 44

04> 04444444


.0 0 04 i 0 04


0.j30 .4-i4- ro 4


*4. 0



.44 0 0


>44 04 0.4



44 44 C 04 44 C4.

4.0.440 0U
4- 0044 44 i it, -

444 44.0- 0.



044 4444.J0 44- -'<

-j 0 0 0 0 04 044
.0 44 0 0.4'-. SM 0

00 .0. *O4 0

>4- 44444444C.C444

443^-.4 44044304 -


0t 4(4 44 04 4,44 0 0. U


0.4 .04 43 4,4J 4


.- i
lxil
BA
fl Kl


lxi










































U 44


in oo 1o f^ oo f>


















C. 01.000





CC '0000
0 4CC0CC


S 00 0 0 0 00 1!




C. 04 0CCi ('C Co CCC
CC CC CCC ('4 04 0l ('4 ('4


' ol 1. 0 0 0o o4 04 040 C Bo 0 oc0


K ^i .- 2- 00 ^
0 wI








- 040 0l (*Ck 4 0-r~r Ck 4 0 Ci C4 CC -i 00oo o
Ix! . C!
-- -







CC 0 'I NO 04 C C o 0 00


004 OCl 0 C -














Or. ~ 0 m0.0








--0. 0
400 0
O Z

A 0 0








000. 4
0C .,4 000
.0o 044 000
'44.40.4.40 0 o -
00o4. ^
0o 00. 44'44.o
000 *-0 4.40 c 4
004o 4 '4.3 M



044 00.-> m .


044 0 0 r.. t0 0*




.00 0..a401 000 a


o 442 < 0 0- 0 -. 4


. CC .


.5 0
0. '4 0 0
0 0. 0


40 '4 -2

'4 0 0
4.4 0 0S

4 .40 4.
0H 0 0 0.
a) 0n 0 0


04. 0:CJ 4.>





.0 -i 4.400n

*<000 1 401


o~.0 ra oM
4- .0 0 00 '4 4
40 0 '4 4. 0 '

i-i0 -4 t>E 00 v>0


0.0 .-0 0 C 01-


0
SM >
04 E 0
Sd 0 0
0 U .0

0.>. 0 0 -e
1 .0 .*4 .0

0 >0 .0 .
0 -4 0-44.W 4.

4 .44.. 00-)4 *-4
004. 4.> (d
0.. o 04 -d-- ) +

400 J0 4... 0

4.0cj4.4 04 4.|-
0000 f o f -4 -0.
e .44 4.0(.4.01 0*i
4.-44 400u 4i '4 0 004
3 -40. 0440o o. 4


000-r4 4>0.*-404VI
.1.^ 0. 00 .0^ '4.- *


0j t0 0 '4l 44 03 0 0- 0a 0


0 0f ll fJ 0 0.0 : 0.0 0 0

04) 4(B0 44 00) 0 0> r-4 0 0
c0I*- 40 4.4000 o 4.1 o 0a 0

u *.0 0 0 (4 '


.o l
0




oj 101
V i
il i


14<1





















o 0$ 0$o


'F -- 4, .
444 ',I f44 44 0"'
N M NO (^K


1! Ct 1 1! NN
0$ 0$ $ $ 00T


1 . .. .....o .



F C) . F 00 . 1 .t0
zi .. .

x5 I F 40 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 4.0 $














I I 4 4, 4O 4, 40 ,Q 4
*Q M MM M ^*Klramm


TO 0$ 0$ 00





r-. 0$ 0 ^ ',










*4- 44 0
44 0 F -^



0< 0 0.i

.00 >4 to


o < 3 FO 0
Ft F 44 44
30 t 0..0 .4.
o 0.0 3
4a-F 44444o

>0 FF44 F

3.4 0. 0^

4> a $4a>$.

4..4 '- 4. 4.4.
-l $43. 0 4.4 0.

s.4- *00 .$400.

>FO $4 3 Fi F





OO.0 -^ .44^


Oi0 4.BO 3 -











Ut. 4444

* 0. 0 .444...

Ft .40.00.
*CF 344>.
$4 F$404-







a40$0 0344 -

044. t. j oL440

4.0. 4JM 44; 0


0 ZI
o lxi


4- zI
lxi







































$40






.4>








82


























o c. .. . . . . . .
o u


oo

0(












4-. oM








E-OM
0 .






c w d o z J oo
t 0 tt
0 CO



























.= .. 1 0
(0:



o-0 .4 o -0 0t
1- 0 C.Qo -----t--------------------------- to -




)fl r






40-to


















CC'OInIn 04044.404 In 444 InInt'.





4444440401.404444.0444 444 C .0404


r- Int'. Ct'. 40


I O 0 Cn~obi CCCC C 0 Lfl- 0 In 01 0, OI




I 41 . . .... . . .X . . . .





C in/i r '0^Ii \ i ^ m t^ > ^0

lxi. ...




w .i


44-t'o0CC 04C'. 4' 0~ C 4m 4









0 0


C C 4- 0 44
0 '.0C "- 0. L .0
CO -D^ 440 ^
*CC 0 $4 C 444 C 0
04 tt 0.4 0 0 0 j La
-- '0 0i 0 > 4 La
0- 4 -o 0 44 .a 0 ->r
$4-'404 1 0 .4 0i $4>
O0'<-f0O >'0 0'' 4404t-
$44 La' 4-4 > $4CE 4 CU
C* 0..0 0.00 4*4]C 40 t

t$*-rG.0.0440 0. 0>0 0*0

La$ ""0 C) .00 0 4 CO* a
0444444..-. fl 4. C4.L 004 0.4 Q

4.* C 0.4- .0 4-1 00 0 0- n
-M 0.04400 $4 ft 0' OUC C-.1(0*
0.'4-44 0.4. .444 444..n o 0x

044 La44l 0 O0. ..C $40 00C >
0044*'.0444U- 0 00 4. 0 $444t
0o CO .000 0444. 44oo ^ i- ua'0
.00 0 44". "40 0445^K



.004443 n4C 044J4 000 44^ OC
4- 40 44. 4. 0 0 4 444'00u ilij < (


44440o00c0t.o 0000 o *444''.0t'-o 0
0$4.4-04'0...
C 4a 2j 0.0 44^ 0 -' C^ E 0 0000


040 InC t




0







4-0. t 5
0- 0. 44


00 C 00
0.-4 .0 0
0 44 044


00 0. '-0





-- $444. 440.44


-44- 4-44.4 44'
044 0 0~4-~

0.044 .0.444 0.0'0
4444.04400 C .4
.0.0.0044.0 0>

4- 444 44 0.4 C 0 4- 0


'-.4 4444 '-0>
0.0'C04..O *00

0004400.00 44
C La 0 0 = 44 *4-4 = 44


'00.0 4J'0 44444


I- I(
tt> 1



i l
I I)K


o n
A~l



















to>



















O 04 1'. 0 40 0





.14 fit en .
fi nfl n fi fi


04144 Ot'.144 00 00cr.





fifi I4)fiN 441'. CNC.4)
fin finn fin tofifi


.1 O| c. 00. 02 C 40 0 0 l 'o IoCIoC











I--






mi

I w C N M M 1!


r. N 11 N t -i












'I- 0..0
14 0'4) 40
IA 4) 414 411. -1

3^ 14 40 4i 1 t
3 44 14. 14 4


4) 0 .4 1 11

4) '0 04 3 .4-r
4) -44 14 4d-4
14 14 .04f. 44 14
4. 0. -44 44 4)
4) 4) 14)0 I 064
41 00 .4 4) M b
rt It 14
14* 4.4) I> u

41 > 4. .49-1 0.
.1 14 1-1440 4. 4)*
-" .4 4)1004)^ 4

.4)1440 V- 4-10C 4B

1340 tj.-l4)14>.04C1Q
0.144).'4)0.-.4) 0
4) >.140 [14 144.4)4. (-



< "14 04-<- .4 4-4 03 0. -


44 .<=' .1^. .4 -4


00 ~ 1 Or-a 4)4 000


-4 14



I 4el
0: 14 .
4) 0
-= 0 -




O 0) 41>


4 -4 41 14
4. 4) 01
4) E) .41

41 ..44> 0-
4)4110 1444T

0)4 0f 0

0>0.4S) 14.0
0 44 4, 1 O





-41 04>4)4)^



<^ ) .0 41 1 0 40.4
14 4 )10 4 <0.



0.4 .0 '4)4)


0 k






44 41 0.2 I
0) 9
E 0
14 >0 0.



.0 *E 4) 4)
















14..414 ....4)4
0140- kt 4)410

40 .0. 4 0
3*.4 4) 4))341U
0 44 14 +J 4) .4 410 11

0.14 .00 '4)+J04


in

c ue
4)114
14 |*<|


4-. 1z4

ixi

















mo


1-1























o
o



















0%40 0 5005-0%





400% 0 Sfl0%t.0%


o 0% 00% 04 5.. 0 0%0%





5*- 0% p-fr.. 0% 50 '0 0% 50r.

0% 54. 040% 0% 00 00 00 000%


004 1|.o


I- 15












.0%
c 3 o m o ooun' r4 o o oo e0 M in = o







0 0


1-- I 1 ... .. . .. .
F- 40













04% 0 0450 0 4 %O 0 0 0 0 0


OF .! C0



















o r o ml fco'
a o










22 xS
1.> -i to


00.u 54.0

4)0.) 0 0.-^

os Cl 00 0401





4*^ 45...0 ao3

0. id 4a a (0


0 0 F.4-..00 4oO


a) 0. 5.. 04 00 a.
0. S03. 04 6

40 o 00 4 4r)00,- a

C 40 < 54 = 3 C. %

n00. .4 .0E *-0


0% 0 00% 0 0% 0% 0% 0%0%




0% 0% 0%c 0% 445 445 0040
0% 0% 0450 ~0 0- 00 00 0000


0s. 0


t.4 0 0

0 .0 0* 1

.4 .0 F. 0
0 0 A 0



0% 0 *e *0
.40 0 F.4-

.00 0


O. i a 0S>

.0 > 4400ttt
.-S-- 0 4 <*0
004.-1 44





40.4-4 U .E 0.-1 .


.0 .0 0 C<*0


4 0
04 0 .0

0.0. C0 .0
OF. 0. 04. .



005 44 c .0 .0i-



440 0 4.1 U)
04)4- .. 3 I.-l 0-
5.100 00


*00 00 4.. 0 00 0

00 0 -s 4- .-5 0t 0
0.* >. 0 0.- 0% t-5 F


0 44 0 > 40 44. 00 0% E%


0.00 S... 4.0 Fi o 0 r i )

0 F- <0% :- o. 44 40 40-

<0. 0j O0 *J E 444


:~

.00%



U lol


lXI























- 4N 0 O
*W m m M


o 4. o4 O a I.a





4 04-..44..00
M 0w 00T-vw 04 4


>- Q co oo a ooo o fo d o O
0 a ac 0 r.oma



zi

- 0! !








w 04 O 0 Oi 0404 CM4 coo-lO04oe




lxi ^ M o o or^^n
04 44 n^ 44404 44 0404040404-


0 0 4- 04






4. 4 -3
44 6 4.




44 trt o
i .4- 6n *




V- *. 4. 4, 0
34- 0. 4 -,c
0 04.6 2
.44 n 444 C

.4n 0u-t j 4-1

>4 4,^<>4-1, 44H





-.4.4-. 4-1 -0

4-40. 0c+ 0
4.- .04 3 .00
>4,4-04i -4 0 0


44.6 .4 -- 0 .4


N01 Cl (4 C




40 0n40404t40404
















o00 0)0


4-4 t -0
444 440>
00. 1 6444-
444. to 4-04<
K0. 4- 4.-.4-
C- (4 440r3

.0 -< ^




WV .0 f 0 u3

4t44000.M0

V 0 4- 44 0. 4- 4- 1




a)44. t4o44'4.0t4


L4 144


I- zi
lxi







































4.6




Full Text

PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF DISTURBED AND DISTURBING BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL BY ROBERTA S. RAMSEY 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 1981 by Roberta S. Ramsey

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation to her entire doctoral committee, who provided guidance and encouragement while this study was being performed. Dr. Rex E. Schmid, chairman, provided expert structure and direction for a philosophically complex topic, enabling the writer to produce a unified study. Dr. Robert F. Algozzine, co-chairman, provided an inexhaustible supply of reference material and statistical organization which gave the study substantive and scientific improvement. The ability of the chairman and co-chairman to counsel, encourage, and accommodate shifts in emphasis, made possible an ambitious analysis of a difficult and much debated topic. Dr. Charles J. Forgnone, committee member, provided insight for a consistent rationale, giving the study consistency. Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, committee member, rendered invaluable assistance by relating the themes of pupil behavior to administrative perspectives and issues. Dr. Cecil D. Mercer, committee member, provided a means for bringing the results into a scientific unity, thereby preventing an unmanageable excess of variables. 1X1

PAGE 4

The writer especially appreciates the willingness of her committee to allow a study which integrates a wide variety of her own educational experience and research. A committee of scholars less profound might have directed a study less ample and satisfying. The writer wishes also to express her gratitude to her entire family for their support and tolerance throughout her study. Foremost, deepest appreciation is given her husband, Russ. His ever present encouragement and belief in the writer's abilities to conduct a study which would provide answers to deepest concerns were demonstrated in infinite ways, all of which made it possible to complete this work. Her children's display of sincere pride and interest allowed pursuit of a professional status and career. Her father, who encouraged the beginning of the study, but did not live to witness its completion, is present in the writer's heart. The writer's mother, husband's parents, and sister and her family all deserve undying thanks for their patience, understanding, and encouragement in her work.

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES xi ABSTRACT xlii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 4 Purpose 5 Variables 5 Assumptions 6 Hypotheses 6 Hypothesis 1 6 Corollary la 6 Corollary lb 7 Corollary Ic 7 Corollary Id 7 Corollary le 7 Corollary If 7 Hypothesis 2 7 Corollary 2a 7 Corollary 2b 7 Corollary 2c 8 Corollary 2d 8 Corollary 2e 8 Corollary 2f 8 Hypothesis 3 8 Corollary 3a 8 Corollary 3b 8 Corollary 3c 8 Corollary 3d 9 Corollary 3e 9 Corollary 3f 9

PAGE 6

Hypothesis 4 9 Corollary 4a 9 Corollary 4b 9 Corollary 4c 9 Corollary 4d 9 Corollary 4e 10 Corollary 4f 10 Hypothesis 5 10 Corollary 5a 10 Corollary 5b 10 Corollary 5c 10 Corollary 5d 10 Corollary 5e 10 Corollary 5f i; Hypothesis 6 i; Corollary 6a 1] Corollary 6b 1] Corollary 6c i: Corollary 6d i; Corollary 6e 1] Corollary 6£ 1] Hypothesis 7 12 Corollary 7a 12 Corollary 7b 12 Corollary 7c 12 Corollary 7d 12 Corollary 7e 12 Corollary 7f 12 Hypothesis 8 12 Corollary 8a 13 Corollary 8b 13 Corollary 8c 13 Corollary 8d 13 Corollary 8e 13 Corollary 8f 13 Hypothesis 9 13 Corollary 9a 13 Corollary 9b 14 Corollary 9c 14 Corollary 9d 14 Corollary 9e 14 Corollary 9f 14 Rationale 14 Perceptions of School Personnel 14 Referral Process 16 Importance of the Study 19 Delimitations 20 Limitations 20 Summary 21

PAGE 7

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 23 Selection of the Relevant Literature 24 Nature o£ the Literature 26 Disturbed Behaviors 27 Disturbing Behaviors 31 Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviors 37 Summary 40 CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 42 Setting 43 Subjects 43 Research Questions 44 Instrumentation 44 Definitional Characteristics 45 Disturbing Behaviors 47 Maladaptive, Inappropriate Behaviors 47 Composite Checklist of Behaviors 48 Questionnaire 49 Pilot Study 49 Research Procedure 51 Data Collection 52 Dependent Variables 55 Independent Variables 56 Data Analysis 56 Reliability 58 Validity 60 Summary of Experimental Procedures 69 CHAPTER IV RESULTS 72 Data Analyses 73 Hypothesis 1 74 Corollary la 89 Corollary lb 89 Corollary Ic 89 Corollary Id 90 Corollary le 90 Corollary If 91 Hypothesis 2 91 Corollary 2a 91 Corollary 2b 92 vii

PAGE 8

Corollary 2c 92 Corollary 2d 93 Corollary 2e , 93 Corollary 2f 93 Hypothesis 3 94 Corollary 3a 94 Corollary 3b 95 Corollary 3c 95 Corollary 3d 95 Corollary 3e 96 Corollary 3f 96 Hypothesis 4 96 Corollary 4a 97 Corollary 4b 97 Corollary 4c 98 Corollary 4d 98 Corollary 4e 98 Corollary 4f 99 Hypothesis 5 99 Corollary 5a 100 Corollary 5b 100 Corollary 5c 100 Corollary 5d 101 Corollary 5e 101 Corollary 5f 101 Hypothesis 6 102 Corollary 6a 102 Corollary 6b 103 Corollary 6c 103 Corollary 6d 103 Corollary 6e 104 Corollary 6f 104 Hypothesis 7 104 Corollary 7a 105 Corollary 7b 105 Corollary 7c 106 Corollary 7d 106 Corollary 7e 106 Corollary 7f 107 Hypothesis 8 107 Corollary 8a 108 Corollary 8b 108 Corollary 8c 108 Corollary 8d 109 Corollary 8e 109 Corollary 8f 109 Hypothesis 9 110 Corollary 9a 110 Corollary 9b Ill

PAGE 9

Corollary 9c Ill Corollary 9d Ill Corollary 9e 112 Corollary 9£ 112 Summary 113 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 114 Conclusions 115 Relationships between Respondents 115 Differences between Groups of Respondents 116 Cautionary Notes 117 Teachers and administrators 119 Teachers and counselors 121 Administrators and coionselors 124 Synthesis of a Behavioral Taxonomy 124 Rankings of Aberrant Behavioral Clusters 126 Poor relations 129 Emotionally withdrawn 129 InadequacyImmaturity 130 Poor academics 130 Personality problems 131 Acting out 131 Weak self-control 132 Socialized delinquency 133 Implications 133 Need for Uniformity 134 Commonality of Behavior Rating Scales 134 Controversial Issues 135 Relationships between "Disturbance" and "Disturbing". . 136 Differentiations in Identification, Placement, and Treatment 137 Establishment of National Criteria 138 Recommendations 141 APPENDICES APPENDIX A COMPILATION AND REFERENCE SOURCES OF BEHAVIORAL ITEMS 146 B PERTINENT FACTS RELATING TO PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA 153 C STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION REFERENCE SOURCES 158 D DEFINITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE BY STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION. 163

PAGE 10

E REPLICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE WICKMAN STUDY 171 F MEASUREMENT SCHEDULES INCLUDED IN THE WICKMAN STUDY 183 G "DISTURBANCE" RATING SCALE AND "DISTURBING" RATING SCALE 186 H DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FORM 199 I COMMONALITY OF BEHAVIORS ON SELECTED INSTRUMENTS 201 REFERENCES 202 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 214

PAGE 11

LIST OF TABLES 1 Pearson Correlations for Reliability Measures for Total Behavior Rating Scale and across Behavioral Clusters 61 2 Behavioral Items Comprising Behavioral Clusters for Ratings for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" 62 3 Pearson Correlations for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" across Behavioral Clusters 75 4 t_ Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" for Behavioral Clusters across Independent Groups of Respondents 76 5 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for all Responding School Personnel on Behavioral Items Comprising "Disturbance" Behavioral Clusters 77 6 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for all Responding School Personnel on Behavioral Items Comprising "Disturbing" Behavioral Clusters 82 7 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for "Disturbance" across Behavioral Clusters 87 8 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for "Disturbing" across Behavioral Clusters 88 9 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" for Teachers and Administrators for Behavioral Clusters 120 10 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" ~ and "Disturbing" for Teachers and Counselors for Behavioral Clusters 122 11 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" ~ and "Disturbing" for Administrators and Counselors for Behavioral Clusters 125

PAGE 12

12 Rankings of Mean Scores for "Disturbance" across Behavioral Clusters ..... ... 127 13 Rankings of Mean Scores for "Disturbing" across Behavioral Clusters 128

PAGE 13

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PERCEPTIONS OF DISTURBED AND DISTURBING BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL By Roberta S. Ramsey August 1981 Chairman: Rex E. Schmid Co-chairman: Robert F. Algozzine Major Department: Special Education The purpose of the study was to determine if similar behavioral characteristics are perceived by school personnel to be indicative of "emotional disturbance" and to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. Relative perceptions of different types of school personnel toward behavioral characteristics considered indicative of "disturbed" and "disturbing" were examined. A conceptual framework was established by returning to the pioneer study of disturbing behaviors performed by E. K. Wickman in 1928, and 33 replications and modifications which followed. Major effort was devoted in this study to the attainment of a truly global behavioral taxonomy. A composite behavior rating scale was assembled from definitional characteristics used by the 50 state departments of education to establish eligibility for services for emotionally disturbed, the Wickman Rating Scale, and the Walker Social Behavior Survival Program. A

PAGE 14

pilot study was performed at the University of Florida to determine reliability, validity, and item assessment. Three categories of educators were selected from the Florida Putnam County School District; teachers, administrators, and counselors, the first by random selection. These 189 participants rated a two-time questionnaire about one week apart under the alternating conditions of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing." The 80 behavioral items, rated in two ways, were factored into nine behavioral clusters for analysis and interpretation. Pearson correlations showed no relationship between perceptions of the two conditions. Differences revealed by t^ tests between independent groups of respondents showed significant differences between perceptions of teachers and administrators, and teachers and counselors for various behavioral clusters. No significant difference was found between administrators and counselors. Differences were concluded to have implications for decision making in the referral process. Acceptable reliability was established; construct validity determined at .90, and an 85 percent return of the matched questionnaire was achieved. Rankings formulated from mean scores, corroboration of aberrant behaviors by texts, and content of existing standardized behavior rating scales suggested a need for additional behavioral criteria in the Federal Regulations. The investigator recommended codification of "behavior disorders" and formulation of a nationally standardized definition for this special education category.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The development of the individual's independence, skill, and purposefulness is assumed to be the focal point of the American educational enterprise. It is assumed that society as a whole develops and prospers when its citizens are well educated (Ramsey 5 Ramsey, 1978). Education for all is based on the fundamental concept of society's responsibility to educate every individual to the full extent of his capacities, whatever they may be or however attenuated by special circumstances (Reynolds, 1971). Subsequently, educators have been charged with the responsibility for promoting the emotional, social, and ethical growth of children, as well as fostering intellectual development (Kaplan, 1952). Special education evolved in response to this traditional commitment to provide maximum opportunity for all persons in accordance with their needs. It has been deemed the function of special education to extend resources so that children who have unusual needs may be identified and served effectively (Christoplos § Renz, 1969; Stennett, 1966). In so doing, special education has been determined to be an integral part of our educational enterprise.

