CHANGE IN EMOTIONAL AWARENESS AND SELF-CONCEPT

IN FOUR TO FIVE YEAR OLD DISADVANTAGED NEGRO

CHILDREN THROUGH A STRUCTURED GROUP

PSYCHOLOGICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

by

WILLIAM JEROME KLEINPETER, III, B.S.

A DISSERTATION

IN

PSYCHOLOGY r

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

A n T T r n v f i d

May, 1973

"'"•"««••

îo\

1073

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I am deeply indebted to Professor Joseph B. Ray for

his direction of this dissertation and to the other members

of my committee, Professor Charles Mahone, Associate Profes-

sor William Landers, and Professor Charles Jones.

Additionally, thanks go to Harold Goolischian and

Bill Patton who provided incentive and financial support

for me to pursue my special interest leading to this

research project.

Warm mention must also go to Waldo Palomares, Harold

Bessell, Jerry Southard, and Tim Timmerman for their

hospitality and personal attention extended to me while

the present research problem was being formulated.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• t

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 11

LIST OF TABLES vi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Review of the Literature: The

Disadvantaged Negro Child 4

Purpose of the Study 18

II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 19

Subjects 19

General Experimental Design 20

Dependent Variables 21

Affect Awareness: Theory and

Supporting Data 21

Affect Measures 27

Self-Concept 33

The Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents

Test (Brown) 36

Teachers' Behavioral Ratings 38

Procedures 42

Hypotheses 46

III. RESULTS 51

General Summary of Collected Data and Organization of Results Presented 51 Characteristics of the Children Studied . . 58

111

Results of Data Analysis Revealing Differences Between Experimental and Control Groups 62

Changes in Intelligence as a Function of Participation in the HDP 68

Differential Responses of Boys and Girls to the HDP 69

Post hoc Results Obtained After Collapsing of the Four Groups into One Experimental Group and One Control Group 75

IV. DISCUSSION . 77

Characteristics of the Children Studied . . 77

The Mainland Center Comparisons on Posttest Data: Significant Findings and Implica-tions: Experimental Group I vs Control Group I 78

Mainland Experimental Compared to Distal Control Groups: Significant Findings and Implications: Experimental Group I vs Control Group II 81

Intact Experimental (EII) and Control Groups (CII) Chosen from Two Differ-ent Day-Care Centers: Findings and Implications 86

Human Development Program and Intelligence . '. I ', ", ', 93

Differences in Response to the Human Development Program Between Girls and Boys on Posttesting 95

Overview of Major Experimental Effects for the Two Experimental Groups 100

Collapsing and Comparing of Results of Experimental Groups I and II with Control Groups I and II 105

IV

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 107

Suggestions for Further Research 116

REFERENCES 119

APPENDIX 127

A. Knowledge of Affect Words Test 128

B. Affect Acknowledgment Scale 129

C. Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale . . . 132

D. Evaluative Responses Inventory 143

E. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test 208

F. Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist . . . . 213

G. Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale 224

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Summary Table: Mean Pretest, Posttest Scores by Group by Dependent Variables 52

2. Summary of ;t Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Chronological Ages of Experimental and Control Subjects 58

3. Summary of ib Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Raw Scores of Experimental and Control Subjects 59

4. Mean Peabody Raw Scores, Mean Chronological Age, and Mean Peabody Mental Ages by Group . . . 60

5. Summary of t. Tests Comparing Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II on Pretest Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist Teacher Ratings 61

6. Summary of Experimental Control Group Comparisons for All Dependent Variables . . . . 63

7. Summary of t Tests Comparing Experimental and Control Groups on Gain Scores on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Scores—Pretest to Posttest 68

8. Summary Tables Analysis of Multiple Covari-ance by Sex, Means Adjusted with Covariates: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Scores and Pretest Scores on Respective Dependent Variables 71

9. Analysis of Multiple Covariance on Collapsed Data: EI + EII Compared with CI + CII on Posttest Results 76

VI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Early childhood education and preventive mental health

programs need a place of meeting. The child mental health

crisis and the educational crisis of the 1970's point to

pressing educational and emotional needs in children in the

United States which are not being met (Report of the Joint

Commission, 1970; Gordon & Wilkerson, 1966). These needs

demand innovative, coordinated, and systematic planning

from both educators and mental health professionals. There

are immediate demands which require the development of

newer methods for dealing with the acute emotional problems

with which contemporary children are faced. Additionally,

preventive programs to promote normal emotional growth and

development need further implementation. These programs

need to be applied in established social institutions,

such as the educational system, for the most parsimonious

use of professionals and community resources. The changing

role of psychologists will include the preparation of

teachers in mental health principles and practices. Hope-

fully, in the near future the teachers and administrators

of the school programs in which children are placed will be

involved increasingly in preventing crippling life-long

patterns of maladjustment from being perpetuated and aggra-

vated. This is essential for white, middle-class children

who are intellectually, socially, and emotionally advan-

taged as well as of paramount importance for the "pseudo"

intellectually retarded and emotionally disadvantaged

lower-class children. It is this latter group whose

emotional development was the topic for investigation in

the following research. A preventive mental health program,

suitable for use in the classroom with a regular teacher

and with culturally disadvantaged Negro preschool children,

was evaluated.

Contemporary trends in preschool kindergarten, Head

Start and special early childhood education programs for

the disadvantaged throughout the United States challenge

educators and mental health professionals to rethink what

needs to be tau^ht and developed in "culturally different"

youngsters to facilitate their maximum social and cognitive

development (Beck & Saxe, 1965; Blom, Waite, & Zimet, 1968).

Many authors agreed that mere simplification of first

grade academic work to be administered in smaller doses

to preschool children was in many cases inappropriate and

unwise (Mussen, Conger, & Kagan, 1969). Additionally,

special language deficits, poor abstracting abilities,

short attention span, and other cognitive deficits most

often reported as characteristic of the disadvantaged

child prevented the effective use of traditional approaches

with them (Mussen, Conger, & Kagan, 1969).

In addition to these cognitive intellectual deficits,

it is estimated that 20 to 25% of Head Start children are

crippled in their emotional development by age four (Report

of the Joint Commission, 1970). This suggests that social-

emotional development shall have a high priority of impor-

tance in planning for the needed corrective experiences.

Designing emotional development programs for younger

and younger disadvantaged children demands that psycholo-

gists: (1) learn much more about early emotional and cogni-

tive development in these children; (2) find ways to clearly

communicate this understanding to teachers; and (3) encour-

age teachers to utilize techniques, programs and skills

which will help these children to experience, understand,

and communicate their feelings in an adequate, effective

manner. Self-understanding and understanding others more

fully becomes a primary goal. More often than not the

emotional development of disadvantaged children is left to

chance or crowded into a curriculum without a plan for

implementation. Everyone realizes the importance of good

early emotional development; yet, it is difficult for

professionals to transmit their knowledge so that it is

carried out in the classroom on a day by day basis (Borton,

1967; Bessell, 1969).

In recent years a number of programs have been develop-

ed to "teach" feelings systematically or to enhance

emotional or affective development in young children. One

of these programs is the Human Development Program (1969)

(HDP). There is no published research which has empiri-

cally evaluated the program, however. Thus, a demonstration

of the program's effectiveness in helping Negro disadvan-

taged children progress emotionally would be extremely

valuable. Positive results conceivably could influence

Head Start and other preschool programs throughout the

United States to begin planning and implementing systematic

emotional development programs to enhance and complement

current cognitive approaches.

. Review of the Literature: The Disadvantaged j Qgj o CH TH'

Feelings of being "different" and unacceptable are

often seen in Negro children.

The Negro child . . . gradually becomes aware of the social significance of racial membership. . . . He perceives himself as an object of derision and dis-paragement, as socially rejected by the prestigeful elements of society, and as unworthy of succorance and affection. Having no compelling reasons for not accepting this officially sanctioned, negative evalu-ation of himself, he develops feelings of inferiority [Ausubel, 1958, p. 365].

A large number of the Negro children in the United

States feel powerless and worthless. As early as the age

of three Negro children begin to prefer white skin to black.

They begin to think of Negroes in general and themselves

specifically as ugly, unwanted, and "bad" (Pettigrew, 1964).

Inadequacy and inferiority often become a psychological

fact of life long before the Negro child enters school.

Sociological, physiological, and psychological

factors influencing this inadequacy have been researched

extensively. A short review of some of the more critical

psychological and physiological factors follows.

Among physiological factors a large body of

literature suggested that the Negro mother often receives

inadequate nutritional and prenatal care resulting in

complications during pregnancy; therefore, prematurity

and congenital defects take a high toll (Knobloch, Rider,

Harper, & Pasamanick, 1956; Pasamanick & Knobloch, 1958;

Pasamanick, Knobloch, & Lilienfeld, 1956). Many of the

abnormalities noted involve neurological damage resulting

in impaired intellectual abilities, behavioral distur-

bances, and include hyperactivity, distractability, short

attention span, low frustration tolerance and perceptual-

motor dysfunctions (Bronfenbrenner, 1967). It also is

known widely that neurological disorders resulting from

complications of pregnancy and birth are considerably

more frequent for males than females. Likewise it is

well documented that reading disorders are likely to be

as much as eight or nine times more common for boys than

for girls (Pasamanick & Knobloch, 1958). Certainly this

factor accounts for early frustration and often contributes

to school failure in Negro boys. Kawi and Pasamanick

(1959) found that instances of two or more complications

of pregnancy were over nine times as frequent in the

records of mothers whose children later exhibited severe

reading difficulties as in a control population matched

on social class and other relevant variables.

It is demonstrated readily that many poor Negro

children do not receive even minimal health care, as most

of the Negro children included in the 600,000 children

between the ages of 3 and 5 years who attended Head Start

programs in 1965 had not been to a physician or dentist

and had not received their immunizations (United States

House of Representatives, 1965). Malnutrition often has

been posited as a chronic reality among poor, urban Negro

children. This alone is likely to increase children's

vulnerability to sickness, loss of energy and motivation,

feelings of estrangement, and decreased frustration

tolerance.

The lower class poverty environment is likely to

contribute to the lack of intellectual and emotional

development of Negro children. This is strikingly illus-

trated by the report of the Joint Commissiori on Mental

Health of Children (1970). In that report they discuss

eight major factors closely associated with poverty:

(1) the poverty environment; (2) chronic unemployment;

(3) low income; (4) life styles which are a product of

impoverishment; (5) poor physical and mental health;

(6) large families; (7) broken families; (8) little

education.

They suggested that,

One fourth of American children under age eighteen live in poor families. Non-white children are almost four times as likely to be disadvantaged as white children. Nearly one-half of the families in this country have incomes which fall short of meeting a basic standard of economic self-sufficiency [p. 185].

The Joint Commission reported that in 1966

. . . three times as many Blacks (15 percent) as whites had critically low annual incomes (less than $2000 a year), and more than twice as many (40 per-cent) had "poverty incomes" of less than $4000 a year. . . . Since low income Black families, like white ones at that income level, tend to be large, one could estimate that the vast majority of Black children suffer from poverty or near poverty [p. 187].

The urban poverty environment usually is characterized

by highly defective housing and deteriorating neighborhoods,

Poverty stricken neighborhoods are subject to rapid immigra-

tion of very poor unskilled people from rural areas. Such

high mobility is often associated with social disorganiza-

tion and high incidence of psychiatric disorders. Play-

grounds and recreational facilities are lacking as are

adequate medical and dental facilities, while high crime

rates, drug addiction, and all varieties of vice are most

common.

8

Studies summarized by Bloom, Davis, and Hess (1965)

suggested that the lower class Negro home was barren of

objects such as books, newspapers, pencils, papers, toys,

games as well as social interaction. Keller (1963)

reported that in urban slums children had little sustained

contact with adults,, few organized conversations, and

little shared family activity. Deutsch (1960) in comparing

Negro and white lower-class children found that the former

had fewer books in the home, got less help on homework,

took fewer trips beyond a 25 block radius of their home,

ate less frequently with their parents, and spent less

time with their parents on Sundays. Verbal interaction

which managed to occur tended to be limited in complexity

and completeness. Commands typically were given impera-

tively in one or several words rather than in sentences

and typically were given without explanation. Hess and

Shipman (1965) also found similar results when they

focused on defective mother-child communication systems

in culturally deprived 4-year olds.

In addition to the deprived home conditions it is

important to consider the effects of peers in the teaching

of destructive behavior outside of the home environment.

Polansky, Lippitt, and Redl (1954), and Bandura and Walters

(1959, 1963) have shown in field and laboratory studies

that disintegrative and destructive behavior of peers was

contagious. Needless to say, the rampant aggressive-

destructive outbursts of the past years illustrate the

potential of the emotional contagion factor in lower

class Negro neighborhoods.

Poverty has been associated with family breakdown.

Among factors related to family life, paternal absence has

been reported as a major debilitating element, especially

for the Negro male. The extent of paternal absence was

summarized by Pettigrew (1964):

Census data for 1960 illustrates the depth of this family disorganization among Negroes: over a third (34.3 percent) of all non-white mothers with children under six years of age hold jobs as compared with less than a fifth (19.5 percent) of white mothers with children under six; only three-fourths (74.9 percent) of all non-white families have both the husband and the wife present in the household as compared with nine-tenths (89.2 percent) of white families; and only two-thirds (66.3 percent) of non-whites under eighteen years of age live with both of their parents as compared with nine-tenths (90.2 percent) of such whites . . . [p. 16].

Rainwater (1967) reported similar results as he

found that the vast majority of incomplete Negro households

was lacking the husband. Frazier (1957) estimated in 1950

that the male parent was missing in roughly 20% of Negro

households. In addition to divorce and separation, part

of this phenomenon was due to a higher Negro male death

rate, The percentage of widows among Negro women 54 years

old or less was roughly twice that of white women (Petti-

grew, 1964).

10

The effects of not having a consistent male influence

in the family has been explored by Bach (1964), Barclay

and Cosumano (1967), Sears (1951), Sears, Pintler, and

Sears (1946), and Stolz (1954). These studies suggested

that father deprived Negro boys were more immature, sub-

missive, dependent, and effeminate than other Negro boys.

As they grew older this behavior often changed, only to be

overcompensated for by exaggerated powerfulness, masculin-

ity, and aggressiveness. Many investigators pointed to

this inadequacy and to paternal absence in relation to

later antisocial and delinquent behavior (Bacon, Child, &

Barry, 1963; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Burton & Whiting,

1961; Glueck & Glueck, 1950, 1956; Miller, 1958; Rohrer

& Edmonson, 1960; Scarpitti, Murray, Dintz, & Reckless,

1960).

Additionally, Mischel (1958, 1961a, 1961b) has shown

that father deprived Negro children 10 years of age showed

an extremely poor ability to delay immediate gratification

in favor of obtaining a later, more attractive reward.

Deutsch (1960) has shown that lower class Negro children

from broken homes were far more likely to score below

grade level on tests of achievement than classmates from

intact families.

Child rearing patterns also were noted as contributing

to psychological problems among lower class Negroes. Davis

r

/^

11

(1941), Davis and Dollar (1940), Davis and Havighurst

(1946), Frazier (1957), and Rohrer and Edmonson (1960)

have suggested that many households alternatively vascil-

late between a repressive restrictive atmosphere and an

extremely overindulgent nonstructured one. Discipline

which typically is given by the mother is restrictive and

inhibitory. It is often focused on overt acts rather than

on more subtle motives and goals. The "do not do that,"

"keep quiet," "do not ask questions," type of interaction

is considered both an emotional and intellectual inhibitor.

Hess and Shipman (1965) suggested that these types of

"restricted codes" were

. • . stereotyped, limited, and condensed, lacking in specificity and the exactness needed for precise conceptualization and differentiation. Sentences are short, simple, often unfinished; there is little use of subordinate clauses for elaborating the con-tent of the sentences; it is a language of implicit meaning easily understood and commonly shared. It is the language form often used in impersonal situ-ations when the intent is to promote solidarity or reduce tension. Restricted codes are non-specific cliches, statements, or observations about events made in general terms that will be readily understood. The basic quality of this mode is to limit the range and detail of concept and information involved [p. 886].

These restricted codes then become the social and inter-

personal models that Negro children use to conceptualize

their world, It puts them in a position so that they view

the world passively and in rather stereotyped restrictive

terms. Family control is in terms of status—who is the

12

strongest and most authoritative figure rather than the

one most personally interested in the individual child's

specific feelings, preferences, personal needs, goals,

and subjective emotional states. For this reason the

language or linguistic system which develops does not

allow Negro children the opportunity to develop fine dis-

criminations and nuances in describing and articulating

their feelings about personal specific events, impulses,

and problems. Hence, the Negro child often develops a

cognitive system that renders him almost nonverbal in

comparison to his white counterparts. The language system

does not allow the same type of affective or emotional-

social expression. The lack of consistent success of more

traditional verbal psychotherapy with Negroes (Shane, 1960)

attested to this early learned pattern of language develop-

ment as it evolves from the social familial communication

network. The negative reinforcement of these repressive

child rearing techniques also is likely to discourage

early initiative and motivation, curiosity, and exploration

of individual interests as well as set a noncooperative

pattern of adult-child interaction.

A complete review of the achievement. deficits found in

lower-class Negroes is inappropriate here. The reviews by

Pettigrew (1964) and Bronfenbrenner (1967) provide good

references. Suffice it to say that the longer the Negro

13

child remains in the classroom, the further behind he falls

in relation to the norms for his age and grade. This is

shown in academic achievement and also for scores on tests

of general intelligence (Coleman, 1966; Deutsch & Brown,

1964; Kennedy, Van de Riet, & White, 1963). Deutsch (1960)

reported that Negro children show progressive retardation

in reading and language skills, shorter attention span,

reduced concentration and persistence, and lack of motiva-

tion in the face of failure. This points to the sobering

fact that even when a Negro child enters school without

obvious emotional-social intellectual difficulty, he is

likely to develop feelings of failure and frustration as

he finds that he cannot master materials that even his

white lower-class peers can master. Failure obviously

does great harm to children's feelings of self-confidence

and social acceptability.

Cultural and Emotional Deprivation Defined

A culturally deprived child has been defined by Frost

and Hawks (1966) and Reissman (1962),

. . . as those pupils with a particular set of educa-tionally associated problems arising from and residing extensively within the culture of the poor or with members of lower socio-economic groups who have limited access to education [Frost & Hawks, 1966, p. 14].

The review of the literature suggested an addition to

this definition. The Negro child who is culturally deprived

14

also is often affectively or emotionally deprived. This

progressive deprivation, furthermore, does not occur in

many instances as a consciously perpetrated rejection or

exclusion by parents, although this may be true in some

cases. It is more often an insidious progressive develop-

mental deprivation that emerges from the family style of

life, communication patterns, poverty environment, and

other factors cited above. This deprivation is reflected

in a poor self-concept. It is also reflected in Negro

children's reduced "affect awareness" or comparatively

little knowledge about nuances in feelings, particularly

positive feelings for themselves and for others. This lack

of awareness of self and feelings is often considered to be

the root of psychopathology.

The Human Development Program and the Deprived Child

The Human Development Program (HDP) was designed to

increase and enhance children's emotional awareness and

self-concept. In relating its applicability to the deprived

child, Palomares (1969) stated that the

HDP helps children develop an articulate awareness of their positive and negative feelings, thoughts, and behavior. The effect this has on children from divergent cultural groups is that they learn to develop an increasing awareness of their similarities, as well as their differences. In addition to this, they discover that all have feelings, no matter what color they are. They are systematically exposed to their own feelings, thoughts, and behavior and to

15

those of their peers. They learn early and continue to practice looking beyond color [p. 39].

Bessell (1968) further stated that, as a result of

the HDP,

teachers report that discipline problems are reduced markedly, and that children show increased personal involvement, greater verbal expressiveness, more self confidence, higher motivation, far more personal awareness and an increased degree of comprehension of social interactions [p. 33].

These assertions suggest the potential applicability of

this program to culturally disadvantaged Negro children,

as well as to children of other minority groups.

The Human Development Program is a curricular approach

to educating school children in the affective or social-

emotional area of human relationships. It is one of the

first programs offered to school systems in this country

that deals with helping children grow and develop inter-

personally as well as cognitively. The major theoretical

basis for the HDP is the personality development theory of

Horney (1950), who added to Freudian theory by emphasizing

the importance of mastering continuing social relationships

as a critical factor in the development and maintenance of

healthy self-concepts. There also is a heavy borrowing

from recent humanistic thoughts in American psychology

stemming from works of Maslow, Rogers, Perls, and many

other authors grouped under the existential-philosophical

theoretical movement. These ideas centrally focus on the ,

16

healthy man, the normal person, and his enhancement of self,

rather than the more traditional medical-psychoanalytic

focus on man's illness and psychopathology. More commonly,

authors in this theoretical area have stressed and developed

programs in the following areas:

increasing achievement motivation, awareness, and excitement, creative thinking, interpersonal sensi-tivity, joy self-reliance, self-esteem, self-understanding, self-actualization, moral develop-ment, identity, non-verbal communication, body aware-ness, value clarity, meditative processes, and other aspects of ideal personality functioning [Alschuler, 1969, p. 1].

In line with these trends the authors of the HDP

stressed that

. . . human beings are our most valuable resources.

. . . Our children, as an underdeveloped resource, therefore., merit every possible attention if their potential talents and personal satisfactions are to be realized to the fullest [Bessell & Palomares, 1967, p. ii].

In order to bring about the realization of these potentials, they proposed a planned semi-structured program for use in the classroom to make sure that children develop these resources rather than leaving their learning to chance. This program consists of a semi-structured set of sequential, developmental and cumulative lesson plans for daily use in the classroom as an adjunct to the regular curriculum [Ballard & Solomon, 1970, p. 4].

The program has been designed around three basic

themes (Bessell & Palomares, 1967): (1) awareness-feelings,

thoughts, and behaviors; (2) mastery-language quantitative

concepts, motor coordination, performance skills, personal

hygiene, and social comprehension; and (3) social

17

interaction. Within each of the above areas special topics

of discussion are introduced into small groups. The chil-

dren are encouraged to become aware of and discuss their

own and other's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, both

positive and negative. They are given the opportunity to

discover how their own behavior, in turn, affects the

thoughts and feelings of others. They also are encouraged

to become aware of the similarities and differences noted

in members of the group; since differences are discussed

openly and in a friendly manner, children learn to accept

these differences.

The program is designed to develop a genuine awareness

and sense of personal comprehension of self in the child I

and a sense of personal and social effectiveness; thus, the

HDP seeks to develop a positive self-concept in children.

The HDP group is typically composed of 10 children,

5 girls, 5 boys who sit in a circle with the teacher as a

part of the circle. She is encouraged to be an active

listener and facilitator. The atmosphere in the "magic

circle" as it is termed is open and free except that any

acting out is stopped immediately by the teacher. Children

also are encouraged to speak one at a time unless the

lesson plan suggests differently. All children are given

the opportunity to participate each session and the

teacher positively reinforces participation even if it

18

is very minimal. Exclusion from the group rarely is used

as a way of controlling or motivating a resistive child.

Purpose of the Study

The above review suggested that disadvantaged Negro

children were often deficient in (1) a positive self-

concept and (2) emotional awareness of themselves and

others. The authors of the HDP specifically claim that

their program enhances these attributes in Negro disad-

vantaged children; however a review of the literature

did not reveal any published research study utilizing the

HDP with Negro Head Start children. Further, there were

no studies found which evaluated the effectiveness of the

HDP in changing self-concepts and emotional awareness in

Negro children.

The purpose of the following research is to investi-

gate the effects of the HDP on the development of personal-

ity characteristics in 4- to 5-year-old disadvantaged

Negro children.

CHAPTER II

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Subjects

Twenty male and 20 female Negro children ages 4 and

5 years enrolled in three Head Start day-care centers in

Galveston County, Texas, served as subjects. All subjects

were in classes for the 4-year-old and 5-year-old with a

Negro teacher. The children had been medically screened.

Similar educational and enrichment instruction for the

subjects was provided in each respective day-care center.

As recipients of the full year Head Start program, all

subjects qualified as disadvantaged.

The 40 subjects were divided into four groups of 10

with two groups designated as experimental and two as

control. Each group of 10 subjects contained five girls

and five boys. Selection and allocation of subjects into

experimental and control groups proceeded as follows. The

Mainland center contained two classes having 4- and 5-year-

old Negro children. To control for possible teacher

effects in the two classes, subjects from both classes

were placed randomly into two new groups of 10 children.

A replacement method was used so that each of the two new

groups formed had an equal number of boys and girls. Both

groups of 10 subjects had an approximately equal number of

19

20

children from each class. One group was designated as

experimental (EI) and one as control (CI).

