J . ment. Defic. Res. (1976) 20, 109
109
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR: A COMPARISON BETWEEN MENTALLY RETARDED, LEARNING-DISABLED AND EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN OM D. PARASHAR Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23284,
U.S.A.
Darwin (1877), Doll (1920) and Stoddard (1943) emphasised the importance of "adaptive behaviour" to the extent that its high level became synonymous with "intelligence" and low level with "mental retardation". From the beginning of this century, education has been concerned with helping the child to adapt to the environment, adjust to social demands, and acquire skills to cope with the stress of satisfying his psychological and biological needs. It is the task ofthe teacher to guide the child in acquiring the skills needed for adaptation in the classroom and outside the school. Appropriate classroom behaviour is important. Firstly, because class is a miniature society that provides training for social attitudes, it helps emotional maturation and intellectual development. Secondly, it is conducive to maintenance of an efficient learning-teaching climate. Inappropriate or disturbed behaviour not only affects the individual adversely but also the entire class. In research, considerable attention has been given to behaviour disorder, behaviour deficits and the problem behaviour of handicapped children (Gardner, 1971). Most studies conducted in this area stress the need to develop objective and precise measures of problem behaviour. A number of rating scales, check lists, interview schedules, procedures for maintaining anecdotal records, and other instruments have been devised. Bender (1959), Shepherd, Oppenheim and Mitchell (1971) and Menolascino (1971) conducted studies on handicapped children and their families. These studies reveal that both the handicapped children and their parents have higher incidence, more intense emotional problems and a larger number of behavioural disturbances or disorders than their normal peers. Studies by Strag (1972), Spivack and Swift (1967), and by others, have shown disturbed classroom behaviour highly and negatively related to classroom achievement. The National Center for Health Statistics (1972) found that children who repeated their grades because of poor achievement had a higher incidence and intensity of problem behaviour. Gardner (1971) notes that mentally handicapped clients with a high rate of disruptive behaviour disorders take longer to learn task-related skills than those with lower order behaviour disorders. Swift and Spivack (1973) describe classroom functioning of 602 students attending eight different urban ghetto-schools in relation to their grades and teachers' ratings of various types of behaviour such as reasoning ability, originality, verbal Received 3rd June, 1975
110
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
interaction, rapport with the teacher, general anxiety, quiet-withdrawal, and poor work habits. The results suggest that under-achievers and average achievers demonstrate significantly different behaviour patterns. A study conducted by YoungMasten (1938) with the purpose of establishing the extent and kinds of behaviour problems of twenty-eight problem children and twenty-eight normal children indicated that academic achievement and the overall extent of behavioural distyrbances had a high and significant relationship. Swift and Spivack (1969) asked twenty-six teachers to rate their 1,554 twelveto-nineteen-year-olds on a 102-item scale. The purpose ofthe study was to identify those types of disturbed classroom behaviour which interfered with academic success, intellectual growth or classroom achievement. They could identify the following aspects of behaviour, which distinguished low achievers from high achievers: unethical behaviour, defiant-resistive, heterosexual interest, hyperactive-expansive, poor emotional control, need approval, dependency, emotional distance, timidity, schizoid withdrawat, bizarre speech and cognition and bizarre action. Menolascino (1965) reviewed the frequency and types of psychiatric disturbances in a sample of 616 children ranging in age from early infancy to eight years who were referred to the clinic suspected of mental retardation. One hundred and ninetyone of them displayed prominent emotional problems, forty had primary emotional disorders without mental retardation, and 151 children displayed both emotional disturbances and mental retardation. Again, in his paper (Menolascino, 1971) it is noted that behaviour disorders are very intensely associated with the condition of mental retardation. His other conclusions are: (a) Many ofthe emotional disturbances in mentally retarded children are secondary reactions to their general problems of adaptation to their total environment; (b) once the emotional block is remoVed, the intelligence is likely to surge forth, at least in instances of primary pseudo-mental retardation; (c) in addition to the two categories of mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed, there exists a third category, "Mixed Cases", the cases which cannot be assigned to either ofthe two formal categories. This category, as such, is important for diagnostic clarity and specific treatment plans; and (d) the mentally retarded display marked passivity, repetitiousness, inflexibility and simplicity of emotional life. Beier (1964) reviewed a number of studies concerning emotional disturbance in the mentally retarded and noted that little had been reported concerning the relationship of emotional disturbance and mental retardation from out-patient clinical settings. He found the following agreements concerning the association of mental retardation with emotional disturbance. "It is generally agreed that mental retardates as a group have a higher incidence of behaviour disorders than is found in the general population. This association between retardation and behavioural disorders has been of continuing and increasing interest and their coexistence in the same individuals raises several basic questions regarding this relationship. The major hypotheses regarding this association are as follows: (1) Behavioural disturbances occur among the mentally retarded for the same reasons that they occur in persons of normal intelligence. (2) Both behavioural disturbance and mental retardation are the results of basic pathological states or
OM D. PARASHAR
111
dysfunctions of an anatomical, neurological, endocrinological, or biochemical nature. (3) The mentally retarded, because of their deficiences and their inadequacies, are subject to more stresses, frustrations, and conflicts, and are consequently more liable to develop behavioural disorders. (4) Many cases are labelled 'mentally retarded' though they are primarily emotionally disturbed, and the intellectual deficiences are essentially the result of such disturbances. (5) The mentally retarded, because of their maturational lag, are slower to incorporate notions of right and wrong into personal value systems and are deficient in internal controls." Pollack (1958) reports that estimates ofthe coexistence of psychiatric disorders and subnormal intelligence range from eighteen to forty per cent. It is also pointed out that the level of intellectual functioning in the schizophrenic child is an important prognostic index; an IQ_of 70 or above was considered as a favourable sign, while an intelligence quotient of less than 70 indicated that the chances for improvement were apt to be significantly less. Strag (1972) compared behavioural ratings ofthe parents of mentally retarded, leaning-disabled, and normal children on a thirty-item, five-point forced choice behavioural rating scale. The items, according to the investigator, measured possible neurological disturbance, behavioural or emotional disturbance, and other factors. Statistically significant differences were found between the three groups on quarrelsome consideration of others, upset when left by mother, jealoiisy, tendencies to daydreaming, general negativism, physical coordination, a tendency to cling and to tire easily. No reliability or validity coefficients have been reported. Webster (1963) reviewed a series of 159 pre-school retarded children with an average IQ_ of 61 and an age range of six to thirty years in order to check their disturbances in emotional development. The evaluations included separate neurological, psychological and psychiatric examinations, the reports of parent interviews by the psychiatric social workers and the comments of the nursery teachers on individual children. The findings indicate that mental retardation is a clinical development syndrome which regularly includes impairment in emotional as well as intellectual development. Not a single child in the study was found "simply retarded". Seventeen per cent were found severely disturbed, others exhibited mild to moderate disturbance. The variables associated with uniqueness of problems of emotional development in the mentally retarded according to Webster (ibid.) are: (a) the intellectual impairment, (b) slow rate of overall physical and intellectual development, and (c) disturbances in the quality of emotional growth due to (a) and (b) above. In Spain, Siguan (1970) examined the question of whether or not the mentally retarded had normal personalities as far as psychological or emotional problems were concerned. On the basis of empirical data, he discovered that most of the mentally retarded children had more intense personality problems than their normal peers. They exhibited more infantile regression, obstinacy, aggressive behaviour, and usage of compensatory measures as defence mechanisms. In France, Lang (1970) surveyed researches on emotional disturbance in the mentally retarded and found that