PAGE 16

Too often, school personnel have considered the behavior of the child or youth as an entity apart from the conception of education. When this attitude has prevailed, teachers and other school personnel have been bothered or concerned about children's behavior when their actions have only been disturbing within the context of the school setting, in particular, the classroom (Pullias, 1934). The behaviors of students become problematic if they conflict with the ideals held by others for desirable behavior. Such ideals assume significance when standards held for conduct influence measures taken for prevention and correction of difficulties (Bain, 1934). An exceptional student is stated to be one who deviates to an arbitrary degree from the norm on a given emotional, intellectual, physical, or developmental variable. Various methods have been used by educational investigators to screen and to identify children with behavior problems which deviate from the norm. Techniques have included the direct observation of students by teachers (Flanagan, 1954; Nelson, 1971; Werry S Quay, 1968); teacher responses to behavioral questionnaires (Kaplan, 1952; Shotel, lano, ^ McGettigan, 1972); observations of teacher-student interactions (Brophy § Good, 1970; Good, 1970; Meichenbaum, Bowers, S Ross, 1969; Rothbart, Dalfen, 5 Barrett, 1971); teacher and teacher trainee checklists (Algozzine, 1976; Foster, Algozzine, d, Ysseldyke, 1979; Salvia, Clark, § Ysseldyke, 1973); combinations of Bower's teacher, peer sociometric, and selfrating scales (Glavin, 1971; Maes, 1966; Salvia, Schultz, 5 Chaplin, 1974; Stennett, 1966; Zax, Cowen, Izzo, ^ Frost, 1964); correlations

PAGE 17

between achievement and overt behavior fSpivack & Swift, 1966; Swift S Spivack, 1968, 1969; Vacc, 1968) and completion of problem behavior checklists (Algozzine, 1979; Dielman, Cattel, 5 Lepper, 1971; Noland § Gruber, 1978). Traditionally, the identification of a student as emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed has denoted a medical orientation. Assessments determining clinical maladjustment have included the use of parent interviews (Seller 5 Neubaer, 1963; Lapouse S Monk, 1964; Mensh, Kantor, Domke, Gildea, 5 Glidewell, 1959); placement of family figures during clinical play (DuHamel § Jarmon, 1971; Weinstein, 1965); information gathered from clinical intake records (McDermott, Harrison, Schrager, Lindy, 5 Killins, 1967); use of personality surveys (McFie, 1934); and observational data combined with referral information (Patterson, 1964). The identification of disturbed children in the educational realm has typically been accomplished by the use of instrumentation in the form of behavior rating scales and checklists (Burks, 1977; Lambert § Bower, 1961; Pimm § McClure, 1969; Quay § Peterson, 1967; Spivack, Haimes, § Spotts, 1967; Spivack S Spotts, 1966; Spivack § Swift, 1967; Walker, 1970). These instruments suggest cutoff scores based on data collected from behaviorally deviant and average behaving samples of children. Generally, a child or youth who exhibits a deficiency or an excess of behaviors indexed by these scales is a frequent candidate for special education services in the category of disturbance, in the behavioral realm (Algozzine, 1975; Kauffman, 1977). Rather than being

PAGE 18

indicative of "emotional disturbance," such identification may be of behavioral characteristics found "disturbing" to school personnel in working with children. The child thought to be "disturbed" may be one who arouses reactions in those around him (Rhodes, 1967). The Problem School personnel, in particular teachers, have been asked to identify behaviors disturbing to them in working with children and youth. Teachers have been asked to respond to behavioral items listed on checklists or rating scales, and to list or record observed behaviors. Several investigations to determine perceptions of other school personnel concerning behavioral characteristics have been performed. State departments of education have defined behaviors characteristic of emotional disturbance for identification of students qualifying for the category of special education services which addresses behavioral disorders. These disturbed behavioral characteristics have been substantiated by texts used in emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education. Few researchers have made systematic application of studies identifying disturbing behaviors. No relationships have been determined between perceptions of behaviors characteristic of emotional disturbance, and of behaviors disturbing in working with children and youth. The investigator attempted to determine whether relationships existed between school personnel perceptions of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing" behaviors.

PAGE 19

Purpose The purpose for conducting this study was to determine whether school personnel perceive similar behaviors to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance," and "disturbing" in working with children and youth. A behavior rating scale devised by the investigator was used to ascertain those behaviors which school personnel perceive as "disturbed" and those behaviors which school personnel perceive as "disturbing." In addition, relationships of perceptions of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" among different types of school personnel were examined. Variables The dependent variables in this study were the behavioral items listed on the behavior rating scale. These items were compiled from four sources as shown in Appendix A. The major portion of the scale contained those behaviors stated as definitional characteristics by 50 state departments of education for the identification of children and youth for special services in emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education. The independent variables consisted of the conditions of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" which were assessed by different types of school personnel. Relationships were discerned both within and between the conditions, and both within and between the different types of school personnel.

PAGE 20

Assumptions The assumptions necessary in this study reflected the ideas and beliefs upon which the research problem was founded. These assumptions were essential in systematically designing the research investigation. The following assumptions were made: 1. School personnel perceive certain behavioral characteristics to be indicative of emotional disturbance. 2. School personnel perceive certain behavioral characteristics to be disturbing in working with children and youth. 3. Behavioral characteristics outlined by state departments of education for the identification of students for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education are the realm which is defined as emotional disturbance for educators. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 1 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Emotionally Withdrawn when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary la. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 21

Corollary lb. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary Ic. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary Id. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary le. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary If. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hypothesis 2 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Weak Self-Control when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 2a. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 2b. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing."

PAGE 22

Corollary 2c. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 2d. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 2e. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 2f. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hypothesis 3 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Appropriate Socialization when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 5a. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 5b. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 3c. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 23

Corollary 5d. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 3e. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance," Corollary 5f. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hypothesis 4 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster InadequacyImmaturity when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 4a. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 4b. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 4c. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 4d. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

PAGE 24

10 Corollary 4e. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 4f. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hypothesis 5 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Poor Academics when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 5a. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 5b. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 5c. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 5d. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 5e. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 25

11 Corollary 5f. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hypothesis 6 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Personality Problems when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 6a. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 6b. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 6c. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 6d. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 6e. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 6f. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

PAGE 26

12 Hypothesis 7 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Poor Relations when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 7a. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 7b. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 7c. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 7d. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 7e. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 7f. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hyporthsis 8 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Acting out when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

PAGE 27

13 Corollary 8a. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 8b. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 8c. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 8d. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 8e. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 8f. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Hypothesis 9 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Socialized Delinquency when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Corollary 9a. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 28

14 Corollary 9b. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 9c. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 9d. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Corollary 9e. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Corollary 9f. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Rationale The purpose of this investigation was to address the behaviors which are perceived as "emotional disturbance" and those perceived as "disturbing" in working with children and youth. The perceptions of these categories are seen as particularly important in the referral of a student for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education. Perceptions of School Personnel The teacher has been seen to be the primary source of referral of students (Hersh, 1971) and has been considered to be in an

PAGE 29

15 opportune position for making recommendations for special education services C^elly, Bullock, § Dykes, 1974). The importance of teachers' perceptions of problem behaviors becomes magnified when it is recognized that this act may be culminated by the placement of a special label upon the referred student (Robbins, Mercer, § Meyers, 1967). Investigators of previous studies have produced contradictory results concerning the perceptions of teachers toward problem behaviors. Teachers have been deemed proficient in distinguishing between children exhibiting normal behaviors and those exhibiting behavior disorders (Harth S Glavin, 1971; Nelson, 1971). Conversely, studies have shown that one teacher's perception of a problem child has not been another teacher's perception across the school setting (Epstein, 1941). Not only do teacher expectations bias perceptions (Jones, 1977; Rosenthal § Jacobson, 1966), but it has been shown that teachers' tolerance levels vary toward behaviors considered aberrant (Curran, 1977). The perceptions of other school personnel are also important, as the referral process encompasses the perceptions of these individuals as well. Concern has been shown that the influence of the referring person upon the perceptions of other significant persons in a position to make judgments and recommendations has scantily been investigated (Hersh, 1971). Other local school center personnel who may be most influential in assessing behaviors of children include the principal, assistant principal, dean, and guidance counselor.

PAGE 30

16 In one study, perceptual changes in school administrators did occur following consultation with guidance personnel about problem children (Kitano, 1961). Investigators have produced contradictory results in perceptions of problem behaviors by teachers and personnel versed in the field of mental health. Teachers and community mental hygienists have diff erred in their perceptions of maladjustment in numerous studies (Aaron, 1958; Boynton § McGaw, 1934; Clark, 1950; Hunter, 1957; Kaplan, 1952; Mansergh, 1968; Stouffer, 1956; Thompson, 1940; Ullmann, 1952; Wickman, 1928; Yourman, 1932). School personnel most involved in the mental health counseling role have been found to hold conflicting perceptions. Needs of problem children have been perceived in a similar manner to teachers (Stewart, 1957; Stouffer, 1952; Whetstone, 1965), and perceived differently to teachers but similarly to community mental hygienists (Mansergh, 1968). In addition, research has dealt only slightly with the involvement of the school psychologist in response to a referral for special education services. The extent to which the school psychologist can divest himself of personal bias in the administration and scoring of tests has made a difference in student evaluations (Masling, 1959), and can become a determinant factor in qualifications and recommendations for special education services. Referral Process The referral process for evaluation for special education services for the category of behavior disorders is fairly uniform across

PAGE 31

17 school districts. Typically, a student is assessed a misfit (Major, 1961) by one of his teachers if his/her behavior fails to meet expectations for classroom achievement and/or conduct. Local school center personnel are alerted to the problems incurred by the identifying teacher. Other teachers, administrators, and counselors become involved by completing demographic information forms, attending conferences with parents and/or school personnel, rating behavior rating scales and checklists, and administering screening instruments for the purpose of eliminating intellectual, sensory, and physical impairments as primary contributors to the bothersome or disturbed behavior observed. The school psychologist, following evaluation of the student, makes recommendations for appropriate placement or nonplacement of the referred student. This recommendation is then reviewed by the district's Director of Special Education, who legally renders the ultimate decision. Several major issues arise from the aforementioned referral process. First, once identification has been made, the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon may occur. Conditions can be created by which the prophecy is realized (Palardy, 1969). The manner in which the student is viewed may be biased (Robbins et al . , 1967). Teachers have been determined to possess differing tolerance levels for coping with aberrant behaviors (Curran, 1977), to demonstrate personal traits which lend to harmonious interactions with students (Flanders, Morrison 5 Erode, 1968; Swap, 1974; Tiedeman, 1942; Walberg, 1968),

PAGE 32

18 and to have differential effects on academic performance (Ryans, 1961a, 1961b; Veldman & Brophy, 1974). Secondly, ethical and legal concerns have abounded over the issue of placement and labeling (Combs § Harper, 1967; Dunn, 1968; Hammons, 1972; Johnson, 1969; Jones, 1972; Lilly, 1970). Determined qualification for placement has resulted in the labeling of students as emotionally disturbed, emotionally handicapped, behavior disordered, or with some synonymous term denoting emotional disturbance. Siders (1979) cautioned school personnel to differentiate between identification and placement. Traditionally, identification and placement have been equated to provide for the end product, treatment. Special education placement has been based upon the handicapping disability and the need for special treatment, which in essence are separate entities. The stigma of labeling and erroneous placement have been determined intolerable (Garrison 5 Hammill, 1971). Subsequently, the third major concern involves appropriate treatment. Professionals in education have established hierarchies of services in a classification system tailored to meet needs of students (Deno, 1970; Reynolds, 1962). Legislation has mandated education occur in the least restrictive environment. This environment has typically been considered the point on the continuum of least to most restrictive options. If treatment and programming are provided based on individual needs, the individual becomes the primary source of defining the least restrictive environment (Gallagher, 1972).

PAGE 33

19 Researchers have recommended components be included in the curriculum for teacher training, such as behavior management (Kelly et al., 1974) . Thus treatment or remediation may be provided in the level of service most appropriate for the individual student. Importance of the Study Behavioral characteristics of emotional disturbance have been defined by state departments of education. Texts used in the field of emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education have substantiated these behaviors as being indicative of emotional disturbance. Writers have identified categories of behaviors found most bothersome to teachers. One study used a modified Quay-Peterson Behavior Rating Scale, referred to as the Disturbing Behavior Checklist, in which behavioral items indicative of emotional disturbance were rated by their degree of bothersomeness to teacher trainees and school personnel (Algozzine, 1979). Another investigation was conducted to determine which behaviors of children were perceived as immediately troublesome to teachers and which were indicators of future maladjustment (Sparks, 1952). Two groups of teachers and teacher trainees rated the behavior characteristics under two sets of instructions. No one has performed the research proposed by this investigation. Specifically, school personnel have not been asked to respond to the same behavior rating scale in two different ways. If a relationship exists between ratings of "disturbed" and "disturbing" behavior,

PAGE 34

20 implications for referral exist. Most teachers may have a genuine desire to refer disturbed children or youth for special education services, but their motives are entangled with the need to maintain order and to provide instruction in the classroom. If a teacher is prompted to refer a student due to his/her disturbing behavior in the classroom, the motive may be a justification for removal of the child from the classroom environment (Towbin, 1960). Different types of school personnel participate in the referral process and make decisions reflective of their perceptions of behavior. An identification of those behaviors characteristic of emotional disturbance which are most disturbing to school personnel is essential to effective remediation. Methods of behavior management inherent to specific behaviors can be taught to school personnel. Delimitations This study was delimited to the following: 1. One school district in Florida. 2. School personnel employed by the Putnam County District School Board. Limitations Results obtained in one school district in Florida may not be generalized to all school districts in Florida or to all school districts in the United States. Pertinent facts relating to the location, education, population, economics, and industry of the county are summarized in Appendix B.

PAGE 35

21 Though a random sample of elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers was selected, perceptions may not be representative of all teachers. Perceptions of behavioral characteristics by the county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists in this study may not be representative of all school personnel in these positions. Summary State departments of education have defined behavioral characteristics of emotional disturbance in the educational realm. These characteristics have been substantiated by texts used in emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education. Teachers have been the main source of referral for special education services which address disturbance in the educational setting. Other school personnel are involved in the referral process and make recommendations. Instrumentation in the form of behavior rating scales and checklists has been used by school personnel in the identification of children and youth for referral to the category of emotional disturbance in special education. Behavioral characteristics found disturbing or bothersome in working with children and youth have been identified by teachers and other school personnel. The relationship between these disturbing behaviors and behaviors indicative of emotional disturbance has not been explored by prior investigators.

PAGE 36

22 A behavior rating scale devised by the investigator was used to determine whether similar behavioral characteristics were perceived by school personnel to be indicative of "emotional disturbance" and to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. In addition, the relative perceptions of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by school personnel (teachers, principals, assistant principals, deans, and guidance counselors) at the local school level, administrators and school psychologists at the district level, were examined.

PAGE 37

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The body of literature concerning those behavioral characteristics perceived as bothersome or disturbing in working with children or youth has proliferated rapidly since the mid 1920' s. The state departments of education have defined emotional disturbance in the educational setting. Each state has formulated definitional characteristics of behavior to be used in the identification of students qualifying for special education services in the behavioral realm. Texts used in colleges or universities have tended to standardize these behaviors as indicators of emotional disturbance. Since emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed students characteristically display aberrant behaviors, it was important to determine the relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness." The following is a review of the literature related to behavioral characteristics indicative of "emotional disturbance," and behavioral characteristics found to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. 23

PAGE 38

24 Selection of the Relevant Literature A concerted effort was made to locate those sources most appropriate in the study of perceptions of "disturbed" and "disturbing" behavior. These sources included Exceptional Child Education Resources (ECER) and Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) computer searches, the Current Index of Journals in Education , and Dissertation Abstracts International . Descriptors employed in this search include (a) disturbing behaviors, (b) disturbed behaviors, (c) behavior problems, (d) socially deviant behavior, (e) emotionally disturbed children, (f) emotionally handicapped, (g) teacher attitudes, (h) teacher behavior, (i) behavior rating scales, and (j) mental hygiene. Following the review of significant investigations, the bibliography of each was examined for further references. The search located texts and journal articles extending from the mid 1920 's to the present time. The texts primarily dealt with student-teacher interaction in the classroom, theories of mental hygiene, and emotional disturbance in the educational realm. Journal articles were mainly concerned with "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" in the clinical and educational sectors. A survey of publications relating to the study was made through use of the card catalog at the University of Florida's main library. Library West. Pertinent books were located relating to teacher attitudes toward behaviors of children and youth, including Pygmalion in the Classroom (Rosenthal § Jacobson, 1968) , Looking in Classrooms

PAGE 39

25 (Good 3 Brophy, 1978), and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies (Jones, 1977). Clinical perceptions of maladjusted children and youth were proposed in Mental Hygiene: The Dynamics of Adjustment (Carroll, 1969), Mental Hygiene: A Survey of Personality Disorders and Mental Health (Klein, 1944), and Mental Hygiene in School Practice (Fenton, 1949). Educational theories indigenous to characteristics of behavior disordered children were set forth in The Child and His Curriculum (Lee 5 Lee, 1940), Early Identification of Emotionally Handicapped Children in School (Bower, 1969), A Psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior (Ullmann S Krasner, 1969), Characteristics of Children's Behavior Disorders (Kauffman, 1977), Teaching Children and Youth with Behavior Disorders (Shea, 1978, Children in Conflict (Reinert, 1976), and Conflict in the Classroom (Long, Morse, § Newman, 1965). The mid 1920' s to the present time encompassed the time parameter used in this review. In 1928, a pioneer study was published by Wickman which as been replicated and modified in numerous investigations. This study of teacher attitudes toward the behavior problems of children has been described as a classic investigation (Fenton, 1949) and as one of the most illuminating studies in the area of problem behaviors (Lee & Lee, 1940). Though conducted over a half century ago, it exerts considerable influence on contemporary thinking in this field with the most recent follow-up study conducted by Bunting in 1978. Due to the inaccessibility of the earliest replications and modifications, retrieval of publications was accomplished through the University of Florida's main library. Such

PAGE 40

26 facilities and services included the Library Interloan Office and the Government Documents Branch. More recently, a grant proposal and instrumentation currently being performed, entitled Development, Testing and Replication of a Social Behavior Survival (SBS) Program for Mainstreaming Handicapped Children , was requested and secured from Walker and Rankin (unpublished) at the University of Oregon. An integral factor in the current emphasis on mainstreaming has been the identification of those behaviors which school personnel find difficult in integrating handicapped children within the regular classroom. The most current definitional characteristics formulated by the 50 state departments of education were extracted from statutes and regulations received from each state (see Appendix C for state departments of education reference sources) . A request was made by this investigator for the definitional criteria utilized by each state to determine qualification for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed services in special education. These definitional characteristics are considered to be the behavioral realm for emotional disturbance in education. Nature of the Literature The procedure used in reviewing the related research produced differing state regulations containing definitional characteristics for students qualifying for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed services in special education. Appendix D is a grid

PAGE 41

27 displaying definitional characteristics by states. Texts were employed to verify the validity of these behaviors. In addition, the comprehensive review of the related literature revealed 33 replications and modifications relating to the Wickman (1928) study. These investigations have studied the perceptions of teachers, teacher trainees, principals, assistant principals, school psychologists, guidance counselors, community mental hygienists, parents, and/or students toward maladjusted, bothersome, and disturbing behaviors of children and youth. Only a few researchers have explored the "disturbingness" of behaviors indicative of "emotional disturbance." None have attempted to find a relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness." Disturbed Behaviors The term "emotionally disturbed" appears in the professional literature, undefined, in the early 1900's. Education has used the term to label a variety of behavioral problems (Reinert, 1976). An official or widely accepted definition of emotional disturbance in the educational realm has yet to be written (Kauffman, 1977). The detrimental effect of a child's or youth's behavior upon self or others, in terms of development, adjustment, and education, has been used as a criterion for disturbance (Kauffman, 1977; Kirk, 1962; Reinert, 1976). Contrasting theories concerning the nature of emotional disturbance have been proposed by authors of texts used in teacher training in special education. Long et al . (1965) stated that emotional

PAGE 42

28 disturbance is a part of a person's life. Kauffman (1977) stated that it is the degree of disturbedness which connotes emotional disturbance, and that within the degree, there are levels of mild, moderate, and severe disturbance. Redl (1965) stated that there is a difference between the "emotionally disturbed child" and behavior which indicates "a state of emotional disturbance." Relative agreement has been found in the classification of aberrant behaviors by text authors. Kauffman (1977) identified four facets of disordered or disturbed behavior, including hyperactivity, distractibility, impulsivity; aggression; withdrawal, immaturity, inadequacy; and deficiencies in moral development. Reinert (1976) divided deviant behaviors into four basic types to include acting out, withdrawing, defensive, and disorganized behaviors. Shea (1978) identified numerous specific behaviors inherent to the classification of affective learning handicaps. Problem behaviors in the affective dimension are identified as the following; anxiety, attention seeking, disruptiveness, physical and verbal aggression, inflexibility, instability, overcompetitiveness, inattentiveness, impulsivity, perseveration, poor self-concept, negativism, hyperactivity, hypoactivity, withdrawal, passivesuggestible behavior, social immaturity, inefficient interpersonal relations, sexual complaints, chronic disobedience, motivational problems, and hypersilient behavior. The compilation of 48 definitional characteristics by states shown on the grid in Appendix D and displayed by frequency, reveal

PAGE 43

29 five behaviors to be identified by at least 60 percent of the states. The remaining 41 definitional characteristics find conimonality among less than 20 percent of the states. The behavioral characteristics most frequently defined by states as indicative of emotional disturbance in education are as follows: unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships; unhappiness, depression; physical illnesses; unable to learn commensurate with ability; and inappropriate behaviors under normal circumstances. These characteristics were termed by Bower (1960, 1969) and are stated in Federal Regulations (Federal Register, 1977) as definitional characteristics for the category of behavioral disorders in special education. The remaining behavioral characteristics identified by states are shown on the grid. Responses other than specific behavioral characteristics include: seven states with materials received but no criteria stated, three states having services for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, but no materials available at time of request for distribution, and three states defined as noncategorical. The most frequently identified characteristic was that of an inability to build or maintain satisfactory relationships with others. Bower (1960, 1969) found this characteristic to encompass demonstrations of sympathetic feelings or warmth toward others, the ability to stand alone when necessary, to have close friends, be aggressively constructive, and to participate in activities with others as well as by oneself.