The Galveston center and the Dickinson center each

had one class having 4- and 5-year-old Negro children with

a Negro teacher. Random assignment of children from each

of these two classes into two new groups, as was done with

the Mainland center subjects, was impossible; therefore 10

children were chosen randomly from each of the two intact

classes. The replacement method of choosing subjects was

used again so that five boys and five girls were in each

group.

A coin toss designated the subjects chosen from the

Galveston center as Experimental Group II (EII) and the

subjects from the Dickinson center as Control Group II

(CII). Since the Dickinson center was geographically

distant from the Galveston and Mainland centers, it also

was designated as a distal control group.

General Experimental Design

A pretest, posttest, control group design was used

to evaluate the effects of the group instructional experi-

ence. The experimental and control groups were pretested

on respective dependent variables prior to the beginning

of the experimental program. The experimental program

then was conducted followed by posttesting. Differences

21

in mean group posttest scores were calculated and evaluated

using^an analysis of multiple covariance statistical pro-

cedure. Lindquist (1956) and Campbell and Stanley (1963)

suggested this approach in evaluating educational research

where subjects in experimental and control groups

were chosen from different classrooms.

Two covariates were used in all major analyses. They

were pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test raw scores and

pretest measures obtained on respective dependent variables.

Peabody scores were used to control for the possible biasing

effect intelligence and receptive vocabulary might have on

the outcome of the HDP.

Dependent Variables

Two 'types of dependent variables were utilized:

(1) individually administered psychometric tests designed

to measure various dimensions of affect or emotional

awareness and self-concept; and (2) teacher's ratings

of subjects along a number of behavioral dimensions.

Affect Awareness: Theory and Supporting Data

Theoretical and empirical data relating affect aware-

ness, its development in children and emotional health

follow. Affect awareness was defined in line with Gil-

bert's (1969) formulation as a child's ability to identify

his subjective feelings with familiar verbal labels such

iTirrr-

22

as "afraid," "scared," "mad," "happy," "sad," "jealous,"

"tired," and other similar descriptive words. The affect

awareness dimension, while being quite standard in clinical-

psychiatric jargon, needs further research. This particu-

larly applies to developmental aspects. Theoretically,

affect is in part cognitive or is the result of learned

interpretations made from sensations which come from internal

bodily states. Additionally these bodily states are known

to be influenced by "our perceptions of the environmental

context of the moment [Kagan & Havaman, 1963]." Therefore,

a child may have various bodily sensations in response to

stimulation or frustration but no affect concepts until he

is taught verbal labels for these via repeated interpersonal

experience. Schacter and Singer (1962) treated affect as

informational codes that were linked to physiological states.

Psychoanalytic thought contributes to the above

theoretical viewpoints (Mullahy, 1955; Hartmann, 1961).

Affect emerges or becomes differentiated from basic sexual

and aggressive drives which are initially a part of the id.

These drives are felt inherently to be undifferentiated in

the newly born child until he begins to experience his

surrounding environment. Drives are said to be linked to

basic instincts of survival and perpetuation of the species.

They also are oriented toward the maximization of pleasure

and the minimization of pain. As the child develops, he

23

learns that instinctual feelings always cannot be fulfilled

or expressed directly. The child must learn that even

though he experiences these instincts or deep feelings, he

must learn to modulate his pleasure seeking in line with

demands from what is called the super ego or conscience,

represented by his parents' values and belief systems and

the external world. Thus, the child is hypothesized as

developing a part of his personality (the ego) that allows

him to test reality or cope with the external world, his

parents' demands, and his own pleasure needs. A portion

of the ego which leads to the operation of the reality

principle and self-control over demanding drives is known

as the signaling and synthesizing portion of the ego. This

signaling portion, as a part of what is termed the observing

ego, operates as a sensitizer and informational coding

system for the child. The system acts as a warning device

to inform the developing child of his impending feelings

or emotions which, if acted upon, would be unacceptable

socially or morally or might be dangerous personally.

Therefore, psychoanalytic thought (Hartmann, 1961) stresses

very strongly the development of a cognitive aspect of the

personality which helps children to monitor and control

appropriately the expression of feelings and impulses.

The traditional psychotherapeutic model for developing

self-awareness is the talking technique. Psychoanalytic

24

writers stress helping children to talk out their feelings

and thus gain concepts or insight regarding their feelings.

Using these affect concepts as signaling devices, the

child learns to avoid or divert impulsive acting out of

dangerous or unacceptable feelings. Self-understanding

or insight additionally is felt to be linked intricately

with the exploration and awareness of one's most subtle

subjective emotional experiences.

Children code, remember, categorize, and analyze their

affective experiences as they grow and develop. The theory

elaborated above suggests that this coding of emotional

experience is associated with self-understanding. Emotional

health and emotional awareness clearly are linked. Ease

and fluency in talking about or verbalizing emotions or

feelings is seen as crucial in the development of affect

concepts.

Research supporting the assertion that the development

of affect concepts is crucial to emotional health and ad-

justment in young children is scarce. In Gilbert's (1969)

work with 4- to 6-year-olds she found that "teachers

describe the child who can verbalize his feelings as

expressive, mature, empathetic and imaginative." Amon

(1941) and Whiteman (1967), however, found that children

younger than kindergarten age seldom used inferential

psychological concepts of feeling and intent. Perhaps

25

ages 4 to 6 represent a critical period during which verbal

affect concepts are mastered corresponding with the emer-

gence of the observing ego. Kagan and Moss (1960) found

that, by age 10, children developed reliable differences

in the use of affect concepts. In preschool Negro children

social class and ethnic background have been shown to

retard the development of verbalized affect concepts (Hess

& Shipman, 1965). Children reared in white middle class

homes are thus far more likely to use concepts of feeling

and intent than children reared in lower class Negro homes.

Ojemann (1967) reported that as early as fourth grade,

children who have developed sensitivity to the dynamics of

behavior favor less arbitrary and punitive methods, have

lower authoritarian scores and lower anxiety. Wallach and

Kogan (1965) showed that creative thinking in 10-year-olds

is correlated with acknowledgement of a wide range of

internally experienced affect states.

Thus, there is some evidence to support the concept

that increased awareness of feelings or affect is associ-

ated with children who are creative, empathetic, and

emotionally healthy. It also follows that if affect

awareness can be increased via a verbal group interaction

technique in deprived Negro children, then they likely

will be able to cope more effectively both in the present

and in the future.

26

Several dimensions of affect awareness are thus

suggested. (1) Identification and definition of feelings

occur. The child gradually becomes aware that he is angry

when his wishes are thwarted. He identifies his frustration

and labels or defines the experience as feeling angry.

(2) Discrimination between different feelings in self and

others occurs. The frustrated child gradually learns that

he is angry, and that he is not happy, sad, or afraid.

(3) Verbalization or talking about feelings helps the

frustrated child to identify more clearly his moment to

moment feelings. Verbalization of feelings also helps

others to understand and help guide the child as to how

he may reduce his frustration. (4) Feelings or affects

gradually take on value or moral-ethical properties as the

child is censored by and identifies with parents and other

significant persons. An evaluative aspect is introduced

by parental figures in which children place a value of

"good" or "bad" on their own behavior and emotional experi-

ences and the behavior and emotional experiences of others

(Osgood, Suci, Tannenbaum, 1957; Divesta, 1966). The

frustrated child for instance knows that feeling sad is

a "bad" experience. He also develops a social feeling

and social judgment that helps him to understand that,

when other children feel sad, this is a "bad" experience

for them. Breaking social rules also takes on a "bad"

27

connotation as the child develops his conscience or evalua-

tive system of right and wrong. The same applies for good

or socially acceptable behavior.

Based on the above theory and data, four affect

measures were suggested:

1. Knowledge of Affect Words - ability to verbally define common affect words such as scared, happy, and afraid.

2. Affect Acknowledgment Scale - ability to recognize feelings m self given a frustrating or emotionally charged situation.

3. Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale - skill in identifying feelings in others.

4. Evaluative Responses of Good and Bad - social comprehension of "good" and "bad" behaviors in self and others.

Affect Measures

Knowledge of Affect Words

A scale was devised in which subjects were simply

asked to verbally define various affect words. The words

(1) "happy," (2) "sad," (3) "mad," (4) "angry," (5) "scared,"

(6) "love," or "loved," (7) "jealous," (8) "lonesome," and

(9) "tired" were selected. Amon (1941) found that many of

these affect words occur in 4-year-old children's vocabu-

laries in the normal population.

Pilot Study. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate

the knowledge of affect words test as well as several

other test instruments used in the research. Subjects

28

were 4- to 5-year-old Negro children drawn from a day-care

center which was not utilized in the final research project.

A female examiner who later collected all of the research

data conducted the individual testing sessions with the

children in the pilot study.

The knowledge of affect words test was pretested on

two groups of four children. The investigator found with

the first four children that they did not understand the

instruction "define" when the examiner asked them to

"define happy"; therefore a second variation was tried

with a second group of four children. They were asked

"how would you b£ if you were happy?" The examiner

followed this inquiry with "tell me a time you were happy,

when were you happy, and tell me about being happy." The

examiner was instructed to repeat these cues as many times

as necessary until in her best clinical judgment she could

decide whether the subject understood each affect word

or not.

Scoring Criteria. A liberal scoring criteria was

developed. A child's answer was correct if he could

verbally give (1) a synonym, (2) concrete action or

situation, or (3) a nonverbal facial or postural gesture

appropriate to the conventional way in which the described

feeling might be expressed.

29

Examiner Accuracy. As a basis for evaluating the

female examiner's clinical judgment, she was encouraged

to make extensive notes in the latter testing trial. The

sessions also were tape recorded. The investigator and

another PhD candidate clinical psychologist (called a

co-rater henceforth) independently listened to the tapes and

read the examiner's notes. Both observers agreed with the

examiner's judgment on 90% of the test responses. The scale

is reproduced in Appendix A.

Affect Acknowledgement Scale

Children gradually learn to discriminate and acknow-

ledge, one feeling from another. They know when they feel

good or bad, happy or sad, scared or angry. The literature

suggested that deprived Negro children have a great deal

of difficulty in matching more subtle affect words with

their subjective experiences than do children more exposed

to advantaged child rearing techniques.

A multiple choice Affect Acknowledgement Scale was

devised, The subjects were asked a series of questions

beginning with the statement "How would you be if " ?"

Various situations were then described such as "saw a

monster on TV," The child was given a choice of three

answers such as "(1) angry, (2) scared, (3) happy," All

statements were designed to elicit how the particular

child would feel given a particular frustrating or

30

emotionally arousing situation. Questions did not relate

to how others might feel but related to how the child

personally would feel in the described situation.

Pilot Study. A pilot study using the same testing

examiner was done with the same two groups of four children

previously described. The first pretesting was not done

with the above described multiple choice format; however,

for pbjectivity purposes and to reduce the time of admin-

istration, a multiple choice format was introduced and

pretested.

Scoring Criteria. A three choice format for the

test instrument was devised. Before the final pretesting

the investigator and the co-rater reviewed the test answers

together, changing several where necessary, until they were

in complete agreement on the appropriateness of the correct

answer in each test statement. The correct answer in each

test statement was distributed randomly between first,

second, and third choices so response style or set bias

would be distributed randomly. The final form consisting

of 26 items appears in Appendix B.

Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale

Discrimination of other children's and adult's

feelings was felt to be an important affect awareness

dimension. Disadvantaged Negro children as compared to

advantaged children were described as having a reduced

31

or impaired ability to sense how others might be feeling

whether sad, mad, angry, etc. To measure this "other"

directed affect awareness dimension, a test was devised

similar to the Sarbin Stick Figures (Sarbin, 1954). Ten

stick figures were drawn individually on 5" x 8" cards.

Each figure had a different facial and/or postural expres-

sion. A multiple choice answer format was adopted. Instruc

tions were "This is a play picture of a (boy) (girl) (same

sex as subject)." "Does he feel , , or ?"

Three affect choices were then stated such as "loved, mad,

or scared."

Pilot Study. Four children were pretested with the

stick-figure scale. Some confusion was noted with three of

the affect choices initially selected as correct answers,

so these were revised by the investigator and the co-rater.

Correct choices were randomized between first, second, and

third positions. The test was readministered and was felt

to be acceptable for the final research. (See Appendix C.)

Evaluative Responses of Good and Bad

As was noted previously, the child's ability to

evaluate his experience is loaded with affective meaning

revolving around good and bad acts. This is particularly

true with regard to bad or undesirable behavior iri Negro

children; however, the extent to which deprived Negro

children are reinforced or rewarded for good or positive

32

behavior is questioned in the literature. It was felt,

therefore, that a test designed to measure the child's

ability to evaluate "good" and "bad" acts from a social

standpoint would be extremely important.

Rhine, Hill, and Wandrufs (1967) devised a test mea-

suring the development of these concepts of good and bad

in children age 2 through 6 years which was utilized. The

test is a multiple choice picture test in which a child is

shown four pictures with the following instructions: "In

these pictures somebody is doing something very good" (or

"very bad" if the set contained a "bad" picture). "I want

you to show me the one who is doing something very (good,

bad)." Then, each picture was described according to a

prescribed statement. The child then selected one of the

four pictures depicting good or valued behavior or a bad

or less desirable behavior depending on the instructions.

The other three incorrect pictures were neutral in content,

not having a positive or negative act depicted. There was

a total of 16 sets of four pictures. In eight of the sets

the boy or girl was described as doing something "good,"

and in eight of the sets the boy or girl in the picture

was described as doing something "bad." Three scores were

derived: (1) total number of correct discriminations;

(2) the correct number of "bad" discriminations made cor-

rectly; and (3) the total number of "good" discriminations

made correctly. The test appears in Appendix D.

33

Self-Concept /

A review of the literature suggested that Negro

children have a very poor evaluation and feeling for

themselves as independently worthwhile and valuable

persons; therefore, self-concept was evaluated for change

as a function of participation in the HDP. The authors

of the HDP suggested that children's self-concepts are

changed positively through group stimulation and accep-

tance and through the positive feedback the child receives

from being associated closely with his teacher in an

emotionally warm and reinforcing situation.

Self-concept is a complex multidimensional concept

that is defined in many different ways. The importance of

self-concept in personality development is, however,

demonstrably clear. Rogers (1951) stated that " . . . the

self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an

organized configuration of the perceptions of the self

which are admissible to an awareness [p. 55]." Perceptions

of "self" are felt to be based on feedback obtained from

other people as well as perceptions, thoughts, and feelings

one has about his own unity, integrity, and strengths.

Self-concept is reported to be a developmentally learned

awareness evolving from the evaluations made by significant

others (Mullahy, 1955). Children typically behave in

acceptable ways which parents find rewarding; thus, the

34

child learns that he performs "good" behaviors and that he

is a "good" person. Evaluations of the "good me," a term

coined by Harry Stack Sullivan, are thus internalized or

held to be true by the child. Similarly, "bad me" concepts

are developed as the child is punished for unacceptable

acts and as he encounters aversive or unrewarding situations

and feelings which he defines as "bad." These "good me"

and "bad me" concepts are thus felt to be derived early in

life to form a relatively stable and autonomous set of

feelings, thoughts, motives, and values a person has about

himself regardless of the social context in which he later

finds himself.

Also often included in the definitions of self-concept

is the public or social self (Mead, 1956). This concept

has to do with the more flexibly changing attitudes, feelings

and belief s a person derives about himself as he interacts

in his social environment. These attitudes about self are

derived from social experiences in which other people

respond to the person as desirable, undesirable, socially

acceptable, and relevant or irrelevant to the social norms

of the given group. Attitudes such as these are thought

to be changeable since they are derived through feedback

a person receives from work, in school, and in social

activities.

35

Thus there are two categories of experience related

to self-concept. One refers to rather public information

about self which changes from social context to social

context. The other refers to a more private, early

developed set of feelings, thoughts, attitudes, beliefs,

and values that retain a certain autonomy and integrity

in the personality regardless of the social context.

In a critique of devices which have been used to

measure self-concept, Strong and Feder (1961) found at

least 17 instruments devised within the last few years

to measure some form of self-concept, self-esteem, self-

confidence, etc. The majority of these instruments is

not appropriate for use with children whereas others are

ill-defined or do not yield reliability coefficients on

retest to insure even minimal confidence in results. Some

instruments while having acceptable reliabilities, do not

show enough sensitivity to reflect changes in self-concept

as they occur over time. For these reasons, the selection

of a self-concept scale suitable for use with young children

was extremely important for the research. The Brown IDS

Self-Concept Referents Test (Brown, 1966) was chosen because

it fulfills many of the criteria mentioned above. It was

developed from the Children's Self-Concept Test (Brown,

1966).

36

The Brown IDS Self-Concept R^fg^Gnts Test (Brown)

The theoretical basis for the Brown scale was derived

from Mead's (1934, 1956) theory of self. Mead suggested

that the individual experiences himself indirectly, or as

an object, through the perceptions others in his social

group have of him. The person becomes an "object" to

himself by taking the attitudes of other individuals

toward himself. For instance, the developing child may

have views of himself derived from his perception of how

his parents see him, how his teacher sees him, and how

peers view him. The child then develops attitudes about

himseif based on how he feels others perceive him as a

person.

In contrast to the self as "object," Mead postulated

another portion of the self as "subject." These feelings,

attitudes, beliefs, and characteristic motives are derived

from feelings of self-worth and intrinsic self-regard held

by an individual for himself. They are felt to originate

initially in the child's interactions with "significant

others" such as parents, siblings, and others who directly

interact with the young child as he defines and constructs

his world. In this early social-emotional context the child

develops a frame of reference and continues to use these

"referents" as a part of his definition of reality. It is

this context to which the psychoanalytic writers devote

í

37

their greatest efforts, particularly emphasizing the early

mother-child relationship and this relationship's contri-

bution to the development of characteristics and attitudes

such as trust-nontrust, giving-receiving, assertion-

submission, dependency-autonomy, and other dimensions of

ego development. Mead did not deal directly with intra-

psychic aspects of development, as did the psychoanalytic

and ego-psychologic theorists; however, his conceptual

scheme is useful especially as a basis for the Brown scale.

Payne (1970) , in an unpublished dissertation, reported

that Brown test-retest reliabilities among Negro preschool

children were .71 and with preschool whites .76. He also

reported that an independent criterion rating of self-

concept by teachers of disadvantaged Negro children cor-

related significantly with test scores of self-concept.

Brown (1966) demonstrated the usefulness of the test and

ease of administration with 4- and 5-year-old Negro and

white children.

The Brown test allows a child to verbally describe

himself on 15 bipolar dimensions such as "happy-sad,"

"good looking-ugly," and 13 others using four specific

referents:

(1) The child as he sees himself;

(2) The child as he perceives the way his mother

sees him;

38

(3) The child as he perceives the way his teacher

sees him;

(4) The child as he perceives the way "other kids"

see him.

Sample questions alorig each referent using one of

the 15 descriptive dimensions "happy-sad" follow: . h

(1) Can you tell me, is (child's name) happy or sad: l? ii

(2) Does 's mother think is happy or sad?

(3) Does 's teacher think is happy or sad?

(4) Do other kids think is happy or sad?

The Brown test is presented in Appendix E. Scores

obtained include: (1) "Self as Seen by Self," (2) "Self

as Seen by Mother," (3) "Self as seen by Teacher," (4) "Self

as Seen by Peers," and (5) "Total Self Referent."

Teachers' Behavioral Ratings

External behavioral criteria of change in the experi-

mental and control children over time was considered a

crucial factor. Teachers' ratings of two different types

were utilized to provide data. The experimental and con-

trol children were evaluated by their regular teacher on

the Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Sines, J. 0.,

Parker, J. D. , Sines, L. K., Owen, D. R., 1969) and the

Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale.

. 1

39

Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist

This checklist has been used with mothers to identify

six independent clinical dimensions or scales (1) Aggres-

sion, (2) Inhibition, (3) Activity Level, (4) Sleep Dis-

turbance, (5) Somatization, and (6) Sociability (Sines

et al., 1969). The instructions for the test were modified

slightly so that teachers responded to 70 items in a true- ii >»

false manner.

The Missouri scales were designed to identify signifi-

cant psychopáthological behaviors exhibited by children.

The scales are measures of problem behavior with the

exception of the sociability scale. The scales have been

correlated with actual clinical evaluations in 15 child

guidance centers throughout the United States and Canada.

Seven scores were obtained for each child. Six of

these scores were as listed above, while the seventh scale

was a measure of the total number of problem or pathology

items the teacher checked for each child. Items which

compose each scale are listed in Appendix F.

Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale

A second set of paper and pencil teacher rating scales

was adapted from items appearing on (1) a preschool progress

report used in a private school in Galveston, Texas; and

(2) Gilbert's (1969) analysis of discriminating affect

items on the Teachers Adjective Checklist.

40

Teachers checked whether they strongly agreed, agreed,

were undecided, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each

of the 54 test items (see Appendix G). The test items

contain 25 positive or socially more complimentary items

such as "enters into play with others" and 29 more negative

or socially uncomplimentary items such as "not interested

in learning new things." Four separate measures were

derived based on content of the items. These scales were

labeled as follows: (1) "Affect Awareness" (AA); (2)

"Happiness-Unhappiness" (U); (3) "Mature Controls" (M);

and (4) "Intellectual Attitudes" (I).

The "Affect Awareness" (AA) scale included eight

items which attempted to measure the teacher's opinion of

how well a child could express or make his feelings known

to peers and teachers. It was hypothesized that children

involved in the HDP would become more capable of making

their feelings known to others than would control children.

"Unhappiness-Happiness" (U) contained 11 statements.

The scale purported to measure the teacher's perception of

a child's characteristic mood or emotional state. After

the HDP, experimental subjects were expected to show a

more positive happy outlook and mood compared with the

control subjects.

The third scale, "Mature Controls" (M), contained 26

statements. The statements reflected a child's ability

41

to control unacceptable behavior and produce socially

acceptable behavior primarily in a classroom setting.

Items had to do with control of aggression, ease of moti-

vation of a child toward constructive tasks, impulse

control and ability to avoid over stimulation, and in

general social cooperation in the classroom. The HDP

was hypothesized as potentially having a socializing

effect on experimental children due to the program's

emphasis on the control of "bad" behavior and the devel-

opment of empathetic feelings for others.

"Intellectual Attitudes" (I), the fourth scale,

contained nine items which purported to measure how well

a child involved himself in the learning process, verbalized

his ideas in class, and showed interest in new learning in

the classroom. The authors of the HDP claimed that as a

result of the group procedure children become more in-

terested and verbally involved in more formal school

activities. Experimental subjects thus were expected to

show gains in interest and in verbal expressiveness as

compared to control subjects.

Each of the four scales was scored in such a way so

that the higher a child's score the more positive was the

teacher's evaluation.

42

Procedures

Subjects in each of the four groups were pretested

and posttested. Psychometric tests and teacher's rating

yielded the research data. Children in the two experi-

mental groups, EI and EII, received the HDP spread over

a 12 school week period. Children in Control Groups CI

and CII were involved in their normal curriculum while

the experimental children were receiving the HDP.

A female Negro teacher was selected to teach the HDP.

She was involved in teaching 4- and 5-year-old Head Start

children in a day-care center other than the three centers

from which the experimental and control children were

chosen. She was working part-time on an elementary educa-

tion degree at a local predominantly Negro university,

was in her early forties, and had several years experience

working in Head Start. Her selection was made by the

Director of Educational Services in the Head Start Program.

The director attempted to choose a teacher who worked well

with younger children and showed stability, consistency,

and maturity.

The teacher was trained in HDP methods by the inves-

tigator over a period of two weeks. The six, two-hour

sessions with the teacher included instruction in the

philosophy and theory behind the HDP. Additionally, she

was exposed to some of the effects of the program by

43

participating in several classroom demonstrations the author

conducted with her regular class. The actual lessons which

she was to teach also were reviewed. Following the training,

she was instructed to do only the "Magic Circle" during

the time she was with the experimental groups. She also

was instructed not to discuss the group procedure with

any of her colleagues except the Educational Director of

the center. Once the sessions were begun, the investigator

had little or no contact with the teacher, other than an

occasional phone call to confirm that the materials neces-

sary for conducting the groups were being supplied

appropriately.

Since one experimental group was in one center and

the other experimental group was in another center, the

teacher followed a prescribed schedule. The teacher

arrived at the Mainland Center and began Experimental

Group I (EI) at approximately eight-thirty each morning

throughout the experimental period of 12 weeks or 60 days.