112
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
all the reviewed studies agree that mentally retardation syndromes are definitely associated with emotionally immature reactions. INVESTIGATION A study was designed to examine a selected number of types of classroom behaviour in which teachers, psychologists and other professionat workers have expressed interest. Its specific purpose was to identify and measure the nature and prevalence of those kinds of disturbed classroom behaviour which interfere with teaming and which distinguish mentally retarded from learning-disabled and emotionalty disturbed children. Eteven aspects of disturbed classroom behaviour were investigated (ctassroom disturbance, impatience, disrespect-defiance, external blame, achievement anxiety, external reliance, comprehension disorder, inattentive-withdrawal, irrelevant responsiveness, lack of creative initiative and need of closeness to the teacher) in the three groups of children. Disturbed classroom behaviour is defined as any which interferes with or hinders classroom learning processes and is related to motivation, interest, achievement and other similar variables. Nine specific hypotheses discussed later in this paper were stated. Since the main object ofthe study was to identify and measure the uniqueness and commonatity of disturbed classroom behaviour factors within or between the mentally retarded and the other two groups, the comparisons were made (a) among mentally retarded, learning-disabled, and emotionally disturbed children, (b) between the first and the second and (c) between the first and the third of these groups. THE SAMPLE AND COLLECTION OF DATA The study was conducted by using data contained in the files of cases diagnosed in the Hamilton County Diagnostic Clinic (University Affiliated Facility) and the Children's Psychiatric Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. The following available information was used: 1. Demographic data: The subject's age, sex, his or her parents' occupation and education, family income, total number of members in the family and the catchment area of residence code. 2. Placement: The information on the subjects' class, school and the teacher. 3. Findings of the interdisciplinary teams on the handicapping conditions in the subjects: These findings were based upon a number of evaluations carried out through standardised tests and procedures, laboratory tests, information supplied by various agencies (hospitals, schools, etc.) on the developmental history and behaviour of the subjects, family medical history and subjects' birth history collected from the parents and other sources and the conclusions of case conferences conducted after the completion of all the required evaluations and the laboratory tests. Over 350 files of children who were diagnosed as mentally retarded, learningdisabled and emotionally disturbed by the interdisciplinary teams and whose cases closed during a period of eleven months were reviewed. The sample consisted of 172 cases; fifty-six diagnosed as mentally retarded, fifty-one as learning-disabled and
OM D. PARASHAR
113
Table 1 Chronological ages of subjects in months
Mentally retarded Learning-disabled Emotionally disturbed
Range 83-141 80-142 80-141
Mean 102.1 107.3 113.9
S.D. 16.8 18.9 17.0
Table 2 Number of boys and girls in the sample
Mentally retarded Learning-disabled Emotionally disturbed Total
Boys 39 44 49
Girls 17 07 16
Total 56 51 65
132
40
172
sixty-five as emotionally disturbed. They were consecutively selected, beginning with the latest closed case. Cases not meeting the criteria of age, educational programme and geographical area were excluded. As evidenced in the clinical records and by definitions of the three categories of handicapping conditions, none ofthe 172 subjects had any primary visual, hearing, motor or neurological impairment. The subjects were of chronological ages between eighty and 142 months on the day of behaviour ratings by their teachers. The range, mean and Standard Deviation of each of the three groups are shown in Table 1 and the sex distribution in Table 2. Data were collected on the intelligence quotient (IQ) as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (1949) on mental retardation levels as estimated by the psychologists based upon the test results, and on adaptive behaviour levels as measured by the A.A.M.D. Adaptive Behaviour Scale or estimated on a comparative evidence of the subjects. Table 3 provides the means and S.D. of IQ, levels of mental retardation, and level of adaptive behaviour for each group. Demographic variables were correlated with the adaptive behaviour and I Q levels separately. The coefficients of correlation in all the cases were found insignificant. METHODS The Devereux Elementary School Behaviour Rating (hereinafter, the Devereux scale, Spivack and Swift, 1967) was used for the study. A number of investigators (Spivack and Swift, 1967B; Spivack, Swift and Prewitt, 1971; Hying, 1971) used this scale to accomplish objectives such as: (a) to identify and measure those features of classroom behaviour in children that may be interfering with their achievement, (b) to note changes in behaviour after therapeutic intervention or treatment, and (c) to compare one category of handicapped children with another category on the eleven behaviour factors.
114
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
The scale, comprised of forty-seven items, is meant to be used by teachers who have had at least a one-month's observation period ofthe subject's behaviour. Items 1 to 26 are rated on a five-point scale, "very frequently" to "never", and items 27 to 47 on a seven-point scale, "extremely" to "not at all". According to the directions given on page one ofthe scale, the teachers are expected to (1) rate the student's recent and current behaviour, (2) base ratings on her own experience with the student, (3) consider each item independently, (4) avoid interpretation of "unconscious" motives and feeling, (5) rate each item quickly, and (6) rate every item. Rating a child on the complete scate generalty takes between five and ten minutes (Spivack and Swift, 1967B). The profile on page four of the scate consists of eleven behaviour factors, each containing three tofiveitems. Three ofthe forty-seven items are listed as "additional items" and are excluded from all the eleven factors. A total of raw scores of all the items constituting a behaviour factor is considered as the raw score of that particular factor. According to the authors of the Devereux scate, the normative data were collected from thirteen elementary schools in a consolidated small public school system. Thirty-two kindergarten through sixth grade teachers made ratings of the behaviour of 809 children coming from very heterogeneous backgrounds. The mean IQ's for each grade level ranged from 106 to 112 with Standard Deviations between 10 and 17. The scale was considered suitable for use on the three groups studied by the author of this paper. The group of youngsters rated came from homes wherein approximately one-half of the parents did not go beyond high school, but wherein approximately sixteen per cent ofthe fathers completed college. Ofthe 809 children, 721 were white and eighty-eight Negro. A total of 128 children were rated a second time, approximately one week after the initial ratings. The test-retest reliability coefiicients for the eleven behaviour factors ranged from 0.86 to 0.91 (Spivack and Swift, 1967). Spivack and Swift (1967B) studied the nature and organisation of disturbed classroom behaviour by using the Devereux scale. They compared low achievers with high achievers on the eleven behaviour factors and found that the degree of disturbed behaviour and the level of achievement were highly correlated. The eleven behaviour factors, it was concluded, were highly relevant. For this study, each of the teachers who was certified as qualified by the Ohio State Department of Education and had at least a six-month observation of the subject's behaviour in the classroom settings, was requested by his or her principal by mail to provide a rating on the Devereux scale. The scale and return addressed envelopes were enclosed. The directions for rating were given on the first page ofthe scale. All scales were stamped as "Privileged and Confidential Information". Out of the 178 scales mailed to the teachers, 172 were received complete which were scored on the eleven behaviour factors profile. The raw scores obtained from the teachers' rating on the subjects for the eleven behaviour factors were computed. The data on the raw scores of all the subjects on diagnostic results, demographic variables, and other related information were also tabulated. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) method (Morrison, 1967) was used to determine