PAGE 44

30 The second most frequent characteristic defined by the states was a general, pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. These children are purported by Bower to seldom smile and to lack a vivaciousness in performing their school work. A tendency to develop physical symptoms, pains, or fears associated with personal or school problems was found to be of equal frequency by states. An avoidance of activities may be inherent in psychosomatic illnesses. Third in frequency were two characteristics, an inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors, and inappropriate behaviors under normal circumstances. Bower considered the former to be the single most significant characteristic of emotionally disturbed children, and though found to be of high frequency in this study, was not the most important to the states. The latter characteristic was termed by Bower to describe the child who is perceived as acting funny by peers, and who reacts disproportionately to simple commands. Much ambiguity is reflected in the aforementioned characteristics most frequently defined by states as indicative of emotionally disturbed behaviors. Specific behaviors may be incorporated into each of the characteristics or deleted at will. For example, poor interpersonal relationships may include aggression and withdrawal, avoids participation with others. These two behaviors are noted by texts in the field (Kauffman, 1977; Kirk, 1972; Reinert, 1976; Shea, 1978) to be primary determinants of emotional disturbance, and though

PAGE 45

31 listed high in frequency by states as separate entities, these behavioral characteristics are identified by less than 20 percent of the states. Disturbing Behaviors Numerous educators and clinicians recognize the investigation by Wickman (1928) to be the first major study which attempted to identify specific behaviors found bothersome or disturbing in working with children. Subjects for this study included 511 teachers from 13 elementary schools in Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota, three undergraduate classes at the Teachers College, Columbia University, and 30 mental hygienists from child guidance clinics in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey. Subjects rated 50 teacher identified behavioral items considered to cause difficulty, noting the frequency and seriousness of each behavior. Results identified discrepancy between ratings by teachers and clinicians. Teachers found antisocial, aggressive, acting out behaviors to be of most concern; whereas, clinicians were concerned with recessive, withdrawn behaviors. Of the total 50 behavioral items, those determined most disturbing in working with children are listed in order of total ratings: heterosexual activity; stealing; masturbation; obscene notes, pictures; untruthfulness, lying; truancy; impertinence, defiance; cruelty, bullying; cheating; and destroying school materials. These behaviors identified as most disturbing by teachers were stated to be those affronting the teacher's moral

PAGE 46

32 standards and challenging the teacher's authority and instructional performance in the classroom. Many of the early studies following the classic Wickman (1928) investigation reiterated the feelings of the time that mental hygienists were presumed to be the experts in the field as they dealt clinically with problem children. It was presumed the training of teachers must include more of the mental hygienists' theoretical perceptions. Teachers must be led to understand the importance of attention to wholesome personality development along with intellectual growth (Carroll, 1969; Fenton, 1949; Klein, 1955; Lee § Lee, 1940). An emphasis on treating the whole child was advocated. A comprehensive review of the related literature revealed 33 replications and modifications relating to the Wickman (1928) study (see Appendix E) . These investigations have studied the perceptions of teachers, teacher trainees, principals, assistant principals, school psychologists, guidance counselors, community mental hygienists, parents, and/or students toward bothersome, maladjusted, or disturbing behaviors of children and youth. The Wickman study confined its subjects to be representative of teachers at the elementary level. In order to determine if differences in perceptions would be obtained, secondary level teachers were queried (Ellis § Miller, 1936; Stewart, 1957; Stouffer, 1956; Ullmann, 1952). Numerous studies replicated the selection of teachers from the elementary level (Aaron, 1958; Boynton § McGaw, 1934; Bunting, 1978; Epstein, 1941; Laycock, 1934; McClure, 1929;

PAGE 47

33 Mitchell, 1942; Penzer, 1962; Young-Masten, 1938; Yourman, 1932). Some studies assessed both elementary and secondary levels (Kelly et al., 1974; Mansergh, 1968; O'Malley, 1935; Peck, 1935; Schrupp § Gjerde, 1953), and some were nonspecific to the teaching levels represented (Hunter, 1957; Qaisar, 1975; Thompson, 1940; Whetstone, 1965). In general, the most serious behaviors reflected those found disturbing to the order and routine of the classroom. The professional success of the teacher is most often recognized by the educational achievement of students, thus the emphasis and concern for classroom orderliness and recognition of authority. Teacher trainees were selected as subjects for various types of treatment. Types of behavioral solutions for items listed on Wickman's rating scale were solicited from graduates and undergraduates (Pullias, 1934). Teachers enrolled in university courses identified problem behaviors through the writing of case studies (Peck, 1935), and by defining irritating and annoying situations (O'Malley, 1935). Perceptions of teachers and teacher trainees toward aggressive and withdrawn behaviors were assessed in two different investigations (Clark, 1950; Sparks, 1952). The former was concerned with comparisons of previous studies reporting attitudes of teachers and mental hygienists, and the latter attempted to distinguish troublesome behaviors and behaviors indicative of future maladjustment. Davis (1958) sought to determine if teacher trainees' attitudes toward aggressive and withdrawn behaviors would be affected by a period of course instruction. A listing of problem behaviors and rating of checklists to compile

PAGE 48

34 behavioral items were completed by teachers enrolled in a college course (Kaplan, 1952). A five year follow-up study was conducted by Bain (1934) to determine behavioral perceptions of teacher trainees in three college courses at Teachers College, Columbia University, in contrast to those of Wickman's teacher trainees enrolled in three comparable courses at the same institution. The relationship between teacher perceptions and clinical perceptions was investigated in a number of studies (Dickson, 1932; Mitchell, 1942; Penzer, 1962; Qaisar, 1975; Schrupp § Gjerde, 1953; Stewart, 1957; Whetstone, 1965). Investigators have interpreted the category of mental hygienist to include mental health professionals in community child guidance clinics (Wickman, 1928), community related psychiatrists and psychologists (Mitchell, 1942; Penzer, 1962; Ullmann, 1952), psychiatric social workers (Ullmann, 1952), community social workers (Penzer, 1962), and a mental health nurse (Ullmann, 1952). More recent studies have included school personnel who received training in the field of mental health as "mental hygienists" in an attempt to reproduce the categories of professionals investigated by Wickman (1928). Specifically, the positions are those of school guidance counselors (Mansergh, 1968; Stewart, 1957; Whetstone, 1965) and school psychologists (Penzer, 1962; Thompson, 1940). Other professional groups selected for inclusion in studies dealing with the identification and rating of behavior problems include principals, assistant principals, parents, and children. These groups have shown perceptions similar to those of teachers (Mansergh,

PAGE 49

35 1968; Thompson, 1940); however, parents were found to perceive behavior problems differently than teachers (MacClenathan, 1933). All of the aforementioned groups perceived problems of behavior in children differently from mental hygienists (Stogdill, 1931). The Wickman Rating Scale has been employed in nine of the follow-up studies. Modified Wickman Rating Scales have been utilized in seven of the follow-up studies, these modifications primarily regarding changes in behavioral items and in instructions given subjects for ratings of items. A major criticism of the Wickman study was the fact that different questions and instructions were given to the teachers, and to the mental hygienists. Some studies have administered identical directions to both groups of professionals (Ellis § Miller, 1936; Mitchell, 1942; Stouffer, 1952) to determine if perceptions in problem behavior would resemble or differ from findings by Wickman. Other studies used the original instructions to determine possible changes in professional perceptions over the decades (Schrupp S Gjerde, 1953). Studies have replicated individual schedules employed by Wickman. A total of 11 measurement schedules were devised in the original investigation (Appendix F) . Schedules A-1 and A-2 were performed in an attempt to discover which behaviors teachers would identify as problem behaviors. The refined compilation of items secured by these two schedules became the content for the Wickman Rating Scale. In a similar vein. Peck (1935) asked teachers to write case studies of problem children so

PAGE 50

36 that behaviors might be identified. Ullmann (1952) and Stewart (1957) requested descriptions of ninth grade problem students. Epstein (1941) compiled lists of desirable as well as undesirable behaviors, since problem children were not identified as such across the school setting. A five year follow-up of an assessment of teacher trainees' perceptions was performed by Bain (1934) at Teachers College, Columbia University. Schedule B-3 was replicated in an attempt to determine changes in behavioral perceptions of teacher trainees enrolled in three courses comparable to those of Wickman's subjects. More awareness of withdrawn, recessive behaviors was shown by the follow-up study. Wickman's Schedule D listed problem children and asked teachers to state the behaviors of these children. Clark (1950) located behavioral items in the literature in related fields of education, psychology, and sociology. Kelly et al. (1974) secured listings of behavior disordered pupils from teachers' rosters, and O'Malley (1935) probed situations producing irritations in student-teacher interactions. Problem children were recorded (Boynton 5 McGaw, 1934; Yourman, 1932) and selected for observation (Epstein, 1941; YoungMasten, 1938). Young-Masten (1938) found types of behavior observed in problem children, and in children selected as average in behavior, not to show a difference in types of behaviors but in frequency of behaviors.

PAGE 51

37 Although defects in the research by Wickman (1928) have been noted by critics (Watson, 1933), the study remains the pioneer work, held in esteem, and seen to be of value. Major criticisms were found in the instructions administered teachers and mental hygienists, including differences in directions, phrasing of questions, and time constraints. Schedules B-4 and B-5 were given teachers and mental hygienists, respectively, on two different occasions and under two differing sets of instructions. The immediate effect of problem behaviors was asked of teachers, and the future effects of problem behaviors relating to the adjustment of children was asked of mental hygienists. The limited time constraint of 30 minutes allowed teachers in the rating of the 50 behavioral items in contrast to the unlimited time given mental hygienists in which to express professional judgments procured differing responses. Ambiguity of items and nonspecifications of differences between ratings were also mentioned. Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviors In an effort to determine which behaviors of children were perceived as immediately troublesome to the teacher, and which were indicators of future maladjustment, teachers and graduate students at the State University of Iowa were asked to rate the Wickman Rating Scale (Sparks, 1952). Results indicated that those subjects rating "disturbing" behavior characteristics and those subjects rating behavior characteristics indicative of "disturbance" rated the behavioral

PAGE 52

38 items differently under two differing sets of instructions. Problem behaviors which teachers considered most troublesome were representative of behavior which frustrates the teacher in attempting to educate children, including disturbances in the classroom and lack of application to school work. Behaviors which teachers considered most detrimental to the future adjustment of the child were associated with violations of the school community's social and moral code. Specifically, the behavioral characteristics deemed most "disturbing" were as follows: interrupting, carelessness in work, inattention, restlessness, silliness, whispering and note writing, tattling, thoughtlessness, disorderliness, and inquisitiveness. Behavior characteristics found most indicative of later "disturbance" included: stealing, untruthfulness, unreliableness, cruelty and bullying, cheating, heterosexual activity, impertinence, impudence, selfishness, and laziness. Most states exclude socially maladjusted students in their definitional criteria for emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped educational services. One state included delinquent behavior as a definitional characteristic, specifically, lying, stealing, and fighting. Kirk (1962) found differentiation between social maladjustment, emotional disturbance, and delinquency, a subcategory of socially maladjusted, to be difficult because the dynamics of behavior in all three classifications may be similar. Some children who are emotionally disturbed may, through conflict with peers and teachers at school and with siblings and parents at home, be considered socially maladjusted. The maladjustment may lead to aggressive behavior, stealing, or property

PAGE 53

39 destruction, resulting in entanglement with the law. Such a child or youth may legally become a delinquent. Numerous studies have attempted to define behavioral characteristics of delinquent youth. The Gough-Peterson Scale, a self-rating scale, was determined effective by Quay and Peterson (1958) in differentiating delinquents from normal adolescents. Factor analyses of ratings by teachers and cottage parents identified four dimensions of delinquent behavior which revealed counterpart dimensions in other investigations. These dimensions include psychopathic-unsocialized, characterized by aggression and overt hostility; disturbed-neurotic, characterized by withdrawal, submissiveness , and anxiety; inadequacyimmaturity, a sense of incompetency; and unsocialized-subcultural , a syndrome of gang activities (Jenkins 5 Glickman, 1946; Peterson, 1961; Peterson, Quay, § Cameron, 1959; Quay, 1964; Quay 5 Quay, 1965). Quay, Werry McQueen, and Sprague (1966) identified the unsocialized aggressive, conduct disordered dimension as the type of child or youth most troublesome in the school setting; therefore, the most likely to be referred for special services in the category of emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education. The Quay-Peterson Behavior Problem Checklist was determined to be a reasonably efficient and accurate instrument for screening populations of school children to select those needing services for the emotionally disturbed (Qaisar, 1975). A modified form of this checklist, containing behavioral items indicative of emotional disturbance, was devised for use in a study by Algozzine (1979). The

PAGE 54

40 Disturbing Behavior Checklist was administered to teachers, teacher trainees, and other school personnel who were asked to respond to the relative "disturbingness" of behaviors portrayed in the behavioral items. A factor analytic procedure was used to derive disturbingness dimensions, each dimension containing behaviors considered "disturbing" relative to certain constructs which were determined bothersome in working with children. Results indicated that the socially deviant behaviors were more bothersome than those of immature, physically disturbing, or socialized delinquent behaviors. The differential "disturbingness" of children's behaviors was concluded, and bias in the referral process was questioned. Summary A review of the literature encompassed definitional characteristics of emotional disturbance in the statutes or regulations of 50 state departments of education. The detrimental effect of these behaviors upon the affective and educational development of self and others appeared to be the sole definitional agreement among authors of texts. The Wickman (1928) study has been followed by 33 replications or modifications attempting to identify behaviors considered bothersome to school personnel. Teachers have primarily rated aggressive, antisocial, acting out behaviors to be those most disturbing in working with children and youth. Relationships of ratings given by school personnel and mental health clinicians have been of primary interest.

PAGE 55

41 Researchers have attempted to define dimensions of behavioral characteristics differentiating social maladjustment, emotional disturbance, and delinquency. The dynamics of behavior have been determined to create an overlap between the three classifications. Behavior rating scales have been administered to assess the "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" of problem behaviors. Prior to this investigation, statistical analyses by writers have not dealt with the relationship between the conditions of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness," or with the relationship between the conditions as perceived by various types of school personnel.

PAGE 56

CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Researchers have investigated the perceptions of school personnel and clinicians concerning behaviors which are characteristic o£ emotional disturbance, and those which are disturbing to the learning environment of children and youth. However, the studies have asked different questions to several types of school personnel and mental health professionals; they have evaluated either the behaviors characteristic of emotional disturbance, or the behaviors disturbing in working with children and youth. Prior to determining a relationship between the professional types of school personnel and the behaviors they perceive as "disturbed" and "disturbing," several questions needed to be answered, one of which was examined in this study: Do school personnel perceive the same behaviors to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance," also to be "disturbing" in working with children? Two related questions were: Do various types of school personnel perceive different behaviors as characteristic of emotional disturbance, and do these same types of school personnel perceive different behaviors to be disturbing in working with children? 42

PAGE 57

43 This chapter describes the setting and subjects in the study, and it states the research questions. The development of instrumentation is outlined. The research procedures and data collection are delineated. The dependent and independent variables are presented, along with substantive data analysis. Setting This study was conducted in the Putnam County School District, one of the 67 school districts in Florida. A description of this school district from which data were collected is included in Appendix Subjects The subjects for this study were school personnel employed in the Putnam County School District in Florida. Specific personnel categories selected for participation included: elementary classroom teachers (pre K-5) , secondary level teachers (6-12), and exceptional education teachers, all levels; instructional administrators, noninstructional administrators, supervisors classified as county level administrators; principals and assistant principals of elementary and secondary schools, and deans of secondary schools; guidance counselors of elementary and secondary schools; and school psychologists. A random sample of elementary and secondary classroom teachers and exceptional education teachers was selected by use of a random table (Borg § Gall, 1979). Participation of all county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists was sought. The total number of subjects asked to participate

PAGE 58

44 were 112 teachers, 17 county level administrators, 16 principals, 12 assistant principals, 7 deans, 21 guidance counselors, and 4 school psychologists. Of the 234 elementary teachers and 231 secondary teachers in the district, a sample of 20 percent from the category of general education teachers (47 elementary and 46 secondary) were randomly selected. A sample of 25 percent of the 74 exceptional education teachers, totaling 19, were selected from use of the random table. Questionnaires were administered to a total of 189 persons classified as school personnel. Research Questions The following research questions were examined in this study : 1. Do school personnel perceive similar behaviors to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and to be "disturbing" in working with children? 2. Do various types of school personnel perceive different behaviors to be characteristic of emotional disturbance? 3. Do various types of school personnel perceive different behaviors to be disturbing in working with children? Instrumentation A behavior rating scale was developed to facilitate the process of determining the relative "emotional disturbedness" and "disturbingness" of behavioral characteristics. Differences among behaviors

PAGE 59

45 thought to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" were analyzed from rating scores obtained, as were differences between those behaviors characteristic of both groups. The behavior rating scale was developed to be an indicator of the relative "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" of behaviors characteristic of disturbed and disturbing children, as perceived by several categories of school personnel. The first step in deriving the scale was to choose appropriate behavioral items. Definitional Characteristics Each state department of education in the United States maintains its own definitional characteristics used in the identification of students for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed educational services. A letter was sent to each of the 50 state departments of education requesting a copy of their behavioral criteria used in the identification of students for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education for the current 19801981 school year. As materials were received, a grid listing the behavioral characteristics by state was made so that the most frequent, overlapping behaviors could be identified. It was noted that a majority of states use some or all of the characteristics of emotional disturbance determined by Bower (1960, 1969), which in turn appear in the Federal Bureau of Education for the Handicapped Regulations (Federal Register, 1977).

PAGE 60

46 Two months later, a second letter was sent to those states from which behavioral characteristics from Federal Regulations had been received, and to those states from which no response had been received. This letter asked specifically for a listing of behaviors used in the identification of students for emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed services in their state. Some of the states responded by sending additional lists of behavioral characteristics, and others replied to the effect that the characteristics found in the Federal Regulations were the sole criteria employed in the identification of students from emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed services in their state. Six telephone conversations were held with the consultant for emotionally handicapped education of each state from which responses had not been received, requesting their state's behavioral characteristics. By these means, 100 percent response was made by all state departments of education in the United States within six months following the original request. Behavioral items were written from all behavioral characteristics listed on the grid, defining behaviors of students identified as qualifying for emotionally handicapped services by all 50 state departments of education. Criterion used was inclusion of all behaviors which could be easily recognized by school personnel. A few states are listed as being noncategorical , with no specific behavioral characteristics used in obtaining special education services. Other states reported that they offer the services, but have

PAGE 61

47 no materials available for distribution at this time. Representatives of these states suggested the existence of legislative or administrative controversy surrounding the topic. See Appendix D for a listing of behavioral characteristics by state. Disturbing Behaviors The problem of identifying and rating disturbing behaviors investigated by E. K. Wickman (1928) was replicated in this study. An identification of behaviors thought to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing" in working with children was rated by school personnel. The original study by Wickman employed 11 schedules for measuring children's behavior and teachers' attitudes. These measurement parameters are summarized in Appendix F. The major portion of the Wickman study evolved from Schedules B-4 and B-5, rated by 511 teachers and 30 mental hygienists, respectively. The compiled listing of 50 behavioral items was rated by each of the two professional groups. Maladaptive, Inappropriate Behaviors Communication with Dr. H. M. Walker, Project Director for the Development, Testing and Replication of a Social Behavior Survival (SBS) Program for Mainstreaming Handicapped Children resulted in a grant proposal and copy of instrumentation being sent to this investigator. The Social Behavior Survival Program (SBS) is intended to serve as a facilitative tool in the mainstreaming of severely and mildly handicapped children. The initial portion of this project

PAGE 62

48 (Walker 5 Rankin, unpublished) was planned to assess the social behavior standards and expectancies of regular classroom teachers. Section I of the SBS Project contained descriptions of adaptive, appropriate behavior (s) to be evaluated by teachers as critical, desirable, or unimportant in successful adjustment to the classroom. Section II was composed of descriptions of maladaptive, inappropriate child behavior(s) to be evaluated as unacceptable, tolerated, or acceptable in the classroom. Composite Checklist of Behaviors A comparison was made by this investigator to determine which behaviors listed by the State departments of education as behavioral characteristics of emotional disturbance were also listed as disturbing behaviors by Wickman (1928) and as maladaptive, inappropriate behaviors by Walker and Rankin (unpublished) . Appendix A displays a comparison of these items. To produce variations in the rating of importance assigned behaviors, adaptive, appropriate behaviors from the Walker checklist and desirable behaviors from the Epstein (1941) investigation were included. Appendix A displays a comparison of behavioral items by reference source. A total of 80 items were selected for inclusion on the behavior rating scale to be used in this study. Of this number, 52 behavioral characteristics were taken from the grid compiled by definitional characteristics. These were extracted from the information received from the 50 state departments of education. Seven characteristics were selected from the Wickman scale indicative of students' behaviors

PAGE 63

49 disturbing to teachers, and five behavioral characteristics were chosen from Section II of the Walker checklist of maladaptive, inappropriate behaviors. The remaining 16 items were chosen from Section I of the Walker checklist of adaptive, appropriate behaviors and from desirable behaviors listed by Epstein's teachers, to be interspersed with the 64 inappropriate behaviors. It was thought the combination of inappropriate and appropriate behaviors would lend itself to more careful rating by school personnel. Questionnaire The questionnaire consisted of the 80 item behavioral rating scale devised by the investigator. Two sets of instructions were written to be administered on two different occasions using the same behavior rating scale (see Appendix G for "Disturbed" and "Disturbing" Rating Scales) . A demographic information form (see Appendix H) was attached to each behavior rating scale, requesting information about the rater: age group, position, level of position, professional experience, sex, race, marital status, number of children, and educational training. In addition, classification and classroom setting were asked of teachers. This information was important in analyzing between and within group differences. Directions were concisely written on each form, so that questionnaires were self-explanatory and maintained an anonymity for the respondents. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted to assess the questionnaire which was prepared for distribution in the main study. The behavioral

PAGE 64

50 items included on the behavior rating scale, the two sets of instructions to be administered on two different occasions, and the information requested on the demographic form were the components selected for evaluation. Permission was obtained to ask students enrolled in four courses in the Special Education Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, to participate in evaluating the behavior rating scale and the demographic information form, both comprising the questionnaire in the main study. The students were classified as teachers and teacher trainees in graduate and undergraduate programs relating to special education. A total of 60 students were enrolled in these four special education courses. Students in two of the courses were administered the questionnaire in the manner proposed for the main study. That is, during two class sessions, one week apart, half of the 33 participants received instructions to rate the behavioral items as "disturbance" and the other half as "disturbing," with the alternate instructions received the following week. The remaining 27 participants, comprising the other two classes chosen for the pilot study, were administered the questionnaire to obtain reliability measures. Approximately half of the participants received instructions to rate the behavioral items as "disturbance" and the other half as "disturbing," with the same instructions given each of these participants the following week. Sufficient reliability was reported to indicate a level of internal consistency needed to perform the main study. Pearson correlation

PAGE 65

51 coefficients are shown for total behavior rating scale and behavioral clusters in Table 1 in the Data Analysis section of this chapter. When asked to check which of the following was true, "1 rated the extent to which the items were characteristic of emotional disturbance," and "I rated the extent to which the items were bothersome or disturbing in working with children," 55 of the total 60 participants responded correctly to the two-time questionnaire. The behavior rating scale was determined to measure the constructs "disturbance" and "disturbing" as purported, with a computed construct validity measure at . 92 . Following the administration of the behavior rating scale in two ways, and the completion of the demographic information form, suggestions for inclusion of additional items, removal of existing items, rewording of items, and renumbering of items were solicited. A few minor revisions were made following recommendations by these participants, none of whom were included in the main study or classified as school personnel in the Putnam County School District. Research Procedure Written permission to conduct this study in Putnam County, Florida, was secured from Superintendent C. L. Overturf, Jr. It was explained that 189 persons classified as school personnel and employed by the Putnam County District School Board would be asked to complete the questionnaire, consisting of behavior rating scale and demographic information form, under two different sets of instructions approximately one week apart. An overview of the investigation was given and questions answered in a manner designed to inform but not bias the results.

PAGE 66

52 Following approval by the Superintendent, a listing of total district school personnel was obtained from Mr. J. Elrod, Personnel Director. Each of the elementary classroom teachers (pre K-5), secondary level teachers (6-12), and exceptional education teachers was assigned a number in the Table of Random Numbers located in Appendix C of Educational Research (Borg § Gall, 1979). From these listings of general education teachers and exceptional education teachers, the category of teachers was randomly selected. All county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists were included from the district roster to participate as subjects in the study. Personal letters were written to each of the 16 building principals stating generalized purposes and procedures in order to gain their active support for the study. In addition, personal visits and phone calls were made to selected school administrators, again for the explicit purpose of procuring support. Every effort was made to reassure participants that no professional controversy or loss of anonymity would occur, and that their responses would comprise a serious advancement in the understanding of behavioral taxonomies used by educators. Data Collection One set of instructions asked school personnel to respond to each of the behavioral items indicating how characteristic the behavior is of "emotional disturbance." The other set of instructions asked school personnel to respond to each of the behavioral items

PAGE 67

53 indicating how "disturbing" the behavior is in working with children. Ratings were marked on a scaled continuum ranging from one to five, with codings for "disturbed" and for "disturbing" instructions: (1) coded as not very characteristic of emotional disturbance (NVC-ED) and (5) as very characteristic of emotional disturbance (VC-ED) ; and (1) coded as not very disturbing (NVD) and (5) as very disturbing (VD) . Half of the subjects received the questionnaire with the instructions for rating "emotional disturbance," and the other half received the questionnaire with instructions for rating "disturbingness." One week later, a questionniare with the other set of instructions was received by each participating subject for rating. Behavior rating scales with attached demographic information forms were sent by school internal distribution to all participants. A cover letter accompanied each questionnaire, requesting participation. Directions were self-explanatory. Participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and could be discontinued at any time, that the questionnaires would be coded for data collection and analysis, and that their responses would remain anonymous. The avoidance of discussion concerning ratings of behavioral items with other school personnel was requested. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaires and return the behavior rating scales and attached demographic information forms through their building principal, or by use of the envelope enclosed in each questionnaire addressed to be returned by school internal distribution to the investigator in care of the Exceptional Education Department.