Following her 15 minute session with the 10 experimental

children in Experimental Group I (EI), she proceeded to

the Galveston Head Start Center and began the same lesson

with Experimental Group II (EII). The lessons taught were

drawn from the HDP Lesson Guide, Level B, Unit Four -

Communications (1969). This particular unit reflects the

intent of the HDP philosophy and approach most clearly.

si

K' I 1

44

The activities taught involved the following topics:

(1) First week - Pleasant feelings

(2) Second week - Unpleasant feelings

(3) Third week - Pleasant thoughts

(4) Fourth week - Unpleasant thoughts

(5) Fifth week - Positive behavior

(6) Sixth week - Negative behavior |

The seventh through twelfth week followed exactly ^

the same schedule with these six units being repeated. It

should be noted that the repetition of this unit in two

consecutive six weeks departs from the method in which the

regular program is presented. The set of lesson plans

are available through the Human Development Training Insti-

tute (Bessell, 1967).

The experimental and control children's regular

teachers completed the Missouri Children's Behavior Check-

list and a Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale. On pretesting,

the teachers were unaware that impending research on the

HDP was to be conducted in the day-care centers. They were

asked to evaluate their children so that the children's

level of development could be assessed. The test instruc-

tions stressed the necessity for them to be as completely

objective and straight forward in evaluating their children

as they possibly could be.

45

Following pretesting, teacher orientation for those

teachers having experimental and control subjects in their

classes was conducted. The teachers were instructed in a

group meeting not to treat either the experimental or

control group children in any special manner. They were

given no other instruction regarding the experimental

program other than that it was a developmental program for ij

the enrichment of desirable strengths which would later

help their children cope better in public school. They also

were instructed that control group children would receive

the same program following the experimental group children's

experience. The teachers were instructed to tell any of

the children in the control groups who wished to go to the

experimental group sessions that they would be included

later on.

Pre- and post-psychometric tests measuring receptive

vocabulary, four affect dimensions, and self-concept were

administered by an experienced female examiner. The sub-

jects were tested on a randomized schedule in each day-care

center. The examiner had no knowledge of experimental or

control subjects or from which centers they were chosen.

The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1959) was

administered to all subjects immediately after they were

selected for inclusion in an experimental or control group.

Results were used to obtain an initial impression of how

similar each group selected was compared to the others.

46

The groups were not significantly different in Peabody raw

scores. The examiner then was instructed to proceed with

the rest of the pretesting battery. Each child was admin-

istered individually the following tests in two sessions

of approximately 30 to 45 minutes:

1. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test (Brown,

1966)

2. Stick-Figure Affect Awareness Test

3. Affect Acknowledgement

4. Knowledge of Affect Words

5. Evaluation Responses Inventory (Rhine, Hill, , I

Wandruff, 1967). -i

Posttesting differed from pretesting in one respect.

The Peabody was not administered to all subjects prior to

the remainder of the battery but was administered at the

same time the psychometric battery was administered to

each individual child.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis la

After covariate adjustment there are significant

differences between mean posttest experimental group scores

and mean posttest control group scores on the following

dependent variables:

Brown IDS Self Referents Test (Total Scores)

1. Self as Seen by Self

47

2, Self as Seen by Mother

3, Self as Seen by Teacher

4. Self as Seen by Peers

5. Total Self Referent - Global Self-Concept

Evaluative Responses Inventory

1. Total "Good" responses correct

2. Total "Bad" responses correct

3. Total "Good" plus total "Bad" responses correct

Knowledge of Affect Words

1, Total number correctly defined

Stick Figure Affect Discrimination Scale

1, Total number correctly discriminated

Affect Acknowledgment Scale

1, Total number of correct choices

Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale (Total Scores)

1, Affect Awareness (AA)

2, Unhappiness - Happiness (U)

3, Mature Controls (M)

4, Intellectual Attitudes (lA)

Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Total Score)

1, Sociability (So)

More specifically it is hypothesized that children in Experi-

mental Group I (EI) will score significantly higher than

children in Control Group I (CI), Likewise, children in

Experimental Group II (EII) will score significantly

48

higher than children in Control Group II (CII). Addition-

ally, children in Experimental Group I (EI) will score

significantly higher than children in Control Group CII

(distal control group) on the above listed dependent

variables (CRAC-4).

Hypothesis Ib

After covariate adjustment, experimental subjects will

achieve significantly lower mean posttest scores than control

subjects on group comparisons presented above in Hypothesis

la (EI vs CI; EII vs CII; EI vs CII) on the following

variables:

Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Total Scores)

1. Aggression (A)

2. Inhibition (I)

3. Activity Level (H)

4. Sleep Disturbance (SL)

5. Somatization (Ps)

6. Total number of pathogenic items checked (Tp)

Hypothesis 2

There is a significant difference in gain scores from

pretest to posttest for experimental over control subjects

on Peabody Picture Vocabulary raw scores with experimentals

predicted to show a larger gain (t test).

:i

49

Hypothesis 3

After covariate adjustment, there are significant

differences between mean posttest scores of experimental

females taken as a group over experimental males taken as

a group. Female experimentals are expected to score signif-

icantly higher than males on variables measuring positive

or desired personality characteristics as was detailed in

Hypothesis la and significantly lower than males on vari-

ables measuring negative or undesirable characteristics

as was detailed in Hypothesis Ib (CRAC-2).

Hypothesis 4

After covariate adjustment, there are no significant

differences between mean posttest scores of control males

taken as a group and control females taken as a group along

the above listed dependent variables as outlined in Hypoth-

eses la and Ib (CRAC-2).

Hypothesis 5

After covariate adjustment, there are significant

differences between mean posttest scores of experimental

males taken as a group and control males taken as a group

along the above listed 22 dependent variables. Experimen-

tal males are expected to score significantly higher on

variables measuring positive or desirable characteristics

as outlined in Hypothesis la and significantly lower on

K.' t-i I I '

50

negative or undesirable characteristics as noted in

Hypothesis Ib (CRAC-2).

Hypothesis 6

After covariate adjustment, there are significant

differences between mean posttest scores of experimental

females taken as a group and control females taken as a

group along the above listed dependent variables. Experi-

mental females are predicted to score significantly higher

on dependent variables measuring desirable characteristics

(Hypothesis la) and significantly lower on undesirable

characteristics (Hypothesis Ib) (CRAC-2).

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

General Summary of Collected Data and Q^g^riization of Results Presented

During the course of the experimental period several

children were lost from the experimental and control groups.

A complete set of posttest psychometric data was not col-

lected for one subject in Group EI, one subject in Group CI,

two subjects in Group EII, and two subjects in Group CII.

However, due to the small numbers of subjects in each group

teacher rating data were obtained during the posttesting

procedure on each child that dropped out. Six subjects,

therefore, have no psychometric posttest scores, but all

of the teachers' rating data are reported. Table 1 displays

mean pretest and posttest scores calculated by groups on

all dependent variables utilized in the research.

The analysis of results are presented in the following

order: (1) characteristics of the children studied; (2)

results of data analysis revealing differences between

experimental and control groups; (3) changes in intelli-

gence as a function of participation in the HDP; (4) Dif-

ferential responses of boys and girls to the HDP; (5) Post-

hoc analysis of collapsed experimental and control group

data.

;i

51

tn (U

iH JQ (d

• H

>

c: <D

c (U

<u Q

>1 JQ

CU 13 O

o >1

(0 (U }^ o u w • p CQ Q) - P •M (Q O CU

4J CQ O - P (U

C (d (U

(U

iH H 0 H M •P O, C 13 0 0 U U

0

iH H 0 U Q, •P :3

c 0 0 u u 0

i H <d 4J H p: H (U

e a •H 0 u 0 (U }-l cuo X PL)

H rd -P H c: (U a g Í3

•H 0 }^ u (u 0 C14 X f^

c 1 -

^ f

•r » f

z

Q w

IX

s

Q w

IX

2;

Q æ

IX

^

"

Q w

IX

u H 3 d H -1 d >

0 00 i H

(N 10 ro cr>

• • 0 0 r H i H

0 i n 10 ro t ^ ^

. • • LO cy> ' îT

ro n

0 <y> r-\

ro CN i H ON

• • i H - ^ H

0 CN CN ^ CN 00

• . . ro cT LO ro ro

0 00 H

ro "^ <y» vo

• • r^ 0

H

, 0 ro ro 0 0 V û CXD

. • • CT\ ^ ^ CN ro

0 <J\ H

00 ^ ro CN

• • 0 00 H

0 H H CJ H CN

• • • ro 0 vo ro ^

fd ^ Û) 0 (d M (U p: CI4 0

1 G . . 1 Q) >1 (0 u

Ti (UÆ (U 0 M -P M-l

^ 0 W H-l íd 0 0 -H (U co ou'd P4

H

0 00 H

0 0 H 0

• • CM CN

0 0 0 0 VO »^

• • • H H 0 H H 1

0 a^ H

VD ^ (j\ <y>

• • H H

0 '^ l ' VO *^ ^ H

• • • H H 0 H H 1

0 00 H

'5Í* r o H cr>

• • H

0 0 cr> CN m ro

• • • CN cs H H

0 cy» H

0 H i n t ^

• • ro

0 0 0 00 0 CNJ

• • • 0 ro CN H H

(U M

m a (U H 1 U 0 1 f^ C/D M-4 (U

H ^ • • (U 0) C! Cn -P ^H ^ (0 «W 0 (0 0 -H M fd cu 'd »

rsi

0 00 H

H (y\ ^ m

• • CNJ CN

0 ro r^ VO H - ^

• • • H H 0 H H 1

0 cr> H

cr> i n 00 H

• • H OJ

0 cr> cj ro 00 10

• • • H H 0 H H

0 00 H

CT ro CT cr>

• •

0 0 0 cr> 0 H

• • • CN ro 0 H H

0 cy> H

0 ro • ^ cs

• • ro H

0 r^ r^ 0 VO VD

• • • H CSl H H H

1+-I <U H }^ U <D Q> C

W Æ (U -P U

„ 0 Q) C S -P M-l 15 (U <n <H 0 CO 5-1 0 -H ^ fd Û4 cu^ CQ

ro

0 00 H

00 <y> r^ 10

• • H r j

0 ro r-VO H ^

• • • H H 0 H H 1

0 cr> H

i n H 0 0

• • ro r j

0 •'í' ^ CN| •«3' CN

• • • H H 0 H H

0 00 H

cr> ^ r- vo

• •

0 ro ro 00 H ro

• • • cvj ro 0 H H

0 <r> H

vo 0 <y> ro

• • ro H

0 r-- r^ CN r^ i n

• • • 0 CN CN H H

M-l ^ <U H (U U <U Æ C æ U <U

fd Ví . . Q) 0) C EH - P U-I

^ <u (0 m 0 <0 >-l 0 •H J-l fd 0:4 a i i 3

m •'T

52

<u }-i o u <0

<u u <u u <u

M-l H-l -H T l

II

-p co <u -p <u

-p <n (U 4-í -p <n o 04

u

-p CQ <u - p - p CO o cu I I

-p <0 <u -p <u }^ CL4 I I fd

,l

(U í3 C

-H -P c o CJ I I

w »J pq

H H O H U -P C o u

04

o

Q C/D

o }-l -p

o O U

U O

IX

Q c/a

fd -P H C H (U e cu

•H ^ M o (U }-l 04 CJ X

IX

Q

(d -p H

(U o e

•H }-l

O }-l

(U o 04

IX

Q cn

IX

(U H XI fd

•H }-l fd >

o 00 H

O 00 O 00

v o cr> ro in

• • CN rvj

r ro o H

• •

r o

ro 00 • •

o ro r-ro H H

• • • H H O H H I

0 0 0 0 0 0

• • • VO 'ií' CN ^ ^ I

o ro r 00 H VO

• • • CVJ CN O

I

o cr> o <r> o <T>

<T> - ^ CT> (y\

• • CS H

H 00

o r--• •

a\ r

r- ro ro ro

o vo vo ^ VO CN

• • • H H O H H

O * * '!* i n ^ <T>

• • • in vo o

o in in cy> in ro

• • • CN CN O

I

O 00 H

O 00 O 00

CN ^ 00 VO

• • o o

cy> vo r^ vo

• • CN OJ

vo ro VO CN

• • H CN

o ro ro r- H ' *

. . . CN ro o

o in in vo r^ H

. • • O H H in in

o ro ro H H o

• • • CN 'iî' CN

o cr> o cy> o cy>

in cr> «^ o

• • ">* H

r vo o o>

• • i n ^ H

H r>j i n ^

• • H H

O 00 00 ro r- 'sr

• • • O CN O

O H H ro H 00

• • • CN o r^ ^ i n

O H H VO * * 00

• • • ro ' r o

o 00

(U U O4

M-l I H I <U CO

CO U <U <U

<U u <u u <u

fd 4-> o EH

<u u 04 I I

<u u

<u u <u

<u >

•H -p

<u u 04 I I

C! P4 -P M-l ^ co i w O CO O -H

u fd O4TJ

in

C M-l +J IH l H co m o <U O •H u cn 04T}

vo

co <u co

fd c TJ í3

<u u j : ; <u u <u

o cr> in ro

o in in VO CN VO

• • • vo r o

o cr»

r*- H 00 o

• • H rvj

o in in 00 in r*

• • • in vo o

o 00

CN O CN ro

• • CN H

o ro ro in vo H

• • • in vo H

o cy> H

i n ro 00 ro

• • H H

O ^ ' ^ <y> - ^ m

• • • vo r> o

O O -P ^ H O4 O w M-l fd <o ci) o -H > <u = O4T5

<u >

•H -P fd

H (d >

00

(D •• M <0 O4 <U I <0 I

c = O TJ O4 fd CO PQ

<u =

<u u c 0 u <u

-P U-l <0 M-l O -H O^TI

53 O 00

CN rsj ro r-

• • CN CN

o 00 rsj ^ ro o

• • • cr> <y> o

o cr> H

vo H ro r

• • CN rvj

o r-- H -^

00 <T> O

O 00 H

^ 00 ro CN

• • ro ro

o in in vo t^ H

• • • r o ro

o cr>

in in in H

• • CN rsj

o <T> cr> i n 00 ro

• • • O H H

<U >

-H -P fd :3

<o

u <u u u o

<u u co c: o fd

<u u c <u u <u

-P IH H O4-P <u co m fd co o }-i O •H > <U EH O4 CUTJ

cr>

i'-

TJ (U

c •H -P

o u I I

H H 0 H }^ -P 04

0 0 u u

o

H H o }^ 04 -P ;3 C 0 O }-i

u a

H fd -P H Jí H (U g 04

•H 3 }-i o (U ^ OiCI} ><; ij^

H fd -P H

c (U 04 e í3

•H O U U

<u o 04

^ ;

Q c/a

IX

IS

Q cn

IX

2;

Q C/3

IX

2:

Q æ

IX

(U H XI fd

•H }-l fd >

0 00 H

i n a\ i n vo

• • H H

0 00 00 00 ro i n

• • • i n vo 0

0 cy> H

ro cy> ro H

• • H CN

0 ^ ' ^ ro - ^ H

• • • i n i n 0

0 00 H

H r>-ro H

• • OJ H

0 i n i n r^ r^ 0

• • • • ^ VO CN

0 cr> H

i n r^ rvi 00

• • H 0

0 r- r--r^ vo cr>

• • • i n vo 0

1 (U •H }-l (U M-l O4 0 (u c: Q •• (U

CO M -P C (U U 0 -P 4-1 <U •H CO «+-l

M-4 -P 0 •H «4-1 -H c u ' d < c 0 H

0 00 H

vo ro ^ r>j

• . r j r j

0 CT\ CT ^ 00 "^

• • • ^ ^ 0

0 cr> H

0 ^ VO "^

• • rsj CN

0 ro ro <y> ro "?r

• • • ro - ^ 0

0 00 H

00 cr> i n vo

• • H H

0 ro ro • ^ vo r j

• • • • 3» ^ 0

0 <y> H

ro ro 0 H

• • CM CN

0 ^ ' ^ <T\ »* i n

• • • ^ i n 0

(U U <D <u ::3 u u cn O4 C

•H <u (X4 • • }-l 1 -P <u

^ U -P U-l U <U <0 M-l

•H *H 0 -H -P M-l O I T J co <C

H H

0 00 H

in 0 in in

• • «tí< r í»

0 0 0 vo i n H

• • • CN CN 0 H H 1

0 a\ H

vo 0 00 H

• • ro i n

0 ^* " r vo ^ 00

• • • CN i n r^ H H

0 00 H

00 CN 00 <r>

• • i n ro

0 0 0 H vo i n

• • • ro vo ro H H

0 cr> H

r^ 00 vo 0

• • ro ro

0 r^ r>-vo vo 0

• • • ^ cr> CN H H

1 H ^ 0 <U C }^ <u

4^ Oi u u c: < .. <u

-P u 4-> C <U U <U -P *H (U g CO ^

4-1 <T» 0 -H 4-4 T í O4TJ < <U

rM H

0 0 H H

r* ro VO CN

• • i n i n

0 0 0 CN vo VO

• • • H 0 0 CNJ CN 1

0 0 H H

cr> i n 00 0

• • i n vo

0 0 0 vo 00 00

• • • H 0 0 CN CN 1

0 0 H H

i n cy> vo i n

• • H ro

0 0 0 vo ro ro

• • • 00 00 0 H H 1

0 0 H H

ro i n <y> H

• • ^ i n

0 0 0 <y> ' ^ i n

• • • CM 0 H H rsj 1

• • tn 1 c: <u

•H ^ -P fd <u fd ^ <u u

H p:í < }^ CJ 0 O4 <u 0 4 -P 1 >-l

x : <u u 1 <u u x : <u <o -P 4-1 CO U 4-4 (0 <0 4-1 <U fd 4-1 <U 0 H }-i <U < j : : O4TJ a* EH

ro H

54 0 0 H H

cr> ro *T> 00

• • ^ ^

0 0 0 vo 00 00

• • • CN 00 ro ro rM

0 0 H H

00 r^ CN 0

• . i n r^

0 0 0 vo ro r^

. . . r^ 00 0 CN CN

0 0 H H

.sr CN ro 00

. . * * 00

0 0 0 CN i n ro

. . • H CN H ro ro

0 0 H H

vo ro M* H

• • i n ^

0 0 0 vo 00 00

• • • cj\ 00 0 rsj rsj 1

• • t n > i C O4

•H O4 -P fd <u td ffi u

H fiî 1 c 0 > i (U 0 V O4 u

x ; (U O4 (U u x ; fd -P iH <o u x ; (u (0 4-1 (u fd c: M 0 •H }^ (U D O4 04^0 Pm H

• ^ H

<u

•H -p C! o u I

i-q

< EH

1

H H O H U -P O4 C 3 0 0 U U

0

H H 0 }H O4 -P ^ c 0 0 U u 0

H fd -P H C H <U B O4

•H íJ ^ 0 <U U O4O X H

H fd -P H c (U O4

•H 0 }^ }-l (U C5 O4 X U

s

Q co

Ix

s

Q w

IX

2;

-

Q C/3

IX

2

Q æ

IX

<u H ^ fd

•H ^ fd >

••

c: •H -p fd

0 0 H H

in H 0 00

• • 00 H

H

0 0 0 cy> vo ro

• • • rsj 0 rvj r^ r^ 1

0 0 H H

0 vo . * in

• • 0 ro CN H

0 0 0 0 r-- r^

• . • * * H r^ vo r^

0 0 H H

in 0 in vo

• • 00 r^

H

0 0 0 r* H VD

• • • CN ^ 00 r- vo 1

0 0 H H

<y> vo r^ as

• • .sr <T> H

0 0 0 CN 0 OJ

• • • vo H in r~ r-> 1

1 c <u <u 0 }-l u

H Oí U OJ C 0 0 V4 x: <u u x: <0 u <u fd

1 (U (U 1 }-l }^ CO <U ;3 H -P 4-4 -P 0 CO 4-1 fd J 0 -H

V4 <u S -P cunj a* EH in H

0 0 H H

r^ ro r* t^

• • in vo

0 0 0 ^ r- r^

• • • in ro H rsj CN 1

0 0 H H

VO H cr> ^

• • 00 r^

0 0 0 cr> in "^

• • • r^ in CN cvj oj 1

0 0 H H

r* ro r^ a\

• • '^i' cr>

0 0 0 H CM cr>

• • • in ro H rvj rsj 1

0 0 H H

<y> vo r^ rg

• • in in

0 0 0 cT cn 0

• • • vo ro ro oj rsj 1

tP <U C'-i u

•H fd O4 -P íJ 1 <u fd -P 1 u

H « U <U C 0 <U 'CJ <u 0 } H :3 }-i

^ <U H 4-» <U U JC (U - H -P 4^ Ul U -P -P (0 4-1 <u fd c -P 0 -H }-l (U H < Oí'CJ CU EH

VD H

CO w • •

•H c: M ^ <U 0 í3 >-l •H 0 TJ > CO H fd CO •H ^

0 0 H H

0 H ' í ' ^

• • vo in

0 0 0 in H . r

• • • vo vo 0

1

0 0 H H

r^ vo 'd' vo

• • ^ in

0 0 0 r^ r^ 0

• • • r j ro H

0 0 H H

cr> ro cr> r-

• • CN ro

0 0 0 in H "^

• • • rsj CN 0

1

0 0 H H

<T> 0 cr> . *

• • ^ -^

0 0 0 ro vo r^

• • • r^ in H

1

^^ < ' ' G <U 0 u

•H C CO <U CO U <U <U U -P 4-1 tJi <U <Q 4-4 Cr» }-i 0 -H

•H Æ: <u < 04 o^TJ S U CQ

r-H

r . r ^ 5 5 0 0 H H

ro vo 00 00

• • CN ro

0 0 0 0 0 0

• • • m ^ H

1

0 0 H H

0 in 00 CN

• • CN ro

0 0 0 in H vo

• • • •^ in 0

0 0 H H

^ 0 r^ H

• • r j CN

0 0 0 00 0 00

• • • ro ro 0

1

0 0 H H

ro 00 'd' H

• • ro CN

0 0 0 0 cri cy>

• • • in in 0

1

^ H

• * — '

c: <u 0 u

. . •H G •H -P (U ^ •H }-| íJ XI <U 0 -H -P 4-1 CO i^ <U <0 4-1 tn C U 0 -rA

•H H O4 O4TJ S 00 H

TJ (U :3

•H 4-)

c 0 u 1 1

H

H i- l

m < EH

1

H H 0 H }^ •P 04

O 0 u u

u

H H

o U O4

Co

nt

Gro

u

H fd •P H C H (U

e 0, •H Í3 U 0 (U }^ 0 . 0 X w

H fd -P H J^ (U O4 e 3

•H 0 }^ }^ (U C!) 0. X w

z

Q co

IX

^:

Q C/3

IX

s

Q cn

IX

2

Q cn

IX

(U H X3 (d

•H

u fd >

0 0 H H

^ VO H ro

• • ro CN

0 0 0 i n r^ CN

• • • ro ro 0

0 0 H H

i n r^ ro H

• • H CN

0 0 0 vo vo 0

• • • OJ CN 0

0 0 H H

0 i n r^ CN

• • H H

0 0 0 ro ro 0

• • • "^ CN CN

1

0 0 H H

H H Ta< r -

• • CN H

0 0 0 i n "" f H

• • • • ^ ro H

1

(U

^ u . . > i f f i j : : •H -P " - ' (U V -H }^ :3 > H (U 0 -H <U -P 4^ CQ -P > <U CO 4-1 CO U <U }H 0 -H

•H < h^ 04 04^3 S cr> H

0 0 H H

ro cr> r^ 00

H H

0 0 0 H ^ 00

• • • OJ H 0

1

0 0 H H

ro 00 CN VO

• • H 0

0 0 0 i n r^ 00

• • • H 0 0

1

0 0 H H

0 ro r - i n

• • 0 0

0 0 0 - ^ i n H

• • • 0 0 0

0 0 H H

vo 0 i n H •

• • H H

0 0 0 ro cr> **

• • • r j 0 H

1

1 <u to ^ u

. . •H ^q G •H Q W <U ^ ^ U :3 04 • <u 0 <U XJ -P 4-1 CO <U }-l <U CO 4-1 tO H :3 }^ 0 -H

•H æ -P Oi O i ' i î

s 0 04

0 0 H H

cr> H cr> r^

• • 0 0

0 0 0 cr> i n ^

• • • 0 0 0

1

0 0 H H

OJ H ro r-

• • 0 0

0 0 0 H i n 'sí'

• • • 0 0 0

0 0 H H

00 CN VO • í'

• • 0 0

0 0 0 ro rg H

• • •

0 0 0 1

0 0 H H

CN 0 •^ r^

• • 0 0

0 0 0 CN VO ^

• • • 0 0 0

<u 1 u

. . fd ' -^ G •H N CO <U M -H CI4 U 0 4^^ 0) 0 fd C -P 4-1 <0 e 0 <U <0 4^ CO 0 -H ^ 0 -H

•H C/3 -p O4 O4T} S H CN

0 0 H H

rsj CN cr> H

• • rvj ro

0 0 0 o^ 00 o>

• • • 'sr i n 0

0 0 H H

' í ' CN ^ VO

• • ro H

0 0 0 ^ 00 - ^

• • • •^ i n H

0 0 H H

r>i vo H r^

• • CN H

0 0 0 ^ 0 VO

• • • r - 00 0

0 0 H H

0 ro rN -"^

• • ro H

0 0 0 vo vo 0

• • • Tj* vo r j

> i -P <u •r^ Q) U

. . H V4 G •H -H O4 <U M ^ 1 }-l í3 fd 1 <u 0 •H ^ -P 4-1 CO U 0 CO 4-1 co 0 cn 0 -H

•H C/3 ^ Oi'C S CN OJ

56

TJ <U 3

c •H •P o u I I

w

<

O H

•P C O u

04

O U U

H H O U O4 -P í3 C O O U u o

H fd •P H c: H <u g 04

•H 3 4 O

<u u 0 4 O

w

fd -P H Cí 0) O4

•H }^

:3 o u

<u u 04 Xî

w

a

Q cn

IX

Q C/D

IX

Q cn

IX

Q

IX

<u H XI fd

•H fd >

o o

H VO ro o j

• • H <r>

0 0 0 o r>- ro

• • • 00 m CN H H I

57

o o

H CN VO 00

• • in 00

0 0 0 ro vo ro

• • • H rvj H

o o H H

» • - ;

CN 00 cr> ro

• • "•vT i n

0 0 0 rsj o rvj

• • . H 00 ro H I

o o H H

<r> 00 r^ vo

• • '^ m

0 0 0 ^ ^ o

• • • H vo m CN H I

u •H ^ •• G O4

•H <U EH Vi C n ^ íJ 0 co 0 X3 g CQ 4-J <U CO fd -P

•H CI4 H

ro CN

<U U

<u u í í <u u <u

-P 4-1 CO 4-1 0 •H

04 04TJ

^ ^

58

Characteristics of the Children Studied

Comparisons in mean chronological ages for the four

groups at the beginning of the research revealed no sig-

nificant differences. Table 2 reports the results of

this analysis.