115
OM D. PARASHAR —. in in to
• *
I CM —I
CO CO O CM
CO
CT) CM
O CT1 CM —
CO CD
^
CM O
5;
-g'
C3 . S ^
Se
^
S 88 S
ode
CO
0 0 0 0
—' CM
"3
I
S ^
CT) CM
0 0 00
o
—I i n
o
3
in to
C^ CM
CD
—
2 2"^
o
116
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
whether the three groups and each pair of groups differed significantly on their overall profiles for the eleven behaviour factors. Since the association in MANOVA is complex, a breakdown is most imperative in lending clarity to the interpretation of results (Stevens, 1973). Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Discriminant Analysis were the two methods of further analysis which were used to identify uniqueness of behaviour factors within or between the comparison groups, and to determine which ofthe behaviour factors contributed to the overall difference. Bartlett's (1936) X^ test was used to determine whether the discriminant functions were significant or not. The alpha level was set at 0.01 for both the multivariate and univariate tests. Since number of discriminant functions equals to minimum (k-1, p. where K is number of groups and p is number of dependent variables), two test results for three-group comparisons and one each for two-group comparisons on Bartlett's T^ were obtained. Finn's (1972) programme for computer analysis was used. Table 4 Significance levels for MANOVA, Bartlett's X^ test for discriminant functions and Univariate ANO VA for the three comparisons 3 Groups
MANOVA Bartlett's Test Univariate ANOVA Factors 1. Classroom disturbance 2. Impatience 3. Disrespect-defiance 4. External blame 5. Achievement anxiety 6. External reliance 7. Comprehension disorders 8. Inattentive-withdrawal 9. Irrelevant-responsiveness 10. Lack of creative initiative 11. Need of closeness to teacher
0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0057 0.0776 (NS) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0484 (NS) 0.0001 0.0301 (NS) 0.0001 0.0015 0.6364 (NS)
M.R. vs. L.D. 0.0017 0.0016 0.9949 (NS) 0.1884(NS) 0.5128 (NS) 0.2349 (NS) 0.0154 (NS) 0.0175 (NS) 0.0005 0.0555 (NS) 0.2290 (NS) 0.0638 (NS) 0.4066 (NS)
M.R. vs. E.D. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0039 0.4048(NS) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.4935 (NS) 0.0001 0.0102 0.0027 0.0009 0.4436 (NS)
NS = Not significant at 0.01 level.
RESULTS The findings of the study established not only the overall difference of patterns of disturbed classroom behaviour factors but also revealed the uniqueness and commonalities of types of behaviour in the three groups of subjects. The relative quantitative prevalence of disturbed classroom behaviour factors among the groups was also discovered. The obtained results their interpretation, implications for usage in classroom settings and significance for further research are examined below. Significance levels for MANOVA, Bartlett's X^ test of discriminant functions and ANOVA for the three comparisons appear in Table 4. MANOVA F. values for all the four comparisons were found significant and validated by Bartlett's test of
OM D. PARASHAR
117
significance of discriminant functions. MacCarthy and Parskevopoulos (1969) compared normal, learning-disabled and emotionally disturbed subjects and, in their four comparisons (three-group, normal versus learning-disabled, normal versus emotionally disturbed, learning-disabled versus emotionally disturbed) obtained identical results to those of this study by using two way analysis of variance and Scheffe's method of multiple comparisons (Scheffe, 1953) to the various contrasts for significance. MANOVA method provided simultaneous confidence intervals and global F. values (Morrison, 1967, p. 182-184) for all the comparisons which, according to Hummel and Sligo (1971), tend to be conservative. Univariate analysis F. values and discriminant function standardised-coefficients were obtained in order to identify those disturbed classroom behaviour factors on which the comparison groups differed significantly and/or contributed most to the overall difference within and between the groups. The three groups exhibited significant difference on their profiles of the cumulative eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors (see Table 4). They also differ on the individual factors: Classroom Disturbance, Disrespect-Defiance, External Blame, Achievement Anxiety, Comprehension Disorders, Irrelevant Responsiveness and Lack of Creative Initiative. They did not differ on Impatience, External Reliance, Inattentive-Withdrawal and Need of Closeness to Teacher. It is not possible to compare these findings with the findings of other studies because of the lack of research in comparison ofthe three groups. However, Stragg (1972) found differences among normal, mentally retarded, and learning-disabled children on quarrelsome (comparable with Classroom Disturbance with p < 0.0057 in this study) and tendencies to daydream (comparable with Inattentive-Withdrawal with a p < 0.0301 in this study). MacCarthy and Paraskevopoulos {op. cit.) obtained significant difference (p < 0.01) on unsocialised aggression, immaturity-inadequacy, and personality problems among thirty-six learning-disabled, one hundred emotionally disturbed and forty-one average children. The possible reason for differences on overall profiles and seven out of eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors can be attributed to the subjects' handicapping conditions, that is, their being mentally retarded, learning-disabled or emotionally disturbed. None of the eleven factors were found associated significantly with demographic variables, mental retardation or adaptive behavioiu: levels of the subjects. The mentally retarded and the learning-disabled groups exhibited significant difference on their profiles of the cumulative eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors. F. values on univariate analysis indicated that they differed on Comprehension Disorders (p < 0.0005). The remaining ten factors were considered common for the two groups of subjects. The findings disagree with Hying (1971), who also used the Devereux scale and compared the Educationally Handicapped with the Educable Mentally Retarded. She found that they differed (p < 0.01) on DisrespectDefiance, External Reliance, Achievement Anxiety, Inattentive-Withdrawal and Irrelevant Responsiveness. Neither comprehension disorder, disturbed classroom behaviour, nor comprehension behaviour factor was mentioned in the study. The
118
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