PAGE 68

54 Following a one week time interval, coded questionnaires containing the second set of instructions for rating the behavior rating scale were sent with attached demographic forms by school internal distribution from the Exceptional Education Office. The second demographic form was sent for identification and reliability purposes. Participants were again asked to complete the behavior rating scale and demographic information form and return the questionnaire to their respective building principal, or to the Exceptional Education Department. A record of completed questionnaires was maintained throughout, so that additional behavior rating scales and demographic information forms might be sent to those who did not respond within five school days. An 87 percent return of the questionnaire to be completed under the first set of instructions was received at the conclusion of the first week. An additional 2 percent of first-time respondents returned questionnaires the following week. The second week produced a return of 66 percent of matched questionnaires, or those completed under both sets of instructions. A second mailing was necessitated to increase the number of matched returns. At the conclusion of the third week of data collection, a total of 160 participants, or 85 percent, had returned questionnaires completed under two sets of instructions. A selected number of participants were chosen to test for reliability. A proportionate number of each type of school personnel was sent a third questionnaire with alternating instructions for

PAGE 69

55 rating the behavioral items. Subjects, selected from the previous responding sample, included: three county level administrators, two principals, two assistant principals, one dean, three guidance counselors, and two school psychologists. Twenty percent of the total participating teachers were included in this test for reliability, which comprised 21 teachers from the elementary, secondary, and exceptional education sectors. Of the 34 subjects, a total of 29 responded, concluding an 85 percent participation. Table 1 in the Data Analysis section contains comparisons of Pearson correlation coefficients for total behavior rating scale and behavioral clusters computed for the pilot study and the main study. Dependent Variables The dependent variables selected for investigation in this study are the 80 behavioral items which were rated by subjects representative of differing types of school personnel. These behavioral items were rated according to their perceived degree of "disturbedness" and "disturb ingness" to county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, school psychologists, and teachers. Fifty-two of the behavioral items were compiled from the grid containing definitional characteristics of emotional disturbance extracted from materials received from the 50 state departments of education. The remaining behavioral items were selected from previous studies measuring the maladaptiveness, inappropriateness , and disturbingness of children's behavior, and the adaptiveness , appropriateness, and desirability of children's behavior as perceived by school personnel. Four reference sources were used in selecting

PAGE 70

56 behavioral items characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing" in working with children. Independent Variables The variables selected for manipulation by the investigator of this study were those of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness." Two sets of instructions were administered on two occasions. One set of instructions directed each of the participants to rate the degree of "emotional disturbance" characteristic of the 80 behavioral items. The other set of instructions directed each of the participants to rate the degree of "disturbingness" of the 80 behavioral items. Half of the subjects, totaling 95, were given instructions to rate the "emotional disturbance" characteristic of the behavioral items, and 94 subjects were given instructions to rate the "disturbingness" of the behavioral items. One week later, those subjects who previously rated the "emotional disturbance" characteristic of the behavioral items were directed to rate the "disturbingness" of the behavioral items. Conversely, those subjects who previously rated the "disturbingness" of the behavioral items were directed to rate the "emotional disturbance" determined characteristic of the behavioral items. Data Analysis The behavior rating scale, comprised of a checklist of 80 behavioral items, was rated on a scaled continuum of one to five (1-5). The "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" of these behavioral items were rated by types of school personnel. A random sample of the

PAGE 71

57 elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers were selected as participants in rating these behavioral items. All county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists employed by the Putnam County District School Board were asked to participate in rating the behavioral items. A questionnaire consisting of a behavior rating scale and demographic information form was received by the participants on two different occasions, giving two different sets of instructions for the two conditions of "disturbance" and "disturbing." To facilitate data analysis, the various types of school personnel participating in the study were grouped into three distinct categories. The category of teacher was used to include ratings by responding elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers. The category of administrator encompassed ratings by district level and local school center administrators, including: county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, and deans. The term counselor was designated the category for responding guidance counselors and school psychologists. The primary relationship to be analyzed was the scores of behavioral items rated for degree of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" in working with children and youth. To further facilitate data analysis, behavioral clusters were formulated to factor the items into categories of behaviors. Existing behavior rating scales and checklists were utilized in this process (Burks, 1977; Lambert ^ Bower, 1961; Pimm ^ McClure, 1969; Quay 5 Peterson, 1967; Spivack, Haimes,

PAGE 72

58 § Spotts, 1967; Spivack § Spotts, 1966; Spivack ^ Swift, 1967; Walker, 1970). Nine behavioral clusters were formed and termed as follows: Emotionally Withdrawn, Weak Self-Control, Appropriate Socialization, InadequacyImmaturity, Poor Academics, Personality Problems, Poor Relations, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency. An overview of the 80 behavioral items factored into the nine behavioral clusters is shown on Table 2. The relationship between the ratings of behavioral items and of behavioral clusters characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbing" in working with children and youth, was analyzed by Pearson correlations. Statistical options were selected to compute mean scores and standard deviations for "disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral items and behavioral clusters across the three categories of school personnel. The t_ test for two independent samples was utilized to test for significant differences between the mean "disturbance" scores and the mean "disturbing" scores between the three independent groups of responding school personnel. In using the aforementioned forms of analyses, relationships among behaviors thought to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance' and "disturbing" in working with children and youth were analyzed. In addition, differences between perceptions of types of school personnel were analyzed to determine their relatedness. Reliability A third questionnaire was received by a proportionate number of participants chosen for the main study in Putnam County School

PAGE 73

59 District. This sample was asked to rerate the behavior rating scale under one of the previous instructions given for "disturbedness" or "disturbingness." Approximately half of the participants rated the behaviors to be characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and half to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. This third administration of the behavior rating scale was performed to test for reliability. Procedures for distribution and collection of questionnaires was the same as described in the section on Data Collection. Of the 34 subjects selected for the main study, a total of 29, or 85 percent, responded. The three categories of school personnel were represented by 17 teachers, 7 administrators, and 5 counselors, A number of subjects were administered a third behavior rating scale during the pilot study performed at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Of the 60 students enrolled in the four courses of study in the Department of Special Education, 27 were asked to rerate the behavior rating scale given to them during the class session one week earlier. The categories represented in this study included 7 teachers and 20 teacher trainees. No persons classified as school administrators or counselors were enrolled in these four special education courses. Reliability measures were secured from samples representative of both groups, the main study and the pilot study, to test for internal consistency of results. A comparable number of participants were re-administered the behavior rating scale under the same set of instructions given one week prior. Respondents numbered 29 and 27

PAGE 74

60 for the main study and for the pilot study, respectively. Pearson correlations were obtained from rating scores produced by the respondents of both groups. The relationships computed for total behavior rating scale and the nine behavioral clusters are shown as correlation coefficients in Table 1. Overall, higher correlations were obtained from participants in the main study, especially in the ratings of behavioral items comprising the behavioral clusters Appropriate Socialization, InadequacyImmaturity, Poor Academics, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency. The highest correlations produced from ratings by participants in the pilot study were in the areas of InadequacyImmaturity, Personality Problems, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency. Both groups showed highest correlations for the areas denoting aggressive, antisocial behaviors, as well as dependent, immature behaviors. Some ambivalency was indicated in the ratings for behaviors denoting relationships with others and for withdrawn, self-controlling behaviors by both groups of respondents. Conclusions and recommendations are prefaced by possible limitations shown by reliability coefficients reflective of a weak internal consistency. Adequate internal consistency was concluded for the total rating scale and the majority of the behavioral clusters. Validity At the conclusion of each behavior rating scale, participants were asked to check which of the following was true, "I rated the extent to which the items were characteristic of emotional disturbance," and "I rated the extent to which the items were bothersome or disturbing

PAGE 75

61 Table 1 Pearson Correlations for Reliability Measures for Total Behavior Rating Scale and across Behavioral Clusters Main Study Pilot Study Total Scale and Clusters N=29 N=27 a a r r Total Behavior Rating Scale .79 .70 Behavioral Clusters: 1. Emotionally Withdrawn .43 .50 2. Weak Self-Control .52 .23 3. Appropriate Socialization .90 .60 4. InadequacyImmaturity .83 .72 5. Poor Academics .78 .22 6. Personality Problems .69 .81 7. Poor Relations .58 .50 8. Acting Out .84 .72 9. Socialized Delinquency .86 .87 ^ Correlation coefficients for "Disturbance with Disturbance" and "Disturbing with Disturbing" b Test-retest reliability measures

PAGE 76

62 Table 2 Behavioral Items Comprising Behavioral Clusters for Ratings for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" Behavioral Clusters: Behavioral Items 1. Emotionally Withdrawn a. Is acutely shy or withdrawn; avoids social contact. b. Displays a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. c. Daydreams to a significant degree. d. Is unresponsive to others; ignores social initiations by peers. e. Maintains an aloofness from others. f. Displays a disinterest in the environment; appears to be unmotivated, lethargic. 2. Weak Self-Control a. Lacks self-control; indicates poor impulse control. b. Has impulsive, compulsive behaviors (excessive movement); appears unable to perceive consequences. c. Displays restless, hyperactive behaviors; is constantly moving. d. Has difficulty listening and/or paying attention; is easily distracted. e. Appears restless; displays a short attention span.

PAGE 77

63 Table 2--Continued Behavioral Clusters : Behavioral Items 3. Appropriate Socialization a. Is polite, respectful of others. b. Takes his/her turn appropriately. c. Is truthful, honest with others. d. Shares materials with others in a work situation. e. Seeks teacher attention at appropriate times. f. Demonstrates self-reliance, independence. g. Appears happy and cheerful; seems good natured. h. Produces work of acceptable quality given his/her skill level. i. Uses free time appropriately. j. Cooperates with peers in group activities or situations. k. Follows established classroom rules. 1. Attempts to answer a question when called on by the teacher. m. Ignores the distractions or interruptions of other students during academic activities, n. Resolves peer conflicts or problems adequately on his/her own. o. Compliments peers regarding some attribute or behavior, p. Has a close friend(s); initiates conversation.

PAGE 78

64 Table 2 --Continued Behavioral Clusters: Behavioral Items 4. InadequacyImmaturity a. Complains of physical illnesses or impairments. b. Demands excessive attention; engages in silly, attention seeking behavior. c. Has frequent temper tantrums. d. Expresses feelings of inferiority; debases personal feats. e. Has a slovenly appearance. f. Is deficient in self-help skills; demands excessive individual attention and/or assistance. g. Acts in a childish, immature manner; whines, sulks, pouts, h. Displays high levels of dependence; lacks self-confidence, i. Is unreliable or irresponsible when asked to perform. j. Acts easily frightened, fearful, intimidated by events or other persons, k. Is overly sensitive, over-reacts; is easily discouraged. 1. Follows the group; is suggestible, easily led into trouble.

PAGE 79

65 Table 2-Continued Behavioral Clusters : Behavioral Items 5. Poor Academics a. Seems unable to learn commensurate with intellectual, sensory, or physical development. b. Starts but does not complete tasks. c. Demonstrates poor academic achievement, noncommensurate with ability. d. Appears frustrated by tasks or school routine. e. Procrastinates; delays beginning tasks or activities. 6. Personality Problems a. Shows inappropriate types of behaviors, feelings, and/or responses under normal circumstances. b. Exhibits a poor self-concept. c. Engages in behavior considered dangerous to himself/ herself and/or to others. d. Engages in bizzare behaviors and/or speech. e. Shows extreme interest in the morbid. f. Fantacizes or exaggerates occurrences.

PAGE 80

66 Table 2--Continued Behavioral Clusters: Behavioral Items 6. Personality Problems--Continued h. Engages in repetitive, stereotyped motor behavior, i. Acts in a self-derogatory manner; is physically and/or verbally abusive toward self, j. Has inappropriate vocalizations, unusual language context; babbles, k. Self-stimulates; masturbates. 1. Is suspicious of others; acts paranoid, m. Engages in inappropriate sexual behavior. 7. Poor Relatons a. Is unable to build or to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships. b. Lacks effective communication skills; has speech problems. c. Manipulates other persons and/or situations to get his/her way. d. Is overly affectionate toward peers and/or adults.

PAGE 81

67 Table 2--Continued Behavioral Clusters Behavioral Items 8. Acting Out a. Talks incessantly, out of turn. b. Reacts negatively" to instructions or commands; refuses to correct mistakes, complete work. c. Exhibits severe acting out behavior; is physically aggressive toward others. d. Resists, defies authority or structure; challenges teacher imposed limitations; acts defiant. e. Disrupts the classroom; creates a disturbance during class activities. f. Demonstrates angry, temperamental, irritable behaviors. g. Is verbally aggressive toward others. h. Makes irrelevant remarks and/or asks irrelevant questions, i. Forces the submission of peers by being dominant, bossy, and/or overbearing, j . Interrupts the teacher when engaged in a presentation or activity, k. Uses property of others without asking permission.

PAGE 82

68 Table 2-Continued Behavioral Clusters : Behavioral Items Socialized Delinquency a. Is truant, tardy, or absent excessively. b. Is destructive of personal property; damages property of others. c. Uses profane, obscene language, gestures. d. Lies, distorts the truth. e. Cheats; copies work of others. f. Steals; takes property belonging to others. g. Does not follow rules; is willfully disobedient.

PAGE 83

69 in working with children." Construct validity was computed for both the main study and for the pilot study, with measures of ,90 and .92 reported, respectively. The behavior rating scale was determined to measure the constructs "disturbance" and "disturbing" as purported. Summary of Experimental Procedures The following experimental procedures were used in this study: 1. Requests were made to all state departments of education in the United States for behavioral characteristics of children and youth to qualify for special education services in the category of emotionally handicapped or emotionally disturbed education. 2. Definitional characteristics submitted by state were listed on a grid. 3. A behavior rating scale was devised from the behavioral characteristics listed on the grid defining criteria for "emotional disturbance" and from three studies of "disturbingness" perceived by school personnel in working with children or youth. 4. A questionnaire was developed to include a behavior rating scale with two sets of instructions for rating "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" of behavioral items, with a demographic information form attached. 5. Permission to do the research was obtained from the Superintendent of Putnam County, Florida. 6. A summarized roster of school personnel by position was obtained from the personnel director.

PAGE 84

70 7. Local building principals were contacted in order to describe purposes and procedures for the investigation, and to secure support for the study at each school center. 8. Names of elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers were listed in the Random Table of Numbers (Borg § Gall, 1979). Subjects were randomly selected, and names coded for distribution and retrieval of questionnaires. 9. All names of county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists were coded for distribution and retrieval of questionnaires. 10. Internal county distribution was used to distribute questionnaires to teachers, county level administrators, principals, assistant principals, deans, guidance counselors, and school psychologists. 11. Arrangements were made to collect returned questionnaires from building principals at each of the 16 school centers, or through school internal distribution to the Exceptional Education Department. 12. A second questionaire was distributed and collected using the same procedures (10-12). 13. A sample of school personnel was selected to complete the questionnaire to test for reliability. Distribution and collection was made using the same procedures (10-12). 14. Behavioral clusters were formulated to factor behavioral items for data analysis.

PAGE 85

71 15. Data were analyzed by Pearson correlations to obtain relationships as shown by correlation coefficients for the rating scores of "emotional disturbance" and "disturbingness" for behavioral items and for behavioral clusters across respondents. 16. Statistical options were selected to compute mean scores and standard deviations for "disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral items and behavioral clusters across school personnel. 17. Data were analyzed by t tests to determine calculated t^ values, degrees of freedom, and probability values, for "disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral clusters between independent groups of school personnel.

PAGE 86

CHAPTER IV RESULTS The relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" perceived by various types of school personnel was examined by the investigator. Subjects representative of three distinct positional categories were selected for participation in this investigation. All participants in the study were employed by the Putnam County District School Board. The categorical position of teacher was represented by elementary, secondary, and exceptional education teachers, all chosen by random selection. The categorical position of administrator subsumed coimty level administrators as well as local school center administrators, including principals, assistant principals, and deans. Guidance counselors and school psychologists comprised the categorical position termed counselor. The latter two positional categories included all school personnel employed in these categories. A return of 160 matched questionnaires, rated for "disturbedness" and "disturbingness," was received from the total 189 subjects. An 85 percent response rate was determined. The categorical positions were represented by 95 teachers, 42 administrators, and 23 counselors. 72

PAGE 87

73 Data consisted of rating scores produced by the participants on a two-time questionnaire administered about one week apart under different instructions. Approximately half of the participants were directed to rate the 80 behavioral items characteristic of "emotional disturbance," and the remaining half were asked to rate the behavioral items considered "disturbing" in working with children and youth. The opposite instructions were given with the administration of the second questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using the rating scores of "disturbance" and "disturbing" by the groups of school personnel of the behavioral items included on the behavior rating scale. To facilitate analyses, the 80 behavioral items were factored into nine behavioral clusters. Data Analyses The Pearson correlation was used to obtain relationships between the rating scores for "disturbed" and "disturbing" behavioral items and behavioral clusters, rated by all participating school personnel and by participants in the categorical positions of teachers, administrators, and counselors. Table 3 contains a display of the computed correlation coefficients. The t test for two independent samples was utilized to test for significant differences between the mean rating scores produced by teachers and administrators, teachers and counselors, and administrators and counselors for behavioral items and behavioral clusters. Table 4 displays calculated t scores and probability values for

PAGE 88

74 "disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral clusters across independent groups of respondents. Statistical options were selected to compute mean scores and standard deviations for the behavioral items and for the behavioral clusters composed of the behavioral items for all participating school personnel and for three distinct groups of school personnel, including teachers, administrators, and counselors. Table 5 contains mean scores and standard deviations for all responding school personnel on behavioral items comprising "disturbance" behavioral clusters. Table 6 shows mean scores and standard deviations for all responding school personnel on behavioral items comprising "disturbing" behavioral clusters. Mean scores and standard deviations for "disturbance" across behavioral clusters are presented in Table 7, and mean scores and standard deviations for "disturbing" across behavioral clusters are exhibited in Table 8. Hypothesis 1 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Emotionally Withdrawn when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Hypothesis 1 was evaluated by correlating the scores of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" derived from ratings performed by all participants for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral cluster Emotionally Withdrawn. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .19 for all participating school personnel, with

PAGE 89

t3 a 10 75 J^

PAGE 90

76 TT cn *o ^h \o a> ^ m OO O i-l t«

PAGE 91

77 c

PAGE 92

78 »;

PAGE 93

79 Oi ot oo o f^ CM ^0 ^ ^ Ui t4 Qj o ot a> oo 00 tn to JO lo ui o r» »*1 to CM IN M 1^ lA T « M K> o r^ o» t^ oi o a^ f-^ Ok ^H >^ iO to K^ lO to 00 Ok 00 Ok O Ok 11^ «M CM CO f^ O O Ol O OO O kO ^ M M MM MO s O 4^ •H 08 c •»< am o a. -

PAGE 94

80 Ol r^ CO r^ ^o o o o »0 Kl •^' to lO to f*1 1/1 Ok CO >0 to IN to to «N CM ^0 00 to lO Ol ^ ^ ^ j: Ol

PAGE 95

81 M 0|

PAGE 96

82 c

PAGE 97

83 ^

PAGE 98

84 3 zl o i to W Kl »0 o» to to o» «> o r^ Ok •O Kl m K) (N4 K> K> K) to lO or-* o vo h^ t*i tn K> I o o NO oo o r^ in r-* ^0 rM \o ^H f^ O CO o^ o >o U> ^H V O NO O lO to 'V 'Tf to to OJ OjCft O O Ok OOO OOOOk oo ovo^o eo io« ri in tn ^r^ inci^ ^^ ^inooi K> toio lo to lO tAtn tot^to i*5k> -^rrtocN O". OkOl o o» o» OoO Ol-^Ok r* fs 4rt r< ^ ^ W lO lO lO lO lO to m <^ to lo to to to to to 0> O Ok Ot O Ok m ^v m *-H \o o lO to *» -v to to « -H «-4 (-) O t-4 OJ > ^ Clii-( t-t O "-t u -^ Mow C r-t ^ t< c m ^ cd (d 4-* n ^H >H fl> U O --i -O W U « *J i^ X O 13 V( u o CJ .c: w Id tJ 3 (U O 4-* A o a> j= 3 j: 4J j:r a> c.^ ^< a. o «-* E t" O V. *J ti C X a in .^ tn u o j: o o ~-~ ^ E O I ^ O U 4-> ^c a. ( O -H C 6 3 X «-> C h » -^ *r4 C 4-» > O O ; a,'*< 3 in c o o .-c I in c *-• u in -H 1 -H o m o > in -^-i o iQ fj»-i< Gj»-in3tu. O <-> c 3 « E C O. O tJ o lu D. h X-rt 4^ in lu O J3 CO lU ^ C X C CJ o in cd tu uj u= I Id O c ^ a. Id ,o CI *T3 o *M

PAGE 99

85 ^H o> f^ r~ r» <» r~ m •-< 00 ^r CO lA r« I M H> lO *o K> «^ — o CO CO "J"!"!"!'*. °° o — oo ocor>ooooo> '^'^ "^ wo>t^>^ r-» 00 cnr» kj •» m « m»< •om K> nnio^ m rj ni ri rr V ^ tt r»« t/) fM 'V 00 o >* 00 >o E o o 2 iH V •w 4-> -H •-I -r^ **4 c T3 -H 3 •u O C h o t" E 3 4J tf) f-t .rH O «> h •-1 o 4-' -O -O -ri tft e6 a +i U O 01

PAGE 100

86 €0 r^ fN Oi oi o» ov 3zl <^ O ^0 O* M rr K> lo o r^ CO Ok o ot ot oo o DO ro 00 •*^ »0 fO M lO lA tA r^l r^ rKl i-H •O -^ -V ^ K> -^ •» r4 oo Ok 00 ot CO I »-• "O *-4 Oi o 'OHI ^.K> W 00 ^ in ^ i-H tn ' oo Ok o» o* < ^< ^ Ol Ot Ok 00 o> o fNi o r* o tn to lo Ok ' •rt

PAGE 101

87 i-H bO
PAGE 102

88 U in

PAGE 103

89 correlation coefficients of .26, .11, and .03 for teachers, administrators, and counselors, respectively. For each corollary hypothesis associated with Hypothesis 1, the t_ test for two independent samples was used as a test of statistical significance. For each calculated t_ test, the degrees of freedom, the t^ value, and the two-tail probability value are reported. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary la. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items encompassing the cluster Emotionally Withdrawn produced mean scores of 3.4 for both teachers and administrators when rated as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (93) = .04, p = .97 indicated no significant difference between means. Corollary la, therefore, was not rejected. Corollary lb. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Emotionally Withdrawm were assessed as 3.1 for teachers and 2.9 for administrators, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing. The calculated t (89) = 1.53, p = . 13 did not reach the required level of significance. Corollary lb was not rejected. Corollary Ic. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and

PAGE 104

90 counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores of the behavioral items denoting Emotionally Withdrawn were determined as 3.4 and 3.3 for teachers and counselors, respectively, when rating the behavioral items as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (42) = .27, £ = .79 did not reach the required level of significance. Corollary Ic was not rejected. Corollary Id. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Emotionally Withdrawn were assessed as 3.1, identical values for teachers and counselors, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing. The calculated t^ (32) = .32, p = .76 was not at a level considered statistically significant. Corollary Id was not rejected. Corollary le. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Mean scores for the behavioral items characteristic of Emotionally Withdrawn were determined as 3.4 and 3.3, in that order, for administrators and counselors when rated according to perceptions of emotional disturbance. The calculated t_ (49) = .22, p = .83 was not statistically significant; therefore, corollary le was not rejected. Corollary If. There is no significant difference between the mean Emotionally Withdrawn rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

PAGE 105

91 Behavioral items, indicative of Emotionally Withdrawn, when rated as disturbing in working with children and youth, produced mean scores of 2.9 and 3.1 for administrators and counselors, respectively. The calculated t^ (39) = .71, £ = .48 did not reach the required level of significance. Therefore, corollary If was not rejected. Hypothesis 2 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Weak Self-Control when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Hypothesis 2 was evaluated by correlating the scores derived from ratings of "disturbedness" and "disturb ingness" by all participants for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral cluster Weak Self-Control. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .27 for all groups of school personnel, with correlation coefficients of .21, .27, and .28 for teachers, administrators, and counselors, in that order. The t test for two independent samples was used as a test of statistical significance for each corollary hypothesis associated with Hypothesis 2. The degrees of freedom, the t_ value, and the two-tail probability value are stated for each t_ test. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary 2a. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 106

92 Behavioral items denoting Weak Self -Control produced mean scores of 3.7 for teachers and 3.4 for administrators for this cluster of behavioral characteristics when rated as indicative of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (101) = 2.15, p = .03 revealed significant differences between the two groups in their ratings of behavioral characteristics. Corollary 2a was rejected. Corollary 2b. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Weak Self-Control were assessed as 3.9 for teachers and 3.4 for administrators, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing. The calculated t_ (75) = 3.49, £= .001 revealed significant differences between the two groups in their perceptions of disturbing behavior related to the cluster Weak Self-Control. Corollary 2b was rejected. Corollary 2c . There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores of the behavioral items denoting Weak Self-Control were determined as 3.7 and 3.4, respectively, for teachers and counselors, when rating the behavioral items as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (33) = 1.53, p = . 14 did not reach the required level of significance; therefore, corollary 2c was not rejected.