TABLE 2.—Summary of t Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Chronological Ages of Experimental and Control Subjects

Groups Compared

EI, EII

EI, CI

EI, CII

EII, CI

EII, CII

CI, CII

Means and standard deviations in chronological ages

were respectively: EI, 58.10 + 5.19; EII, 57.80 + 3.49;

CI, 55.30 + 5.52; CII, 56.60 + 5.08. Thus, the groups

contained subjects whose average age fell between approxi-

mately 55 months and 58 months.

Group comparisons of mean pretest Peabody Picture

Vocabulary raw scores are presented in Table 3. Results

indicate that there were no significant differences between

the four groups.

0 . 0 5

0 . 3 8

0 . 2 1

0 . 4 0

0 . 2 0

0 . 1 8

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

t •

! ,: I •

59

TABLE 3.—Summary of t Tests Comparing Mean Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary Raw Scores of Experimental and Control Subjects

Groups Compared

EI, EII

EI, CI

0 . 3 3

0 . 0 3

0 . 1 0

0 . 2 8

0 . 4 4

0 . 1 3

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Table 4 displays means and standard deviations of

raw scores on the Peabody by group. Mean group raw scores

fell between 29.80 and 35.30. These raw scores correspond

to mental ages of approximately 36 months to 41 months

and place the subjects approximately 16 months to 22 months

below the expected mean for children their chronological

age (see Table 4). Intellectually the children thus

scored well below average. The above data suggest that

the four groups did not differ substantially in chronolog-

ical age or intelligence as measured by receptive vocabu-

lary at the outset of the research.

t-'

EI, CII -0.10 NS l

EII, CI " ^" "'" ^

EII, CII

CI, CII

60

> i TJ o XI fd Q)

íd Q)

(d

Q) t; <

(d u

•H tn O H O

O }-i x: u

(d (U

CO Q) U O U CO

O4 0 O U

^ u fd

« > i XI

> i TJ CO O Q)

XI tn (d < CU

fd Cí +» (d fí (U o I I

i-q CQ < E H

(U u

. ^ ^ < (U (U

I s M M (U 0

1 4-1 U . 4-1 CO < H

l U Q

> i 'd (u 0 t n - ^

Æ < co (d Æ ^ <U H 4Jl< 04 td G I ; ^

-P o ^ c c: g fd <u " ^ OJ S S

H fd

u •H t J i - -0 co

-H Æ 0 -P G C . - -0 0 <

u gju Xí ^ ^ u

<u C tn fd < (U s

G TJ 0 U •H (d 4J

TJ fd c: •H fd > •P Q) C/3 Q

> 1 13 CQ 0 (U

XI u fd 0 (U u Oí cn

Jí ^ fd (d (u 0:;

s

Q* 0 0 >i u

0 H

. 00 rH

0

0 H

• 00 m

00 ro

• 0 H

0 cr>

• ro ro

H W

0 00

• H r j

vo ro

0 00

• r-m

ro cr>

• r

0 00

• cr> o j

H H W

0 ro

0

vo H

cr> ro

0 ro

• m m

ro H

• H H

0 •^

• ro ro

H U

0 vo

m H

H

0 vo

• vo m

rN ro

• 0 H

0 ro

• m ro

H H U

h

>

îi

61

Since an effort was made to obtain essentially equiv-

alent experimental and control groups, several pretest

scores on pretest data were compared. Among the com-

parisons made it was particularly apparent that the two

Experimental Groups EI and EII differed from one another

initially, especially on teacher's ratings; therefore, a l\

post hoc comparison of the two experimental groups on 1»

pretest Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist scores

appears in Table 5.

TABLE 5.—Summary of t. Tests Comparing Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II on Pretest i Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist i Teacher Ratings

Dimension t df

Aggression (A)

Inhibition (I)

Activity Level (H)

Sleep Disturbance (SL)

Somatization (Ps)

Sociability (So)

Total Pathology Items (Tp)

2.609

0.892

0.214

3.502

0.581

-2.305

4.699

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

<.01

NS

NS

<.005

NS

<.025

<.0005

Experimental Group I was rated by their regular

teacher as was Experimental Group II. The Experimental

Group I teacher compared with the Experimental Group II

62

teacher rated her children as significantly more aggressive

("Aggression," £ < .01), as exhibiting significantly more

"Sleep Disturbance" (£ < .005), as significantly less

socially interactive "Sociability" (£ < .025) and as

displaying more pathological behavior ("Total Pathology

Items," p < .005). u

Results of Data Analysis Revealing Differences >

JBetween Experimental and Control Grou]p¥

Research Hypotheses la and Ib predicted that after

covariate adjustment of posttest scores significant dif-

ferences would be found between: (1) Experimental Group I i 1

(EI) and Control Group I (CI, Mainland subjects); (2) ""

Experimental Group II (EII) and Control Group II (CII,

composed of children drawn from single intact classrooms);

and (3) Experimental Group I (EI) and Control Group II

(CII, the distal control group). Various measures of self-

concept, emotional awareness, and teacher's behavioral

ratings were predicted to be different. Peabody raw scores

and pretest scores on respective dependent variables were

utilized as covariates in the analysis of multiple covari-

ance statistical treatment; t tests adjusted for multiple

comparisons were performed to indicate group differences

on each respective dependent variable. Table 6 is a

sxommary of significant results of this analysis.

CQ (U

H X3 (d

•H V4 fd >

•p G Q)

TJ Jí (U O4 Q) Q

H H <

U 0

IW

co C 0 co

•H }-l

. - co C (d (U Ê

-P (0 (U -p •p co 0 04

(d t J O4 (U g -p 0

u co 0

• r i 0 4 T } í3 0 u 0

H 0 u 4-» C 0 u H (d

(d

(U -p (d

•H }^ (d > 0 u

e 0 }^

•p m C <U 73 g

•H }^ Q)

Q) -p (d

H O 4 : 3 X U W H

M-l 0

(d u co

> i ^ P ^ fd ^

co (U -P

:3 - P l

co "^

vo

W 1-1

<

I

Q)

u

(d

O4

e o u

co

O4

0

O

U

o

CQ H o u -p

o

co H (d -p c: Q)

e H -H H }-l U U (U

O, H CO X (d > W -P

CO h-{ n:3 -rA W í5 Q

(d H Æ C -P •H (d

•H

co (U

H CO H CO U fd

H CO U >

•P H U H fd W -P

H

H ^ U TJ

c: co (d > n-l

Jí H -H w fd

Q) H XJ (d

•H U (d >

O4I

4-4 TJ

+>l

oj

4-1 73

+íl

OJ

4-1 73

+»l

m o o

m o

m CN o

m CN o

63 co 2

cn

rsj (N o j o j r j CN CN rsj

00 • « *

00 o

vo r>-H ro

cr> o m m

o a\ 00

r -r>-• ^

r^

cr>

ro rM rsj CN CN

m CN

vo 00

ro

r-00 m vo

o I

2 æ 2;

w U) :2: 2

rsj H

rs rN rsj CN CN CN CN

m 00 r j H

H 00 r » H

r -0 H OJ

m cr> CN ro

vo 00 m r^

vo vo r^ cr>

rN r^ r i ro

CN

00 H 00

• CN

m CN 0

cn ^

m 0

m 0

cn !3

m 0

cn S

cn

CN rsj CN CN CN CN rM CN

ro cr> m vo

rsj

4-1 H Q) C/3 4-1

H . . 0) G co l 0 (0 }-i (d CQ

H vo 0 cr>

m H U Q) Q)

u) x: -p

. . 0 G S ^ 0 co }-i (d PQ

r-vo ro 0

CN

4-1 U H (U (u x: co u

fd . . 0) C tH ^ 0 cn M (d ffl

4-1 H 0 cn • •

rM 0 ^ 0

rsj

(0 U (U (U

a ÍU ^ 0 u ffl

co fd

4-1 H (U U)

• • c

0 H 0 r^

H

H fd

^ -p 0 u rø

0 H

r-m 0 H

rsj

• • co

«1 (U >

-H -P = fd TJ 3 0

H 0 (d ( J > = w

0 cr\ r -H

0 1

• • co ffíl

(U >

-H -P (d = 0 TJ

H (d (d m > = w

H cr> H ro

H

• • CO ctíl

(U >

-H = -P +J H U (d fd (U :3 4-í }^

H 0 }-l (d EH 0

> = u w

rM ro m vo 00

TJ Q) 0

•H -P

O U I I

vo

W

<

n3

(U

}-i

(d

04

e O

U

(0

04

í3

0

}^

C3

co ^ H CO (d H -P O C U Q) -P Ê C

H -H 0 H }-l U U CU

O 4 H co ><: (d > W -P

co i-in:) -r^ W C Q

(d •H ^ j : : -P

•H •H (d ^ 5

(0 (U

H CO H CO U (d

H CO U >

-P H U H fd W -P

c H * — •

H ^ U 73

co fd > r H

c: H -H w fd

s

(U H XI fd

•H }q fd >

OJ

4- l | TJI

-Pl

OJ

4- l | TJl

-Pl

OJ

4- l |

'dl

•Pl

C/3 2

rsj H

00 vo r>-ro

. 0

m 0

.

rN H

m 00 CN CN

« CN

æ s

CN H

m 0 m ' ^

• H

1 •H 4-1 (U Q

CO -P C u 0 (U •H

IW 4-» 4-1 •H < c: cr>

cn ^

rM H

m vo r-H

• 0

co s

rsj H

H 00 00 CN

« 0 1

Ui s

CN H

0 vo • ^ ro

• 0

Q)

u 0 tn

•H W 1 -P

^ U U (U

•H 4- -P 4-1 c/a <

0 H

CO !3

rvj H

cy> ^ r-m

• ro

cn Z

rM H

CN H cr> m

• 0

cn 13

rsj H

0 rsj m m

• H

1 H ^ 0 c ,i4 U -P < J^

(U -P B U (U (U Cn 4-1 TJ 4-1 (U <

H H

• • Cn a •H -p fd Pí

u Q) x:

cn S

m H

m 00 H ^

• 0 1

æ a

m H

m m 0 r~-

• 0 1

U) ^

m H

rM rvi vo rM

• 0 1

co (0 Q)

-P C U (U (U U

u 4-1 fd fd 4-1 ^ Q) < < EH

rM H

U) 2:

m H

ro 00 0 CM

• 0

C/3 13

m H

00 m ro H

• H

cn :3

m H

r-vo CN 0

• 0

• • tJ^ >1 J3 O4

•H Oi -P fd fd K P 1

> i U Oi (U O4

x : (d u x: (d c: 0) D EH

ro H

U) 2:

m H

0 vo ^ rM

• 0 1

m rsj 0

•

m H

vo m rsj rM

• CN

1

cn S

m H

(r> 00 ^ 0

• H

1 • • tn C

•H -P (d p:: co

H }-l (U 0 (U ^ }-i ^ 0 -P U -P j:: fd fd 0 (U S u EH

• ^ H

C/D

s

m H

cr> 0 0 ' í *

• 0 1

C/D 2

m H

^ 00 vo r

• 0 1

U} 2:

m H

cr> ^ 0 0

• 0

• • C7> C H

•H fd -P 0 fd -P « U (U

(U 'd }-i H :3 (U H ^J x: (u -H U -P -P (d j : ; -p (U H < E

m H

co 13

m H

00 • " ^

ro m

• 0 1

cn iz;

m H

rN ro H 00

• 0 1

Ui ^

m H

00 00 H ' í '

• 0 1

^-^ < '—

c 0 . . -H

-H CO U CO í3 (U 0 U co cn CO tT>

-H < s vo H

64

M-

'O Q) 0

•H -P

o u I I

vo w

l

< EH

'O (U

}^

(d

cu

g o u

co

O4

0

0

u iD

\

co ^ H CO (d H •P 0 C U Q) -P

e c H -H 0 H ^ U U (U

O 4 H CO X (d > W -P

CO H f d •H w a Q

(d H Æ Jí -p

•H •H (d ^ 5

(0 (U

H CO H CO

u (d H CO U

> -P

H U H fd W -P

J^ H —

H - -N U TJ

j : : co fd > H

c: H -H w fd 5

(U H XI fd

•H }-l fd >

OJ

itJl T J I

•Pl

oJ

4 - l | 'C^I

-Pl

OJ

I H |

'dl

-Pl

C/D

m H

ro ^* r« m

• H

CO 2:

m H

H cr> CN

• H 1

cn S

m H

m 0 r^

• 0

^_^

H — J3 0

. . -1-1

•H -P M-H 13 XI O^H (0 Æ CO C

•H H

r^ H

*• •H }-4 :3 0 co co

•H

00 H

CO

m H

r-» 0 H <T>

• 0

1

CO 12:

m H

* * r^ m rsj

• H 1

C/D S

m H

vo m 0

• 0

> i - ^ -P ffi •H ^ > H

•H (U •P > U Q) < .-q

• • •H h í3 0 CO (0

•H

2 cr> H

co 2 :

m H

cr> r^ r^ ro

• H i

co s

m H

ro vo 0 0

• 0

1

æ ^

m H

VO ro <T> 0

• 0

1

^-» l-q

1 U) co ^

•H (U Q U

c: O4 (d (U X I (U }-l

H í3 C/D -P

• • •H }-l :3 0 co co

•H

0 CN

U)

m H

m 00 H ^

• 0

æ ^ ;

m H

m H m 00

• 0 1

Ui S

m H

CN m H ro

• 0

1 -^ (d (0 N Pn

•H '*-' -P fd c:

e 0 0 -H C/3 -P

• • •H

U) 2

m H

0 m cr> ro

• H

m 0

•

m H

m CN r^ 00

• H

Ui S

m H

H ro

<y> •

0

> i -P •H H •H

U XI í3 0 co co

•H

H CN

fd • H ^ U 0 0 c/3 w ^

• • •H V 3

U) :2

m ,—1

^ ro H "^

t

0 1

Ui ^

m H

rNj H 0 vo

• H 1

W Z

m H

cr>

H m

• 0 1

u ^ •H O4 G EH Q) ^ t7> 0 (0

0 x: e co co

•H

rM rM

-P (U fd -P 04 H

65

I D!

66

EI vs CI

Four predicted significant mean group differences

between experimental subjects and control subjects were

noted in the EI vs CI group comparisons^ They were as

follows:

l^ Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test: "Self as j II

Seen by Self," t = 2.6593, p < .025. ll "" . ' >

2. "Self as Seen by Teacher," t = 2.0367, £ < .05.

3. "Self as Seen by Peers," t = 2.0402, £ < .05.

4. Evaluative Responses: "Good" Correct, t = 2.1057,

p < .05. '

These results partially supported Hypotheses la and Ib with

regard to self-concept and affect awareness. Hypothesized

differences in teacher rating data were not supported,

however.

EII vs CII

Five significant mean group differences between

experimental and control subjects emerged. Four were

predicted differences and one was not. The differences

occurred on the variables:

1. Evaluative Responses: "Good" Correct, t = 2.9766,

£ < .01.

2. Evaluative Responses: Total "Good + Bad" Correct,

t = 2. 8181, £ < .01.

3. Affect Definitions, t = 2.2285, £ < .05.

K J

1 R 1 ',,

67

4. Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale, "Mature Con-

trols," t = -2.2256, £ < .025. Unexpectedly,

control subjects were rated by their teachers as

more mature in their classroom behavior than were

the experimental subjects.

5. Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist, "Socia-

bility," t = 1.8725, p < .05. i';

Hypotheses la and Ib were thus partially supported with

regard to emotional awareness and teachers ratings. However,

hypotheses predicting differences in the self-concept data

were not supported.

EI vs CII (Distal Control Group)

Results of the comparison of the experimental children

in the Mainland Center (EI) with distal controls in the

Dickinson Center (EI vs CII) revealed six mean group

differences in the predicted direction. These occurred

on the following dependent measures:

1. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test: "Self as

Seen by Self," t = 3.0848, £ < .005.

2. "Self as Seen by Mother," t = 2.5509, £ < .025.

3. "Self as Seen by Teacher," t = 2.5509, £ < .025.

4. "Self as Seen by Peers," t = 2.8901, £ < .01.

5. "Total Self-Concept," t = 2.7477, £ < .01.

6. Evaluative Responses: "Good" Correct, t = 2.5149,

£ < .025.

68

Again, Hypotheses la and Ib were partially supported with

regard to self-concept and emotional awareness. Hypoth-

eses predicting differences in teacher ratings were not

supported.

Changes in Intelligence as a Function of P "< icipation in the HDP

Hypothesis 2 asserted that there were significant

differences in gain scores from pretest to posttest on

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test raw scores with experi-

mental subjects expected to show larger gains than did

control subjects. Table 7 summarizes t tests comparing , ' .1

experimental and control groups. All possible comparisons -»

are presented. There were no significant differences in

the groups. Thus, while all groups showed gain in Peabody

raw scores, the experimental group subjects did not show

any significantly different gain as a function of their

participation in the HDP. Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

TABLE 7.—Summary of t Tests Comparing Experimental and Control Groups on Gain Scores on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Raw Scores—Pretest to Posttest

r'vi (jroupa Compared

EI, EI,; EI, EII EII ci.

CI EII CII , CI , CII CII

First

X

6. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8.

,00 00 ,00 ,00 00 00

Group

SD

5. 5, 5, 3. 3. 9.

.92 ,92 ,92 ,96 ,96 ,05

Second

X

8. 7. 6. 8. 6. 6.

,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 00

Group

SD

9. 3, 3, 9, 3. 3,

,05 .96 ,80 ,05 ,80 ,80

+-V

-0. -0. 0.

-0. 0. 0.

18 14 00 ,10 18 20

E

NS NS NS NS NS NS

69

Differential Responses of Boys and "" Girls to the HPF

Hypotheses 3 through 6 were proposed to test the

assertion that the HDP might have differential effects on

boys and girls. These hypotheses were deemed crucial con-

sidering the suggestions in the literature that male Negroes t ..•

have a greater difficulty in establishing positive feelings f!

for themselves and profit less from traditional attempts « %

at psychotherapy and educational remediation than do female

Negroes.

Due to the small numbers of males and females in each

original control and experimental group the data were

collapsed so that all males in experimental groups were

considered a treatment group to be compared with all

females in experimental groups. Additionally, all controls

were combined by sex so that a total of four new groups

were created based on sex and treatment. Thus, there were

male experimental (ME) and control (MC) groups and female

experimental (FE) and control (FC) groups. An analysis

of multiple covariance (CRAC-2) was performed for all

possible group comparisons using Peabody raw scores and

respective pretest scores on dependent variables as co-

variates with which to adjust posttest means. F ratios

tested differences among adjusted means between all

possible experimental and control male and female group

combinations for all dependent variables. Table 8

70

summarizes F tests performed with significant differences

indicated. These data answer research hypotheses regard-

ing differences in responses by boys and girls to the HDP.

Male Experimentals (ME) vs Female Experimentals (FE)

There were no significant differences between male

experimental and female experimental subjects on adjusted \Í

group mean scores along all 22 dependent variables.

Hypothesis 3 was thus not supported.

Male Controls (MC) vs Female Controls (FC)

There were no significant differences between male

control and female control subjects after covariate adjust-

ment of group mean scores along all 22 dependent variables;

therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Male Experimentals (ME) vs Male Controls (MC)

There were two variables that showed differences in

adjusted group mean scores between males in experimental

groups and males in control groups. The first occurred

on the Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale, "Mature Controls."