possible reasons for variation in the findings of the two studies could be (i) definitions ofthe two groups (see California definition, Hying, 1971), (ii) size of the samples; Hying's sample was 308 educationally handicapped, 113 educable mentally retarded, and in the present study there were fifty-six mentally retarded and fifty-one learningdisabled subjects, (iii) Hying covered only educable mentally retarded subjects whereas the present study had upper range trainable mentally retarded as well, (iv) raters' biases; in her study thirty-six teachers rated 421 children whereas in the present investigation over a hundred teachers rated the subjects, and (v) the methods used for selecting the school, teachers and subjects. As comprehension disorder was not found correlated with any other disturbed classroom behaviour factor and ranked third on discriminant function standardised coefficients, the Univariate analysis of variance and discriminant analysis results were in agreement. The mentally retarded exhibited more comprehension disorders than did subjects of the other two groups. This finding is consistent with those of Baumeister and Bartlett (1962) on the characteristics of mentally retarded children, youth and adults. The possible reasons for the higher incidence of comprehension disorders in the mentally retarded are (i) the intellectual impairment (Webster, 1963), (ii) overall slower rate of learning beginning with infancy and early childhood which develops as a pattern, and (iii) slow rate of overall physical and intellectual development (Webster, ibid.). The mentally retarded and the emotionally disturbed groups differed significantly on their profiles of the cumulative eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors (Table 4). Also the emotionally disturbed exhibited higher classroom disturbance, disrespect-defiance, external blame, achievement anxiety, inattentivewithdrawal, irrelevant-responsiveness but lower comprehension disorders and lack of creative initiative than did the mentally retarded. Menolascino (1971) noted that mentally retarded children displayed marked passivity, repetitiousness, and inflexibility of emotional life. The present study produced comparable results regarding them, namely, higher lack of creative initiative and comprehension disorders. The possible reason for this could be their maturational lag, slower rate of incorporating concepts and deficiency in internal control (Beier, 1964). The significance ofthe findings ofthe present study are directly related to teachers and are based on their own ratings. The instrument used was simple and did not require any clinical training or experience to rate and score. Obviously, the results were easy to interpret and concerned with classroom behavioural management directly. The diagnostic clinics can use the Devereux scale to supplement diagnosis. The norms obtained for the three groups in this investigation can be used to interpret the individual child's classroom behaviour. It was considered outside the scope of this study to examine the preventive and remedial measures to control or to minimise disturbed classroom behaviour in handicapped children. The study was diagnostic in nature. However, it provided a basis for further study in the direction of remediation by identifying the associations of disturbed classroom behaviour with the handicapping conditions. It would be
OMD. PARASHAR
119
worthwhile to direct research to investigate the possible measures for prevention and remediation of disturbed classroom behaviour identified in this study. Also, a note be made that the study investigated only those varieties of disturbed behaviour which interfered with learning and were confined to classroom settings. Research should be extended to investigate the behaviour of handicapped children outside the classroom and as rated on the basis of observations by the adults engaged in various activities for the handicapped children. The demographic variables or mental retardation level, or adaptive behaviour level were not found significantly associated with any of the eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors investigated. The study could trace no associations of these factors other than the handicapping conditions. The question of association of socio-cultural and organic aetiological variables and the extent, levels, or degree of handicapping conditions with the disturbed classroom behaviour factors should be explored. The study should also be repeated on different age groups by using appropriate behaviour rating scales. SUMMARY A study was designed to identify and measure the nature and prevalence of disturbed classroom behaviour in mentally retarded children and to make comparison with other learning-disabled and emotionally disturbed children. Eleven types of disturbed classroom behaviour (defined as behaviour which interfered with learning) were studied. Appropriate statistical tests revealed significant differences between the three groups in respect of many types of disturbed classroom behaviour. The implications of the findings are discussed. AGKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the Research Committee of the Hamilton Diagnostic Clinic, Cincinnati, Ohio, for granting permission to collect data and to Mrs Eunice Dooley for making the data readily available on children diagnosed by the interdisciplinary teams of the Children's Psychiatric Center, Cincinnati. Also to Dr. M. W. Hinton and Dr. J. F. Etienne, Professors at the University of Cincinnati, for their continued guidance and support. BARTLETT, M . S.
REFERENGES (1936) Square-root tranformation in analysis of variance. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.
Suppl. 3, 68. BAUMEISTER, A . A . and BARTLETT, G.J. (1962) A comparison ofthe factor structure of normals and retardates on the wise. Amer. J. ment. Def. 66, 641. BEIER, D . G. (1964) Behavioural disturbances in the mentally retarded. In: STEVENS, H . A. and . HEBER, R . (Eds.) Mental Retardation, A review of research. Ghicago, The University of Ghicago Press. BENDER, L . (1959) Psychopathology of children with organic brain disorders. Springfield, 111. Charles G. Thomas. DARWIN, G. (1877) A Biographical sketch of an infant. Mind, II, 286. DOLL, E . A. (1920) The growth of intelligence. Princeton, N.J. Psychological Review Gompany. FINN, J. D. (1972) Multivariance: Univariate, multivariate analysis of variance and covariance, and regression. A Fortran IV Program User's Guide. Ann Arbour, National Educational Resources, Inc.
120
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
GARDNER, W . I. (1971) Behavior modification in mental retardation. In: The education and rehabilitation of mentally retarded adolescent and adult. Chicago, Aldine. HUMMEL, T . J . and SLIGO, J. R. (1971) Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate analysis of variance procedures. Psychol. Bull. 76, 1, 49. HYING, J. N., (1971) A comparison ofthe behaviour of elementary level educationally retarded children as measured by the Devereux Elementary School Behaviour Rating Scale. California J. Except. Child. LANG, JEAN-LOUIS and SMIRNOFF, V. N. (1970) Emotional disturbance in mental retardation. In: HAYWOOD, H . C . (Ed.) Social Cultural Aspects of Mental Retardation. New York, AppletonCentury-Croft. MCCARTHY, J. M. and PARASKEVOPOULOS, J. (1969) Behaviour patterns oflearning-disabled, emotionally-disturbed and average children. Except. Child. MENOLASCINO, F . J . (1971) Psychiatric aspects of retardation in young children. In: Kocii, R. and DoBSON, J. C. (Eds.) The Mentally Retarded Child and His Family. New York, Brunner Mard. MENOLASCINO, F . J. (1965) Psychosis of childhood: Experiences of a mental retardation project. Amer. J . ment. Defic. 70, 1, 83. MORRISON, D . F . (1967) Multivariate statistical methods. New York, McGraw-Hill. NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS (1972) Teachers rate behaviour patterns study by the National Center for Health Statistics. Teacher 90, 155. POLLOCK, H . M . (1958) Brain damage, mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia. Amer. J. Psych. 115, 422. SCHEFFE', H . A . (1953) A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrica, 40, 87. SHEPHERD, M . , OPPENHEIM, B. and MITCHELL, S. (1971) Childhood behaviour and mental
health. New York, Grune and Stratton. SiGUAN, M. (1970) Problema Psicologico in deficienea, Cuestion urgente. Madrid, Spain, Euramerica. SPIVACK, G . and SWIFT, M . (1967) Devereux Elementary School Behaviour Rating Scale and Manual. Devon, Penn. The Devereux Foundation. SPIVAGK, G . , SWIFT, M . S. and PREWITT, J. (1971) Syndromes of" disturbed classroom
behaviour: A behavioural diagnostic system for elementary schools. J. Spl. Edu. Fall. 5 3 269. SPIVACK, G . and SWIFT, M . S. (1967B) Pattern of disturbed classroom behaviour: The nature and measurement of academically related problem behaviors. Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare. STEVENS, J. P. (1971) Measuring associations in multivariate analysis of variance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York, State University of New York at Buffalo. STODDARD, G . D . (1943) The meaning of intelligence. New York, MacMillan. STRAG, G . A . (1972) Comparative behavioral ratings of parents with severe mentally retarded, special lrg. disability and normal children. J. Lrg. Disabilities 5, 631. SWIFT, M . S. and SPIVACK, G . (1969) Clarifying the relationship between academic success and overt classroom behaviour. Exceptional Children, 36, 99. SWIFT, M . S. and SPIVACK, G . (1973) Academic success and classroom behavior in secondary schools. Exceptional Children, 39, 392. WEBSTER, T . G . (1963) Problems of emotional development in young retarded children. Amer. J. Psychiat. 120, 37. WEGHSLER, D . (1949) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York, Psychological Corporation. YOUNG-MASTEN, I. (1938) Behavior problems of elementary school children: A descriptive and comparative study. Genet. Psy. Monographs, 47, 123.