PAGE 107

93 Corollary 2d. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." The mean scores of the behavioral items comprising Weak SelfControl were found to be 3.9 and 3.5 for teachers and counselors, respectively, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth. The calculated t_ (32) = 1.86, £ = .07 did not reach the necessary significant level. Corollary 2d was not rejected. Corollary 2e. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items, when rated as characteristic of the Weak SelfControl cluster and as indicative of emotional disturbance, produced like mean scores of 3.4. The calculated t (35) = .13, p = .90 was not statistically significant. Therefore, corollary 2e was not rejected. Corollary 2f. There is no significant difference between the mean Weak Self-Control rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Behavioral items, when rated as disturbing in working with children and youth, produced mean scores of 3.4 and 3.5 for administrators and counselors, respectively. The calculated t_ (44) = -.74, £ = .46 was not significant statistically. Corollary 2f was not rejected.

PAGE 108

94 Hypothesis 5 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Appropriate Socialization when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." A correlation of the scores derived from ratings of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by all participating school personnel for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral cluster Appropriate Socialization enabled evaluation of Hypothesis 3. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .56 for all participating school personnel, with correlation coefficients of .55, .61, and .57 for teachers, administrators, and counselors, in that order. For each corollary hypothesis associated with Hypothesis 3, the t^ test for two independent samples was used as a test of statistical significance. For each t_ test, the degrees of freedom, the t value, and the two-tail probability value are reported. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary 3a. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores for the behavioral items denoting Appropriate Socialization were determined as 1.7 for teachers and 1.6 for administrators, when rating the behavioral items as indicative of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (92) = 1.15, p = .25 did not reach the required level of significance; therefore, corollary 3a was not rejected.

PAGE 109

95 Corollary 5b. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Appropriate Socialization were determined to be of equal value, that of 1.3 for the positional categories of teachers and administrators. The calculated ;t (75) = -.06, p = .95 was not significant statistically. Therefore, corollary 3b was not rejected. Corollary 3c. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores of the behavioral items denoting Appropriate Socialization were determined as 1 . 7 for teachers and 1.4 for counselors, when rating the behavioral items as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated ;t (44) = 2.33, p = .02 revealed significant differences between ratings by these groups of school personnel. Corollary 3c was rejected. Corollary 3d. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." IVhen rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth, the mean scores for the behavioral items comprising Appropriate Socialization were of like value of 1.3 for teachers and counselors. The calculated t (39) = -.02, p = .99 indicated no significant differences between means. Corollary 3d, therefore, was not rejected.

PAGE 110

96 Corollary 5e. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items, when rated as characteristic of the Appropriate Socialization cluster and as indicative of emotional disturbance, produced mean scores of 1.6 and 1.4 for administrators and counselors, respectively. The calculated t^ (52) = 1.17, £ = .25 did not reach the required level of significance; therefore, corollary 3e was not rejected. Corollary 3f. There is no significant difference between the mean Appropriate Socialization rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Appropriate Socialization, when rating characteristics as disturbing, were shown to have equivalent values of 1.3 for categorical positions of administrators and counselors. The calculated t^ (56) = .04, p_ = .97 found no significant difference between rating scores of these two groups of school personnel. Thus, corollary 3f was not rejected. Hypothesis 4 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster InadequacyImmaturity when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Hypothesis 4 was evaluated by correlating the scores of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" derived from ratings performed by all participants for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral

PAGE 111

97 cluster InadequacyImmaturity. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .30 for total number of participating school personnel, with correlation coefficients of .26 for teachers, .31 for administrators, and .23 for counselors. For each corollary hypothesis associated with Hypothesis 4, the t_ test for two independent samples was used as a test of statistical significance. The degrees of freedom, the t_ value, and the two-tail probability value are stated for each t^ test. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary 4a. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items comprising the cluster InadequacyImmaturity were shown to have mean scores of 3.5 for teachers and 3.2 for administrators when rated according to perceptions of characteristics indicative of emotional disturbance. A significant difference was found between the two groups of raters, t_ (80) = 2.88, p = .005. Corollary 4a was rejected. Corollary 4b. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items descriptive of the cluster InadequacyImmaturity were assessed as 3.5 and 3.2 for teachers and administrators, respectively. These rating scores were indicative of perceptions of behavioral characteristics considered disturbing in

PAGE 112

98 working with children and youth. The calculated t_ (93) = 2.51, p = .01 revealed a significant difference between these two groups of school personnel; therefore, corollary 4b was rejected. Corollary 4c. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores of the behavioral items indicative of InadequacyImmaturity were determined to be 3.5 for teachers and 3.3 for counselors, when the behavioral items were rated as indicative of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (33) = 1.74, p = .09 did not reach the level required for statistical significance. Corollary 4c was not rejected. Corollary 4d. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." When rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth, the mean scores for the behavioral items encompassing the cluster InadequacyImmaturity were 3.5 for teachers and 3.3 for counselors. The calculated t^ (32) = 1.13, p = .27 did not meet statistical significance. Therefore, corollary 4d was not rejected. Corollary 4e. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 113

99 Behavioral items, when rated as characteristic of the InadequacyImmaturity cluster indicative of emotional disturbance, produced mean scores of 3.2 for administrators and 3.3 for counselors. The calculated t (37) = -.47, p = . 64 did not reach the required significance level. Corollary 4e was not rejected. Corollary 4f. There is no significant difference between the mean InadequacyImmaturity rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." The mean scores of the behavioral items indicative of InadequacyImmaturity were determined to be of equivalent value, 3.3, for both groups of school personnel, administrators and counselors. The calculated t (37) = -.51, 2, -61 w^s not of statistical significance. Corollary 4f was not rejected. Hypothesis 5 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Poor Academics when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." A correlation of the scores derived from rating scores of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by all participants for the behavioral cluster Poor Academics enabled evaluation of Hypothesis 5. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed at .29 for all participating school personnel, with correlation coefficients of .23 for teachers, ,30 for administrators, and .36 for counselors. Tlie t test for two independent samples was used as a test of statistical significance for each corollary associated with Hypothesis

PAGE 114

100 5. For each calculated t^ test, the degrees of freedom, the t^ value, and the two-tail probability value are stated. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary 5a. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items encompassing the cluster Poor Academics produced mean scores of 3.3 for teachers and 2.9 for administrators when rated as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t_ (84) = 2.42, £ = .02 revealed a significant difference between the perceptions of these two groups of school personnel. Corollary 5a, therefore, was rejected. Corollary 5b. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Poor Academics were assessed as 3.4 and 3.2 for teachers and administrators, respectively, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing. A significant difference was revealed between rating scores for teachers and administrators, £ (87) = 2.23, £ = .03. Corollary 5b was rejected. Corollary 5c. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores of the behavioral items denoting Poor Academics were determined as 3.3 and 2.9 for teachers and counselors, respectively.

PAGE 115

101 These mean scores were derived when rating the behavioral items as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t (30) = 1.80, p = .08 did not reach the required level of statistical significance. Corollary 5c was not rejected. Corollary 5d. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." When rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth, the mean scores for the behavioral items encompassing Poor Academics were 3.4 for teachers and 3.3 for counselors. The calculated t^ (34) = .68, p = .50 was not statistically significant. Corollary 5d was not rejected. Corollary 5e. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Mean scores for the behavioral items characteristic of Poor Academics were assessed as 3.2 and 3.3 for administrators and counselors, respectively, when rated according to perceptions of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (38) = .17, p = . 87 showed no significant difference. Corollary 5e was not rejected. Corollary 5f. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Academics rating scales produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Behavioral items, when rated as disturbing in working with children and youth, produced mean scores of 3.2 for administrators and

PAGE 116

102 3.3 for counselors. The calculated t_ (42) = -.93, £ = .36 was not significant statistically. Corollary 5f was not rejected. Hypothesis 6 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Personality Problems when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." An evaluation of Hypothesis 6 was performed by correlating the scores from ratings of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by all participants for the behavioral items relating to the behavioral cluster Personality Problems. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .35 for all groups of school personnel, with correlation coefficients of .36 for teachers, .26 for administrators, and .42 for counselors. The t^ test for two independent samples was used as a test of statistical significance for each corollary hypothesis associated with Hypothesis 6. For each calculated t^ test, the degrees of freedom, the t^ value, and the two-tail probability value are given. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary 6a. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items, when rated as characteristic of emotional disturbance for the cluster Personality Problems, found mean scores computed at 3.7 and 3.6 for teachers and administrators, respectively. The calculated t (107) = 1.91, p = .06 revealed differences but not

PAGE 117

103 at the required level of statistical significance; therefore, corollary 6a was not rejected. Corollary 6b. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Behavioral items, when rated as characteristic of the behavioral cluster Personality Problems and as disturbing in working with children and youth, produced like mean scores of 3.6 for teachers and administrators. The calculated t^ (103) = .61, p = .54 indicated no significant difference. Corollary 6b was not rejected. Corollary 6c. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores of the behavioral items denoting Personality Problems were computed at like values of 3.7 for teachers and counselors. These scores were derived when rating the behavioral items as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (53) = .10, £ = .92 was not statistically significant; therefore, corollary 6a was not rejected. Corollary 6d. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." The mean scores of the behavioral items comprising Personality Problems were 3.6 for teachers and 3.7 for counselors when rated as disturbing in working with children and youth. The calculated t_ (38 =

PAGE 118

104 -.66, £ = .52 was not significant and corollary 6d was not rejected. Corollary 6e. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Personality Problems was computed at 3.6 and 3.7 for administrators and counselors, in that order, when rated as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (51) = -1.58, £ = .12 did not meet the required level for significance. Corollary 6e was not rejected. Corollary 6f. There is no significant difference between the mean Personality Problems rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." When rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth, mean scores for the behavioral characteristics relating to the cluster Personality Problems were computed to be 3.6 and 3.7 for administrators and counselors, respectively. The calculated t^ (41) = -1.08, £ = -.29 indicated no difference between perceptions as rated by these two groups of school personnel. Corollary 6f was not rejected. Hypothesis 7 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Poor Relations when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing."

PAGE 119

105 Hypothesis 7 was evaluated by correlating the scores secured from ratings of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by all participants for the behavioral items encompassing the behavioral cluster Poor Relations. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .24 for all groups of school personnel. Correlation coefficients of .22, .17, and .49 were reported for teachers, administrators, and counselors, in that order. The t_ test for two independent samples was used as the test of statistical significance for all corollary hypotheses associated with Hypothesis 7. For each calculated t^ test, the degrees of freedom, the t_ value, and the two-tail probability value are given. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05, Corollary 7a. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items denoting Poor Relations produced mean scores of 3.2 and 2.9 for teachers and administrators, respectively, when rating this behavioral cluster as indicative of emotional disturbance. The calculated t (76) = 3.02, p = .003 showed a significant difference between the two groups of raters. Thus, corollary 7a was rejected. Corollary 7b. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items constructing the cluster Poor Relations were seen at 3.1 and 3.0 for teachers and administrators.

PAGE 120

106 respectively. These scores resulted when behavioral items were rated as disturbing in working with children and youth. The calculated t_ (102) = .78, £ = .43 indicated no difference in perceptual ratings for these two groups of school personnel. Corollary 7b was not rejected. Corollary 7c. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." The mean scores for the behavioral items constructing Poor Relations were determined as 3.2 for teachers and 2.9 for counselors, when rated as characteristic of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (31) = 1.98, p = .05 revealed a significant difference reflected in the perceptions of these two groups; therefore, corollary 7c was rejected. Corollary 7d. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." The mean scores of the behavioral items comprising the cluster Poor Relations were shown at 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, for teachers and counselors. These mean scores were derived when rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth. The calculated t_ (37) = -.66, £ = .51 was not statistically significant. Corollary 7d was not rejected. Corollary 7e. There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by administrators and

PAGE 121

107 counselors for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items characteristic of Poor Relations revealed similar mean scores of 2.9 when rated by administrators and counselors in regards to perceptions of emotional disturbance. The calculated t_ (.42) = -.20, £ = .84 showed no difference between ratings by groups. Corollary 7e was not rejected. Corollary 7f . There is no significant difference between the mean Poor Relations rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." Behavioral items, when rated as disturbing in working with children and youth, computed mean scores of 3.0 for administrators and 3.2 for counselors. The calculated t^ (40) = -1.20, £ = .24 was not significant to determine a difference between groups; therefore, corollary 7f was not rejected. Hypothesis 8 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Acting Out when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." A correlation of the scores derived from rating scores of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by all participating school personnel for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral cluster Acting Out enabled evaluation of Hypothesis 8. A relationship of .26 for all participating school personnel was computed using the Pearson correlation, with correlation coefficients reported at .27 for teachers, .14 for administrators, and .16 for counselors.

PAGE 122

108 A test for statistical significance was employed for each corollary hypothesis related to Hypothesis 8. The t^ test for two independent samples was utilized with the level of significance necessary for rejection set at .05. For each calculated t^ test, the degrees of freedom, the t^ value, and the two-tail probability value are reported. Corollary 8a. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items encompassing the cluster Acting Out produced mean scores of 3.7 for teachers and 3.4 for administrators when rated as indicative of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (91) = 2.55, £ = .01 indicated a significant difference between the mean scores for these two groups of school personnel. Therefore, corollary 8a was rejected. Corollary 8b. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Acting Out were shown at 4.2 for teachers and 3.9 for administrators, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing. The calculated t_ (93) = 3.14, p = .002 revealed a statistical difference between means; therefore, corollary 8b was rejected. Corollary 8c. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance."

PAGE 123

109 Behavioral items encompassing the cluster Acting Out produced mean scores of 3.7 and 3.3 for teachers and counselors, in that order, when rating the behavioral items as indicators of emotional disturbance. The calculated t^ (33) = 2.43, p = . 02 revealed a significant difference statistically between groups. Corollary 8c was therefore rejected. Corollary 8d. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing." When rating the behavioral items as disturbing in working with children and youth, the mean scores for the behavioral items encompassing Acting Out were 3.2 and 4.0 for teachers and counselors, respectively. The calculated t_ (29) = 1.11, £ = .28 did not reach the level required for a statistical difference between means. Corollary 8d was not rejected, therefore. Corollary 8e. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Mean scores for the behavioral items characteristic of Acting Out were determined at 3.4 and 3.3 for administrators and counselors, respectively, when rated according to perceptions of emotional disturbance. The calculated t (40) = .56, p = .58 indicated no significant difference. Corollary 8e was not rejected. Corollary 8f. There is no significant difference between the mean Acting Out rating scores produced by administrators and counselors

PAGE 124

110 for the category of "disturbing." When rated as disturbing in working with children and youth, behavioral items produced mean scores of 3.9 and 4.0 for administrators and counselors, respectively. The calculated t^ (33) = -.71, p = .48 was not statistically significant. Corollary 8f was not rejected. Hypothesis 9 There is no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral cluster Socialized Delinquency when the characteristics are presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Hypothesis 9 was evaluated by correlating the scores obtained from ratings of "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" by all participants for the behavioral items constructing the behavioral cluster Socialized Delinquency. The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated at .25. In addition, correlation coefficients of .27, .03, and .25 were reported for school personnel groups, teachers, administrators, and counselors. A test for statistical significance was computed for each corollary hypothesis related to Hypothesis 9. The t_ test for two independent samples was utilized. The degrees of freedom, the t^ value, and the two-tail probability value are reported for the calculated t^ tests. The level of significance necessary for rejection was .05. Corollary 9a. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category "disturbance."

PAGE 125

Ill When rated as characteristic of emotional disturbance, behavioral items encompassing the cluster Socialized Delinquency produced mean scores of 3.7 and 3.4 for teachers and administrators, respectively. The calculated t_ (84) = 2.27, p = .025 revealed a statistical difference between the means; therefore, corollary 9a was rejected. Corollary 9b. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and administrators for the category of "disturbing." The mean scores of the behavioral items constructing the behavioral cluster Socialized Delinquency were 4.3 and 4.1 for the teachers and administrators, respectively. These mean scores evolved when behavioral items were rated as disturbing. The calculated t_ (81) = 2.04, £ = .05 indicated a significant difference between the means, hence, corollary 9b was rejected. Corollary 9c. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Behavioral items encompassing the cluster Socialized Delinquency produced mean scores of 3.7 and 3.2 for teachers and counselors, respectively, when rated as indicative of emotional disturbance. The calculated t (40) = 3.31, p = .002 revealed a significant difference between means; therefore, corollary 9c was rejected. Corollary 9d. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by teachers and counselors for the category of "disturbing."

PAGE 126

112 Mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the cluster Socialized Delinquency were shown at 4.3 and 3.9 for teachers and counselors, respectively, when rating the behavioral items as disturbing. The calculated t_ (33) = 2.29, £ = .03 revealed a statistical difference between means. Corollary 9d was therefore rejected. Corollary 9e. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbance." Computed mean scores for the behavioral items comprising the behavioral cluster Socialized Delinquency were reported at 3.4 and 3.2 for the administrators and counselors, in that order. These mean scores were derived from ratings of the disturbance characteristic of these behavioral items. The calculated t^ (51) = 1.13, £= .26 indicated no difference in rated perceptions between these groups. Corollary 9e was not rejected. Corollary 9f. There is no significant difference between the mean Socialized Delinquency rating scores produced by administrators and counselors for the category of "disturbing." When rated as disturbing in working with children and youth, behavioral items related to the cluster Socialized Delinquency, showed mean scores of 4.1 and 3.9, respectively, for the categorical positions of administrators and counselors. The calculated t^ (44) = .65, p = .52 indicated no statistical difference between mean scores. Corollary 9f was not rejected.

PAGE 127

113 Summary Data were analyzed by Pearson correlations to explore relationships between the rating scores for "disturbed" and "disturbing" behavioral items and behavioral clusters, rated by all participating school personnel and by participants in the categorical positions of teachers, administrators, and counselors. Correlation coefficients were displayed across respondents. The t^ test for two independent samples was utilized to test for significant differences between the mean rating scores produced by teachers and administrators, teachers and counselors, and administrators and counselors for "disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral items and behavioral clusters. Calculated t values, degrees of freedom, and probability values were presented. Computed mean scores and standard deviations were reported for the behavioral items and for the behavioral clusters for all participating school personnel and for three distinct groups of school personnel, including teachers, administrators, and counselors.

PAGE 128

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Data analysis has been presented. The Tables have shovm results of Pearson correlations and t_ tests; selected options include correlation coefficients, t^ scores, mean rating scores, standard deviations, and probability values. A discussion of the conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research will be addressed in this chapter. The state departments of education, as separate entities, have defined emotional disturbance in the educational setting. Each of the 50 states has formulated definitional characteristics of behavior to be employed in the identification of students qualifying for special education services in the behavioral realm. Texts used in colleges or universities have tended to standardize certain behaviors as indicators of emotional disturbance. In addition, behavior rating scales and behavior checklists have been utilized as identification measures for the referral of students for special education services in the category of behavioral disorders. The body of literature concerning those behavioral characteristics perceived as bothersome or disturbing in working with children 114

PAGE 129

115 or youth has proliferated rapidly since the mid 1920' s. Many studies have attempted to identify which types of behaviors create classroom situations interfering with the educational progress of the individual or the group. Investigators have suggested remediating disturbing teaching situations (Algozzine, 1975; Rhodes, 1967, 1970) by determining ecological fit between teachers and students, by discerning teacher tolerance levels for dealing with aberrant behaviors and placing students accordingly, and by emphasizing personal traits of teachers which may contribute to harmonious interactions with students. The latter studies have suggested that the problem lies in the environment rather than with the child, or should be approached from a dual viewpoint, in remediation of the environment and from reconsideration of the problem as being solely child centered. Since emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped students characteristically display aberrant behaviors, it was deemed important to examine the relationship between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness." Issues evolving from the referral process and from placement in the special education category of behavioral disorders reinforced the need for research in differentiating these two conditions. Conclusions Relationships between Respondents It was hypothesized that there would be no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral clusters when characteristics were presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." Pearson correlations were computed between responses and the

PAGE 130

116 coefficients are shown in Table 3. The premise as hypothesized for all eight behavioral clusters depicting aberrant behaviors, including Emotionally Withdrawn, Weak Self-Control , InadequacyImmaturity, Poor Academics, Personality Problems, Poor Relations, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency, was confirmed. Correlations across total participants and responding groups of school personnel were computed at less than .50, signifying a weak relationship for these eight behavioral clusters. The behavioral cluster Appropriate Socialization reported the strongest degree of relationship, with correlation coefficients of .56 for total participants, and .55, .61, and .57 across responding groups of school personnel, teachers, administrators, and counselors, in order. Though the Appropriate Socialization cluster produced higher correlation coefficients than relationships assessed between "disturbance" and "disturbing" for the eight behavioral clusters representative of aberrant behaviors, the reported correlation coefficients still lack the strength of a true relationship which occurs at +1.00 or -1.00. A review of Table 7 and Table 8 provides some indication of the relative strength of the relationships reported for the cluster Appropriate Socialization. Mean scores are rated in the lowest point differential of the five point continuum on the behavior rating scale, signifying not very characteristic of "emotional disturbance" and not very "disturbing." Differences between Groups of Respondents For each of the nine hypotheses stating no relationship between rating scores by school personnel for the nine behavioral clusters.

PAGE 131

117 corollaries stated there would be no significant differences between the mean rating scores of school personnel representative of three positional categories, specifically, teachers and administrators, teachers and counselors, and administrators and coionselors. Table 4 presented t^ scores and probability values for "disturbance" and "disturbing" for behavioral clusters across independent groups of respondents. A probability level was set at .05 for statistical significance for all calculated t^ tests. Cautionary Notes Caution needs to be taken in the interpretation of results. Reliabilities, denoting strength of internal consistency for the main study and for the pilot study, are shown for total behavior rating scale and for behavioral clusters in Table 1. A reliability of .79 was calculated for the main study and .70 for the pilot study. For the main study, six behavioral clusters were reported as having reasonable internal consistency: Appropriate Socialization, InadequacyImmaturity, Poor Academics, Personality Problems, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency. The remaining three behavioral clusters were shown to have weak internal consistency: Emotionally Withdrawn, Weak Self-Control , and Poor Relations. The pilot study had satisfactory internal consistency reported for only four of the nine behavioral clusters. It is possible these scores are reflective of students who may lack the amount of educational training and years of experience in dealing with "disturbed" and "disturbing" behaviors in the classroom. Investigators have

PAGE 132

118 determined that amount of educational training and years of chronological age have made a difference in teachers' expressed attitudes, with the lesser of either more prone to attitudinal changes (Clos, 1966; Sparks, 1952). Experimental problems inherent to internal and external validity as outlined by Campbell and Stanley (1963) may have been important factors in the rerating of the behavior rating scale during the pilot study. More experimental control was possible in the main study. During the one week interval of time, the university students were exposed to course lectures, required readings, and factual information, thus producing problems with history and maturation. Reactive arrangements effect was possible as the students were aware of their role in piloting the behavior rating scale for use in a main study. The number of participants comprising each of the three categorical positions may have contributed to the calculation of significant differences derived statistically by t^ tests. These categories were represented by 95 teachers, 42 administrators, and 23 counselors. Relatively higher mean scores were produced by teachers, but the differences found between teachers and administrators shown in Table 11, and between teachers and counselors shown in Table 12, may in part have been attributed to the aforementioned effect. The lack of significant differences between administrators and counselors (Table 13) may also be related to this effect. In addition, relatively small differences in mean scores produced by the total participants and by the three categories of respondents

PAGE 133

119 across behavioral clusters are shown in Table 7 and Table 8. The significant differences at the .05 level of statistical significance may be limited in interpretative findings due to these small differences in reported mean scores. An additional level of significance was added for the purpose of interpretation, as these differences become important in the decision for referral, placement, and treatment when viewed by various school personnel in their decision making process. Particular caution should be taken in the interpretation of results at this level of concern (p <.10) pertaining to the three behavioral clusters which did not reveal strong internal consistency when computed for reliability. Teachers and administrators. Clusters in which significant differences were found between perceptions of "disturbance" and "disturbing' by teachers and administrators are presented in Table 9. The most significant differences seen in the "disturbance" clusters are those of InadequacyImmaturity, Poor Relations, and Acting Out (p <.01). These three clusters represent behaviors descriptive of students who appear dependent, immature, and unable to build or to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships, and who act in an aggressive or conduct disordered manner which interferes with the teaching process within the classroom. Significant differences were also determined to exist between teachers and administrators in their mean ratings of Weak SelfControl, Poor Academics, and Socialized Delinquency (p <.05). These areas are descriptive of behaviors indicative of the following: restless, inattentive children; those unable to learn commensurate with

PAGE 134

120 Table 9 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" by Teachers and Administrators for Behavioral Clusters Bel

PAGE 135

121 abilities; and students who engage in antisocial endeavors. Though not reaching the level of statistical significance for this study, the cluster Personality Problems, behaviors indicative of pathological character disorder, was perceived differently by teachers and administrators, thus lending some discrepancy in the referral process for special education services in the category of behavior disorders. The most significant difference in the mean rating scores of "disturbing" between teachers and administrators are shown in Table 9 to exist in three clusters C£<.01). These are the areas of Weak Self-Control , InadequacyImmaturity, and Acting Out, and are descriptive of the following behaviors: hyperactive, distractible behaviors; dependent, immature behaviors; and aggressive, conduct disordered behaviors. Significant differences between the perceptions of "disturbing" behaviors reflected by mean rating scores are found in two areas. Poor Academics and Socialized Delinquency, respectively, behaviors representative of an inability to learn commensurate with abilities and engagement in antisocial activities. No differences were shown in the area of concern (p <.10). Teachers and counselors. Clusters in which significant differences were determined between perceptions of teachers and counselors in their rating scores of "disturbance" and "disturbing" are exhibited in Table 10. For these two positional categories of school personnel, the most significant difference seen in the "disturbance" cluster is that of Socialized Delinquency, or antisocial behaviors (£ <.01).