The F test was significant beyond the .05 level. Unex-

pectedly, however, teachers rated males in control groups

as significantly more mature in classroom behavior than

experimental males. The second significant relationship

I k

x: -p •H ^

'd Q) -p co í3

• í - i T) < :

co

co (U u 0 (U Q) u Æ x: cn -p CO Q) • p (U ^ P4

C TJ (d (U

S ^

X (U co > 1

XJ

• p

c • H

CO (U

H (d g (U

-P

C •H

(0 Q)

H (d g (U

c M-i m (d

co o u 0 u

T } 'CJ C (d

co (U

c (d

co (U

C/D H H

(d (U Ctí

u

(d

e II

fí -P w (d

•H co (U

w

fd Ê

II

u w

}^ Ê TJ TJ (d > 0 u Q)

c > i (d

u (d H :3

H XI O4 fd

•H •P H rJ S

»w

u

w

c fd

u ss •*—'

co • ^

> i (U H

0 H > X 3

0 M 0

(d •H }-l (d

0 -P >

co •H CQ

U -H PU

• P

c Q) > i > i T {

H 'O fd 0 C XI < (d

(U CO fl4 Q)

H XI (d H

• • co (U -p

> i fd

u (d g E 3

•H }-l

G (U

(U >

•H -P

.—x

> 1 U H Q) 0 O4 > CO (U U

co

-H -P U Q) O4 CO

O4 (U O4 í3 Q) Q

Q)

0 U

^

V

Cr> co

> H •H -P U (U

fd -P C (U

04 e co (U

(d Pí > 0

C/3 U 1

1 •

0 0

W h^

m <: H

a 0

•H }^ (U

O4 0 0 u D

H 0 M -P

O4 c X (U

0 U

(0

0

co

•H

}-l

fd

O4

g 0

u

T l

(U

u • H

fd

Oí

1

u w co >

W W

u s co >

w S

u w CQ >

, U

w w (0 >

w s

(U H XI (d

•H u íd >

— •

w l

rsj

!t!! T l j

H M-ll

TJI

' •

w l

r\j M-lj 'dl

H m| ^\

Wl

og IHJ T3|

H M-lj

w l

CsJ U- l | TJI

H m| 'ol

H i n ^

ro

^ H

H

H 0 0 0

ro

C J H

H

^ 0 0

ro H

H

00 H 00

r^j

ro H

H

CO (d

«+-i H (U cn • •

C M-l ^ M 0 (U ^ co CQ

H

cr> H 0

^ H

H

r-cr> rNj

H

rsj H

H

r--10 0

ro H

H

i n r--rsj

r o

r o H

H

CO (d

u-j H (U cn

u • • d)

c x: ^ -p 0 0 M s m r^j

ro i n ro

ro

' î r H

H

ro vo rsj

r^j

rvj H

H

r^ cr> ro

ro H

H

r^ (N LO

H

ro H

H

CO (d

iw H (U U) u

Q) •• x: c u ^ fd 0 (U ^ EH m ro

CQ fd

M-l H (U CO

• • c: ^ 0 u «

^

* ^ \D ro

Ȯ

•^ H

H

r^ vo 0

H

(N H

H

ro i n 0

ro H

H

r -cs rsj

r o H

H

co U Q) Q)

&4

r^ ^* ro

H

^ H

H

0 00 0

(N

CN H

H

0 0 0

ro H

H

VO rs 00

rvj

r o H

H

-P H O i (d (U -P U 0 C EH 0

U •• I C M-l ^ r H 0 Q) U U) CQ

i n

• * * 0 vo ro

i n CM

' í ' H

H

VO 00 i n

OJ H

H

VO ro cr>

ro H

H

0 vo vo

^

ro H

H

CO O í l

(U >

•H - P -1-(d :3 T î

H 0 fd 0 > 0 W

vo

H ^* 0

•^ H

H

H 0 0

rsi H

H

VJD rvj 0

ro H

H

00 i n 0

ro H

H

co

«1 (U >

•H -p fd - f 0

H TJ (d fd > CQ w

r-

• * • r^ r^ 0

H H

^ H

H

H 00 <T>

rvj H

H

r^j 0 ro

H

ro H

H

vo i n 0

rsj

ro H

H

CO

Píl

(U >

• H - f -P fd H 0 fd

H 4J (d 0 > EH

w æ

7 1

cr> vo vo

' í' H

H

i n ro H

CN

r>j H

H

•íí* cr> •«*

ro

ro H

H

^* r» 0

ro H

H

CO G 0

•H -p •H

•P c U • H (U M-l

U-l (U M-l Q <

cr>

'O Q) 0 •H -p c: o u I I

00

W tA CQ <

co

j : :

o co

•H

V

fd

O4

B 0

u

'CÍ

(U

u •H

(d

P4

u w co >

W W

u s co >

g

u w co >

U

w w co >

w s

(U H X i (d

• H }.l (d >

wl

rsj I H l TJI

H M-l| TJI

wl

OJ IHJ TJI

H M - l | TJI

wl

CN M-ij

Tll H

Tll

wl

rsj i w | TJI

H U - l |

'al

00 rvj H

"^ H

H

cr> r^ 0

rsj H

H

'^r 00 0

ro H

H

vo 00 cr>

ro H

H

(U }-4 3

CP •H W -P 1 u

M Q) U M-i

•H ^ •P < CO

0 H

* •K

0 vo t ^

r^

• ^ H

H

00 ^ VO

rvj H

H

H 0 rg

r j

ro H

H

CN rsj 0

ro H

H

1 H ^ 0 G M u < -p

G +J Q)

u g (U Cn

M-l T} -1 (U

<

H H

rvj ro ro

H

r^ H

H

00 "«* H

vo H

H

r -00 0

vo H

H

r^ 00 vo

H

vo H

H

CO CO

. . 0)

Cn c C (U

•H }^ -P (d (d ^

cí < U -P (U u

x : Q) U IH fd M-i Q) < ÊH

rsj H

00 i n vo

r» H

H

ro vo H

cs

vo H

H

r^ vo 0

CNJ

vo H

H

cr> 0 cr>

vo H

H

• • CP > i C O4

•H O4 -P fd (d ffi fií 1

> 1 U O4 (U O4

x : fd U Æ

<d c Q) D EH

ro H

vo 0 0

r H

H

•K r^ ' i *

H

i n

vo H

H

cr> a\ a\

vo H

H

0 H 0

CVJ

vo H

H

CO . . H cn 0 c u •H -P -P C fd 0

s^ u }-l (U (U u

x : :3 U -P (d íd

(u S EH

^ H

0 0 0

•

r^ H

H

VO ro cy\

• H

VO H

H

H ^ VO

•

vo H

H

ro ' î l '

0 •

vo H

H

• • tJi C <H

•H fd -P 13 (d -P Pi 0 Q)

Q) T l }-l H í3 (U H -P

x : (U •H U •P -P (d c -p (U H <

EH

i n H

i n vo 0

•

r H

H

00 0 H

• ' í '

vo H

H

<r> 00 ro

• H

VD H

H

VO 0 0

•

VD H

H

- — N

< '

G 0

. . -H •H (0 ^ CO î3 Q) 0 }^ co Cr> co CP

•H <

S vo H

^ r- > H

•

r>« H

H

CNJ rsj 0

•

vo H

H

VO cr> ro

•

vo H

H

00 ^ rvj

•

vo H

H

-—«• H "^^

j : : 0

. . • H •H -P }-l •H í3 X I 0 •H (0 ^ co c:

•H H

S r^ H

t ^ cr> CNJ

•

r^ H

H

r^ cr\ CNJ

• cs

vo H

H

* * r^ 0

•

vo H

H

cr> 00 H

•

vo H

H

' - * ' •• > i K

•H -P ^ U •H íJ > H 0 -H (U CO +J > CO U (U

•H < ,J1

S 00 H

72

> -!

'CJ Q) 0 C

-H 4J

O U I I

00

W

<

co

c:

o co

•H

U

(d

O4

e 0

u

TJ

(U

U

•H

(d

Oí

u w co >

w w

u s co >

w s

u w co >

u

w w co >

w s

(U H X3 (d

•H }-i (d >

wl

rsj i w l TJI

H

ml 'dl

wl

r j »H | 1 J |

H M-l| 'C!

wl

CVJ «H|

'dl H

TJI

wl

cs IW|

'Ol H

T3l

1

cr> H 0

•

r-H

H

CT H

r •

vo H

H

00 ro 0

•

vo H

H

00 H cr>

• H

vo H

H

>- 0 4 » ^ (U C/3 QJ - ^

H (U CO U

(^ . . (d

•H X5 }-l U 0 0 0 -P co co CO -H

•H Q S cr> H

0 i n H

•

r>-H

H

0 0 0

•

vo H

H

CN i n i n

•

vo H

H

00 0 i n

•

vo H

H

1 •H -P (d

g 0 æ • •

•H

^ c: íJ 0 0 •H CO -P co (d

•H N

S 0 r>j

00 ^ t ^

•

r H

H

cr> rg <r>

• ro

vo H

H

rvj 0 0

•

vo H

H

i n CNJ H

• ro

vo H

H

<-^ 0 C/3 — > i

-P •H

• • H •H •H }^ X I :3 td 0 -H CO U CQ 0

•H CO

S H CN

• • •H ^ 0

ro cr> H

•

c H

H

•K rvj ro cr>

• • ^

vo H

H

VO 0 vo

•

vo H

H

00 H 0

•

vo H

H

U ^ •H O4

íí ^ (U - '

Cn 0 co

0 x: e co co

•H

S r j rsj

-P Q) (d -P O H

73

..'

• • i n •

i n cvj H 0 0 0

V V V

OJOJOJ

• - • • •

•

74

occurred on the teacher's rating scale "Total Pathogenic

Items (Tp)," which appears in the Missouri Children's

Behavior Checklist. Teachers rated males in experimental

groups as exhibiting fewer pathological characteristics

than males in control groups. The F test was significant

beyond the .05 level. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was not

supported with regard to changes in self-concept data or

affect awareness data. Minimal support for predicted

differences on behavioral rating data was obtained.

Female Experimentals (FE) vs Female Controls (FC)

Females in experimental groups were compared with

females in control groups. Three significant differences

in mean posttest scores were found after covariate adjust-

ment. The first occurred on the Brown IDS Scale, "Self as

Seen by Peers." An F test was significant beyond the .05

level. Experimental females rated themselves as signifi-

cantly more acceptable to peers than did female control

children. Experimental girls also showed a significantly

better ability to discriminate "good" activities than

control girls on the Evaluative Responses, "Good" variable.

The F ratio was significant beyond the .01 level. Addi-

tionally, an F test performed on the Evaluative Responses,

"Total 'Good + Bad' Correct" revealed that experimental

girls were far superior to control girls in judging "good"

\ ,-• I •

M-

75

and "bad" acts in line with acceptable standards for these

behaviors (£ < .01). Hypothesis 6 was thus minimally

supported on variables measuring one aspect of self-

concept and on two variables reflecting emotional aware-

ness. Hypotheses regarding teacher rating data were not

supported. h.,,

\%

Post hoc Results Obtained After Collapsing of the Four Groups into One Experimental Group

and One Control Group

As a further post hoc analysis of posttest results

the two experimental groups were collapsed into one group ;i

and compared to a similarly collapsed control group. The .1

analysis of multiple covariance which utilized pretest

Peabody raw scores and respective pretest scores on each

dependent variable as covariates is summarized in Table 9.

Significantly different relationships found between

EI vs CI, EI vs CII, and EII vs CII all remained signifi-

cant beyond the .10 level of significance.

• »

TABLE 9.—Analysis of Multiple Covariance on Collapsed Data: EI + EII Compared with CI + CII on Posttest Results

76

Variable Mi df,

1 Brown: Self as Self

2 Brown: Self as Mother

3 Brown: Self as Teacher

4 Brown: Self as Peer

5 Brown: Total Self

6 Evaluative Responses: "Good"

7 Evaluative Responses: "Bad"

8 Evaluative Responses:

Total Correct

9 Affect Definitions

10 Stick-Figure Affect

11 Affect Acknowledgment

12 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Affect Awareness

13 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Unhappy-Happy

14 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Mature Controls

15 Preschool Teacher's Rating: Intellectual Attitude

16 Missouri

17 Missouri

18 Missouri

19 Missouri

20 Missouri

21 Missouri

22 Missouri

Aggression

Inhibition

Activity Level

Sleep Disturbance

Somatization

Sociability

Pathogenic Items

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

30

9.325

3.075

7.805

9.312

6.394

15.701

0.007

9.864

3.475

0.001

7.208

<.01

<.05

<.01

<.01

<.05

<.01

NS

<.01

<.10

NS

<.05

36 0.637 NS

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

36

0.924

-2.963

0.708

0.951

0.021

2.266

0.890

0.088

5.137

2.152

NS

<.10

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

<.05

NS

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Characteristics of the Children Studied

The experimental and control children involved in

the research were chosen as representative of culturally

deprived Negro children attending full year Head Start

day-care programs. The four groups selected each con-

tained five boys and five girls. The mean ages of the

four groups at the time of pretesting were respectively:

Experimental Group I, 58.10; Experimental Group II, 57.80;

Control Group I, 55.30; and Control Group II, 56.60 months.

Results presented in Table 2 indicated that there were no

significant differences in mean ages among the four groups.

An examination of Table 4 shows that the children

were below average in intelligence. Mean pretest Peabody

Picture Vocabulary Test mental ages (MA) in months compared

with mean chronological ages (CA) in months for each group

were:

Experimental Group I, MA= 40, CA= 58.10;

Experimental Group II, MA = 36, CA = 57.80;

Control Group I, MA = 40, CA = 55.30;

Control Group II, MA = 41, CA = 56.60.

These data indicate that the children scored respectively

18, 22, 15, and 16 months below average on the Peabody,

77

1 ^

78

thus reflecting their disadvantaged backgrounds. There

were no significant differences found in mean pretest Pea-

body raw scores among experimental and control groups

(Table 2). The Negro children chosen for experimental

and control groups thus were not significantly different

in mean age and intelligence.

The Mainland Center Comparisons on Posttest Data: Significant Findmgs and Implica-

tions: Experimental Group vs Control Group I

The experimental and control children chosen from the

Mainland center were selected from two different classes.

Hypothesis la stated that Experimental Group I (EI) would

be significantly different on posttest from Control Group

I (CI) on dependent variables measuring self-concept,

affect awareness, and on teacher's ratings.

Hypothesis la was partially supported in that the EI

group children showed a significantly higher mean posttest

self-concept rating on the Brown: "Self as Seen by Self"

(ib = 2.6593, £ < .025). The experimental children were

significantly more capable than control children in

focusing on the positive aspects of their experience of

self. The authors of the HDP clearly state that the

enhancement of positive self-concept is the chief and

primary goal; therefore, the data lend support to Bessell

and Palomares' (1968) assertions.

79

Children in Experimental Group I also obtained

significantly higher mean scores on the Brown: "Self as

Seen by Teacher" (t = 2.0367, £ < .05). Thus, experimental

subjects reported seeing themselves as more positive and

valuable in the eyes of their teacher than did control

subjects. The HDPthus may be interpreted as increasing . I i i

participant children's belief that their teachers like ['

and value them as persons.

Additionally, Experimental Group I children scored

significantly higher on the variable Brown: "Self as Seen

by Peers" (Jt = 2.0402, £ < .05). This self-concept score

is based on the children's self-report of their attitudes

and feelings about being acceptable and valuable in the

eyes of peers at school. Perhaps the HDP can be identified

as one technique which aids disadvantaged Negro children

in the development of feelings of social acceptance.

Hypothesis la predicted that Experimental Group I

children would be significantly more able to label, define,

and evaluate emotional experiences than Control Group I

due to their participation in the HDP. The hypothesis was

supported only minimally. Experimental Group I scored

significantly higher on the variable Evaluative Responses,

"Good" (;t = 2.1057, £ < .05). The children were thus more

readily able to identify "good" pictures depicting socially

constructive and adaptive behaviors in comparison to the

80

controls. Examples of the "good" behaviors as presented

in the Evaluative Responses instrument were as follows:

(1) "This little boy is going to the bathroom in the

toilet, not in his pants"; (2) "This little boy is hugging

his sister because her teddy bear is torn"; (3) "This

little girl is holding the door open for her mommy." If

this knowledge of socially "good" behaviors leads to the

choice of more socially acceptable behaviors, then the

HDP may be seen as a very useful program especially for

the often untrained, poorly socialized, deprived youngsters

attending Head Start centers. The present data do not,

however, support this hypothesis.

Hypotheses la and Ib further asserted that Experimental

Group I and Control Group I children would differ signifi-

cantly on teachers' behavioral ratings. No significant

differences were found between the two groups, however.

Thus, the hypotheses regarding various aspects of the

experimental and control children's behavior as rated by

their regular teachers must be rejected. The experimental

group neither significantly increased positive behaviors

nor significantly decreased negative or undesirable class-

room behavior.

81

Mainland Groups:

Experimental Significant

Experimental Group

Compa: red Findings ) I vs

to Distal and

Control

Control Implications: Group II

The distal Control Group II was compared with the

Mainland Experimental Group I. Distal controls attended

a day-care center which did not provide experimental

subjects or groups for the HDP research. As noted in the

preceding section, Hypothesis la predicted that EI chil-

dren would differ significantly from CII children in self-

concept, emotional awareness, and on teacher rating data.

The results revealed six significant group differences,

partially supporting Hypothesis la. Experimental Group I

differed significantly from the distal control group on

the Brown: "Self as Seen by Self" (£ < .005), "Self as

Seen by Teacher" (£ < .025), "Self as Seen by Peers"

(£ < .01). These self-concept referent scores also were

found to be significant in the EI, CI comparisons and were

discussed in the preceding section of this chapter. These

data lend even more support to the interpretation made

earlier that the HDP has a significant effect on deprived

Negro children's self-concept.

In addition to these relationships two other signif-

icant differences in Brown self-concept referents were

found. EI children scored significantly higher on the

Brown: "Self as Seen by Mother" (£ < .025) and on "Total

Self-Concept" (£ < .01). The Mainland Negro children

1 I

' It

82

compared to distal controls thus reported having a more

positive total perception of self as a function of their

participation in the HDP. The fact that "Self as Seen by

Mother" also was significant is interesting. One inter-

pretation of the result may be that the positive response

the Negro children received from their HDP teacher encour-

\K I Ji

aged them to see their own mothers' or mother figures away

from the school in a more emotionally positive and accepting

manner. Therefore, the children rated themselves as being

more acceptable to their mothers than did controls. Further

research studies testing the hypothesis that actual emotional

contact is enhanced between children and their mothers as a *

function of the child's participation or nonparticipation

in the HDP would be extremely interesting.

Experimental Group II children also were noted to

differ on the affect awareness dimension Evaluative Re-

sponses "Good" (£ < .025). Hypothesis la as it related

to emotional awareness was thus minimally supported. This

finding was noted in comparisons made between Experimental

Group I and Control Group I discussed in the preceding

section of this chapter.

Teachers' behavioral ratings were predicted to differ

significantly for Experimental Group I children compared to

distal controls (CII) in Hypotheses la and Ib. No differ-

ences were obtained. Teachers did not, for example, rate

83

experimental children either as exhibiting more "Mature

Controls" and "Emotional Awareness" on the Preschool Rating

Scale or as exhibiting fewer pathological behaviors on the

Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist dimensions such as

"Aggression" or "Activity Level." Therefore, Hypotheses la

and Ib as they related to teacher rating data were not

supported.

The lack of corroboration of the positive self-concept

findings noted above with teachers' behavioral ratings is

disturbing. It was anticipated that after the HDP the

Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale would reflect positive

changes in experimental children's affect awareness, level

of subjective happiness, maturity in increasing controls

over aggressive and inappropriate behavior, and increases

in academic readiness and cooperation. The instrument

proved to be somewhat unsatisfactory, however, in that the

teachers were reluctant to score children in the extreme

directions on the one to five scale. The scale, therefore,

lacked discrimination power and perhaps did not reflect a

good test of changes in children's ongoing classroom

behavior.

Further, after the HDP, pathological behaviors rated

by teachers on the Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist

were not significantly lower in the Experimental Group I

vs Control Group I and Experimental Group I vs Control

84

Group II comparisons as had been predicted in Hypothesis Ib.

The teachers subjectively reported positive results in

experimental children in informal post experiment inter-

views, but their ratings did not reflect significant

changes.

While the above findings relating to self-concept

can be interpreted as positive results, it is somewhat

disturbing to find that the measures of affect awareness

(with the exception of the "Good" evaluative dimension)

did not reveal significant differehces between the Main-

land experimental and control groups. Verbal knowledge

of affect words and experiences as defined and measured

in this research were not significantly higher in experi-

mental subjects even though various aspects of self-concept

did show significant differences. Perhaps the experimental

program needs to be conducted over a longer period of time

for preschool Negro children to adequately learn to con-

ceptualize or verbalize their emotional experiences. There

also is the possibility that the Negro children represented

in the Mainland group were simply too immature verbally to

make the semantic connections between internal emotional

states and affect words. The subjective evidence cited in

Chapter II regarding the children's lack of understanding

of the concept of "feeling" suggests this. Results sug-

gest that the children's level of emotional awareness was

I I I,

85

much more confined to "good-bad" distinctions rather than

to more subtle nuances in feelings or intent. The possi-

bility exists that the particular verbal labels of "mad,"

"sad," "angry," "lonely," etc. are not truly representative

of the real affect words that emotionally aware and healthy

Negro children use to express their internal feelings.

Recently, linguists such as Stroyfe (1970) have asserted

that Negro English is a different language—not a deficient

English—suggesting that other affect words than the ones

chosen may have more emotional meaning in the Negro child's

experience. 1

Other implications may be drawn from the Mainland *l

results. Conceivably for deprived 4- and 5-year-old Negro

children the ability to talk about feelings is not an ade-

quate representation of internal emotional change and

growth. The skill of being able to talk about feelings

may be more valuable and related to emotional health for

older Negro children. For this reason a longitudinal

study of children enrolled in the HDP needs to be conducted.

If in fact Negro children who had the HDP experience in

Head Start could speak more meaningfully than controls of

their feelings in first or second grade, the use of the

HDP in public schools and day-care centers would be

justified. However, results of the Mainland experimental,

control group affect awareness data were inconclusive on

86

this point even though self-concepts were found to be

significantly higher for the experimental group. It is

also possible that the HDP creates generalized positive

feelings in groups and this positive experience may account

more for the program's success in increasing self-concept

than the actual "feeling" content of the group discussions. , ,

Further research is indicated utilizing other "special f^í ' >

group" programs such as language development programs or

play therapy groups as comparison treatment modalities.

Intact Experimental (EII) and Control Groups (CII) Chosen from Two Different Day-Care Centers:

FJ- < ii gs ^^^ Implications'

As a second test of the effectiveness of the HDP two

new groups, one control (CII), one experimental (EII) were

chosen from intact classes in two different day-care centers.

Four significant differences between the groups in the

predicted directions were found. These results duplicated

the differences found between the Mainland EI vs CI and

EI vs CII comparisons on the variable Evaluative Responses

"Good" (t = 2.9766, £ < .01). Children in both EI and EII

were significantly more capable than controls in selecting

pictures describing socially "good" behaviors. The experi-

mental children, EII, also scored significantly higher on

the Evaluative Responses: Total "Good + Bad" Correct (t

= 2.8181, £ < .01) indicating that they were significantly

87

more aware of both positive and negative social behaviors

than were control children. These findings are consistent

with Bessell's (1969) assertion that children involved with

the HDP show an increased degree of comprehension of social

interaction. Significant also is the fact that the children

responded to the "good" social acts depicted on the Evalua-

tive scale. Focusing on the discussion of "good" feelings , f ' î

thoughts, and behaviors thus was suggested to enhance 4- to ,

5-year-old Negro children's awareness of good and acceptable

social behaviors. The finding also may indicate that the

children particularly responded positively to the HDP group -J

method and technique due to the added reinforcement, praise i

and acceptance, they received in the program. Thus, feeling

accepted and praised for their "good" behavior the experi-

mental children were perhaps encouraged to see "good"

behaviors in others more readily than were the control

children.

It is extremely interesting also to note that the

Knowledge of Affect Words Test discriminated experimental

from control children (t = 2.2285, £ < .05). The object

of the test primarily was to measure the children's

experiential understanding of affect words. The children

were allowed a wide range of ways to demonstrate their

knowledge both verbally and nonverbally. The experimental

children having the HDP scored significantly higher than

Jj

' ri

88

controls. These results suggest that Experimental Group II

children involved in the HDP were aided in getting in touch

with and understanding their internal subjective feelings

by attaching verbal labels to these subjective feelings.

Experimental Group II children thus responded to the HDP

by becoming more aware of feeling words and in items of

increased social comprehension of "good" social behaviors. M'

Thus, Hypothesis la which predicted changes in affect

awareness was partially supported.

Hypotheses la and Ib predicted that the posttest

teacher ratings of the EII children would be more positive

and reflect fewer pathological characteristics than would

ratings obtained on Control Group II children. Hypotheses

la and Ib were minimally supported in that EII children

were rated significantly higher by their teacher on one

of the five clinical scales which comprise the Missouri

Children's Behavior Checklist. Experimental Group II

scored significantly higher than Control Group II on the

"Sociability" dimension (t = 1.8725, £ < .05). Data

reported in Table 5 also suggested that on pretest the

EII children were rated significantly higher on "soci-

ability" by their teacher in comparison to similar ratings

completed by the teacher of the EI children. Implications

of these data may be integrated with the findings noted in

affect awareness measures discussed earlier. Assuming

89

that Experimental Group II was initially a socially respon-

sive, cohesive intact group, then it follows that the

children may have shown a better verbal response to the

HDP than Experimental Group I. The EI group, it will be

recalled, was not an intact classroom group as was the EII

group. Perhaps the EI children were not as familiar with

one another as were the EII children and, therefore, found [*

it more difficult to verbalize their feelings. The verbal

discussion of affect or emotional content in groups is

often noted in the group psychotherapy literature to be

enhanced by familiarity of group members with one another |

(Mullen & Rosenbaum, 1962). i

An unexpected significant difference between the EII

and CII groups was found. The control children (CII) were

rated significantly higher by their regular teachers on

the Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale: "Mature Controls"

than were the experimental children (EII) ( = -2.2256,

£ < .025). This unpredicted result could be due to the

experimental nature of the rating scale. One hypothesis

to account for the finding is that the differences were due

to chance. An inspection of all the data reported on the

Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale presented in Table 1

reveals, however, that there were few changes in teachers'

ratings from pretest to posttest except on the "Mature

Controls" scale. While scores on other scales did decrease

90

in several of the experimental and control groups, none of

the differences approached statistical significance except

those noted on the "Mature Controls" scale. The possi-

bility that the result was a chance finding was rejected;

however, if the scale measured the child's ability to

control aggressive, destructive, and antisocial acts then

perhaps the HDP had the function of upsetting the Experi-

mental Group II children's habitual methods of coping with

stress which in turn decreased their emotional and be-

havioral controls. Thus, as is often seen in initial

stages of group psychotherapy with children (Ginnott, 1961),

initial exposure to the HDP for some children may be marked

by regression, acting out of unacceptable feelings, and

increases in aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Teachers

might tend to evaluate the children's behavior as less

mature, harder to control, and more demanding and difficult

to teach. In personal communications with Charlot Dunn,

Director of an Early Childhood Education program in

Hitchcock, Texas, she reported similar findings in the

initial stages of group counseling with disadvantaged

Negro and Mexican-American children in the fourth to the

sixth grades. She reported that teachers initially were noted

to be upset, critical, and overreactive due to the increased

demands the experimental children placed on them for more

personal attention and supervision in the classroom.