109
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR: A COMPARISON BETWEEN MENTALLY RETARDED, LEARNING-DISABLED AND EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN OM D. PARASHAR Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23284,
U.S.A.
Darwin (1877), Doll (1920) and Stoddard (1943) emphasised the importance of "adaptive behaviour" to the extent that its high level became synonymous with "intelligence" and low level with "mental retardation". From the beginning of this century, education has been concerned with helping the child to adapt to the environment, adjust to social demands, and acquire skills to cope with the stress of satisfying his psychological and biological needs. It is the task ofthe teacher to guide the child in acquiring the skills needed for adaptation in the classroom and outside the school. Appropriate classroom behaviour is important. Firstly, because class is a miniature society that provides training for social attitudes, it helps emotional maturation and intellectual development. Secondly, it is conducive to maintenance of an efficient learning-teaching climate. Inappropriate or disturbed behaviour not only affects the individual adversely but also the entire class. In research, considerable attention has been given to behaviour disorder, behaviour deficits and the problem behaviour of handicapped children (Gardner, 1971). Most studies conducted in this area stress the need to develop objective and precise measures of problem behaviour. A number of rating scales, check lists, interview schedules, procedures for maintaining anecdotal records, and other instruments have been devised. Bender (1959), Shepherd, Oppenheim and Mitchell (1971) and Menolascino (1971) conducted studies on handicapped children and their families. These studies reveal that both the handicapped children and their parents have higher incidence, more intense emotional problems and a larger number of behavioural disturbances or disorders than their normal peers. Studies by Strag (1972), Spivack and Swift (1967), and by others, have shown disturbed classroom behaviour highly and negatively related to classroom achievement. The National Center for Health Statistics (1972) found that children who repeated their grades because of poor achievement had a higher incidence and intensity of problem behaviour. Gardner (1971) notes that mentally handicapped clients with a high rate of disruptive behaviour disorders take longer to learn task-related skills than those with lower order behaviour disorders. Swift and Spivack (1973) describe classroom functioning of 602 students attending eight different urban ghetto-schools in relation to their grades and teachers' ratings of various types of behaviour such as reasoning ability, originality, verbal Received 3rd June, 1975
110
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
interaction, rapport with the teacher, general anxiety, quiet-withdrawal, and poor work habits. The results suggest that under-achievers and average achievers demonstrate significantly different behaviour patterns. A study conducted by YoungMasten (1938) with the purpose of establishing the extent and kinds of behaviour problems of twenty-eight problem children and twenty-eight normal children indicated that academic achievement and the overall extent of behavioural distyrbances had a high and significant relationship. Swift and Spivack (1969) asked twenty-six teachers to rate their 1,554 twelveto-nineteen-year-olds on a 102-item scale. The purpose ofthe study was to identify those types of disturbed classroom behaviour which interfered with academic success, intellectual growth or classroom achievement. They could identify the following aspects of behaviour, which distinguished low achievers from high achievers: unethical behaviour, defiant-resistive, heterosexual interest, hyperactive-expansive, poor emotional control, need approval, dependency, emotional distance, timidity, schizoid withdrawat, bizarre speech and cognition and bizarre action. Menolascino (1965) reviewed the frequency and types of psychiatric disturbances in a sample of 616 children ranging in age from early infancy to eight years who were referred to the clinic suspected of mental retardation. One hundred and ninetyone of them displayed prominent emotional problems, forty had primary emotional disorders without mental retardation, and 151 children displayed both emotional disturbances and mental retardation. Again, in his paper (Menolascino, 1971) it is noted that behaviour disorders are very intensely associated with the condition of mental retardation. His other conclusions are: (a) Many ofthe emotional disturbances in mentally retarded children are secondary reactions to their general problems of adaptation to their total environment; (b) once the emotional block is remoVed, the intelligence is likely to surge forth, at least in instances of primary pseudo-mental retardation; (c) in addition to the two categories of mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed, there exists a third category, "Mixed Cases", the cases which cannot be assigned to either ofthe two formal categories. This category, as such, is important for diagnostic clarity and specific treatment plans; and (d) the mentally retarded display marked passivity, repetitiousness, inflexibility and simplicity of emotional life. Beier (1964) reviewed a number of studies concerning emotional disturbance in the mentally retarded and noted that little had been reported concerning the relationship of emotional disturbance and mental retardation from out-patient clinical settings. He found the following agreements concerning the association of mental retardation with emotional disturbance. "It is generally agreed that mental retardates as a group have a higher incidence of behaviour disorders than is found in the general population. This association between retardation and behavioural disorders has been of continuing and increasing interest and their coexistence in the same individuals raises several basic questions regarding this relationship. The major hypotheses regarding this association are as follows: (1) Behavioural disturbances occur among the mentally retarded for the same reasons that they occur in persons of normal intelligence. (2) Both behavioural disturbance and mental retardation are the results of basic pathological states or
OM D. PARASHAR
111
dysfunctions of an anatomical, neurological, endocrinological, or biochemical nature. (3) The mentally retarded, because of their deficiences and their inadequacies, are subject to more stresses, frustrations, and conflicts, and are consequently more liable to develop behavioural disorders. (4) Many cases are labelled 'mentally retarded' though they are primarily emotionally disturbed, and the intellectual deficiences are essentially the result of such disturbances. (5) The mentally retarded, because of their maturational lag, are slower to incorporate notions of right and wrong into personal value systems and are deficient in internal controls." Pollack (1958) reports that estimates ofthe coexistence of psychiatric disorders and subnormal intelligence range from eighteen to forty per cent. It is also pointed out that the level of intellectual functioning in the schizophrenic child is an important prognostic index; an IQ_of 70 or above was considered as a favourable sign, while an intelligence quotient of less than 70 indicated that the chances for improvement were apt to be significantly less. Strag (1972) compared behavioural ratings ofthe parents of mentally retarded, leaning-disabled, and normal children on a thirty-item, five-point forced choice behavioural rating scale. The items, according to the investigator, measured possible neurological disturbance, behavioural or emotional disturbance, and other factors. Statistically significant differences were found between the three groups on quarrelsome consideration of others, upset when left by mother, jealoiisy, tendencies to daydreaming, general negativism, physical coordination, a tendency to cling and to tire easily. No reliability or validity coefficients have been reported. Webster (1963) reviewed a series of 159 pre-school retarded children with an average IQ_ of 61 and an age range of six to thirty years in order to check their disturbances in emotional development. The evaluations included separate neurological, psychological and psychiatric examinations, the reports of parent interviews by the psychiatric social workers and the comments of the nursery teachers on individual children. The findings indicate that mental retardation is a clinical development syndrome which regularly includes impairment in emotional as well as intellectual development. Not a single child in the study was found "simply retarded". Seventeen per cent were found severely disturbed, others exhibited mild to moderate disturbance. The variables associated with uniqueness of problems of emotional development in the mentally retarded according to Webster (ibid.) are: (a) the intellectual impairment, (b) slow rate of overall physical and intellectual development, and (c) disturbances in the quality of emotional growth due to (a) and (b) above. In Spain, Siguan (1970) examined the question of whether or not the mentally retarded had normal personalities as far as psychological or emotional problems were concerned. On the basis of empirical data, he discovered that most of the mentally retarded children had more intense personality problems than their normal peers. They exhibited more infantile regression, obstinacy, aggressive behaviour, and usage of compensatory measures as defence mechanisms. In France, Lang (1970) surveyed researches on emotional disturbance in the mentally retarded and found that