PAGE 136

122 Table 10 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" by Teachers and Counselors for Behavioral Clusters Behavioral Clusters Teachers/Counselors Disturbance Disturbing

PAGE 137

123 SigTiificant differences do appear between the perceptions of teachers and counselors when computing their mean rating scores in the clusters Appropriate Socialization and Acting Out. These areas are descriptive of positive, productive behaviors, and aggressive, conduct disordered behaviors. An explanation for the former may be that in ratings of behaviors characteristic of "emotional disturbance," students displaying characteristics indicative of "disturbance" also demonstrate behaviors considered positive and productive (Epstein, 1941). An alternative suggestion includes a possible problem inherent in the rating format, which required respondents to rate behavioral items to be not very disturbing at the lowest point of the scale, or to omit rating the items in this category, thus giving these behavioral characteristics a score of zero. A third possibility connotes the idea that a student may appear and behave in a sane manner, but may be predetermined as a misfit by significant adults (Haggerty, 1925). In this instance, the student must continue to behave in such a manner which proves innocence rather than guilt (Freeman § Algozzine, 1980). A review of Table 5 indicates that teachers rated the behavioral items higher in both of the areas of significance than did counselors (£ <.05) Three clusters, though not meeting the level of significance statistically, reveal differences in perceptions of "disturbance" (p <.10), when rated by teachers and counselors. These areas include InadequacyImmaturity, Poor Academics, and Poor Relations, again descriptive of students who demonstrate behaviors including: dependent, immature actions; learning skills non-commensurate with abilities;

PAGE 138

124 and an inability to build or to maintain satisfactory relationships with others. The differences in perception indicated by mean rating scores for the condition of "disturbing" are also shown in Table 10. Two clusters reveal differences. Socialized Delinquency (£<.05), and Weak Self-Control (p <.10). These areas, indicative of antisocial activities, and hyperactive, distractible behaviors, may present problems in the referral process when encountered by teachers and counselors, Administrators and counselors. No significant differences between perceptions of administrators and counselors reflected by mean rating scores for the conditions of "disturbance" and "disturbing" across behavioral clusters are shown in Table 11. More agreement is seen between these two types of school personnel than between teachers and administrators, and teachers and counselors. Synthesis of a Behavioral Taxonomy The behavioral characteristics most frequently defined by states as indicative of emotional disturbance in education, in order of frequency, are as follows: unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships; unhappiness, depression; physical illnesses; unable to learn commensurate with ability; and inappropriate behaviors under normal circumstances. The remaining behavioral characteristics reported by states, in order of frequency, are displayed in Appendix D. Most of the states employ the behavioral taxonomy developed by Bower (1960, 1969), and subsequently adopted by the Federal Bureau of

PAGE 139

125 Table 11 t Scores and Probability Values for "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" ~ by Administrators and Counselors for Behavioral Clusters Behavioral Clusters Administrators /Counselors Disturbance Disturbing

PAGE 140

126 Education for the Handicapped through its regulations. Of the nine behavioral clusters formulated by this investigation, five were correlated with the behavioral characteristics proposed by Bower. Specifically, (a) Emotionally Withdrawn--displays a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; (b) InadequacyImmaturity-complains of physical illnesses or impairments; (c) Poor Academics--seems unable to learn commensurate with intellectual, sensory, or physical development; (d) Personality Problems-shows inappropriate types of behaviors, feelings, and/or responses under normal circumstances; and (e) Poor Relations--is unable to build or to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships. Four additional behavioral clusters were formulated by this investigator, one of which. Appropriate Socialization, was included for comparison purposes and for more accurate ratings by school personnel of the other eight, inclusive. Three represent behavioral characteristics used by state departments of education for the purpose of identifying students for the category of behavior disorders in the realm of special education services. These are identified as Weak Self-Control, Acting Out, and Socialized Delinquency, and are not included in Bower's behavioral taxonomy or in the Federal Regulations. Rankings of Aberrant Behavioral Clusters A ranking of behavioral clusters by mean scores, indicating the degree of "disturbance" perceived by all participants and by the three categorical positions of raters is displayed in Table 12. A ranking of behavioral clusters by mean scores indicative of the degree of "disturbingness" perceived by all participants, and by the three types

PAGE 141

127 i-( tn ce Q 4->

PAGE 142

128 (30 c •H U 3 O > o

PAGE 143

129 of school personnel is presented in Table 13. Rankings will be discussed relative to their findings in this investigation, and in order of frequency of existence as a definitional characteristic by state. Poor relations. The behavioral cluster. Poor Relations, or the inability to build or to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships, was defined most frequently by the states as a definitional characteristic. However, when viewing rankings received. Poor Relations was not perceived as too indicative of "emotional disturbance" or as "disturbing" by respondents for this study. Interpretation of results is limited by the lack of sufficient internal consistency for this behavioral cluster. Emotionally withdrawn. The behavioral cluster. Emotionally Withdrawn, encompassing display of a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression, was not seen as particularly "disturbing" by participants. A higher degree of recognition as an indicator of "emotional disturbance" was shown. Counselors perceived this behavioral cluster as more indicative of emotional disturbance than did administrators or teachers, in that order. Wide disparity was not found between ratings of teachers and counselors, as reported in previous studies comparing professional perceptions of teachers and clinicians (Wickman, 1928), teachers and school guidance counselors (Mansergh, 1968), and teachers and school psychologists (Thompson, 1940). Findings of this study were in more agreement with other studies comparing perceptions of teachers and clinicians; specifically, teachers and school guidance counselors (Stewart, 1957; IVhetstone,

PAGE 144

130 1965), and teachers and school psychologists (Penzer, 1962). In these latter studies, teachers were reported as being aware of recessive symptoms of maladjustment and the need for counseling intervention. Interestingly, though ranked higher than other participants in degree of perception of emotional disturbance, the mean rating scores for this behavioral cluster by teachers were slightly lower than for other respondents. Interpretative statements are restricted by the insufficiency of internal consistency. InadequacyImmaturity . The behavioral cluster, InadequacyImmaturity, comprising behaviors symptomatic of dependent, immature behaviors, received comparable rankings, with administrators and counselors perceiving this cluster of behaviors more indicative of emotional disturbance than total participants and teachers in their rankings of "disturbance" characteristics, yet lower in their mean rating scores than the latter mentioned groups of school personnel. Equivalent rankings were given across all responding groups of school personnel in the perceived "disturbingness" of the behavioral cluster. Respectable internal consistency was computed for this behavioral cluster, heightening findings. Poor academics. The behavioral cluster considered by Bower to be the most indicative characteristic of emotional disturbance is Poor Academics, or the inability to learn commensurate with intellectual, sensory, or physical development. The respondents in this investigation found this behavioral characteristic to be more "disturbing" than indicative of "disturbance" in their rankings of degree

PAGE 145

131 of conditions. Reasonable internal consistency found in computation of reliability increases interpretative findings for this behavioral cluster. Personality problems. The behavioral cluster. Personality Problems, characteristic of inappropriate types of behaviors, feelings, and/or responses under normal circumstances, and representative of pathological disorders, was deemed of primary importance as shown by rankings across total participants, and by all responding groups of school personnel. The "disturbingness" of these behaviors was shown of high importance by all respondents, but was clearly differentiated from the condition of "emotional disturbance." Adequate internal consistency lends to interpretative findings for this behavioral cluster. Acting out. The behavioral cluster. Acting Out, encompassed behaviors disruptive to the classroom learning environment. Though omitted in the criteria denoting behavior disorders in the Federal Regulations, this area was noted in frequency by states to be a major definitional characteristic for the identification of students for emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped education in special education. In addition, texts written by recognized authorities in the field of behavior disorders state this factor to be one of the primary descriptors of students in need of services (Kauffman, 1977; Reinert, 1976; Shea, 1978). This behavioral cluster received high rankings by all participants, and by all responding groups of school personnel in this study. Though higher mean rating scores were given this area by total

PAGE 146

132 participants and by teachers and administrators, counselors ranked this cluster. Acting Out, as the primary "disturbing" area in working with children or youth. Penzer (1962) reported clinicians as having recognized the seriousness of acting out behavior. Numerous investigators concluded that teachers were concerned with disorderly, aggressive behavior interfering with the immediate teaching situation (Appendix E) . Teachers, administrators, and counselors, in order, rank this cluster as a major indicator of "emotional disturbance." This finding is in agreement with the results reported by Mansergh (1968) . Findings for this behavioral cluster are strengthened by high internal consistency. Weak self-control. As a behavioral cluster. Weak Self-Control is more typically related to the behaviors displayed by students served in the specific learning disabilities category of special education, yet no mention of these behaviors appears in the behavioral criteria of the Federal Regulations. Much confusion is radiated by this omission in the criteria for specific learning disabilities, or by the non-inclusion of these behaviors as definitional criteria for the category implying behavior disorders. If students displaying these characteristics do not qualify for the specific learning disabilities category through tests for suspected academic and processing deficits given to derive expectancy formulas, the more typical result is nonplacement and non-treatment. To this investigator, this is the most serious grey zone of the entire spectrum in special education.

PAGE 147

133 Interestingly, Weak Self-Control received relatively high rankings for both "disturbing" and "disturbance" by all respondents, teachers, administrators, and counselors, in order of perceived "emotional disturbance." Caution is indicated in the interpretation of this behavioral cluster due to weak internal consistency. Socialized delinquency. The behavioral cluster. Socialized Delinquency, was descriptive of antisocial behaviors or activities in which children and youth participate. Federal Regulations have exempted social maladjustment from the definitional criteria for emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped education unless meeting one or more of the criteria established for the category implying behavioral disorders in special education. This cluster was ranked the primary "disturbing" area by teachers and administrators, and the second most "disturbing" area by counselors. Teachers and administrators found this behavioral cluster indicative of "emotional disturbance" to a high degree; whereas, counselors found Socialized Delinquency moderately characteristic of "disturbance." Strong internal consistency lends support to interpretation of this behavioral cluster. Implications The referral process, established fairly uniformly throughout school districts, is based upon the perception of student behaviors by various types of school personnel. Definitional criteria have been established by the 50 state departments of education. Most of these states employ the behavioral taxonomy developed by Bower and subsequently adopted by the Federal Bureau of Education for the Handicapped

PAGE 148

134 through its regulations. Yet, to date, there are no national criteria establishing qualifications for students for emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped education in special education. Need for Uniformity An official definition of emotional disturbance in the educational realm has yet to be written (Kauffman, 1977). The sole criterion for disturbance, accepted by experts in the field (Kauffman, 1977; Kirk, 1962; Reinert, 1976) has been the detrimental effect of a child's or youth's behavior upon self or others, in terms of development, adjustment, and education. Kauffman (1977) qualified this criterion by stating that it is the degree of disturbedness which connotes emotional disturbance, and that within the degree, there are levels of mild, moderate, and severe disturbance. This lack of national criteria for establishing definite qualifications for emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped educational services in special education lends itself to much vulnerability. Unlike other categories in special education, defined by intellectual, sensory, or physical cutoff points, the category of behavior disorders is resplendent with subjectivity. Commonality of Behavior Rating Scales The usual manner of determining qualification is to produce scores on an adapted behavior rating scale or behavior checklist. In an effort to analyze the overlapping of behaviors on such instruments recommended by the Florida State Bureau of Exceptional Education, the investigator performed an item analysis of all behaviors listed on

PAGE 149

135 four behavior rating scales reconunended for use in the identification of emotionally handicapped students. The four instruments included: the Behavior Problem Checklist (Quay § Peterson, 1967); the Walker Problem Behavior Identification Checklist (Walker, 1970); the Ottawa School Behavior Check List (Pimm § McClure, 1969); and the Devereux Child Behavior (DCB) Rating Scale (Spivack § Spotts, 1966). Only 12 behaviors were found to be included across the four instruments, 15 behaviors to occur across three of the instruments, and an additional 11 behaviors common to two of the instruments, totaling 38 behaviors which might identify a student as emotionally handicapped. It appears that a student is emotionally handicapped according to which instrument is used to identify deviant behaviors. Appendix I displays a matrix of the commonality of these behavior rating scales. Controversial Issues With the categorical designation of emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped, as termed by a majority of the states, the abundance of ethical and legal controversies is no surprise. This category is particularly ripe for controversies of ethical and legal natures (Ramsey § Ramsey, 1980). With no nationally accepted definition or set of criteria upon which to verify placement in this category, who is qualified to say that a student is emotionally disturbed? This term connotes a pathological disorder which lends little to treatment. The labeling of a child or adolescent has been found stigmatizing, especially in the category of emotional disorder (Foster, Ysseldyke § Reese, 1975; McCarthy § Paraskevopoulos , 1969; Vacc, 1968).

PAGE 150

136 Many special education directors depend upon the medical diagnoses of clinical psychologists or psychiatrists. This places a medical diagnosis on an educational category, with few sources available to produce support services. Most of the counties in Florida, 41 of the total 67, are defined as a Non-Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (NONSMSA) , as described in Appendix B. Few resources are available for the severely disturbed in these areas, which comprise the majority of school districts in Florida (Florida Directory, 1980). There is a difference in the identification of emotionally disturbed in the medical realm, and in the educational arena. To depend solely upon medical diagnoses is to regress several decades of growth in the provision of specialized services in special education, and to place a student where few services may be available to meet the individual's specific needs. Prognosis has limited usefulness as an educational approach (Reynolds § Balow, 1971). Most teachers certified in emotionally disturbed education have been taught techniques of behavior modification and affective methods; however, additional services, both in-school and out, are required in the remediation of the severely disturbed (Ramsey, 1977). Relationships between "Disturbance" and "Disturbing" It was hypothesized there would be no relationship between school personnel rating scores for the behavioral clusters when characteristics were presented in the categories "disturbance" and "disturbing." No correlations above .50 were computed for aberrant behavioral clusters. This confirms the assumptions that school personnel perceive certain

PAGE 151

137 behavioral characteristics to be indicative of emotional disturbance, and school personnel perceive certain behavioral characteristics to be disturbing in working with children and youth. No relationship was determined between the conditions of "disturbance" and "disturbing" by responding participants. Implications for this finding are that educators do not consider characteristics of emotionally disturbed students disturbing to them, or that the disturbing behaviors of students are a problem indigenous to the individual perpetrating these behaviors, and do not emanate from an emotional condition of the individual. The latter infers the problem to be child centered. Differentiations in Identification, Placement, and Treatment Differences, both of statistical significance and of concern, perceived by various types of school personnel, lend to problems in the decision making process for identification, placement, and treatment. Teachers produced relatively higher overall rating scores for individual behavioral items than administrators or counselors. Teachers are closer in proximity to the behaviors being emitted, as they are positioned in the classroom with the students. These behaviors are further removed from administrators and counselors, even though many are former teachers. Perhaps the impact of dealing with and coping with these deviant behaviors on a daily basis has diminished. An alternative implication is that the main function of the teacher is to instruct, and that teachers therefore ought to be the most concerned with behaviors that interfere with their role performance.

PAGE 152

138 Groundwork was laid by Siders (1979) for differentiation in identification, placement, and treatment of students with special needs. In-service training is appropriate for various types of school personnel, including teachers, administrators, and counselors, in the identification of emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in the educational realm. In addition, in-service training in behavior management techniques will help treatment to occur in the student's least restrictive environment. Establishment of National Criteria The lack of uniformity between behavioral criteria in the Federal Regulations, and definitional criteria reported by the 50 states, presents a massive gap in the establishment of national criteria for qualification in the realm of special education serving behavior disorders. The behavioral taxonomy developed by Bower has sufficed thus far in an attempt to establish some degree of unification. However, three behavioral clusters were rated high in their perceived degree of "emotional disturbance" by respondents in this study, including teachers, administrators, and counselors. These behavioral clusters, termed Acting Out, Weak Self-Control , and Socialized Delinquency, are also included in the behavioral characteristics for definitional purposes by some states, and therefore need to be considered for inclusion in the Federal Regulations. Acting Out, descriptive of aggressive, conduct disordered behaviors, is recognized by authorities in the field of emotionally disturbed education to be a primary descriptor of students in need of special

PAGE 153

139 services. In addition, researchers have found this behavioral cluster to be the foremost behavior prompting teachers to refer students for special services in the category of behavior disorders (Libby, 1975; Quay et al. , 1966). Though listed as seventh in frequency, nine states included this behavioral cluster as a definitional characteristic (Appendix D) . Credence is added to the inclusion of aggressive, acting out behaviors as an indicator of emotional disturbance by the rankings of mean scores reported in Table 12, by the commonality of this type of behavior across the behavior rating scales presented in Appendix 1, and by the strength of internal consistency as reliability in Table 1. Weak Self-Control is characterized by hyperactive, distractible behaviors, with these behaviors omitted from definitional qualifications for any category of special services in special education. Though these behaviors are considered indigenous to students served in the category of specific learning disabilities, qualification is determined by academic and processing deficits, with an omission of accompanying behaviors in the Federal Regulations. Therefore, if expectancy scores are not obtained at a specified level, students demonstrating behaviors characteristic of Weak Self-Control are excluded from receiving any type of special services in special education. Researchers have addressed the differential behaviors observed between emotionally disturbed and specific learning disabled children (Barr § McDowell, 1972; Guetzloe, 1975; McCarthy S Paraskevopoulos , 1969; Wagonseller, 1973), but no mention was made of identification, placement, or

PAGE 154

140 treatment of students exhibiting Weak Self-Control behaviors who do not qualify for special services based on academic and processing deficits. Kauffman (1977) purports hyperactivity, distractibility, and impulsivity to overlap specific learning disabled and emotionally disturbed populations. Kauffman (1977) and Shea (1978) identify hyperactivity and attention problems to be major facets of disordered or disturbed behavior. Though listed as a definitional characteristic by only eight states, participants in this study perceived Weak SelfControl to be an indicator of emotional disturbance. In addition, the behaviors restlessness, distractibility, and impulsivity are shown in Appendix I to find commonality across the majority of the behavior rating scales recommended for use in the identification of emotionally handicapped students. V\feak internal consistency as calculated for reliability may bare some limitations to these findings. Social maladjustment, or Socialized Delinquency, encompasses antisocial behaviors perpetrated by children or adolescents. Federal Regulations have exempted social maladjustment from the criteria for emotionally disturbed education unless accompanied by one or more of the behavioral criteria adopted by the regulations. Interestingly, the delinquent behaviors of stealing, destruction of property, profane language, and truancy are found in common across rating scales recommended for use in the identification of emotionally handicapped students by the Florida State Bureau of Exceptional Education (Appendix I).

PAGE 155

141 Though included as a definitional characteristic by only one state, participants in the study perceived this behavioral cluster to be a distinct, separate entity indicative of emotional disturbance, as shown by the degree of rating scores for "disturbance." This finding is enhanced by the strong internal consistency computed for reliability for this behavioral cluster. Kirk (1962) found differentiation between social maladjustment, emotional disturbance, and delinquency, a subcategory of socially maladjusted, to be difficult because the dynamics of behavior in all three may be similar. Behaviors considered most detrimental to future adjustment were associated with violations of the school community's social and moral code (Sparks, 1952). Kauffman (1977) and Shea (1978) report deficiencies in moral development and chronic disobedience to be types of behaviors inherent to emotional disturbance. Investigators have differentiated disturbance characteristics of delinquents from those of normal youth (Jenkins § Glickman, 1946; Peterson, 1961; Peterson et al., 1959; Quay, 1964; Quay § Quay, 1965). Recommendations This study was performed to determine whether relationships exist in perceptions of school personnel toward behavioral characteristics of "emotional disturbance" and behavioral characteristics "disturbing" in working with children and youth. Secondarily, the study compared the relative perceptions of teachers, administrators, and counselors toward these two conditions. Parameters of "emotional disturbance" were obtained in three ways. First, definitional characteristics used by the 50 state

PAGE 156

142 departments of education to identify students in need of emotionally disturbed or emotionally handicapped services in special education were assembled. The definitional characteristics used by the 50 states formed the substantive base of items rated by the respondents in this study. Second, instruments in the form of behavior rating scales and behavior checklists typically employed in the identification of emotionally disturbed children and youth in the educational realm were analyzfed for content. Third, theoretical postulates were assembled from authorities in the field of emotional disturbance, the latter stated in college texts used to prepare teachers of emotionally disturbed children. Numerous educators and clinicians recognize the investigation by Wickman to be the first major study which attempted to identify specific behaviors found bothersome or disturbing in working with children and youth. Since the mid 1920's, a series of replications and modifications, 33 to date, have attempted to identify behavioral characteristics determined by school personnel to be "disturbing" in working with children and youth. This study purports to have replicated the idea emanating from the Wickman study. It was designed to explore relationships between "disturbedness" and "disturbingness" as perceived by various types of school personnel. The investigator of the study succeeded in deterraing that certain behaviors are both indicative of "disturbance" and "disturbing" to educators, but cannot statistically corroborate that the 50 state definitional taxonomies comprise an irrefutable

PAGE 157

143 definition. From the findings of this study, the following recommendations are presented: 1. Replications of this study might be performed in other school districts, so that a comparison of results can be made. 2. Comparisons of perceptions might be made between different types of school personnel and community support service professionals. 3. There is a great need for uniformity in the definitional criteria, on a national basis, in the special education category of emotionally disturbed. 4. The adoption of a less medically oriented and less stigmatizing term for the category of emotional disorder in the educational realm is necessary. This investigator recommends the adoption of the term "behavior disorders" and codification by the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. 5. In-service training for various types of school personnel in the identification of emotionally handicapped students is essential. 6. Research needs to be conducted to answer questions pertinent to the referral, placement, and treatment paradigm operating in most school districts: a. Are children and youth in need of emotionally handicapped services being correctly identified? b. Are types of school personnel using the same definitional criteria for identification of emotionally handicapped students?

PAGE 158

144 c. Are more consistent rating devices needed for identification of emotionally disturbed children? d. Do state department of education officials need to become better informed about the content of instruments being used in their states to identify emotionally handicapped students? e. Does teacher tolerance play a significant part in the identification of emotional disturbance? f. Are there biasing effects in the identification of children who are seen to be in need of emotionally handicapped services? g. Are different types of school personnel recognizing the same types of disturbingness within the classroom? h. Are children in need of emotionally handicapped services receiving appropriate treatment in their least restrictive environment? i. Is in-service training being provided for various types of school personnel in behavior management techniques? 7. Consideration needs to be given to the addition of three new behavioral criteria to the Regulations of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. These are Acting Out, Weak Self-Control , and Socialized Delinquency.