91

The apparent contradiction in teachers' ratings on

"Mature Controls" and "Sociability" requires brief mention.

For some groups of children perhaps the HDP had the effect

of increasing the intensity of all emotional behavior and,

therefore, the teacher rated her children both as more

socially alive and responsive and also as more difficult

thus may create changes in children's behavior which in

time may present additional problems to teachers. In

order to insure the maximization of affective and emo-

tional experience for each child, the Head Start teacher

should be well informed of possible negative changes in

children's behavior which might occur as a function of the

HDP.

In summary, results of posttest comparisons made

between Galveston experimentals (EII) and distal controls

(CII) revealed several significant differences partially

supporting Hypotheses la and Ib. Experimental children

were significantly better in discriminating positive and

negative social acts, thus supporting the hypothesis that

the HDP helped Negro preschoolers to focus on their affec-

tive knowledge and experience of "good" and "bad." Further,

the experimental Negro preschoolers were rated by their

teacher as significantly more socially approachable and

responsive than were control subjects. The experimental

t

I •i

to control and manage in a classroom situation. The HDP [J I >k

92

children's self-reports also were superior to controls in

defining or showing awareness of internal feeling states.

On the other hand, teachers rated children involved in the

HDP as less mature in controlling aggressive and disrup-

tive classroom behavior. The data were interpreted as

indicating that the HDP had a disrupting effect on certain

groups of Negro preschoolers due to the disruption of the

children's emotional controls. Perhaps in the initial

stages of the HDP, increases in extremes of children's

positive and negative emotionally toned behavior occur.

Longitudinal studies investigating changes in children's ;| ' :i

emotional controls are indicated. Such studies might '*

provide significant information on the developmental

sequences involved in the acquisition of internal and

external affective controls.

The self-concept predictions presented in Hypothesis

la were not supported. Inspection of the raw data (Table

1) shows that on pretest the Galveston experimentals (EII)

earned a Brown IDS Self-Concept Referent total mean score

of 50.60 + 2.79, while the Distal Controls (CII) earned a

mean total of 46.00 + 7.07. On posttest the EII group

score increased to 51.75 + 2.66, while the CII group score

remained the same or deteriorated slightly (mean score

of 44.00 + 10.13). Consequently, there were slight

93

gains in self-concept in experimental children compared to

control children but the differences were not significant.

The EII group also appeared to be very homogeneous on the

self-concept measure with very little variance noted in

the scores. In contrast (see Table 1) the EI group showed

a greater amount of variance in scores, especially on

pretest measures. These results suggest that ideally, the

most positive enhancement of self-concept can be achieved

by selecting groups for the HDP which include children with

heterogeneous self-concept scores with some members having

very good self-concepts and some having very poor self-

concepts.

Human Development Program and Intelligence

Results reported on Table 5 suggested that the

children in experimental groups did not show significant

gains from pretest to posttest in Peabody Picture Vocabu-

lary Intelligence raw scores; therefore, Hypothesis 2 was

not supported. The HDP as utilized in this research thus

could not be relied upon as a method for increasing intel-

lectual skills in culturally deprived Negro preschoolers.

In line with Bereiter and Engleman's assertions in their

book, Teaching the Disadvantaged Child in the Preschool

(1966) it is concluded that deprived Negro children need

specially programmed and systematic training in specific

cognitive skills in order to achieve in school. The HDP,

i I I

• '

t '

I %

94

while having a definite value in the preschool, conse-

quently should not be thought of as a panacea to enhance

all good characteristics, including cognitive functions,

in preschool children.

Results discussed earlier do suggest, however, that

as a function of the, HDP Experimental Group I children's

attitudes were modified so that they saw peers, teachers,

and themselves as significantly more acceptable than

nontreatment controls saw themselves. Also Experimental

Group I children's ability to see positive and valued

social actions was significantly different from control | ' :i

Group I. Assuming these attitudes are carried out be- '»

haviorally, it is surmised that children having the HDP

might be more prone to seek out and receive positive

interpersonal experiences at school. The HDP may be

viewed as a supportive program which may help some groups

of disadvantaged preschool Negro children establish a

positive attitude toward significant persons encountered

in school. A possible exception to this assertion should

be posited, however. As was noted in the Experimental

Group II results, there is the possibility that the HDP

may disrupt some children's emotional control by increasing

the intensity of their emotional responses. Such increases

in emotionality may increase the possibility of negative

consequences occurring in the classroom. For example.

95

untrained but well intentioned teachers or aides may

misinterpret and respond incorrectly to increases in

children's aggression when in fact such changes for some

children may be necessary before the children develop

better methods of expressing assertive feelings. Such

increases in emotionality handled incorrectly might disrupt

learning capacities which may not have been affected other-

wise. In this case it becomes clearer that the HDP should

be carefully conducted, supervised, and coordinated with a

child's total social, emotional, and cognitive development

in the preschool context.

Differences in Response to the Human Development Program Between Girls and Boys

on Posttestir g

Hypotheses 3 through 6 predicted that the HDP might

have differential effects on boys and girls. These

hypotheses were thought to be crucial in light of research

that suggests that male Negroes compared to female Negroes

have greater difficulty in establishing and maintaining

positive feelings for themselves and others and profit

less from traditional methods of psychotherapy and educa-

tional remediation.

Negro girls of preschool age are often seen as more

verbal, mature, responsive, and as having better self-

concepts than Negro boys of the same age. Conversely,

Negro boys are often seen as more explosive, immature.

96

nonverbal, and lacking in social skills, so it was predicted

in Hypothesis 3 that in contrast to boys the more mature

Negro girls would respond more quickly and positively to

the HDP. Experimental girls were expected to show more

gains than experimental boys in personality traits of self-

concept and emotional awareness and were expected to be

rated by their regular teachers as more mature and socially

aware. Experimental boys were predicted to be too immature

to truly profit from the more verbal, less action oriented

techniques which comprised the HDP.

Results comparing experimental boys with experimental

girls indicated, however, that experimental boys and girls

were not significantly different on dependent measures.

Assuming there were treatment effects, these results were

interpreted to mean that such effects were not signifi-

cantly different for the treated children whether male or

female. Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Male and female control groups were not significantly

different on dependent measures on posttests. These results

were interpreted to indicate that the untreated 4- to 5-

year-old girls and boys were for all practical purposes

equivalent, showing no unique sex factor to be operating

with regard to dependent variables chosen. Hypothesis 4

was thus not supported.

97

Hypothesis 5 predicted that experimental group boys

involved in the HDP should show significantly higher post-

test scores than control boys on measures of self-concept

and emotional awareness and on teachers' ratings of posi-

tive classroom behavior. After covariate adjustment of

means, two significant differences in dependent variables

were discovered between groups. One unpredicted difference

appeared on the variable "Mature Controls" of the Preschool

Teacher's Rating Scale (£ < .05). Control group boys were

rated by their teachers as significantly lower in the

ability to control aggressive and uncooperative classroom

behaviors as compared to experimental group boys. This

result, as was discussed in preceding sections of this

chapter, may be due to a disruptive effect the HDP has on

some groups of children with regard to the children's

emotional controls. Perhaps 4- to 5-year-old Negro boys

are especially prone to become somewhat more emotionally

upset and labile after participation in the HDP.

A second significant group difference on teacher

rating data was discovered. Teachers who rated male

experimental boys as less mature than control boys also

rated experimental boys as exhibiting significantly fewer

pathological behaviors than control boys as measured by

the Missouri scale (£ < .05). Seemingly these results

support the hypothesis that some groups involved in the

, 'j n 11

98

HDP become much more emotionally spontaneous both in posi-

tive and negative social behaviors. Assuming such increases

occur it may be assumed that the HDP has the potential of

helping children reduce psychopathological behaviors over

the long term. While it cannot be asserted that the HDP

caused pathogenic behaviors to decrease in boys, an alter- ^^]

h

native view may be stressed that teachers of experimental \\

group boys became less critical raters than did teachers

of control boys. This finding may reflect better rapport,

increased give and take, and more positive feelings between

the teachers and the boys. Hypothesis 5, then, was minimally

supported with regard to teachers' ratings. Predictions

regarding differences in self-concept and emotional aware-

ness were not supported.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that experimental females

would score significantly higher than female control

subjects on measures of self-concept, emotional awareness,

and on teachers' ratings of positive classroom attitudes

and behavior. Experimental girls scored significantly

higher on the Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test "Self

as Seen by Peers" (£ < .05), on the variable, Evaluative

Responses "Good" (£ < .01), and on the variable, Evalua-

tive Responses Total "Good" + "Bad" (£ < .01). Experi-

mental girls rated themselves as significantly more

acceptable and positive in the eyes of their peer group

..I

99

than did controls. They were additionally more capable

of discriminating "good" and "bad" social behaviors than

control girls, thus suggesting that Negro experimental

girls utilized more fully the HDP experience in learning

acceptable and unacceptable standards in social interaction

with others. They apparently were aided in developing con- ^ r-1

cepts of good and bad, one aspect of social comprehension, M;

through the HDP group experiences.

Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in that one

predicted significant difference in self-concept occurred.

Changes in two variables which assessed emotional awareness ::|

also were found to be significant, partially supporting '»

Hypothesis 5, but significant differences were not found

on the teacher rating data. A corroboration of the

hypothesis that Negro girls could behaviorally utilize

their enhanced knowledge of themselves and increased

understanding of positive social behaviors would have been

quite significant. Further research studies might reveal

more significant information if measurements were taken on

actual behavioral tasks which were correlated with chil-

dren's day by day ongoing social interactional skills and

social understanding. A situational test rather than

teachers' ratings might be a more reliable and valid pre-

dictor of actual changes in children's social behavior as

they occur over a period of time.

100

Overview of Major Experimental Effects for the Two Experimental Groups'

One of the limitations of this study which merits

some consideration is the fact that significant results

from comparisons made between EI vs CI and EII vs CII

were not the same. Several factors may have accounted

for the differences. Factors relating to the HDP teacher,

to the method of grouping experimental children, and to

the characteristics of the children in each group are

discussed below.

One possibility may be that in some manner the HDP .1

teacher presented the program differently or more effec- ' i

tively in one experimental group as compared to the other.

Since she presented the same lesson to each class each day,

however, differences which may have occurred in presenta-

tions most probably would be naturally occurring differences

based on the teachers' and/or the children's unique response

to one another. No hard data was collected to negate or

substantiate this hypothesis regarding "naturally" occur-

ring differences, however. In an informal discussion with

the teacher she reported no particular "favorite" group.

Additionally, since she followed a reasonably straight

forward and objective lesson plan, this possible explana-

tion for differences in results is considered less tenable

than other possible explanations.

101

A second feasible explanation for the differences

in results may lie in the differences between the manner

in which the experimental groups were formed. EI was

composed of children taken from two different classes.

Especially at the outset of the program, these children

may have experienced more threat and uneasiness or inhibi-

tion simply because they were being placed into a group

different from their regular class. Conversely, children

in CII did not experience this radical change in their

class composition. Children in EII were chosen from an

intact class which stayed together all day; therefore,

before the group experience the children had some history

of belonging to the same classroom unit. In addition they

remained together after the HDP was conducted each day,

potentially giving them the opportunity to practice what

they had mastered in the HDP with other 'class members who

shared the same set of experiences. As a result of this

grouping one would have predicted an overwhelmingly positive

response in ELI children as compared to EI children due to

the added chances given the children to relate to one

another; however, the data did not support such a strong

assertion. Earlier it was speculated that the EII children

in comparison to the EI children may have had more oppor-

tunity to verbalize their feelings since they were signifi-

cantly more able to define affective words than controls.

102

Also, EII was found to be rated by their regular teacher

as significantly more socially responsive than the controls.

The result may be tentatively explained in terms of the

familiarity or class membership factor noted with respect

to the EII group. In contrast, on posttest results EI

children were not rated by their teachers as significantly

different from control subjects on a single teacher rating

scale. In summary, the data offer limited support to the

hypothesis that EII children in the intact classroom group

responded better to the HDP than the specially formed

EI group.

A final hypothesis is offered to explain the differ- i

ences in results. Differences in EI, CI and EII, CII

results may have been due to individual differences in the

children who comprised the EI and EII groups. An attempt

was made to equate the groups as nearly as possible at the

beginning of the research. Pretest comparisons on mean

chronological ages revealed no significant mean group

differences (Table 2). Pretest Peabody Picture Vocabulary

scores also were not significantly different for the four

groups (Table 3). Each group contained an equal number of

boys and girls. Even though these factors were equated at

the beginning of the experiment, data presented in Table 1

indicate pretest differences between the two experimental

groups on a number of the dependent variables. Post hoc t_

103

tests between the two experimental groups were calculated

for several of these variables which appeared to be signif-

icantly different. Variables containing significant dif-

ferences between experimental groups representing both the

experimental children's self-reports and reports based on

their teachers' ratings are discussed as follows. The

Brown scale required children to verbally report on their

feelings and perceptions of themselves. Referring to

Table 1, on pretest it was noted that EII children scored f

somewhat higher, though not significantly so, on each self-

concept referent including "Self as Seen by Self," "Self as

seen by Mother," "Self as Seen by Teacher," and "Self as

Seen by Peers." A t_ test was calculated for pretest "Total

Self-Concept" scores to detect any total or global self-

concept differences in experimental groups. The t value

was -1.712 with 18 degrees of freedom and attained statis-

tical significance beyond the .10 level. Thus, a trend in

the data was suggested 'leading one to believe that on

pretest EII was significantly higher in self-concept than

was EI.

Teacher rating data collected on the Missouri scales

also supported this hypothesis. Comparisons of pretest

teacher rating data for the two experimental groups were

presented in Table 5. Results suggested that Experimental

Group I was rated by its teacher as significantly higher

11-

I î \% 1 «1

104

on the Missouri clinical dimensions of "Aggression"

(£ < .01), "Sleep Disturbance" (£ < .005), and "Total

Pathogenic Items" checked (£ < .0005). Furthermore, EI

children were rated significantly lower than EII children

on the "Sociability" scale (£ < .025). These results thus

support the hypothesis that initially children in EI were

not as positive about themselves as EII children. EI

children were seen by their teacher as exhibiting more

pathological or problematic behaviors than were EII chil-

dren, but the EII teacher saw her children as significantly

more socially responsive. ' ,1

The finding that EI children profited primarily from •

the HDP in terms of self-concept while EII children did

not is thus perhaps more readily explainable. One explana-

tion offered is that EI children as a group were in greater

need of emotionally positive and mothering experiences

than were the EII children, so they responded to the HDP

teacher and program in such a way that some of these basic

needs were met.

In contrast, EII children, being relatively more

emotionally healthy and secure than EI children, profited

in other ways, i.e., in being able to talk more about their

feelings and in increasing their social comprehension. Of

importance also, as was noted in the discussion earlier in

this chapter, the EI group was found to have a wider

105

pretest variability on the Brown "Self concept" scores as

compared to EII. Since Experimental Group I showed signif-

icant differences from Control Group I in self-concept

scores, perhaps the heterogeneous grouping of children

with varying degree of positive self-concept is the most

effective grouping method to use in selecting children for

the HDP. The more heterogeneous Experimental Group II

thus perhaps profited less from the HDP in terms of self-

concept for lack of sufficient variability and differences

in the children initially. The above presented data and

discussion offer some support, therefore, to the hypothesis

that the different experimental groups profited differently

from the HDP due to the individual personality characteris-

tics of the various members.

Collapsing and Comparing of Results of Experimental Groups I and l witl

Control Groups I and II

As a post hoc "data snooping" procedure dependent

measures obtained on the two groups defined as Mainland

experimental children (EI) and Galveston experimental

children (EII) were collapsed and compared with the simi-

larly collapsed control groups heretofore identified as

Mainland control children (CI) and distal control (CII)

children. The data were combined in order to help explain

the differences in experimental findings for the two

t .•

i i \% 1 m

106

experimental-control group comparisons. A common set of

significant differences between experimental and control

groups consequently were obtained.

Table 9 summarizes the significant findings. All

significant relationships discussed in this chapter to

include the EI vs CI, EI vs CII, and EII vs CII compari-

sons remained significant beyond the . 10 level of signif-

icance. These data lend added support to the hypotheses

that the HDP is an effective program which may be utilized

to enhance Negro preschool children's self-concept,

emotional awareness and social comprehension.

t..'

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the present research was to evaluate

the effectiveness of the Human Development Program (HDP)

in increasing positive self-concepts, emotional awareness,

positive classroom behavior, and intelligence in 4- to 5-

year-old disadvantaged Negro children attending Head Start

day-care centers.

The HDP is a sequential, developmentally programmed

series of lesson plans designed for use in the classroom

by a regular teacher. Children are placed into groups of

10, five boys and five girls ordinarily, and are guided

by their teacher-facilitator in predominantly verbal games.

The daily 15 to 20 minute games are designed to teach chil-

dren about their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Chil-

dren are encouraged to verbally explore or talk about

positive and negative aspects of their emotional and

behavioral experiences. Acting out of unacceptable

behavior is discouraged. Purportedly, self-concepts,

emotional awareness, social responsibility, and intelli-

gence are enhanced as a result of the experience. The

present study eyaluated one unit of the HDP designed for

preschoolers entitled Human Development Program Lesson

Guide, Level B, Unit Four - Communications (1969). This

107

108

unit, ordinarily conducted in a 6-week period, was repeated

twice over a 12-week period with two groups of 10 Negro

preschool children.

Subjects chosen for the research were 4- to 5-year-old

Negro children attending Head Start centers in Galveston

County, Texas. Forty subjects, half male and half female,

were placed into four groups of 10 children. Each of these

groups contained five girls and five boys. One experimental

group designated EI and one control group (CI) were chosen

from the Mainland day-care center. A second experimental

group designated EII was chosen from the Galveston day-care

center and a distal control group (CII) was chosen from i

the Dickinson day-care center. All children in the study

had a Negro teacher.

A Negro teacher was selected to be the facilitator or

group leader of the two experimental groups. After a brief

orientation and demonstration of the program, the teacher

conducted the HDP each morning for 12 school weeks. The

"communications" unit which is ordinarily programmed for

6 weeks in the regular HDP was repeated over two, 6-week

periods. The control children had no special treatment or

program during the period when the experimental groups were

engaged in their group program.

A pretest-posttest control group experimental design

was utilized to detect differences in experimental and

109

control groups at the end of the research period. Depen-

dent variables included (1) several psychometric tests

and (2) teacher rating data obtained from the children's

regular teachers before and after the HDP. Psychometric

data obtained by an experienced female examiner included:

(1) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1959), a

measure of verbal intelligence; (2) the Brown IDS Self- \ l

Concept Referents Test (Brown, 1966) a measure of self-

concept as a child sees himself, and as he perceives that

his mother, teacher, and peers see him; (3) Knowledge of

Affect Words, an instrument the investigator devised i

following Gilbert's (1969) research purportedly measuring »

children's ability to verbally or nonverbally define or

indicate knowledge of common affect words such as scared,

happy, afraid, etc.; (4) Affect Acknowledgment Scale,

devised by the investigator to measure a child's ability

to recognize personal feelings when given a verbal descrip-

tion of a frustrating or emotionally charged situation;

(5) Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale, a scale

using a stick-figure format as stimulus pictures devised

by the investigator which was hypothesized to measure a

child's ability to identify emotional feelings in other

people; (6) Evaluative Responses of "good" and "bad"; a

measure developed by Rhine, Hill, and Wandrufs (1967) to

measure children's ability to attach verbal labels of

110

"good" and "bad" to pictures depicting various social

behaviors of children.

Teachers' ratings were obtained on two instruments:

(1) the Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist (Sines, J.,

Pauker, Sines, L. , Owen, 1969), and (2) the Preschool

Teacher's Rating Scale. The Missouri checklist consists ^

of a true-false rating scale of 70 items measuring regular \\

teachers' perceptions of experimental and control children ' !;

along six clinical dimensions including: (a) Aggression,

(b) Inhibition, (c) Sleep Disturbance, (d) Somatization,

(e) Activity Level, and (f) Sociability. Additionally,

the total number of pathogenic statements checked by the

teacher were calculated for each child.

The second teacher rating scale was the Preschool

Teacher's Rating Scale; the test devised by the investi-

gator purported to measure teachers' perceptions of their

children's (a) Affect awareness, or ability of the child

to express and be aware of his feeling states; (b) Unhap-

piness-Happiness, or characteristic mood state of children

in the school situation; (c) Mature Controls, or the child's

ability to control unacceptable behavior such as aggression,

overactivity and ease in producing acceptably controlled

classroom behavior; (d) Intellectual Attitudes, devised

to measure how well children involved themselves in the

learning process, verbalized their ideas, and showed

intellectual interest.

111

The statistical analysis of the data included analysis

of multiple covariance on mean posttest group scores and

jt tests on various pretest and posttest measures. All

analysis of multiple covariance procedures utilized pre-

test Peabody Picture Vocabulary raw scores and pretest

scores on respective dependent variables as covariates.

Results were discussed in five major sections and are

summarized in the same order: (1) characteristics of the

children studied, (2) the Mainland center comparisons on

posttest data: significant findings and implications;

(3) Mainland experimentals compared to distal controls:

significant findings and implications; (4) the HDP and

intelligence; (5) differences in response to the HDP

between girls and boys.

1. Characteristics of the Children Studied. The

average chronological ages of children in the four groups

at the time of pretesting fell between approximately 55 and

58 months. The four groups were not significantly differ-

ent in mean chronological age.

Intellectually the children scored mean Peabody

Picture Vocabulary Test raw scores between 29.80 + 7.93

and 35.30 + 10.30. These raw scores placed the subjects

approximately 16 to 22 months below the expected mean for

children of their chronological age. Comparisons between

the four groups revealed no significant differences in

112

mean pretest Peabody raw scores. Thus, the groups were

not significantly different in chronological age and

intelligence at the outset of the research period.

2. The Mainland Experimental Group (E ) Compared

with Mainland Control (CI) and the Distal Control (CII)

Groups. Mainland experimental subjects were compared to

both Mainland control and distal control subjects. Four

significant differences were found in the EI, CI compari-

sons, reflecting significant differences in experimental

children's self-concept and awareness of socially "good"

behaviors. Significant differences were found in the fol-

lowing variables (1) Brown: "Self as Seen by Self"

(£ < .025); (2) "Self as Seen by Teacher" (£ < .05);

(3) "Self as Seen by Peers" (£ < .05); (4) and Evaluative

Responses: "Good" Correct (£ < .05).

The Mainland EI group further differed significantly

from the distal control (CII) group on the following six

dependent variables: ' (1) Brown: "Self as Seen by Self"

(£ < .005); (2) "Self as Seen by Mother" (£ < .025); (3)

"Self as Seen by Teacher (£ < .025); (4) "Self as Seen by

Peers" (£ < .01); (5) "Total Self-Concept (£ < .01); (6)

Evaluative Responses "Good" Correct (£ < .025).

Mainland experimental children thus were shown to

score significantly higher than controls on measures of

self-concept with regard to various referents, and in

i •;

I 1-

113

emotional awareness on variables measuring the recognition

of positive social acts and intentions. Implications were

discussed.

3. As a second test of the HDP two new groups, one

control (CII) and one experimental were chosen from two

different day-care centers. Four significant differences

on mean posttest scores were found. The differences did

not duplicate differences found in the Mainland (EI vs CI)

comparisons except with regard to the variable Evaluative

Responses "Good" (£ < .01). Apparently the HDP teaches

children to focus on positive and approved social behaviors

defined as "good." The positive increases in Self-Concept

noted in the EI vs CI comparisons were not replicated. The

remaining significant differences between Experimental

Group II and Control Group II were found on the following

dependent variables: (1) Evaluative Responses: "Total

'Good + Bad' Correct" (£ < .01); (2) Knowledge of Affect

Words (£ < .05); (3) Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist:

"Sociability" (£ < .05). Experimental children thus became

more emotionally aware of "good" and "bad" social behaviors

and could define common affect words significantly better

than nontreatment control children. Experimental children

were rated by their teacher as more socially responsive

than those in the control group. A last significant differ-

ence unexpectedly was obtained. On the variable "Mature

I 'Ji

114

Controls," control subjects were scored as superior to

experimental subjects (£ < .025). Guardedly, these

results were interpreted to suggest that the HDP may have

the effect of increasing the intensity of emotional be-

havior in participant children. As a result teachers may

experience more difficulty in controlling and managing KJJ

classroom behavior; paradoxically, however, the children ; ^

also may appear to be more socially responsive and alive

to the teacher even though her classroom management

problems may increase.