112
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
all the reviewed studies agree that mentally retardation syndromes are definitely associated with emotionally immature reactions. INVESTIGATION A study was designed to examine a selected number of types of classroom behaviour in which teachers, psychologists and other professionat workers have expressed interest. Its specific purpose was to identify and measure the nature and prevalence of those kinds of disturbed classroom behaviour which interfere with teaming and which distinguish mentally retarded from learning-disabled and emotionalty disturbed children. Eteven aspects of disturbed classroom behaviour were investigated (ctassroom disturbance, impatience, disrespect-defiance, external blame, achievement anxiety, external reliance, comprehension disorder, inattentive-withdrawal, irrelevant responsiveness, lack of creative initiative and need of closeness to the teacher) in the three groups of children. Disturbed classroom behaviour is defined as any which interferes with or hinders classroom learning processes and is related to motivation, interest, achievement and other similar variables. Nine specific hypotheses discussed later in this paper were stated. Since the main object ofthe study was to identify and measure the uniqueness and commonatity of disturbed classroom behaviour factors within or between the mentally retarded and the other two groups, the comparisons were made (a) among mentally retarded, learning-disabled, and emotionally disturbed children, (b) between the first and the second and (c) between the first and the third of these groups. THE SAMPLE AND COLLECTION OF DATA The study was conducted by using data contained in the files of cases diagnosed in the Hamilton County Diagnostic Clinic (University Affiliated Facility) and the Children's Psychiatric Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. The following available information was used: 1. Demographic data: The subject's age, sex, his or her parents' occupation and education, family income, total number of members in the family and the catchment area of residence code. 2. Placement: The information on the subjects' class, school and the teacher. 3. Findings of the interdisciplinary teams on the handicapping conditions in the subjects: These findings were based upon a number of evaluations carried out through standardised tests and procedures, laboratory tests, information supplied by various agencies (hospitals, schools, etc.) on the developmental history and behaviour of the subjects, family medical history and subjects' birth history collected from the parents and other sources and the conclusions of case conferences conducted after the completion of all the required evaluations and the laboratory tests. Over 350 files of children who were diagnosed as mentally retarded, learningdisabled and emotionally disturbed by the interdisciplinary teams and whose cases closed during a period of eleven months were reviewed. The sample consisted of 172 cases; fifty-six diagnosed as mentally retarded, fifty-one as learning-disabled and
OM D. PARASHAR
113
Table 1 Chronological ages of subjects in months
Mentally retarded Learning-disabled Emotionally disturbed
Range 83-141 80-142 80-141
Mean 102.1 107.3 113.9
S.D. 16.8 18.9 17.0
Table 2 Number of boys and girls in the sample
Mentally retarded Learning-disabled Emotionally disturbed Total
Boys 39 44 49
Girls 17 07 16
Total 56 51 65
132
40
172
sixty-five as emotionally disturbed. They were consecutively selected, beginning with the latest closed case. Cases not meeting the criteria of age, educational programme and geographical area were excluded. As evidenced in the clinical records and by definitions of the three categories of handicapping conditions, none ofthe 172 subjects had any primary visual, hearing, motor or neurological impairment. The subjects were of chronological ages between eighty and 142 months on the day of behaviour ratings by their teachers. The range, mean and Standard Deviation of each of the three groups are shown in Table 1 and the sex distribution in Table 2. Data were collected on the intelligence quotient (IQ) as measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (1949) on mental retardation levels as estimated by the psychologists based upon the test results, and on adaptive behaviour levels as measured by the A.A.M.D. Adaptive Behaviour Scale or estimated on a comparative evidence of the subjects. Table 3 provides the means and S.D. of IQ, levels of mental retardation, and level of adaptive behaviour for each group. Demographic variables were correlated with the adaptive behaviour and I Q levels separately. The coefficients of correlation in all the cases were found insignificant. METHODS The Devereux Elementary School Behaviour Rating (hereinafter, the Devereux scale, Spivack and Swift, 1967) was used for the study. A number of investigators (Spivack and Swift, 1967B; Spivack, Swift and Prewitt, 1971; Hying, 1971) used this scale to accomplish objectives such as: (a) to identify and measure those features of classroom behaviour in children that may be interfering with their achievement, (b) to note changes in behaviour after therapeutic intervention or treatment, and (c) to compare one category of handicapped children with another category on the eleven behaviour factors.
114
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
The scale, comprised of forty-seven items, is meant to be used by teachers who have had at least a one-month's observation period ofthe subject's behaviour. Items 1 to 26 are rated on a five-point scale, "very frequently" to "never", and items 27 to 47 on a seven-point scale, "extremely" to "not at all". According to the directions given on page one ofthe scale, the teachers are expected to (1) rate the student's recent and current behaviour, (2) base ratings on her own experience with the student, (3) consider each item independently, (4) avoid interpretation of "unconscious" motives and feeling, (5) rate each item quickly, and (6) rate every item. Rating a child on the complete scate generalty takes between five and ten minutes (Spivack and Swift, 1967B). The profile on page four of the scate consists of eleven behaviour factors, each containing three tofiveitems. Three ofthe forty-seven items are listed as "additional items" and are excluded from all the eleven factors. A total of raw scores of all the items constituting a behaviour factor is considered as the raw score of that particular factor. According to the authors of the Devereux scate, the normative data were collected from thirteen elementary schools in a consolidated small public school system. Thirty-two kindergarten through sixth grade teachers made ratings of the behaviour of 809 children coming from very heterogeneous backgrounds. The mean IQ's for each grade level ranged from 106 to 112 with Standard Deviations between 10 and 17. The scale was considered suitable for use on the three groups studied by the author of this paper. The group of youngsters rated came from homes wherein approximately one-half of the parents did not go beyond high school, but wherein approximately sixteen per cent ofthe fathers completed college. Ofthe 809 children, 721 were white and eighty-eight Negro. A total of 128 children were rated a second time, approximately one week after the initial ratings. The test-retest reliability coefiicients for the eleven behaviour factors ranged from 0.86 to 0.91 (Spivack and Swift, 1967). Spivack and Swift (1967B) studied the nature and organisation of disturbed classroom behaviour by using the Devereux scale. They compared low achievers with high achievers on the eleven behaviour factors and found that the degree of disturbed behaviour and the level of achievement were highly correlated. The eleven behaviour factors, it was concluded, were highly relevant. For this study, each of the teachers who was certified as qualified by the Ohio State Department of Education and had at least a six-month observation of the subject's behaviour in the classroom settings, was requested by his or her principal by mail to provide a rating on the Devereux scale. The scale and return addressed envelopes were enclosed. The directions for rating were given on the first page ofthe scale. All scales were stamped as "Privileged and Confidential Information". Out of the 178 scales mailed to the teachers, 172 were received complete which were scored on the eleven behaviour factors profile. The raw scores obtained from the teachers' rating on the subjects for the eleven behaviour factors were computed. The data on the raw scores of all the subjects on diagnostic results, demographic variables, and other related information were also tabulated. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) method (Morrison, 1967) was used to determine