PAGE 159

145 a. Acting Out: Is aggressive to the extent that detrimental effects are foreseen to occur to self or to others. b. Weak Self-Control: Is continuously displaying hyperactive, distractible behaviors which interfere with the learning process. c. Socialized Delinquency: Engages in consistent antisocial, destructive behaviors indicative of inappropriate socialization, but not in the context of cultural bias. 8. Consideration needs to be given to the modification of one behavioral criteria which would define more clearly the behavioral cluster to which it relates. Emotionally Withdrawn: Displays a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; avoids social contact.

PAGE 161

147 c ft 0)

PAGE 162

148 ra 00 ^ CTl a —I .

PAGE 163

149 If) *->

PAGE 164

150

PAGE 165

151 <

PAGE 166

152 c .c 0) ^ -H AS C '-' •-H CC Xl S Oh COC P.-M

PAGE 167

APPENDIX B PERTINENT FACTS RELATING TO PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA The school system in which data were collected is Putnam County, one of Florida's 67 school districts. It is located in the northeast quadrant of the state, and situated on the St. Johns River, providing access to the Atlantic Ocean and the Intracoastal Waterway. The county seat is Palatka, the name derived from the Seminole Indian word "Pilatka" meaning "crossing over" or "cow's crossing." Renowned as the "Bass Capital of the World" (Putnam County, 1980), the county derives fame and income from fishing. This highly visible process creates both a commerical fish industry and a thriving tourist industry, as well as a unifying cultural force. Many species of fish, in addition to blue crabs and shrimp, are accessible in the St. Johns River. A delightful network of 1,500 lakes abounds with game fish and encourages decentralized settlement (Putnam County, 1980). The economy is based primarily on manufacturing and agriculture. Existing industries employing a large proportion of the area residents include Seminole Electric Co-operative, Florida Power and Light Company, Florida Furniture Industries, Sheffield Steel Products, E. P. K. Clay Diversified Industries, Florida Rock Industries, Putnam 153

PAGE 168

154 Shipbuilding, and Growers Container Cooperative. Producers of wood pulp and paper products are Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Palatka Diversified Industries, Central States Diversified Industries, L S W Wood Products, D. S. I. Forms, and State Paper Tube. Besides fishing, agriculture enterprises include horse and cattle raising, dairy farming, poultry and egg production, commercial nursery crop raising, citrus groves production, and truck farming. Three industrial sites are located in the Palatka area. The Putnam County Port Authority maintains a 96 acre industrial park with approximately 35 acres of undeveloped property remaining in the Barge Port complex. The park has its own water system, with a network of rail, air, water, and highway transportation. The city of Palatka owns the property on which the airport is located and has established a 75 acre portion for a second industrial development. The third industrial site is privately owned. This 75 acre location is currently being developed on a lease or purchase basis. Transportation is accommodated by highway U.S. 17 and State Roads 19, 20, 100, and 207, with a close access to Interstate 95. Freight and passenger services are provided through Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, main line; Southern Railway, southern terminus; Florida East Coast Railway, branch line; and the Amtrak. At least 11 commercial truck lines transport freight, and the St. Johns River Barge Port handles commodities by way of the St. Johns River and the Intracoastal Waterways System. The Greyhound Lines provide commercial surface transport of passengers and light cargo. Charter Airline service is available at Palatka' s Kay Larkin Airport, with scheduled air carrier

PAGE 169

155 service just 40 miles west in Gainesville, and 55 miles northeast in Jacksonville. Churches are representative of all major denominations, with the heaviest membership in the traditionally southern Baptist and Methodist denominations. Cultural attractions include community concerts, art shows sponsored by the Palatka Art League, the Annual Azalea Festival, and special musical and theater programs presented by the Florida School of the Arts. The latter is an adjunct to the St. Johns River Community College, located in Palatka and listed as one of the 28 community colleges throughout Florida. A local historical society maintains monuments and sites, rehabilitates period buildings, and sponsors library holdings. Supervised recreational programs are sponsored in Palatka, Crescent City, and in rural areas. County lakes and rivers are utilized for water sports, and numerous parks provide for camping. Both restricted nature preserves and posted hunting grounds flourish in the sparsely inhabited lands of the county. Latest population estimates state Putnam County to contain a reported population for April 1, 1979, of 45,693 (Thompson, 1980), with the city of Palatka containing 9,308 and about 16,000 more in the unincorporated adjacent zones (Thompson, 1980). Other municipalities include Interlachen, Pomona Park, Welaka, Crescent City, and Melrose (unincorporated); however, 32,739 (72 percent) of the populus live in the unincorporated sectors of the county. The medium population projection for Putnam County in 1985 is 49,900, with a 25.4 percent increase in county population occurring between 1970 and 1979.

PAGE 170

156 Other statistics relating to the educational populus were secured by this investigator. Of the total population of 45,693 reported for April 1, 1979, 10,244 (22 percent) were from black or minority races (Population Studies, Bulletin No, 52, 1980). Of 16,900 households, the average household size was 2.7, with 58.7 persons reported per square mile (Population Studies, Bulletin No. 51, 1980). Putnam County ranked thirty-third in population density in the state (Florida Estimates, 1979). Dwelling and church patterns follow racial lines, and income patterns within racial boundaries. Commercial and governmental entities show obvious integration of the races in many functional forms. A total of 16 schools comprise the Putnam County District School System. A total of 9,734 students were reported in the Fall of 1979, with 70.15 percent white, 29.34 percent black, and 0.53 percent racial minorities (MIS Statistical Brief, 1979-1980). Socioeconomic reports revealed personal income in 1978 to average $5,036.00 in Putnam County, below the Florida average of $7,578. A socioeconomic ranking of fiftieth in the state was reported (U.S. Department of Commerce, unpublished) . In a compilation of the state assessment test given students at stated grade levels in Florida, the current Superintendent of Public Instruction showed scores for school year 1979-1980 in reading, writing, and math to exceed average state scores by several points in grade 8; however, local district scores were depressed by one to nine points in comparison with state averages in grades 3, 5, and 11.

PAGE 171

157 In general, Putnam Coimty is found to be representative of the non-metropolitan counties in the state of Florida (Thompson, 1980). Of the total 67 counties, 26 counties are defined as a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) and 41 as NONSMSA. A SMSA county is one which contains at least one city, of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or twin cities with a combined population of at least 50,000; or with 25,000 inhabitants which together with contiguous places, socially and culturally integrated with the central city, having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and a combined population of 50,000 or more, and the county population in which the cities are located comprising a total population of 75.000. These counties, in the minority, reflect a metropolitan statistical area. A NONSMSA county is one which does not meet the aforementioned criteria, and includes Putnam County, along with a majority of the counties in Florida.

PAGE 172

APPENDIX C STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION REFERENCE SOURCES States Reference Sources Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Special education regulations. Montgomery: Alabama Department of Education, 1980. State of Special education handbook . Juneau : Department of Education, 1978. State of Alaska Arizona revised statutes: Title 15 . Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education, 1980. Program standards and eligibility criteria for special education . Little Rock: Arkansas Department of Education, Division of Instructional Services, Special Education Section, 1978. Master plan for special education . Sacramento, CA: State Board of Education, 1978. Guideline handbook for educational and related serv ices for SIEBD: Guidelines for designing and implementing educational and related services for students with signigicant identifiable emotional or behavioral dis orders (SIEBD) . Denver: Colorado Department of Education, 1980. Douville, D. Guidelines for the socially-emotionally maladjusted . Hartford: Connecticut State Department of Education, in press. Special education regulations. Dover, DE: Department of Public Instruction, 1979. A resource manual for the development and evaluation of special programs for exceptional students (Vol. II-E) : Emotionally handicapped . Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Education for Exceptional Students, 1979. 158

PAGE 173

159 States Reference Sources Georgia Behavior disorders: Resource manuals for program for exceptional children (Vol. 3). Atlanta: Office of Instructional Services Division of Special Programs, Program for Exceptional Children, Georgia Department of Education, 1980. Hawaii Idaho Programs and services for the seriously emotionally disturbed . Honolulu: Office of Instructional Services/Special Needs Branch, 1977. Administrative rules and regulations for special education . Boise: IdaJio State Department of Education, 1979. Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Rules and regulations to govern the administration and operation of special education . Springfield: State Board of Education, 1979. Rules, regulations, and policies adopted and promulgated by the commission on general education of the Indiana State Board of Education State of Indiana : Rule S-1 . Indianapolis: Commission on General Education of the Indiana State Board of Education, 1978. The identification of emotionally disabled pupils : Data and decision making (microfilm). Des Moines: State of Iowa Department of Public Instruction, Special Education, 1979. Special education: State plan for fiscal year 1981 . Topeka: Kansas State Department of Education, 1981. Kentucky administrative regulations: Related to exceptional children . Lexington: Bureau of Education for Exceptional Children, Kentucky Department of Education, 1978. Louisiana Pupil appraisal handbook: Bulletin 1508 . Baton Rouge: Department of Education, 1978. Maine Special education regulations (3rd ed.). Augusta: State of Maine, Department of Educational and Cultural Services, Division of Special Education, 1978. (Originally Administrative handbook , 1973.) Mary 1 and Cooperative planning for the handicapped: Resource manual . Annapolis: Maryland State Department of Education, 1980.

PAGE 174

160 States Reference Sources Massachusetts Regulations 766: Massachusetts Department of Education . Boston: Board of Education, Division of Special Education, 1978. Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Michigan special education rules . State Board of Education, 1980. Lansing: Michigan Elliott, C. Minnesota regulations. St. Paul: Bureau of Exceptional Student Education, 1980. (correspondence) Special education regulations. Jackson, MS: Special Education Section, Division of Instruction, State Department of Education, 1980. Missouri Montana Missouri statutes . Jefferson City: State of Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1980. Special education regulations. Helena, MT: Office of Public Instruction, 1981. Nebraska Development of reimbursable local special education programs for handicapped children: NDE Rule 51 . Lincoln: Nebraska Department of Education, 1978. Nevada Standards for administration of special education programs . Carson City: Division of Special Education, Nevada Department of Education, 1979. New Hampshire Annual program plan amendment: Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act as amended by Public Law 94-142 . Concord: New Hampshire State Department of Education, Vocational Rehabilitation Division, Special Education Section, 1979. New Jersey New Jersey administrative code: Title 6, education . Trenton, NJ: State Board of Education, 1978. New Mexico Student identification, evaluation, and program selection. Special education regulations. Santa Fe: State of New Mexico Department of Education, 1981. New York Regulations of the commissioner of education sub chapter P: Part 200 handicapped children . Albany: The State Education Department, Office for Education of Children with Handicapping Conditions, 1980.

PAGE 175

161 States Reference Sources North Carolina Emotionally handicapped pupils: Developing appropriate educational programs . Raleigh, NC: Division for Exceptional Children/State Department of Public Instruction, 1977. North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Guide I laws, policies, and regulations for special education for exceptional students . Bismark, ND: Department of Public Instruction, 1977. Guidelines regarding the eligibility, evaluation, and placement of severe behavioral handicapped children . Columbus: State of Ohio Department of Education, 1980, Policies and procedures manual for special education in Oklahoma . Oklahoma City: State Department of Education, 1980. Adopted Oregon rules for special education . Eugene : State Department of Education, 1980. Standards for special education . Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1980. Rhode Island Education for handicapped children: ml at ions for Rhode Island Board of Regents for Education . State of Rhode Island, 1980. Providence : South Carolina Mohr, L, Office of programs for the handicapped. Columbia: State of South Carolina Department of Education. (correspondence) South Dakota Publications catalog information . Pierre: South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs. 1980. Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Rules, regulations, and minimum standards 1979-1980 . Nashville: Tennessee State Board of Education, 1980. Policies and administrative procedures for the education of handicapped students. Austin: Texas Education Agency, 1980. Special education regulations. Salt Lake City: Utah State Office of Education, 1980. Vermont annual program plan: Appendix D eligibility standards for special education . Montpelier: Vermont State Department of Education, Division of Special Educational and Pupil Personnel Services, 1979.

PAGE 176

162 States Reference Sources Virginia Special education regulations. Richmond, VA: State Department of Education, in press. (Telephone conversation) Washington Rules and regulations for programs providing services to children with handicapping conditions (Chapter 392173 WAC). Olympia: State of Washington, 1980. West Virginia Standards for the education of exceptional children. Charleston: Bureau of Learning Systems, West Virginia Department of Education, 1980. Wisconsin Rules implementing subchapter IV of chapter 115, Wisconsin statutes. Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1978. Wyoming Wyoming regulations. Cheyenne: State of Wyoming Department of Education, 1981.

PAGE 177

APPENDIX D DEFINITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE BY STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION

PAGE 178

Definitional Characteristics States

PAGE 179

165 Definitional Characteristics States

PAGE 180

166

PAGE 181

167 Definitional Characteristics States

PAGE 182

168

PAGE 183

169 Definitional Characteristics States

PAGE 184

no Definitional Characteristics States

PAGE 186

172 cu ^

PAGE 187

173 Oh 0) +-> o in G ta 3 O rt c/^ x; c XI -M •T3 X C +-I 3 -H O S (/) i/l in c w C nJ 0) e c vi o M GO -r-l M xx; X rt X O XI T-H

PAGE 188

174 0) (D •H f-i O r-H O 0) -l-l 4-1 CO fn O -H (D fH U1 0) x: o O Oh C <4-l
PAGE 189

175 a>

PAGE 190

176

PAGE 191

177 pu ^

PAGE 192

178 ft IT) • C
PAGE 193

179 U 13 O C H cd > ca (i> x: c Tl

PAGE 194

180 a. <

PAGE 195

181

PAGE 196

182 ft rH a

PAGE 198

1S4

PAGE 199

185 Oh

PAGE 200

APPENDIX G "DISTURBANCE" RATING SCALE AND "DISTURBING" RATING SCALE

PAGE 201

"Disturbance" Rating Scale Certain behavioral characteristics may be considered by various school personnel to be indicative of emotional disturbance. Please respond to each of the following items indicating, from your perception, how characteristic it is of emotional disturbance. Ask yourself, "In identifying children, is '...item...' characteristic of emotional disturbance?" Answer the item, circling 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. NVC-ED = Not very characteristic of emotional disturbance (1) VC-ED = Very characteristic of emotional disturbance (5) Behavioral Items NVC-ED VC-ED 1. Is unable to build or to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships. 12 3 4 5 2. Shows inappropriate types of behaviors, feelings, and/or responses under normal circumstances. 12 3 4 5 3. Lacks self-control; indicates poor impulse control. 12 3 4 5 4. Is acutely shy or withdrawn; avoids social contact. 12 3 4 5 5. Displays a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. 12 3 4 5 6. Is polite, respectful of others. 12 3 4 5 7. Complains of physical illnesses or impairments. 12 3 4 5 8. Seems unable to learn commensurate with intellectual, sensory, or physical development. 12 3 4 5 9. Takes his/her turn appropriately. 12 3 4 5 187

PAGE 202

188 Behavioral Items NVC-ED VC-ED 10. Has impulsive, compulsive behaviors (excessive movement) ; appears unable to perceive consequences. 11. Displays restless, hyperactive behaviors, is constantly moving. 12. Talks incessantly, out of turn. 13. Exhibits a poor self-concept. 14. Reacts negatively to instructions or commands; refuses to correct mistakes, complete work. 15. Lacks effective communication skills; has speech problems. 16. Is truthful, honest with others. 17. Engages in behavior considered dangerous to himself/herself and/or to others. 18. Starts but does not complete tasks. 19. Engages in bizarre behaviors and/or speech. 20. Shares materials with others in a work situation. 21. Has difficulty listening and/or paying attention; is easily distracted. 22. Appears restless; displays a short attention span. 23. Is truant, tardy, or absent excessively. 24. Manipulates other persons and/or situations to get his/her own way. 25. Exhibits severe acting out behavior; is physically aggressive toward others. 26. Seeks teacher attention at appropriate times. 2 3 4! (emotional disturbance)

PAGE 203

189 Behavioral Items NVC-ED VC-ED 27. Demonstrates poor academic achievement, non-commensurate with ability. 28. Shows extreme interest in the morbid. 29. Demands excessive attention; engages in silly, attention seeking behavior. 30. Resists, defies authority or structure; challenges teacher imposed limitations; acts defiant. 31. Appears frustrated by tasks or school routine. 32. Fantacizes or exaggerates occurrences. 33. Demonstrates self-reliance, independence. 34. Daydreams to a significant degree. 35. Is unresponsive to others; ignores social initiations by peers. 36. Disrupts the classroom; creates a disturbance during class activities. 37. Appears happy and cheerful; seems good natured. 38. Has frequent temper tantrums. 39. Is destructive of personal property; damages property of others. 40. Expresses feelings of inferiority; debases personal feats. 41. Displays nervous, anxious, stress laden mannerisms. 42. Maintains an aloofness from others. 43. Displays a disinterest in the environment; appears to be unmotivated, lethargic. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 (emotional disturbance)

PAGE 204

190 Behavioral Items NVC-ED VC-ED 44. Engages in repetitive, stereotyped motor behavior. 45. Has a slovenly appearance. 46. Is deficient in self-help skills; demands excessive individual attention and/or assistance. 47. Produces work of acceptable quality given his/her skill level. 48. Acts in a self-derogatory manner; is physically and/or verbally abusive toward self. 49. Uses free time appropriately. 50. Has inappropriate vocalizations, unusual language context; babbles. 51. Acts in a childish, immature manner; whines, sulks, pouts. 52. Cooperates with peers in group activities or situations. 53. Self-stimulates; masturbates. 54. Demonstrates angry, temperamental irritable behaviors. 55. Follows established classroom rules. 56. Procrastinates; delays beginning tasks or activities. 57. Displays high levels of dependence; lacks self-confidence. 58. Attempts to answer a question when called on by the teacher. 59. Is unreliable or irresponsible when asked to perform. (emotional disturbance)

PAGE 205

191 Behavioral Items NVC-ED VC-ED 60. Acts easily frightened, fearful, intimidated by events or other persons. 61. Is overly sensitive, over-reacts; is easily discouraged. 62. Ignores the distractions or interruptions of other students during academic activities. 63. Is suspicious of others; acts paranoid. 64. Follows the group; is suggestible, easily led into trouble. 65. Is verbally aggressive toward others. 66. Uses profane, obscene language, gestures. 67. Lies; distorts the truth. 68. Resolves peer conflicts or problems adequately on his/her own. 69. Makes irrelevant remarks and/or asks irrelevant questions. 70. Cheats; copies work of others. 71. Forces the submission of peers by being dominant, bossy, and/or overbearing. 72. Compliments peers regarding some attribute or behavior. 73. Is overly affectionate toward peers and/or adults. 74. Interrupts the teacher when engaged in a presentation or activity. 75. Steals; takes property belonging to others. 76. Argues; must have the final word in verbal exchanges. 2 3 4 (emotional disturbance)

PAGE 206

192 Behavioral Items NVC-ED VC-ED 77. Engages in inappropriate sexual behavior. 12 3 4 5 78. Has a close friend(s); initiates conversation. 12 3 4 5 79. Does not follow rules; is willfully disobedient. 12 3 4 5 80. Uses property of others without asking permission. 12 3 4 5 You have just rated 80 items. Please indicate which of the following is true. (Check one.) 1. I rated the extent to which the items were characteristic of emotional disturbance. 2. I rated the extent to which the items were bothersome or disturbing in working with children.

PAGE 207

193 "Disturbing" Rating Scale Certain behavioral characteristics may be considered by various school personnel to be bothersome or disturbing in working with students. Please respond to each of the following items indicating, from your perception, how disturbing it is in working with children. Ask yourself, "In working with children, is '...item...' disturbing?" Answer the item, circling 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. NVD = Not very disturbing (1) VD = Very disturbing (5) Behavioral Items NVD VD 1. Is acutely shy or withdrawn; avoids social contact. 2. Has impulsive, compulsive behaviors (excessive movement); appears unable to perceive consequences. 3. Displays restlessness, hyperactive behaviors, is constantly moving. 4. Lacks self-control; indicates poor impulse control. 5. Displays a pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. 6. Is polite, respectful of others. 7. Complains of physical illnesses or impairments. 8. Seems unable to learn commensurate with intellectual, sensory, or physical development. 9. Takes his/her turn appropriately. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5

PAGE 208

194 Behavioral Items NVD VD 10. Shows inappropriate types of behaviors; feelings, and/or responses under normal circumstances. 12 3 4 5 11. Is unable to build or to maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships. 12 3 4 5 12. Talks incessantly, out of turn. 12 3 4 5 13. Exhibits a poor self-concept. 12 3 4 5 14. Reacts negatively to instructions or commands; refuses to correct mistakes, complete work. 12 3 4 5 15. Lacks effective conmiunication skills; has speech problems. 12 3 4 5 16. Is truthful, honest with others. 12 3 4 5 17. Engages in behavior considered dangerous to himself/herself and/or to others. 12 3 4 5 18. Starts but does not complete tasks. 12 3 4 5 19. Engages in bizarre behaviors and/or speech. 12 3 4 5 20. Shares materials with others in a work situation. 12 3 4 5 21. Has difficulty listening and/or paying attention; is easily distracted. 12 3 4 5 22. Appears restless; displays a short attention span. 12 3 4 5 23. Is truant, tardy, or absent excessively. 12 3 4 5 24. Manipulates other persons and/or situations to get his/her own way. 12 3 4 5 25. Exhibits severe acting out behavior; is physically aggressive toward others. 12 3 4 5 (disturbing)

PAGE 209

195 Behavioral Items NVD VD 26. Seeks teacher attention at appropriate times. 27. Demonstrates poor academic achievement, non-commensurate with ability. 28. Shows extreme interest in the morbid. 29. Demands excessive attention; engages in silly, attention seeking behavior. 30. Resists, defies authority or structure, challenges teacher imposed limitations; acts defiant. 31. Appears frustrated by tasks or school routine. 32. Fantacizes or exaggerates occurrences. 33. Demonstrates self-reliance, independence. 34. Daydreams to a significant degree. 35. Is unresponsive to others; ignores social initiations by peers. 36. Disrupts the classroom; creates a disturbance during class activities. 37. Appears happy and cheerful; seems good natured. 38. Has frequent temper tantrums. 39. Is destructive of personal property; damages property of others. 40. Expresses feelings of inferiority; debases personal feats. 41. Displays nervous, anxious, stress laden mannerisms. 42. Maintains an aloofness from others. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 (disturbing)

PAGE 210

196 Behavioral Items NVD VD 43. Displays a disinterest in the environment; appears to be unmotivated, lethargic. 44. Engages in repetitive, stereotyped motor behaviors. 45. Has a slovenly appearance. 46. Is deficient in self-help skills, demands excessive individual attention and/or assistance. 47. Produces work of acceptable quality given his/her skill level. 48. Acts in a self-derogatory manner; is physically and/or verbally abusive toward self. 49. Uses free time appropriately. 50. Has inappropriate vocalizations, unusual language context; babbles. 51. Acts in a childish, immature manner; whines, sulks, pouts. 52. Cooperates with peers in group activities or situations. 53. Self-stimulates; masturbates. 54. Demonstrates angry, temperamental, irritable behaviors. 55. Follows established classroom rules. 56. Procrastinates; delays beginning tasks or activities. 57. Displays high levels of dependence; lacks self-confidence. 58. Attempts to answer a question when called on by the teacher. (disturbing)

PAGE 211

197 Behavioral Items NVD VD 59. Is unreliable or irresponsible when asked to perform. 60. Acts easily frightened, fearful, intimidated by events or other persons. 61. Is overly sensitive, over-reacts; is easily discouraged. 62. Ignores the distractions or interruptions of other students during academic activities. 63. Is suspicious of others, acts paranoid. 64. Follows the group, is suggestible, easily led into trouble. 65. Is verbally aggressive toward others. 66. Uses profane, obscene language, gestures. 67. Lies; distorts the truth. 68. Resolves peer conflicts or problems adequately on his/her own. 69. Makes irrelevant remarks and/or asks irrelevant questions. 70. Cheats; copies work of others. 71. Forces the submission of peers by being dominant, bossy, and/or overbearing. 72. Compliments peers regarding some attribute or behavior. 73. Is overly affectionate toward peers and/or adults. 74. Interrupts the teacher when engaged in a presentation or activity. 75. Steals; takes property belonging to others. (disturbing)

PAGE 212

198 Behavioral Items NVD VD 76. Argues; must have the final word in verbal exchanges. 77. Engages in inappropriate sexual behavior. 78. Has a close friend(s); initiates conversation. 79. Does not follow rules; is willfully disobedient. 80. Uses property of others without asking permission. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 You have just rated 80 items. Please indicate which of the following is true. (Check one.) 1. I rated the extent to which the items were characteristic of emotional disturbance. 2. I rated the extent to which the items were bothersome or disturbing in working with children.