4. The HDP and Intelligence. Gains in Peabody \

Picture Vocabulary scores from pretest to posttest were '

evaluated. While all groups showed positive changes in

raw scores, experimental groups did not show a signifi-

cantly greater change. The portion of the total HDP as

presented in the described research thus did not show

differential effectiveness in increasing cognitive skills

as measured by the Peabody in 4- to 5-year-old disadvan-«

taged Negro children.

Further perusal of significant findings relating to

positive attitude change of children toward school peers

and teachers in the EI group were viewed as a positive

finding. A caution also was posited regarding EII results.

If indeed the HDP increases overt emotional behavior in

the classroom, the regular teacher's ability to respond

115

correctly to this behavior becomes more and more crucial

if children are to change positively through the HDP.

5. Differences in Response to the HDP Between Girls

and Boys. All boys who participated in experimental groups

were combined as were all experimental group girls. Control

groups similarly were combined to create four new groups t . [•1

based on sex and treatment. Comparisons were made to reveal fy

sex related differences in responses to the HDP. Results

indicated that male and female experimental subjects were

not significantly different on posttest dependent variables.

Male and female control groups similarly were not signifi-' i

cantly different on dependent measures. 4

Nontreatment boys were compared with boys who partici-

pated in the HDP. Two significant differences were obtained.

Experimental boys rather unexpectedly scored significantly

lower than controls on the variable "Mature Controls"

(£ < .05) of the Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale. They

also scored lower on the total number of pathogenic items

checked by their teachers on the Missouri Children's Be-

havior Checklist (£ < .05). These seemingly contradictory

results were interpreted to mean that boys become much more

overtly behaviorally responsive as a result of participa-

tion in the HDP and thus were seen by their teachers as

more difficult to manage in the classroom setting. It was

surmised, however, that the increases in emotional behavior

116

also may have accounted for increased positive relationships

with teachers; thus, the teachers may have rated boys as

both harder to control and at the same time less pathologi-

cal in behavior due to the teacher's feelings of rapport

and understanding with the boys.

Lastly, nontreatment girls were compared with girls

who participated in the HDP. Three differences were found:

(1) Experimental girls scored significantly higher on the

variables (1) Brown: "Self as Seen by Peers" (£ < .05),

(2) Evaluative Responses: "Good" (£ < .01), and (3) Eval-

uative Responses: "Total Correct Discriminations, "good +

bad" (£ < .01). The HDP apparently helped experimental

girls better understand and develop their "self as object"

or helped them become more aware of those behaviors which

would help them become more acceptable in their peer group.

Their understanding of social interactional "good and bad"

as measured by the Evaluative Responses test also reflected

significant differences.

.«

Suggestions for Further Research

1. Replication of this research with different pre-

school Negro groups, a different teacher, and in a different

location is suggested for cross validation purposes.

2. A time-series method experimental design might be

adopted for a longitudinal study of the HDP. Children

initially receiving the HDP in Head Start might be followed

117

through the second grade. The trends noted with regard to

self-concept and emotional awareness might be further

evaluated. The affect awareness dimension, as an indicator

of internal emotional change, might be more systematically

studied in relation to (a) cognitive factors such as

achievement, intelligence, verbal fluency, social compre-

hension; (b) self-concept; (c) extraversion-introversion; Í

(d) anxiety; and (e) competitive behavior.

3. The full HDP including the "Mastery" sections

should be evaluated utilizing a broader definition of intel-

ligence such as is represented in the Wechsler Preschool i ' ,J

and Primary Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1963) or the *

McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (McCarthy, 1970).

4. A comparison of the HDP with other typical pro-

grams found in Head Start would be beneficial. For in-

stance group psychotherapy, language programs such as the

Distar (Engelmann et al., 1968), or the Peabody, Level P

(Dunn, Horton, Smith, 1968) might be utilized as comparison

treatment modalities. Variables measuring both personality

change and cognitive change might reveal that any positive

group experience enhances self-concept, thereby questioning

the usefulness of the HDP.

5. Better and more effective teacher rating scales

need to be developed. Subtle changes often go unnoticed or

unmeasured by many scales, including the ones utilized in

the above research. Actual field observational scales of

118

social behavior might prove to be a better method of

assessing behavioral changes.

6. A number of teacher variables might be investi-

gated. The questions of which sex, or which personality

type or characteristics make a good HDP teacher are cru-

cial. An extraverted, troubled, or "phony" teacher for I

instance may make a very poor HDP teacher. Additionally, ' >

the question of whether it is better to administer the HDP

as a special program by an "outside teacher" as opposed

to the regular day by day teacher needs investigation.

7. All boy and all girl groups might be administered | ' "'\

the HDP to measure effects of segregated vs integrated '»

groups by sex.

8. Other minority groups such as the Mexican-American

and American Indian should be involved in the HDP to see

if their response is different from the responses of Negro

boys and girls.

9. Changes in parents' perceptions of their children <

as a function of the HDP would be extremely interesting to

investigate.

It is concluded that the Human Development Program

has a positive effect on disadvantaged Negro children and

that this program may be used advantageously in other Head

Start and preschool situations.

REFERENCES

Alschuler, A. The origins and nature of psychological education. In D. W. Winkelman (Ed.), Educational opportunity forum: Psychological humanistic educa-tion. Vol. (4). Albany, New York: University of New York, Division of Higher Education, 1969.

Amen, E. Individual differences in apperception reaction: A study of the responses of preschool children to pictures. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1941, 23 (2), 319-385.

Ausubel, D. P. Ego development among segregated Negro children. Mental Hygiene, 1958, £2, 363-369.

Bach, G. R. Father-fantasies and father typing in father separated children. Child Development, 1946, 17, 63-79.

Bacon, M. K., Child, I., & Barry, H., III. A cross-cultural study of correlates of crime. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 291-300.

Ballard, J., & Solomon, L. R. A research proposal inves-tigating HDP. Unpublished research proposal, San Diego, California, 1970.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald, 1959.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.

Barclay, A. , & Cosumano, D. Father absence, cross-sex identity, and field dependent behavior in male adolescents. Child Development, 1967, 38^, 243-250.

Beck, J. M., & Saxe, R. W. (Eds.) Teaching the culturally disadvantaqed pupil. Springfield, 111.: Thomas, 1965.

Bereiter, C. , & Engelmann, S. Teaching the disadvantaged child in the preschool. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: í>rentice Hall, 1966.

:3

119

120

Bessell, H. The content is the medium: The confidence is the message. Psychology Today, 1968, 1 (8), 32-35,61.

Bessell, H. , & Palomares, U. Methods in human develop-ment. San Diego: Human Development Training Institute, 1967.

Bessell, H. , & Palomares, U. Methods in human development, lesson guide, level B, 1969 revision. San Diego: Harold Bessell and Uvaldo H. Palomares, 1969.

Blau, P. , St Duncan, D. The American occupational struc-ture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967.

Blom, G. E., Waite, R. R. , & Zimet, S. F. Ethnic inte-gration and urbanization of a first grade reading textbook: A research study. Psychology in the Schools, 1967, 4, 176-181.

Bloom, B. S., Davis, A., & Hess, R. Compensatory educa-tion for cultural deprivation. New York: Holt, > \ Rinehart and Winston, 1965. ;{

Borton, T. Reach, touch, and teach. Saturday Review, 1969, January 18, 33-35.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The psychological costs of quality and equality in education. Child Development, 1967, 38, 909-925.

Brown, B. R. The assessment of self concept among four-year-old Negro and white children: A comparative study using the Brown IDS Self Concept Referents Test. New York: Institute for Development Studies, 1566.

Burton, R. V., & Whiting, J. W. The absent father and cross-sex identity. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 2, 85-95.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

Coleman, J. S. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington: U.S. Office of Education, 1966.

Davis, A. Deep south. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941.

121

Davis, A., & Dolland, J. Children of bondage. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940.

Davis, A., & Havighurst, R. J. Social class and color differences in child-rearing. American Sociological Review, 1946, 11., 698-710.

Deutsch, M. Minority group and class status as related to social and personality factors in scholastic achieve-ment. Monograph of the Society for Applied Anthropol-ogy, 1960, £, 1-32.

Deutsch, M., & Brown, B. Social influences in Negro-white intelligence differences. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 2£ (2), 24-35.

DiVesta, F. J. A developmental study of the semantic structures of children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5, 249-259.

Dunn, L. M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services, 1959,

Dunn, L. M. , Horton, K. B., Smith, J. O. Peabody Language Development Kit, #P. Circle Pires, Minnesota: Amer-ican Guidance Service, Inc., 1968.

Engelmann, S., Osborn, J., & Engelman, T. Distar language I Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1969.

Frazier, E. F. The Negro in the United States. New York: MacMillan, 1957.

Frost, J. L. , & Hawkes, G. R. The disadvantaged child. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co. , 1966.

Gilbert, D. C. The young child's awareness of affect. Child Development, 1969, £0 (2), 629-640.

Ginnott, H. Group psychotherapy with children: The theory and practice of play therapy. New York: McGraw Hill 1961.

Glueck, S. , & Glueck, E. T. Unraveling juvenile delin-quency. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1950.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. T. Physique and delinquency. New York: Harper, 1956.

122

Gordon, E. W., & Wilkerson, D. A. Compensatory education for the disadvantaged. Programs and practices: Preschool through college. New York: College En-trance Exammation Board, 19 66.

Greenberg, J. W. , Gerver, J. M., Chall, J., & Davidson, H. H. Attitudes of children from a deprived en-vironment toward achievement-related concepts. Journal of Educational Research, 1965, 5^, 57-62.

Hartmann, H. Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation. New York: International Universities Press, 1961.

Hess, R. , & Shipman, V. Early experience and the sociali-zation of cognitive modes in children. Society for Research in Child Development, 1965, _3Í' 869-886.

Horney, K. Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton, 1950.

Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. Crisis in child mental health: Challenge for the 1970's" New York: Harper and Row, 1969, 1970.

Kagan, J. Stylistic variables in fantasy behavior: The ascription of affect states in social stimuli. In J. Kagan & G. Lesser (Eds.), Contemporary issues in thematic apperception methods. Springfield, 111. : Thomas, 1961.

Kagan, J., & Havamann, E. Psychology: An introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, 1968.

Kagan, J., & Moss, H. Conceptual style and the use of affect labels. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 6_, 40.

Kawi, A. A., & Pasamanick, B. Prenatal and parental factors in the development of childhood reading dis-orders. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Devilopment, 1959, 24, No. 4 (Serial No. 73).

Keller, S. The social world of the urban slum child: Some early findings. American Journal of Ortho-psychiatry, 1963, 32^ 823-831.

Kennedy, W. A., Van de Riet, V., & White, J., Jr. A normative sample of intelligence and achievement of Negro elementary school children in the Southeastern

123

United States. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963, 28, No. 6 (Serial No. 90).

Knobloch, A., Rider, R., Harper, P., & Pasamanick, B. Neural psychiatric sequelqe of prematurity. Journal of American Medical Association, 1956, 161, 581-585.

Lefeure, C. Inner-city school - As the children see it. Elementary School Journal, 1966, , 8-15.

Lindquist, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in ij psychology and education. Cambridge, Mass., 1953.

McCarthy, B. McCarthy scale of children's abilities. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1970.

Mead, G. H. Mind, self, and society. In A. Strauss (Ed.), The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Miller, W. B. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 1958, 1£ (3), 5-19.

Mischel, W. Preference for delayed reinforcement and experimental study of a cultural observation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 56_, 57-61.

Mischel, W. Delay of gratification, need for achievement, an(í acquiescence in another culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62 , 543-552. (a)

Mischel, W. Father absence and delay of gratification: Cross cultural comparison. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63./ 116-124. (b)

Mullahy, P. Oedipus: Myth and complex: A review of psychoanalytic theory. New York: Grove Press, 1955.

Mullen, H., Rosenbaum, M. Group psychotherapy: Theory and practice. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

Mussen, P., Conger, J., & Kagan, J. Child development and personality. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Ojemann, R. Incorporating psychological concepts in the school curriculum. Journal of School Psychology, 1967, 10 (3), 238-244.

Mead, G. H. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University ,:;ai of Chicago Press, 1934. ' "'

124

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaninq. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Pasamanick, B., & Knobloch, H. The contribution of some organic factors to school retardation in Negro children. Journal of Negro Education, 1958, 21_, 4-9.

Pasamanick, B., Knobloch, H., & Lilienfeld, A. M. Socio-economic status and some precursors of neuropsychiatric disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1956, 2^, 594-601. ;j

Payne, Billy Fred. The effects of group counseling upon J the self concept of disadvantaged elementary school students. Houston: University of Houston, 197 0. Unpublished Dissertation, Ed.D.

Pettigrew, T. F. A profile of the Negro American. Prince-ton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964.

:i Polansky, N., Lippitt, R., & Redl, F. An investigation of behavioral contagion in groups. In W. E. Martin & 4 C. B. Stendler (Eds.), Readings in child development. New York: Harcourt Brace, 195 4.

Palomares, U. Desegregating people's minds. Civil Rights Digest, 1969, 2_ (3), 39-43.

Preschool Progress Report. Trinity Episcopal School, Galveston, Texas. Unpublished rating scale for preschool children.

Rainwater, L. Crucible of identity and the Negro lower class family. In the Negro American, T. Parsons & K. Clark (Eds.), Boston: Beacon, Press, 1967.

Reissman, F. The culturally deprived child. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.

Rhine, R. J., Hill, S. J., & Wandruff, S. E. Evaluative responses of preschool children. Child Development, 1967, 38, (10), 35-42.

Rogers, C. R. Client centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1951.

Rohrer, J. H., & Edmonson, M. S. (Eds.) The eighth c^eneration. New York: Harper, 1960.

125

Sarbin, T. Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MasTT Addi-son-Wesley, 1954.

Scarpitti, C. R., Murray, E., Dintz, S., & Reckless, W. C. The "good" boy in a high delinquency area: Four years later. American Sociological Review, 1960, 25, 555-558. — —

Schacter, S., & Singer, J. E. Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. •-JJ Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 379-399.

Sears, P. S. Doll play aggression in normal young children: Influence of sex, age, sibling status, father's absence, Psychological Monographs, 1951, 65, No. 6 (Whole No. 373).

Sears, R. R., Pintler, M. H., & Sears, P. S. Effects of father-separation of preschool children's doll play aggression. Child Development, 1946, 17, 219-243.

i:

Shane, M. Some subcultural considerations in the psycho- * therapy of a Negro patient. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1960, 3j4/ 9-27.

Sines, J. 0., Parker, J. D., Sines, L. K., & Owen, D. R. Identification of clinically relevant dimensions of children's behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 13, (6), 728-734.

Sroufe, L. A. A methodological and philosophical critique of intervention-oriented research. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2, 140-145.

Stendler, C. B. Social class differences in parental attitudes toward school at grade 1 level. Child Development, 1951, Z2r 36-46.

Stolz, L. M. Father relations of warborn children. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press, 1954.

Strong, D. J., & Feder, D. D. Measurement of the self concept: A critique of the literature. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1961, £ (2), 170-178.

United States House of Representatives. Subcommittee on the war on poverty program. Hearings held in Wash-ington, D.C., April 12, 13, 14, 15, and 30, 1965.

126

Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt, Rmehart & Winston, 1965

Wechsler, D. Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1963.

Whiteman, M. Childrens conceptions of psychological causality. Child Development, 1967, 38, 143-155.

.:i

APPENDIX

A. Knowledge of Affect Words Test

B. Affect Acknowledgment Scale

C. Stick-Figure Affect Discrimination Scale

D. Evaluative Responses Inventory

E. Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test

F. Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist

G. Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale

127

128

APPENDIX A: KNOWLEDGE OF AFFECT WORDS TEST

Instructions: Examiner repeats the following instructions

for each of the words listed below:

"How would you b£ if you were ?"

1. happy 6. loved

2. sad 7. jealous

3. mad 8. lonesome

4. angry 9. tired

5. scared

Probing for elaboration is with the phrases, "(a) Tell me

a time you were ; (b) When were you ; and tell

me about being . "

Scoring: The object of the test is to discriminate

whether a child can define or identify various affect words

within the context of his life experience. Therefore a

child's answer is correct if he can give:

(a) a synonym,

(b) a concrete action or situation, or,

(c) a facial or postural gesture appropriate to the

conventional way in which the described feeling

might be expressed.

•:i

I J

129

APPENDIX B: AFFECT ACKNOWLEDGMENT SCALE

How would you be if:

1. You got a new (doll) bicycle for a surprise.

(1) Sad (2) Happy (3) Scared

2. You lost your shoes on the beach. (1) Mad

(2) Jealous (3) Happy

3. You went out too far in the water and the waves

knocked you down. (1) Angry (2) Scared

(3) Lonesome

4. You were the best singer in the whole world.

(1) Scared (2) Proud (3) Sad

5. You were hit by a boy and your nose started bleeding.

(1) Mad (2) Happy (3) Jealous

6. You are crying. (1) Sad (2) Happy

(3) Surprised

7. You are smiling and laughing and silly. (1) Happy

(2) Scared (3) Proud

8. Your mother spanked you. (1) Proud (2) Happy

(3) Mad

9. Your daddy took you to the circus. (1) Scared

(2) Happy (3) Sad

10. You got lost. (1) Angry (2) Surprised (3) Scared

11. A boy at school steals your crayola. (1) Happy

(2) Mad (3) Lonesome

130

12 . TcHi saw a n o n s t e r

13)

'-—' •*—'r—J '^'

X3. Tomr 'teadiex irirts a i:i.ctr:ire vc::; dr * ** ^ 3ev r c r CÆT C:Î ccje

w a l l . (1) Maâ (2) Sad

14 . Toar X ce s < w ^

p r l s e d (2) cmesGDGe (3) Azcrrv

1 5 .

1 6 .

' l ) P r c c c (2) î ^ '3) Eapcy

Tou

C31 Happy

'2" r i r e s

1 7 . Toi i got. sLdJL znÁ ccc~.cn" w CCTDÊ CC

(2) S ^ (3) Prccic

1«. Toisr besl: f tcy) g o t b r c i e n . (1) 5^d

(3) Proud

1 5 . Toar • o t b e r had a new cairr b r c c c s r . (1) BHCCTT • ^ T . >

(2) I^oved (3) Tired

2 0 . Too cciLLdiL'c f l • w . ~ s CZ.3 s c c r s .

2 1 .

2 2 .

2 3 .

2 4 .

(1) H^ipY (2) Scared (3) l o v e d

Toii have t c get: a s c c r . (1) Scared

(3) Happy

A bjjg gii7 y e l l s bad vords a t yoa .

(2) Scared (3) TrfTnpsoBK

Toar • o t h e r k l s s e s yoa and says sbe

11) Angry (2) Mad (3) ^iapcy

Toa s e e a snake. (1) Proad (2) Am

2) lcnescnie

sbe l o v e s yoo .

(3)

w ? ' •

45

131

25. You win the football game. (1) Mad (2) Sad (basketball)

(3) Proud

26. Tomorrow was Christmas. (1) Happy (2) Lonesome

(3) Angry

u h: m

S

I

' l

,^ '"""""* " ^ ^-T^—- -..'-•^.isat^

132

APPENDIX C: STICK-FIGURE AFFECT DISCRIMINATION SCALE

Instructions:

(1) This is a play picture of a (boy) (girl). Does he feel

loved, mad, or scared? If the child responds correctly,

score a + and continue. If he misses the example,

repeat it. If then he misses the correct response, .^

tell him the correct answer and then proceed.

Move rapidly, repeating the three choices for each ;

stick figure no more than three times. 1 I

Choices and correct responses indicated: .

1. loved mad scared

2. tired angry loved

3. sad happy jealous

4. lonesome angry happy

5. mad happy scared

6. sad loved angry

7. sad jealous loved

8« tired happy loved

9. sad happy tired

10. scared sad mad

Figures 1 - 1 0 follow. (The three choices for each plus

the correct responses for each is indicated. The answers

were not on the original test figures.)

!!1 I

133

->ji

I . 1, l oved 2. mad 3 . s ca red

134

II. 1. tired 2. angry 3 loved

135

I I I . 1. sad 2. happy 3. j ea lous

136

..i'i

IV. 1. lonesome 2. angry 3. happy

...^-^

137

n

V. 1 . mad 2 . happy 3 . s c a r e d

138

I

.1

VI. 1. sad 2 . loved 3. angry

" T i ^

139

V I I . 1 . sad 2. j e a l o u s 3 . loved

140

>

.;i •1»

VIII. 1. tired 2. happy 3. loved

^ j«.iidb

141

IX. 1 . sad 2 . happy 3 . t i r e d

142

.1

.;) '«

X. 1. s c a r e d 2- sad 3. mad

-j...m.vml^

143

APPENDIX D: EVALUATIVE RESPONSES INVENTORY (Rhine, Hill, Wandruff, 1967)

Instructions: E seated on same side of table as child.

"I'm going to show you some pictures of little boys and

little girls. I want you to show me the one who is

doing something very good and very bad."

Example: Set B #1

Let's begin. In these pictures somebody is doing some-

thing very good. Point to the one who is doing some-

thing very good. (Read each description pointing out

each picture as you go.) Then repeat.

"Now point to the one who is doing something very good."

(If the child misses the correct R, explain it and go

on. Do not help on any others.

Encourage the child to guess if he cannot decide on

a response.

Scoring: The number of "good" pictures identified correctly,

the number of "bad" pictures identified correctly, and

the total number of correct responses will be recorded.

Score #1 Set B right or wrong also even though it may be

used as an example.

"good" = possible score of 0 - 8

"bad" = possible score of 0 - 8

total = possible score of 0 - 16

i 1 %

,9 "%

144

1 '•']

X)

lA Neutral. This little girl is walking.

. . - _ . u ^ . — ^

145

IB Set B, good. This little boy is going to the bathroom in the toilet, not in his pants.

146

IC Neutral. This little girl is playing with a kitten.

147

ID Neutral. This little girl is reading a book.

™ ^

148

2A Neutral. This little girl is playing with a doll.

149

iti

I I

í • i " • %

2B Set B, bad. This little boy won't go to bed.

150

m >

2C Neutral. This little boy is watching T.V.

151

2D Neutral. This little girl is playing with a toy,

152

3A Set B, good. This little boy is hugging his sister because her teddy bear is torn,

153

\ '«1

m

3B Neutral. This little girl is pushing a baby carriage.

154

3C Neutral. This little boy is playing ball

B ! ^

155

I I

3D Neutral. This little girl is drinking a soda pop.

•JW^ ^-•.^^í^l^imOTVB^^H

156

'1

4A

V.OV is coming through , This little boy xs

157

4B Neutral. This little girl is playing with her dog.

-, .'«--fjt^

158

'i

4C Set B, good. This little boy is getting dressed all by himself.

níi&^^^^^^S^M

159

4D Neutral. This little boy is cutting out a paper plane from his cutout book with his play scissors.

160

5A Set B, bad. This little boy is taking a toy away from his baby brother.

• • t i i 'MWÍl l i

161

5B Neutral. This little boy is pulling a wagon.

162

5C Neutral. This little girl is walking,

^Æmmatå

163

o o o

5D Neutral. This little boy is blowing bubbles with his bubble pipe.

164

6A Neutral. This little boy is eating a cookie,

d ^

165

6B Neutral. This little girl is playing with her doll house.

mammu^

166

6C Neutral. This little boy is playing with a truck.

, ,1 I — M | k

167

6D Set B, bad. This little boy is tearing up his book.

168

7A Neutral. This little boy is playing with a teddy bear.

'.---•••,«««>i

169

7B Neutral. This little girl is playing ball.

• . iWh

170

7C

..d This little boy is chasing a ball

^^" ' S the street.

171

••*is ; S-£i

7D Neutral. This little girl is riding a tricycle.

172

8A Neutral. This little girl is eating a banana,

173

8B Neutral. This little boy is playing in a wagon,

i ^

174

8C Set B, good. This l i t t l e g i r l i s ho ld ing t h e door open for her mommy.

I \

1 I I MmiiywMnM

175

8D Neutral. This little boy is playing blocks

/ ^

.«£s«l

176

9A Neutral. This little boy is rocking on his rocking horse.

177

9B Neutral. This little boy is playing with a teddy bear.