115
OM D. PARASHAR —. in in to
• *
I CM —I
CO CO O CM
CO
CT) CM
O CT1 CM —
CO CD
^
CM O
5;
-g'
C3 . S ^
Se
^
S 88 S
ode
CO
0 0 0 0
—' CM
"3
I
S ^
CT) CM
0 0 00
o
—I i n
o
3
in to
C^ CM
CD
—
2 2"^
o
116
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
whether the three groups and each pair of groups differed significantly on their overall profiles for the eleven behaviour factors. Since the association in MANOVA is complex, a breakdown is most imperative in lending clarity to the interpretation of results (Stevens, 1973). Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Discriminant Analysis were the two methods of further analysis which were used to identify uniqueness of behaviour factors within or between the comparison groups, and to determine which ofthe behaviour factors contributed to the overall difference. Bartlett's (1936) X^ test was used to determine whether the discriminant functions were significant or not. The alpha level was set at 0.01 for both the multivariate and univariate tests. Since number of discriminant functions equals to minimum (k-1, p. where K is number of groups and p is number of dependent variables), two test results for three-group comparisons and one each for two-group comparisons on Bartlett's T^ were obtained. Finn's (1972) programme for computer analysis was used. Table 4 Significance levels for MANOVA, Bartlett's X^ test for discriminant functions and Univariate ANO VA for the three comparisons 3 Groups
MANOVA Bartlett's Test Univariate ANOVA Factors 1. Classroom disturbance 2. Impatience 3. Disrespect-defiance 4. External blame 5. Achievement anxiety 6. External reliance 7. Comprehension disorders 8. Inattentive-withdrawal 9. Irrelevant-responsiveness 10. Lack of creative initiative 11. Need of closeness to teacher
0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0057 0.0776 (NS) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0484 (NS) 0.0001 0.0301 (NS) 0.0001 0.0015 0.6364 (NS)
M.R. vs. L.D. 0.0017 0.0016 0.9949 (NS) 0.1884(NS) 0.5128 (NS) 0.2349 (NS) 0.0154 (NS) 0.0175 (NS) 0.0005 0.0555 (NS) 0.2290 (NS) 0.0638 (NS) 0.4066 (NS)
M.R. vs. E.D. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0039 0.4048(NS) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.4935 (NS) 0.0001 0.0102 0.0027 0.0009 0.4436 (NS)
NS = Not significant at 0.01 level.
RESULTS The findings of the study established not only the overall difference of patterns of disturbed classroom behaviour factors but also revealed the uniqueness and commonalities of types of behaviour in the three groups of subjects. The relative quantitative prevalence of disturbed classroom behaviour factors among the groups was also discovered. The obtained results their interpretation, implications for usage in classroom settings and significance for further research are examined below. Significance levels for MANOVA, Bartlett's X^ test of discriminant functions and ANOVA for the three comparisons appear in Table 4. MANOVA F. values for all the four comparisons were found significant and validated by Bartlett's test of
OM D. PARASHAR
117
significance of discriminant functions. MacCarthy and Parskevopoulos (1969) compared normal, learning-disabled and emotionally disturbed subjects and, in their four comparisons (three-group, normal versus learning-disabled, normal versus emotionally disturbed, learning-disabled versus emotionally disturbed) obtained identical results to those of this study by using two way analysis of variance and Scheffe's method of multiple comparisons (Scheffe, 1953) to the various contrasts for significance. MANOVA method provided simultaneous confidence intervals and global F. values (Morrison, 1967, p. 182-184) for all the comparisons which, according to Hummel and Sligo (1971), tend to be conservative. Univariate analysis F. values and discriminant function standardised-coefficients were obtained in order to identify those disturbed classroom behaviour factors on which the comparison groups differed significantly and/or contributed most to the overall difference within and between the groups. The three groups exhibited significant difference on their profiles of the cumulative eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors (see Table 4). They also differ on the individual factors: Classroom Disturbance, Disrespect-Defiance, External Blame, Achievement Anxiety, Comprehension Disorders, Irrelevant Responsiveness and Lack of Creative Initiative. They did not differ on Impatience, External Reliance, Inattentive-Withdrawal and Need of Closeness to Teacher. It is not possible to compare these findings with the findings of other studies because of the lack of research in comparison ofthe three groups. However, Stragg (1972) found differences among normal, mentally retarded, and learning-disabled children on quarrelsome (comparable with Classroom Disturbance with p < 0.0057 in this study) and tendencies to daydream (comparable with Inattentive-Withdrawal with a p < 0.0301 in this study). MacCarthy and Paraskevopoulos {op. cit.) obtained significant difference (p < 0.01) on unsocialised aggression, immaturity-inadequacy, and personality problems among thirty-six learning-disabled, one hundred emotionally disturbed and forty-one average children. The possible reason for differences on overall profiles and seven out of eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors can be attributed to the subjects' handicapping conditions, that is, their being mentally retarded, learning-disabled or emotionally disturbed. None of the eleven factors were found associated significantly with demographic variables, mental retardation or adaptive behavioiu: levels of the subjects. The mentally retarded and the learning-disabled groups exhibited significant difference on their profiles of the cumulative eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors. F. values on univariate analysis indicated that they differed on Comprehension Disorders (p < 0.0005). The remaining ten factors were considered common for the two groups of subjects. The findings disagree with Hying (1971), who also used the Devereux scale and compared the Educationally Handicapped with the Educable Mentally Retarded. She found that they differed (p < 0.01) on DisrespectDefiance, External Reliance, Achievement Anxiety, Inattentive-Withdrawal and Irrelevant Responsiveness. Neither comprehension disorder, disturbed classroom behaviour, nor comprehension behaviour factor was mentioned in the study. The
118
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