PAGE 213

APPENDIX H DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FORM

PAGE 214

Demographic Information : Please answer each item by checking the appropriate space, or by writing a word or short explanatory phrase where necessary. 1. Your Age: 2. Position; 3. Level of Position: 20 and under 26-30 () 36-40 46-50 21-25 31-35 41-45 51 and over () Teacher () Assistant Principal () Principal () Guidance Counselor () Dean Q County Level School Psychologist Administrator Other (please specify) Elementary () Secondary () Support Services, all levels C) Other (please specify) 4. If indicated Teacher, please check in regard to CURRENT position: a. Classification : () General Education () Other (please specify) Special Education B. Classroom Setting : () Regular (including team teaching, departmental) Self-Contained special education Resource Room () Other (please specify) 5. Professional Experience : # years total #years current position # years general education #years special education #years other (please specify) 6. Sex : 7. Race: 8. Marital Status: 9. Number of Offspring : Male Caucasian Female Black Spanish-American () Mexican-American () Other (please specify) Single Married Total Number # Males # Females 10. Educational Training : Degree (s) College or University City, State 200

PAGE 215

APPENDIX I COMMONALITY OF BEHAVIORS ON SELECTED INSTRUMENTS -u Sl— — OU— SCOT] Social withdrawal, plays alone Restlessness, inability to sit still Attention-seeking, "show-off" behavior 4.

PAGE 216

REFERENCES Aaron, I. S. Teachers' attitudes toward children's behavior: A study of teachers' attitudes toward children's behavior problems and their relationship to pupil-teacher morale (Doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1958). Dissertation Abstracts , 1958, 19^, 1024. (University Microfilms No, 58-2125) Algozzine, R. F. Attractiveness as a biasing factor in teacherpupil interaction (Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1975) . Dissertation Abstracts International , 1976, 36^ 7059A. (University Microfilms No. 76-10, 702) Algozzine, R. F. The disturbing child: V#iat you see is what you get? The Alberta Journal of Educational Research , 1976, 22^, (4), 330-333. Algozzine, R. F. The disturbing child: A validation report . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1979. Bain, W. E. A study of the attitudes of teachers toward behavior problems. Child Development , 1934, 5^(1), 19-35. Barr, K. L. , S McDowell, R. L. Comparison of learning disabled and emotionally disturbed children on three deviant behaviors. Exceptional Children , 1972, 39(1), 60-62. Beller, E. K. , § Neubaer, P. B. Sex differences and symptom patterns in early childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry , 1963, 2^(3), 417-433. Borg, W. R. , § Gall, M. D. Educational research (3rd ed.). New York: Longman, 1979. Bower, E. M. Early identification of emotionally handicapped children in school . Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1960. Bower, E. M. Early identification of emotionally handicapped children in school (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1969. 2:02

PAGE 217

203 Boynton, P. L. , § McGaw, B. H. The characteristics of problem children. Journal of Juvenile Research , 1934, 18^(4), 215-222. Brophy, J. E., § Good, T. L. Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1970, 61_(5) , 365-374. Bunting, C. E. The development of a set of scales for the assessment of educational attitudes of teachers and the examination of their relationships to assessments of teacher-perceived principal behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1978, 39, 244A. (University Microfilms International No. 7810795) Burks, H. F. Burks' Behavior Rating Scales: Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1977. Campbell, D. T. , § Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1963. Carroll, H. A. Mental hygiene: The dynamics of adjustment (5th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Christoplos, F. , 5 Renz, P. A critical examination of special education programs. Journal of Special Education , 1969, 3^(4), 371-379. Clark, E. J. Teacher reactions toward objectionable pupil behavior. The Elementary School Journal , 1950, 51^(1), 446-449. Clos, M. Evaluation of mental health workshops in Kentucky. Journal of Educational Research , 1966, 59(6), 278-281. Combs, R. H. , 5 Harper, J. L. Effects of labels on attitudes of educators toward handicapped children. Exceptional Children , 1967, 33^(5), 399-403. Curran, T. J. The influence of ecological fit on teachers' expectations (Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1977, 38, 701A. (University Microfilms No. 77-17, 682) Davis, H. V. Attitudes of teachers on school behavior problems can be changed. Clearing House , 1958, 33^(1), 44-46. Deno, E. Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 1970, 37(3), 229-237.

PAGE 218

204 Dickson, V. E. Behavior difficulties that baffle teachers. Journal of Juvenile Research , 1932, 1(6(2), 93-101. Dielman, T. E. , Cattell, R. B. , S Lepper, C. Dimensions of problem behavior in the early grades . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1971, 37(2), 243-249. DuHamel, T. R. , § Jarmon, H. Social schemata of emotionally disturbed boys and their male siblings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1971, 36(2), 281-285. Dunn, L. M. Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children , 1968, 3£(1) , 5-22. Ellis, D. B., § Miller, L. W. Teachers' attitudes and child behavior problems. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1936, 27 , 501-511. Epstein, L. J. An analysis of teachers' judgments of problem children. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1941, 59, 101-107. Federal register: Implementation of part B of the education of the handicapped act (Vol. 42, No. 163). Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Education of Handicapped Children, August 1977. Pent on, N. Mental hygiene in school practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1949. Flanagan, J. C. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin , 1954, 51^(4), 327-358. Flanders, N. A., Morrison, B. M. , 5 Brode, E. L. Changes in pupil attitudes during the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1968, 50(5), 334-338. Florida Council for Community Mental Health. Florida directory of residential programs for children. Miami, FL: Author, 1980. Florida estimates of population, April 1, 1979: State, counties, municipalities. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Division, 1979. Foster, G. , Algozzine, B. , § Ysseldyke, J. Susceptibility to stereotypic bias (Research Report No. 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1979. Foster, G. G. , Ysseldyke, J. E. , & Reese, J. I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it. Exceptional Children , 1975, 41(7) , 469-473.

PAGE 219

205 Freeman, S. , § Algozzine, R. F. Social acceptability as a function of labels and assigned attributes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency , 1980, 84(6), 589-595. Gallagher, J. L. The special education contract for mildly handicapped children. Exceptional Children , 1972, 38(17), 527-535. Garrison, M. , 5 Hammill, D. Who are the retarded? Exceptional Children , 1971, 38(1), 13-20. Glavin, J. P. Persistence of behavior disorders in children. Exceptional Children , 1971, 38^(4), 367-375. Good, T. L. Which pupils do teachers call on? Elementary School Journal , 1970, 70(4), 190-198. Good, T. L., § Brophy, J. E. Looking in classrooms (2nd ed.). New York: Harper § Row, 1978. Guetzloe, E. C. Preferred learning patterns and behavioral dimensions of seriously emotionally disturbed and seriously disabled children: A comparison (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1976, 36^, 798A. (University Microfilms No. 76-12, 213) Haggerty, M. E. The incidence of undesirable behavior in public-school children. Journal of Educational Research , 1925, 12^(2), 102-122. Hammons, G. W. Educating the mildly retarded: A review. Exceptional Children , 1972, 38(6), 565-570. Harth, R. , S Glavin, J. P. Validity of teacher rating as a subtest for screening emotionally disturbed children. Exceptional Children , 1971, 37(8), 605-606. Hersh, J. B. Effects of referral information on testers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 1971, 37(1), 116-122. Hunter, E. C. Changes in teachers' attitudes toward children's behavior over the last thirty years. Mental Hygiene , 1957, 4j_(2) , 3-11. Jenkins, R. L. , § Glickman, S. Common syndromes in child psychiatry. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1946, 16^(2), 244-261. Johnson, J. L. Special education and the inner city: A challenge for the future or another means for calling the mark out. Journal of Special Education , 1969, M3) , 241-251. Jones, R. A. Self-fulfilling prophecies . New York: John Wiley S, Sons, 1977.

PAGE 220

206 Jones, R. L. Labels and stigma in special education. Exceptional Children , 1972, 38(6), 553-564. Kaplan, L. The annoyances of elementary school teachers. Journal of Educational Research , 1952, 45(8), 649-665. Kauffman, J. M. Characteristics of children's behavior disorders . Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1977. Kelly, T. M. , Bullock, L. M. , S Dykes, M. K. Teachers' perceptions of behavioral disorders in children . Gainesville, FL: Florida Educational Research and Development Coiincil, 1974. Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Kitano, H. H. L. Perceptual changes in school administrators following consultation about problem children. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 1961, 8^(2), 129-135. Klein, D. B. Mental hygiene: A survey of personality disorders and mental health . New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1944. Lambert, N. M. , 5 Bower, E. M. A process for in-school screening of children with emotional handicaps . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1961. Lapouse, R. , & Monk, M. A. Behavior deviations in a representative sample of children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1964, 34(3), 436-446. Laycock, S. R. Teachers' reactions to maladjustments of school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1934, 4(1), 11-29. Lee, J. M. , S Lee, D. M. The child and his curriculum . New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1940. Libby, G. W. Source of referral, type of problem, and the initial teacher-pupil relationship in selected resource programs for the child with emotional difficulties (Doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International . 1975, 35^, 5172A. (University Microfilms No. 75-2613) Lilly, M. S. Special education: A teapot in a tempest. Exceptional Children , 1970, 37(1), 43-49. Long, N. J., Morse, W. C. , § Newman, R. G. (Eds.). Conflict in the classroom: The education of emotionally disturbed children . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1965.

PAGE 221

207 MacClenathan, R. H. Teachers and parents study children's behaviors. Journal of Educational Sociology , 1933, 7^(4), 325-333, Maes, W. R. The identification of emotionally disturbed school children. Exceptional Children , 1966, 32(8), 607-609. Major, 1. How do we accept the handicapped? Elementary School Journal , 1961, 61_, 328-338. Mansergh, G. G. The perceptions of school personnel and parents toward behavior problems of children (Special Monograph No. 4). Minneapolis: Educational Research and Development Council of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1968. Masling, J. The effects of warm and cold interaction on the administration and scoring of an intelligence test. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1959, Z3 (4) , 336-341, McCarthy, J. M. , § Paraskevopoulos , J. Behavior patterns of learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and average children. Exceptional Children , 1969, 36(2), 69-74. McClure, W. E. Characteristics of problem children based on judgments of teachers. Journal of Juvenile Research , 1929, 1J^(2) , 124-140. McDermott, J. F. , Harrison, S. E. , Schrager, J., Lindy, J., § Killins, E. Social class and mental illness in children: The question of childhood psychosis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1967, 37(4), 548-557. McFie, B. S. Behavior and personality difficulties in school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1934, 4_(1), 30-46. Meichenbaum, D. H. , Bowers, K. S. , § Ross, R. R. A behavioral analysis of teacher expectancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1969, 13^(4), 306-316. Mensh, I. N. , Kantor, M. B. , Domke, H. R. , Gildea, M. C. L. , 5 Glidewell, J. C. Children's behavior symptoms and their relationships to school adjustment, sex, and social class. Journal of Social Issues , 1959, 15(1), 8-15. MIS statistical brief: Students by race/ethnic group (Series 80-15). Tallahassee: State of Florida, Department of Education, Division of Public Schools, 1979-1980. Mitchell, J. C. A study of teachers' and mental hygienists' ratings of certain behavior problems of children. Journal of Educational Research, 1942, 36(4), 292-307.

PAGE 222

208 Nelson, C. M. Techniques for screening conduct disturbed children. Exceptional Children , 1971, 37(7), 501-507. Noland, M. , S Bruber, J. A. Self-perception, personality, and behavior in emotionally disturbed children. Behavioral Disorders , 1978, 4(1), 6-12. O'Malley, K. E. A psychological study of the annoyances or irritations of teachers (Doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1935). Doctoral Dissertations , 1935, No. 2, 52. (University Microfilms No. 73-3342) Palardy, J. M. What teachers believe--what children achieve. Elementary School Journal , 1969, 69^(7), 370-374. Patterson, G. R. An empirical approach to the classification of disturbed children. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1964, 20, 326-337. Peck, L. Teachers' reports of the problems of unadjusted school children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1935, 26^, 123-128. Penzer, E. S. Ratings of seriousness of behavior problems of elementary school boys by teachers, school psychologists, and clinicians in Nassau County: Correlations of teachers and schools where quantity and functions of school psychological services vary (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1961). Dissertation Abstracts , 1962, 22^, 4273-4274. (University Microfilms No. 62-1479) Peterson, D. R. Behavior problems of middle childhood. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1961, 2£(3) , 205-209. Peterson, D. R. , Quay, H.C., § Cameron, G. R. Personality and background factors in juvenile delinquency as inferred from questionnaire responses. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1959, 2_3(5) , 395-399. Pimm, J. B. , § McClure, G. Ottawa school behavior check list. Ottawa, Canada: Pimm Consultants Limited, 1969. Population studies (Bulletin No. 51). Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Division, March 1980. Population studies (Bulletin No. 52). Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Population Division, May, 1980. Pullias, E. V. How do you behave when children misbehave? Childhood Education , 1934, 10(5), 230-237. Putnam County Chamber of Commerce. Putnam county (Rev. ed.). Palatka, FL: Author, 1980,

PAGE 223

209 Qaisar, S. An analysis of the Quay-Peterson Behavior Problem Checklist as an instrument to screen emotionally disturbed children (Doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1975, 35, 6542A-6543A. (University Microfilms No. 75-8218, 103) Quay, H. C. Personality dimensions in delinquent males as inferred from the factor analysis of behavior ratings. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 1964, 1^(1), 34-37. Quay, H. C. Personality patterns in pre-adolescent delinquent boys. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 1966, 26^(1), 99-110. Quay, H. C. , § Peterson, D. R. A brief scale for juvenile delinquency. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1958, 1£, 139-142. Quay, H. C. , § Peterson, D. R. Manual for the behavior problem checklist . Champaign: Children's Research Center, University of Illinois, 1967. Quay, H. C. , § Quay, L. C. Behavior problems in early adolescence. Child Development , 1965, 36(1), 215-220. Quay, H. C. , Werry, J. S. , McQueen, M. , § Sprague, R. L. Remediation of the conduct problem child in the special class setting. Exceptional Children , 1966, 32(7), 509-515. Ramsey, R. W. Educating troubled youth amid whirlwind social change. In R, E. Schmid, J. Moneypenny, § R. Johnston (Eds.), Contemporary issues in special education . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Ramsey, R. S., § Ramsey, R. W. Legal and moral conflicts in service delivery for the emotionally disturbed adolescent. Paper presented at the Council for Children with Behavior Disorders Conference, Minneapolis, August 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 195 125) Ramsey, R. W. , § Ramsey, R. S. Educating the emotionally handicapped child in the public school setting. Adolescence , 1978, 13(52) 537-541, Redl, F. Foreword. In N. J. Long, W. C. Morse, ^ R. G. Newman (Eds.), Conflict in the classroom: The education of emotionally disturbed children (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1965. Reinert, H. R. Children in conflict: Educational strategies for the emotionally disturbed and behaviorally disordered. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1976. " Reynolds, M. C. A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children , 1962, 28^(17), 367-370. Reynolds, M. C. Policy statements: Call for response. Exceptional Children , 1971, 37(6), 421-433.

PAGE 224

210 Reynolds, M. C. , § Balow, B. Categories and variables in special education. E xceptional Children , 1971, 38(4), 357-366. Rhodes, W. C. The disturbing child: A problem of ecological management. Exceptional Children , 1967, 33(7), 449-455. Rhodes, W. C. A community participation analysis of emotional disturbance. Exceptional Children , 1970, 36(5), 309-314. Robbins, R. C. , Mercer, J. R. , § Meyers, C. E. The school as a selecting-labeling system. Journal of School Psychology , 1967, ^(4), 270-279. Rosenthal, R. , § Jacobson, L. Teachers' expectancies: Determinants of pupils' I.Q. gains. Psychological Reports , 1966, 19(1), 115118. Rothbart, M. , Dalfen, S. , § Barrett, R. Effects of teacher's expectancy on student-teacher interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1971^ 62(1), 49-54. Ryans, D. G. Some relationships between pupil behavior and certain teacher characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1961, 52(2), 82-90. (a) Ryans, D. G. Inventory estimated teacher characteristics as covariants of observer assessed pupil behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1961, 52^(2), 91-97. (b) Salvia, J. A., Clark, G. M., § Ysseldyke, J. Teacher retention of stereotypes of exceptionality. Exceptional Children , 1973, 39(8), 651-652. Salvia, J. A., Schultz, E. W. , § Chaplin, N. S. The effect of class size on the identification of potentially disturbed children. Exceptional Children , 1974, 40(7), 517-519. Schrupp, M. H., § Gjerde, C. M. Teacher growth in attitudes toward behavior problems of children. Journal of Educational Psycholo gy, 1953, 44(4), 203-214. Shea, T. M. Teaching children and youth with behavior disorders . St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1978. Shotel, J. R. , lano, R. P. , § McGettigan, J. F. Teacher attitudes associated with the integration of handicapped children. Exceptional Children , 1972, 38(9), 677-683.

PAGE 225

211 Siders, J. A. A comparison of discrepancy values: Classroom placement considerations for exceptional education (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International , 1980, 40, 5006A. (University Microfilms No. 80-05, 499) Sparks, J. N. Teachers' attitudes toward the behavior problems of children. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1952, 45(5) , 284-291. Spivack, G. , Haimes, P. E., § Spotts, J. Devereux adolescent behavior rating scale manual . Devon, PA: The Devereux Foundation, 1967. Spivack, G. , § Spotts, J. Devereux child behavior rating scale: Manual . Devon, PA: The Devereux Foundation, 1966. Spivack, G. , § Swift, M, S. The Devereux Elementary School Behavior Rating Scales: A study of the nature and organization of achievement related disturbed classroom behavior. Journal of Special Education , 1966, HI), 71-90. Spivack, G. , § Swift, M. S. Devereux elementary school behavior rating scale manual . Devon, PA: The Devereux Foundation, 1967. Stennett, R. G. Emotional handicap in the elementary years: Phase or disease? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 1966, 56(5) , 444-449. Stewart, L. H. Teachers and counselors look at students: Some implications for guidance practice. Personnel and Guidance Journal , 1957, 55(9), 565-568. Stogdill, R. M. Parental attitudes and mental hygiene standards. Mental Hygiene , 1951, 15(4), 815-827. Stouffer, G. A. W. Behavior problems of children as viewed by teachers and mental hygienists. Mental Hygiene , 1952, 56(2) , 271-285. Stouffer, G. A. W. The attitude of secondary-school teachers toward certain behavior problems of children. School Review , 1956, 64(8), 558-562, Swap, S. M. Disturbing classroom behaviors: A developmental and ecological view. Exceptional Children , 1974, 41^(5), 165-172. Swift, M. S. , S Spivack, G. The assessment of achievement-related classroom behavior. Journal of Special Education , 1968, 2^(2), 157-155.

PAGE 226

212 Swift, M. S., § Spivack, G. Achievement related classroom behavior of secondary school normal and disturbed students. Exce ptional Children , 1969, 36(2), 99-104. Thompson, C. E. The attitudes of various groups toward behavior problems of children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps ychology, 1940, 35, 120-125. Thompson, R. A. (Ed.). Florida statistical abstracts . Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1980. Tiedeman, S. C. A study of pupil-teacher relationship. Journal of Educational Research , 1942, 35.(9), 657-664. Towbin, A. P. When are cookbooks useful? American Psychologist , 1960, 1£, 119-123. Ullmann, C, A. Identification of maladjusted school children (Monograph No. 7). Washington, DC: United States Public Health Service, 1952. Ullmann, L. P., § Krasner, L. A psychological approach to abnormal behavior . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, unpublished data. Vacc, N. A. A study of emotionally disturbed children in regular and special classes. Exceptional Children . 1968, 35^(1), 197-203. Veldman, D. J., Brophy, J. E. Measuring teacher effects on pupil achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1974, 66(3), 319-324. Wagonseller, B. R. Learning disability and emotional disturbance: Factors relating to differential diagnosis. Exceptional Children , 1973, 40(3), 205-206. Walberg, H. J. Teacher personality and classroom climate. Psychology in the Schools , 1968, 5^(2), 163-169. Walker, H. M. Walker problem behavior identification checklist manual . Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services, 1970. Walker, H. M. , S, Rankin, R. Development, testing, and replication of a social behavior survival (SBS) program for roainstreaming handicapped children . Unpublished manuscript. University of Oregon, 1981.

PAGE 227

213 Watson, G. A critical note on two attitude studies. Mental Hygiene , 1933, r/Cl), 59-64. Weinstein, L. Social schemata of emotionally disturbed boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 1965, 79(6), 457-461. Werry, J. S., § Quay, H. C. A method of observing classroom behavior of emotionally disturbed children. Exceptional Children , 1968, 34(5), 389. Whetstone, B. D. Personality differences between selected counselors and effective teachers. Personnel and Guidance Journal , 1965, 43(9), 886-890. Wickman, E. K. Children's behavior and teachers' attitudes . New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1928. Wickman, E. K. Digest of children's behavior and teachers' attitudes . New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1938. Young-Masten, I. Behavior problems of elementary school children: A descriptive and comparative study. Genetic Psychology Monographs , 1938, 20(2), 121-181. Yourman, J. Children identified by their teachers as problems. Journal of Educational Psychology , 1932, 5^(6), 334-343. Zax, W. , Cowen, E. L. , Izzo, L. D. , § Frost, M. A. Identifying emotional disturbance in the school setting. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34(3), 447-454.

PAGE 228

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Roberta S. Ramsey was bom in Ocala, Florida, on June 5, 1940. She was graduated from Ocala High School in 1958. She received her bachelor's degree cum laude in elementary education and early childhood from the University of Florida in 1962; her master's degree in special education from the University of Florida in 1976. She attended three additional universities, including Florida State University, Michigan State University, and the University of Georgia. She has had eight years of experience in the public schools and two years in the private sector. These experiences have been in six different geographical locations and with differing socio-economic populations. She initially taught general education classrooms, specifically grades 2, 3, 4, and 5. In Dade County, Florida, she worked with bilingual students. In DeKalb County, Georgia, she taught with the abilities' level system. In 1971 and 1972, she was an instructor and a director of a private vocational school in Detroit, Michigan. During the 1974-1975 school year, she taught in a Title I program and with adult education in Marion County, Florida. From 1975 to 1978, she worked on three levels of the special education continuum, self-contained classroom, resource room, and consultation, 214

PAGE 229

215 with students classified as emotionally handicapped, specific learning disabled, and educable mentally handicapped. She served as Middle School Department Chairman while teaching at the Alternative School, a secondary center for severely emotionally disturbed adolescents in Alachua County, Florida. Program requirements were fulfilled for the Ph. D. degree in special education from June 1978 to August 1981 at the University of Florida. During her period of doctoral study, she served as a coordinator and a seminar leader for the Childhood Education Program, General Education Department, University of Florida. In addition, she was engaged in consultant work in various Florida school districts, and for several public special service institutions. In 1980, she was employed as a Program and Staffing Specialist in the Exceptional Education Department in Putnam County, Florida. The specialty areas in her doctoral program included (1) emotionally handicapped education, (2) administration and supervision, (3) specific learning disabilities, and (4) educational research. Upon completion of the doctoral program, she will be employed in administration in the public schools.

PAGE 230

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 ,^,,#rs a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Rex E. Schmid, ^Chairman Associate Professor of Special 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. dh^ Robert F. Algozzine, C^ch^i:^an Associate Education Professor of Special 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. Cr^7V~^ Charles JX^orgnone [J Professor of Special Education

PAGE 231

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. RalphB. Kimbrough Professor of Educational Administration and Supervision 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. a. V D, 7yi ^^^-^ ^ Cecil D. Mercer Professor of Special Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Special 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. August 1981 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 232

/ERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08553 1449