T ^

1.4 .^

178

9C Set A, good. This little boy is hugging his mommy.

. ti,_»-mm.

179

9D Neutral. This little girl is playing with a doll.

j.^

180

lOA Set A, bad. This little girl is messing up the bathroom.

181

lOB Neutral. This little girl is jumping ropi

í ^

182

lOC Neutral. This little girl is playing tea party.

^

1

183

lOD Neutral. This little girl is playing ball.

'-^^i^^g^

184

IIA Neutral. This little boy is playing in a wagon.

185

IIB Neutral. This little boy is playing ball.

• -^'mtmMm 1

186

IIC Set A, bad. This little boy is kicking his dog.

187

IID Neutral. This little girl is drinking a soda pop,

iɫnr~ l

188

12A Neutral. This little boy is eating dinner.

A

189

12B Set A, good. This little girl is helping her mommy sweep.

-1

190

12C Neutral. This little boy is coloring in his coloring book.

IJ 1

191

12D Neutral. This little boy is sitting in a chair.

A

192

UA/Lj

13A Neutral. This little girl is looking at a butterfly.

. _ £ B 4

193

13B Neutral. This little boy is cutting out a paper plane from his cutout book with his play scissors.

JM—2»»^

-.i^^

194

13C Neutral. This little girl is walking,

o^

tmaÊÊÊÊmt-

13D Set A, bad. This little girl is scribbling on the wall.

Å

196

14A ^^utral. Thi

s little boy i is Playi ^^ i^ a sandbox.

197

o o o

•«

o

14B Neutral. This little boy is blowing bubbles with his bubble pipe.

•ÉIMMMr'fl

198

11

14C Neutral. This little girl is playing with her dog.

£

199

14D Set A, good. This little girl is cleaning up her room.

r--

200

15A Neutral. This little boy is playing blocks

X L • I . f U É M H — t 1

201

15B Set A, bad. This little girl is trying to take the teddy bear away from a friend.

A •imM—nMfi

202

15C Neutral. This little girl is playing with her doll.

203

15D Neutral. This little girl is playing with her doll house.

Å

204

16A Set A, good. This little boy is helping his mommy feed the baby.

imtiÊÊimÍm

205

16B Neutral. This little boy is pulling a wagon.

206

16C Neutral. This little girl is eating an ice cream cone.

207

16D Neutral. This little girl is reading a book.

m M H H H I

208

APPENDIX E: BROWN IDS SELF-CONCEPT REFERENTS TEST

CHILD'S NAME

Examiner: Well, now, we're going to take a picture of you. Get ready now? 1, 2, 3 . . .

Well, look at that picture (pointing to picture).

That's apicture of you. That's a picture of

(child's name) This is really you because

you are and there you are in the

picture.

(jan you tell me who is in the picture?

(Be sure to obtain a statement from the child which indicates

that he recognizes himself.)

(Seat child at a table of suitable height for him. Use tape

to fasten the picture to the table in front of him. Examiner

should sit directly across the table from the child.)

Questions:

1. Now can you tell me, is (child's name) happy or

is he sad?

2. Now can you tell me, is clean or

is he dirty?

3. Now can you tell me, is good looking

or is he ugly?

4. Now can you tell me, does like to play

with other kids or doesn't he like to play with other

kids?

i ^m't\

209

5. Now can you tell me, does like to have his

own things or does he like to have other kids' things?

6. Now can you tell me, is ^ good or is he bad?

7. Now can you tell me, does like to talk a lot

or doesn't he like to talk a lot?

8. Now can you tell me, is smart or is he stupid?

9. Now can you tell me, is scared of a lot of

things or not scared of a lot of things?

10. Now can you tell me, is scared of a lot of

people or not scared of a lot of people?

11. Now can you tell me, does like the way his

clothes look or not like the way his clothes look?

12. Now can you tell me, is strong or is he weak?

13. Now can you tell me, is healthy or is he sick?

14. Now can you tell me, does like the way his

face looks or not like the way his face looks?

Examiner: Now that was very good, . I'd like to

ask you a few more questions. This time, I'd like to ask

you a few questions about (child's name)'s mother. Can

you tell me?

1. Does 's mother think is happy or sad?

2. Does 's mother think is clean or dirty?

3. Does 's mother think is good looking or ugly?

4. Does 's mother think likes to play with

other kids or doesn't like to play with other kids?

5. Does

6.

7.

's mother think

210

likes to have his own

things or likes to have other kids' things?

Does 's mother think is good or bad?

Does 's mother think likes to talk a lot

or doesn't like to talk a lot?

8. Does

9. Does

's mother think

's mother think

is smart or stupid?

is scared of a lot

of people or not scared of a lot of people?

10. Does 's mother think is scared of a lot of t

things or not scared of a lot of things?

11. Does 's mother like the way 's clothes look

pr not like the way ' s clothes look?

12. Does 's mother think is strong or weak?

13. Does 's mother think he is healthy or sick?

14. Does 's mother like the way 's face looks

or not like the way 's face looks?

Examiner: That was very good. I'd like to ask you

a few questions about

1. Does

's teachers. Can you tell me:

's teacher think is happy or sad?

2. Does

3. Does

ugly?

4. Does

's teacher think

's teacher think

's teacher think

is clean or dirty?

is good looking or

likes to play with

other kids or doesn't like to play with other kids?

211

5. Does 's teacher think likes to have his own

things or likes to have other kids' things?

- ^o^s 's teacher think is smart or stupid?

-- ^o^s 's teacher think likes to talk to a

lot of people or does not like to talk to a lot of

people?

' Do^s 's teacher think is smart or stupid?

9* Does 's teacher think is scared of a lot

of things or not scared of a lot of things?

10. Does 's teacher think is scared of a lot of

people or not scared of a lot of people?

11. Does 's teacher like the way 's clothes look

or not like the way his clothes look?

12. Does 's teacher think is strong or weak?

13. Does 's teacher think is healthy or sick?

14. Does 's teacher like the way 's face looks

or not like the way his face looks?

Examiner: That was very good. Now I'd like to ask you a

few questions about other kids. Can you tell me:

1. Do other kids think is happy or sad?

2. Do other kids think is clean or dirty?

3. Do other kids think is good looking or ugly?

4. Do other kids think likes to play with them or

does not like to play with them?

â • ^ ™ j — — — ^ : • «^

212

5. Do other kids think likes to have his own things

or likes to have their things?

6. Do other kids think is good or bad?

7. Do other kids think likes to talk a lot or

doesn't like to talk a lot?

8. Do other kids think is smart or stupid?

9. Do other kids think is scared of a lot of things

or not scared of a lot of things?

10. Do other kids think is scared of a lot of people

or not scared of a lot of people?

11. Do other kids like the way 's clothes look or not

like the way his clothes look?

12. Do other kids think is strong or weak?

13. Do other kids think likes the way his face looks

or does not like the way his face looks?

14. Do other kids think is healthy or sick?

END OF FIRST SESSION

(After the group instructional program, the procedure

for administering the questionnaire was repeated using the

original picture. The examiner concluded with the following

statement.)

Examiner: Well, this picture is for you to keep, just as I

promised. Here it is; remember you can do whatever you like

with it for yourself or show it to your mother or teacher or

whatever you like.

END OF SECOND SESSION

I

I

213

APPENDIX F: MISSOURI CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST (Sines, J., Sines, L., Parker, & Owen)

Directions: Indicate by circling "Yes" or "No" whether or

not has typically and currently shown the behavior

described in each of the following statements. If you are

uncertain about your answer, please make a best guess.

1. (69) Yes No Sought out by others, others say they like

him; among the first selected for teams, etc.

2. (62) Yes No Expresses appreciation for others' acts.

3. (25) Yes No Speaks with weak voice, in a monotone,

voice "trails off" at ends of sentences, or speaks in a

weak, high pitched voice.

4. (40) Yes No Speaks rapidly, words "come tumbling out

fast."

5. (9) Yes No Pulls other children's hair, punches,

steps on toes, etc., annoys children.

6. (47) Yes No Tosses and turns in sleep, rolls, gets up

often at night, etc., (poor or restless sleeping.)

7. (45) Yes No Talks in sleep.

8. (66) Yes No Says "I'm sorry," "Won't you forgive me?"

more than others do (expresses great remorse, apologizes

repeatedly, cries after hurting or telling untruths or

destroying property).

9. (49) Yes No Walks in sleep.

10. (27) Yes No Says "I'm tired," "I want to rest," etc.

(others say that he tires easily or rests often).

-f^!»««l

\ .

214

11. (12) Yes No Plays with matches.

12. (46) Yes No Complains of bad dreams.

13. (41) Yes No Becomes jittery, building up tension,

becomes wound up.

14. (59) Yes No Cries at separation from mother (on going

to school, camp, etc.)

15. (5) Yes No Unscrupulously takes advantage of others.

16. (44) Yes No Cries out in sleep.

17. (52) Yes No Irregular bedtime.

18. (18) Yes No Swears or curses (uses "Hell," "God damn"

or other four letter words.

19. (50) Yes No Sleeps well, awakes very few times at

night (good sleeper).

20. (11) Yes No Destroys or defaces property.

21. (20) Yes No Prefers to be with children younger than

himself.

22. (36) Yes No Stumbles, falls easily, throws clumsily,

is awkward.

23. (63) Yes No Expresses delight over the happiness of

others (e.g. , claps hands, says "That's good!")

24. (10) Yes No Steals.

25. (17) Yes No Threatens to kill someone.

26. (8) Yes No Screams, bangs objects when denied some-

thing, has temper tantrums.

27. (31) Yes No Is seclusive, prefers to be by himself.

215

28. (3) Yes No Says "Others are to blame" for own actions.

29. (24) Yes No Withdraws, remains quiet, does not talk

back when others shove, hit, accuse, or criticize him

(does not stand up for self).

30. (60) Yes No Has physical complaints.

31. (42) Yes No Is said to be distractable, moves away

quickly from what he is doing when something else moves,

when someone speaks, or other sounds are made.

32. (1) Yes No Says as for instance, "I'll get even,"

"You won't get away with that," "I'll show him,"

expresses desire for revenge.

33. (22) Yes No Does not try new situations, "hangs back,"

is considered by others as fearful or shy.

34. (32) Yes No Does not participate in group activities,

stays in background (said to be retiring).

35. (16) Yes No Screams more than others.

36. (53) Yes No Becomes so upset by changes in routine

such as changing residences or schools or when expecting

visitors that the child may vomit or report bodily aches,

headaches, stomach aches, or feelings of nausea.

37. (54) Yes No Worries a great deal, is said to be a

worrier, expresses worry or concern about bad grades,

health, etc.

38. (61) Yes No Expresses or shows concern over the mis-

fortunes of others (e.g., pats shoulder, asks questions

about troubles, says "You feel unhappy, don't you?")

âÃ.

216

39. (56) Yes No Complains of pains in head.

40. (67) Yes No Talks easily with adults, initiates

activities or conversation with adults other than

parents.

41. (33) Yes No Is shy or timid.

42. (37) Yes No Over talkative, chatters, keeps talking

or interrupting conversations.

43. (60) Yes No Asks to be held or hugged, climbs into

lap, etc., (seeks physical expressions of affection.)

44. (70) Yes No Requests praise or approval.

45. (7) Yes No Makes statements contrary to fact (lying,

telling untruths).

46. (26) Yes No Stays largely in room or house.

47. (57) Yes No Complains of pain in limbs or back

(muscle aches and pains.)

48. (29) Yes No Sensitive.

49. (2) Yes No Fights.

50. (15) Yes No Hits smaller children, "picks on" weaker

or smaller children.

51. (28) Yes No Cries easily.

52. (14) Yes No Teases other children.

53. (43) Yes No Falls, cuts, bruises, injures self, has

many accidents.

54. (13) Yes No Hurts other children (pinches, hits,

kicks, or other destructive behavior.)

217

55. (51) Yes No Has difficulty going to sleep.

56. (35) Yes No Jumps from one activity to the next, does

not finish task (others say he has a short attention

span).

57. (58) Yes No Vomits when things do not go his way,

when he shows signs of anger (red face, raised voice,

etc. ) when he says he is worried or when he feels sad

or is emotionally upset.)

58. (21) Yes No Is apathetic or underactive.

59. (39) YeS No Becomes more active or more talkative

in groups; becomes noiser and more excited than usual

when he is in a group.

60. (55) Yes No Clings to mother (stays close to mother,

hands closé onto dress or hand.)

61. (23) Yes No Does not perform before group, refuses

to speak before class when requested, does not volunteer

to speak or act before group or class.

62. (65) Yes No Discusses own problems with others.

63. (19) Yes No Does not answer when spoken to, pouts,

looks mean or sullen.

64. (34) Yes No Moves constantly, "gets into everything,"

"swarms all over," is overactive.

65. (64) Yes No Expresses delight in beauty.

66. (30) Yes No Has few friendships.

67. (4) Yes No Selfish.

68. (6) Yes No Hurts animals.

jT ^

/ ^rA

218

69. (38) Yes No Signs or hums continually (to the ex-

pressed annoyance of others).

70. (48) Yes No Talks about or complains of nightmares

about past serious events (divorce, automobile acci-

dents, fire, loss of loved one, or other "crises" events.

Missouri Children's Behavior Checklist. Items on

each scale are listed as follows: (all items answered yes

are scored with the exception of those listed.)

AGGRESSION (A)

5. Pulls other children's hair, punches, steps on toes,

etc., annoys children.

11. Plays with matches.

15. Unscrupulously takes advantage of others.

18. Swears or curses (uses "Hell," "God damn" or other

four letter words.

20. Destroys or defaces property.

24. Steals

25. Threatens to kill someone.

26. Screams, bangs objects when denied something, has

temper tantrums.

28. Says "Others are to blame" for own actions.

32. Says for instance, "I'H get even," "You won't get

away with that," "I'll show him," expresses desire for

revenge.

219

35. Screams more than others.

45. Makes statements contrary to fact (lying, telling

untruths).

49. Fights.

50. Hits smaller children, "picks on" weaker or smaller

children.

52. Teases other children.

54. Hurts other children (pinches, hits, kicks, or other

destructive behavior).

63. Does not answer when spoken to, pouts, looks mean or

sullen.

67. Selfish.

68. Hurts animals.

INHIBITION (I)

3. Speaks with weak voice, in a monotone, voice "trails

off" at ends of sentences, or speaks in a weak, high

pitched voice.

10. Says, "I'm tired," "I want to rest," etc. (others say

that he tires easily or rests often).

21. Prefers to be with children younger than himself.

27. Is seclusive, prefers to be by himself.

29. Withdraws, remains quiet, does not talk back when

others shove, hit, accuse, or criticize him (does not

stand up for self).

220

33. Does not try new situations, "hangs back," is con-

sidered by others as fearful or shy.

34. Does not participate in group activities, stays in

background (said to be retiring).

41. Is shy or timid.

46. Stays largely ir> room or house.

48. Sensitive.

51. Cries easily.

58. Is apathetic or underactive.

61. Does not' perform before a group, refuses to speak

before class when requested, does not volunteer to

speak or act before group or class.

66. Has few close friendships.

ACTIVITY LEVEL (H)

4. Speaks rapidly, words "come tumbling out fast."

13. Becomes jittery, building up tension, becomes wound up.

22. Stumbles, falls easily, throws clumsily, is awkward.

31. Is said to be distractable, moves away quickly from

what he is doing when something else moves, when

someone speaks, or other sounds are made.

42. Overtalkative, chatters, keeps talking or interrupting

conversations.

53. Falls, cuts, bruises, injures self, has many accidents.

56. Jumps from one activity to the next, does not finish

task (others say he has a short attention span).

:'.' %immm i i i i f fîr l

221

59. Becomes more active or more talkative in groups;

becomes noiser and more excited than usual when he

is in a group.

SLEEP DISTURBANCE (Sl)

6. Tosses and turns in sleep, rolls, gets up often at

night, etc., (poor sleeper or restless sleeper).

7. Talks in sleep.

9. Walks in sleep.

12. Complains of bad dreams.

16. Cries out in sleep.

17. Irregular bedtime.

19. (No) Sleeps well, awakes very few times at night

(good sleeper).

55. Has difficulty going to sleep.

70. Talks about or complains of nightmares about past

serious events (divorce, automobile accidents, fire,

loss of loved one, or other "crises" events).

SOMATIZATION (Ps)

14. Cries at separation from mother (on going to school,

camp, etc.).

30. Has physical complaints.

36. Becomes so upset by changes in routine such as

changing residences or schools or when expecting

visitors that the child may vomit or report bodily

aches, headaches, stomach aches, or feelings of nausea.

222

37. Worries a great deal, is said to be a worrier, expres-

ses worry or concern about bad grades, health, etc.

39. Complains of pains in head.

47. Complains of pains in limbs or back (muscle aches and

pains).

57. Vomits when things do not go his way, when he shows

signs of anger (red face, raised voice, etc. ) when he

says he is worried or when he feels sad or is emotional-

ly upset).

60. Clings to mother (stays close to mother, hands close

onto dress or hand).

SOCIABILITY (So)

1. Sought out by others, others say they like him; among

the first selected for teams, etc.

2. Expresses appreciation for others' acts.

8. Says "I'm sorry," "Won't you forgive me?" more than

others do (expresses great remorse, apologizes repeated-

ly, cries after hurting or telling untruths or destroy-

ing property).

23. Expresses delight over the happiness of others (e.g.,

claps hands, says "That's good."

38. Expresses or shows concern over the misfortunes of

others (e.g., pats shoulder, asks questions about

troubles, says, "You feel unhappy, don't you?"

X

223

40. Talks easily with adults, initiates activities or con-

versation with adults other than parents.

43. Asks to be held or hugged, climbs into lap, etc. ,

(seeks physical expressions of affection) .

44. Requests praise or approval.

62. Discusses own problems with others.

65. Expresses delight in beauty.

"*-"' •'WI-'W' -'-'í'^'^íîJS-''--í3pJH--í--ví-',-rr''• r ^ ÚálrlÚ-~«^W

224

APPENDIX G: PRESCHOOL TEACHER'S RATING SCALE

Child's Name: Date:

Teacher:

In each statement circle the best answer that describes

the above named child at the present time. Your complete

objectivity will be appreciated.

Each statement may be marked on a 1 to 5 scale. These

numbers represent:

1. Strongly agree

2. Agree

3. Undecided

4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

For example: The statement "has many friends" may be

answered 1 - 5 . The number 1 when circled would indicate

that the described child undoubtedly has many friends,

whereas number 3 would indicate that you are not aware of

this information. If number 5 was circled this would in-

dicate that to your knowledge, the child has no friends.

Remember Complete objectivity is essential so that

each child may benefit fully from this evaluation.

wiååt ^k

225

(1) 1 2 3 4 5 Gets and stays extremely excited to

the distraction of others.

(2) 1 2 3 4 5 Has a small vocabulary compared to

other children his age.

(3) 1 2 3 4 5 Displays leadership.

(4) 1 2 3 4 5 Fights.

(5) 1 2 3 4 5 Follows directions.

(6) 1 2 3 4 5 Cannot control his behavior,

(7) 1 2 3 4 5 Has a "mind of his own" - stubborn.

(8) 1 2 3 4 5 Won't listen when corrected.

(9) 1 2 3 4 5 Sad and disappointed.

(10) 1 2 3 4 5 Dependent - clinging.

(11) 1 2 3 4 5 Speaks in complete sentences.

(12) 1 2 3 4 5 Plays around - hard to get interested.

(13) 1 2 3 4 5 Does not listen attentively.

(14) 1 2 3 4 5 Mature for age (handles himself with

authority - confidence).

(15) 1 2 3 4 5 Popular with peers.

(16) 1 2 3 4 5 Loves to get involved in group discus-

sions.

(17) 1 2 3 4 5 Can talk about what he is feeling.

(18) 1 2 3 4 5 Intellectually superior.

(19) 1 2 3 4 5 Hides his feelings.

(20) 1 2 3 4 5 Cannot get along with the opposite sex.

(21) 1 2 3 4 5 Can understand child's feelings by his

words.

..i J. .- J*»4X« ÉáÉÊm a

226

(22) 1 2 3 4 5 Gets upset often without any apparent

reason.

(23) 1 2 3 4 5 Retells stories, poems, experiences.

(24) 1 2 3 4 5 Slow, resistant, hard to motivate.

(25) 1 2 3 4 5 Cannot be disciplined.

(26) 1 2 3 4 5 Ambitious (likes to get things done,

stay busy).

(27) 1 2 3 4 5 Happy to be alive.

(28) 1 2 3 4 5 Hesitant to initiate play with other

children.

(29) 1 2 3 4 5 Initiates own activities.

(30) 1 2 3 4 5 Impulsively goes from task to task.

(31) 1 2 3 4 5 Listens to constructive criticism.

(32) 1 2 3 4 5 Looks at each day with enthusiasm.

(33) 1 2 3 4 5 Hard to understand what he feels.

(34) 1 2 3 4 5 Handles disappointment well.

(35) 1 2 3 4 5 Jealous of others.

(36) 1 2 3 4 5 Fights.

(37) 1 2 3 4 5 Displays leadership.

(38) 1 2 3 4 5 Short attention span.

(39) 1 2 3 4 5 Other children cannot understand what

he means.

(40) 1 2 3 4 5 Clearly expresses his own thoughts.

(41) 1 2 3 4 5 Expresses feelings so they can be

understood.

"«Cs

dUÊÊÊím

227

(42) 1 2 3 4. 5 Easily upset.

(43) 1 2 3 4 5 Selfish, bossy.

(44) 1 2 3 4 5 Withdraws.

(45) 1 2 3 4 5 Appreciates the rights of others.

(46) 1 2 3 4 5 Avoids fighting, yelling, aggressive-

ness.

(47) 1 2 3 4 5 Does not comprehend the usefulness of

the group.

(4 8) 1 2 3 4 5 Enters into play with others.

(49) 1 2 3' 4 5 Not interested in learning new things.

(50) 1 2 3 4 5 Contributes useful ideas in class.

(51) 1 2 3 4 5 Experiences fears and anxieties.

(52) 1 2 3 4 5 Independent when given the opportunity.

(53) 1 2 3 4 5 Works on tasks to their completion.

(54) 1 2 3 4 5 Plays around - hard to get interested.

X

228

Preschool Teacher's Rating Scale: (Item descriptions

for each pool of items + or - refers to scoring valence).

AFFECT AWARENESS (AA)

17+ Can talk about what he is feeling.

19- Hides his feelings.

21+ Can understand child's feelings by his words.

33- Hard to understand what he feels.

39- Other children cannot understand what he means.

40+ Clearly expresses his own thoughts.

41+ Expresses feelings so they can be understood.

45+ Appreciates rights of others.

UNHAPPINESS - HAPPINESS (U)

9- Sad and disappointed.

10- Dependent - clinging.

22- Gets upset often without any apparent reason.

27+ Happy to be alive.

28- Hesitant to initiate play with other children.

32+ Looks at each day with enthusiasm.

34+ Handles disappointment well.

35- Jealous of others.

42- Easily upset.

44- Withdraws

51- Experiences fears and anxieties.

229

MATURE CONTROLS (M)

1- Gets and stays extremely excited to the distraction

of others.

3+ Displays leadership.

4- Fights.

5+ Follows directions.

6- Cannot control his behavior.

7- Has a "mind of his own" - stubborn.

8- Won't listen when corrected.

12- Plays around - hard to get interested.

13- Does not listen attentively.

14+ Mature for age (handles himself with authority -

confidence).

15+ Popular with peers.

20- Cannot get along with opposite sex.

24- Slow, resistant, hard to motivate.

25- Cannot be disciplined

26+ Ambitious (likes to get things done, stay busy).

29+ Initiates own activities.

30- Impulsively goes from task to task.

31+ Listens to constructive criticism.

36- Fights.

37+ Displays leadership.

43- Selfish, bossy.

46+ Avoids fighting, yelling, aggressiveness.

. • iiii

-J.^

230

48+ Enters into play with others.

52+ Independent when given the opportunity.

53+ Works on tasks to their completion.

54- Plays around - hard to get interested.

INTELLECTUAL ATTITUDES (I)

2- Has a small vocabulary compared to other children

his age.

11+ Speaks in complete sentences.

16+ Loves to get involved in group discussions.

18+ Intellectually superior.

23+ Retells stories, poems, experiences.

38- Short attention span.

47- Does not comprehend the usefulness of the group.

49- Not interested in learning new things.

50+ Contributes useful ideas in class.

% . '

r '.£ I'l:i lrL.t^»I4-l ÚrÍtft t': » &k « r i