possible reasons for variation in the findings of the two studies could be (i) definitions ofthe two groups (see California definition, Hying, 1971), (ii) size of the samples; Hying's sample was 308 educationally handicapped, 113 educable mentally retarded, and in the present study there were fifty-six mentally retarded and fifty-one learningdisabled subjects, (iii) Hying covered only educable mentally retarded subjects whereas the present study had upper range trainable mentally retarded as well, (iv) raters' biases; in her study thirty-six teachers rated 421 children whereas in the present investigation over a hundred teachers rated the subjects, and (v) the methods used for selecting the school, teachers and subjects. As comprehension disorder was not found correlated with any other disturbed classroom behaviour factor and ranked third on discriminant function standardised coefficients, the Univariate analysis of variance and discriminant analysis results were in agreement. The mentally retarded exhibited more comprehension disorders than did subjects of the other two groups. This finding is consistent with those of Baumeister and Bartlett (1962) on the characteristics of mentally retarded children, youth and adults. The possible reasons for the higher incidence of comprehension disorders in the mentally retarded are (i) the intellectual impairment (Webster, 1963), (ii) overall slower rate of learning beginning with infancy and early childhood which develops as a pattern, and (iii) slow rate of overall physical and intellectual development (Webster, ibid.). The mentally retarded and the emotionally disturbed groups differed significantly on their profiles of the cumulative eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors (Table 4). Also the emotionally disturbed exhibited higher classroom disturbance, disrespect-defiance, external blame, achievement anxiety, inattentivewithdrawal, irrelevant-responsiveness but lower comprehension disorders and lack of creative initiative than did the mentally retarded. Menolascino (1971) noted that mentally retarded children displayed marked passivity, repetitiousness, and inflexibility of emotional life. The present study produced comparable results regarding them, namely, higher lack of creative initiative and comprehension disorders. The possible reason for this could be their maturational lag, slower rate of incorporating concepts and deficiency in internal control (Beier, 1964). The significance ofthe findings ofthe present study are directly related to teachers and are based on their own ratings. The instrument used was simple and did not require any clinical training or experience to rate and score. Obviously, the results were easy to interpret and concerned with classroom behavioural management directly. The diagnostic clinics can use the Devereux scale to supplement diagnosis. The norms obtained for the three groups in this investigation can be used to interpret the individual child's classroom behaviour. It was considered outside the scope of this study to examine the preventive and remedial measures to control or to minimise disturbed classroom behaviour in handicapped children. The study was diagnostic in nature. However, it provided a basis for further study in the direction of remediation by identifying the associations of disturbed classroom behaviour with the handicapping conditions. It would be
OMD. PARASHAR
119
worthwhile to direct research to investigate the possible measures for prevention and remediation of disturbed classroom behaviour identified in this study. Also, a note be made that the study investigated only those varieties of disturbed behaviour which interfered with learning and were confined to classroom settings. Research should be extended to investigate the behaviour of handicapped children outside the classroom and as rated on the basis of observations by the adults engaged in various activities for the handicapped children. The demographic variables or mental retardation level, or adaptive behaviour level were not found significantly associated with any of the eleven disturbed classroom behaviour factors investigated. The study could trace no associations of these factors other than the handicapping conditions. The question of association of socio-cultural and organic aetiological variables and the extent, levels, or degree of handicapping conditions with the disturbed classroom behaviour factors should be explored. The study should also be repeated on different age groups by using appropriate behaviour rating scales. SUMMARY A study was designed to identify and measure the nature and prevalence of disturbed classroom behaviour in mentally retarded children and to make comparison with other learning-disabled and emotionally disturbed children. Eleven types of disturbed classroom behaviour (defined as behaviour which interfered with learning) were studied. Appropriate statistical tests revealed significant differences between the three groups in respect of many types of disturbed classroom behaviour. The implications of the findings are discussed. AGKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the Research Committee of the Hamilton Diagnostic Clinic, Cincinnati, Ohio, for granting permission to collect data and to Mrs Eunice Dooley for making the data readily available on children diagnosed by the interdisciplinary teams of the Children's Psychiatric Center, Cincinnati. Also to Dr. M. W. Hinton and Dr. J. F. Etienne, Professors at the University of Cincinnati, for their continued guidance and support. BARTLETT, M . S.
REFERENGES (1936) Square-root tranformation in analysis of variance. J. Roy. Stat. Soc.
Suppl. 3, 68. BAUMEISTER, A . A . and BARTLETT, G.J. (1962) A comparison ofthe factor structure of normals and retardates on the wise. Amer. J. ment. Def. 66, 641. BEIER, D . G. (1964) Behavioural disturbances in the mentally retarded. In: STEVENS, H . A. and . HEBER, R . (Eds.) Mental Retardation, A review of research. Ghicago, The University of Ghicago Press. BENDER, L . (1959) Psychopathology of children with organic brain disorders. Springfield, 111. Charles G. Thomas. DARWIN, G. (1877) A Biographical sketch of an infant. Mind, II, 286. DOLL, E . A. (1920) The growth of intelligence. Princeton, N.J. Psychological Review Gompany. FINN, J. D. (1972) Multivariance: Univariate, multivariate analysis of variance and covariance, and regression. A Fortran IV Program User's Guide. Ann Arbour, National Educational Resources, Inc.
120
DISTURBED CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
GARDNER, W . I. (1971) Behavior modification in mental retardation. In: The education and rehabilitation of mentally retarded adolescent and adult. Chicago, Aldine. HUMMEL, T . J . and SLIGO, J. R. (1971) Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate analysis of variance procedures. Psychol. Bull. 76, 1, 49. HYING, J. N., (1971) A comparison ofthe behaviour of elementary level educationally retarded children as measured by the Devereux Elementary School Behaviour Rating Scale. California J. Except. Child. LANG, JEAN-LOUIS and SMIRNOFF, V. N. (1970) Emotional disturbance in mental retardation. In: HAYWOOD, H . C . (Ed.) Social Cultural Aspects of Mental Retardation. New York, AppletonCentury-Croft. MCCARTHY, J. M. and PARASKEVOPOULOS, J. (1969) Behaviour patterns oflearning-disabled, emotionally-disturbed and average children. Except. Child. MENOLASCINO, F . J . (1971) Psychiatric aspects of retardation in young children. In: Kocii, R. and DoBSON, J. C. (Eds.) The Mentally Retarded Child and His Family. New York, Brunner Mard. MENOLASCINO, F . J. (1965) Psychosis of childhood: Experiences of a mental retardation project. Amer. J . ment. Defic. 70, 1, 83. MORRISON, D . F . (1967) Multivariate statistical methods. New York, McGraw-Hill. NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS (1972) Teachers rate behaviour patterns study by the National Center for Health Statistics. Teacher 90, 155. POLLOCK, H . M . (1958) Brain damage, mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia. Amer. J. Psych. 115, 422. SCHEFFE', H . A . (1953) A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrica, 40, 87. SHEPHERD, M . , OPPENHEIM, B. and MITCHELL, S. (1971) Childhood behaviour and mental
health. New York, Grune and Stratton. SiGUAN, M. (1970) Problema Psicologico in deficienea, Cuestion urgente. Madrid, Spain, Euramerica. SPIVACK, G . and SWIFT, M . (1967) Devereux Elementary School Behaviour Rating Scale and Manual. Devon, Penn. The Devereux Foundation. SPIVAGK, G . , SWIFT, M . S. and PREWITT, J. (1971) Syndromes of" disturbed classroom
behaviour: A behavioural diagnostic system for elementary schools. J. Spl. Edu. Fall. 5 3 269. SPIVACK, G . and SWIFT, M . S. (1967B) Pattern of disturbed classroom behaviour: The nature and measurement of academically related problem behaviors. Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare. STEVENS, J. P. (1971) Measuring associations in multivariate analysis of variance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York, State University of New York at Buffalo. STODDARD, G . D . (1943) The meaning of intelligence. New York, MacMillan. STRAG, G . A . (1972) Comparative behavioral ratings of parents with severe mentally retarded, special lrg. disability and normal children. J. Lrg. Disabilities 5, 631. SWIFT, M . S. and SPIVACK, G . (1969) Clarifying the relationship between academic success and overt classroom behaviour. Exceptional Children, 36, 99. SWIFT, M . S. and SPIVACK, G . (1973) Academic success and classroom behavior in secondary schools. Exceptional Children, 39, 392. WEBSTER, T . G . (1963) Problems of emotional development in young retarded children. Amer. J. Psychiat. 120, 37. WEGHSLER, D . (1949) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York, Psychological Corporation. YOUNG-MASTEN, I. (1938) Behavior problems of elementary school children: A descriptive and comparative study. Genet. Psy. Monographs, 47, 123.
