INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of tee page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content 1s of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to tee understanding of tee dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving tee catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR 77-10,541 HO, Chin-Chin, 1950- OVERPROTECTIVE TENDENCY IN MOTHERS OF MODERATELY RETARDED PRESCHOOL MALES THROUGH ANALYSIS OF MOTHER- CHILD INTERACTION.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1976 Psychology, clinical

Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

© 1977

CHIN-CHIN HO

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OVERPROTECTIVE TENDENCY IN MOTHERS QF MODERATELY

RETARDED PRESCHOOL MALES THROUGH ANALYSIS

OF MOTHER-CHILD INTERACTION

*

*

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

* t. By '

Chin-Chin H o ’, B.S., M.A. ‘

******

. The Ohio State University

1976

Reading Committee: .Approved By

Henry Leland, Ph.D. Charles Wenar, Ph.D. ______/Z- —, Advisor Charles Wolfgang, Ph.D. Department of Psychology ABSTRACT

The purpose .of this study was to empirically in­ vestigate an overprotective tendency in mothers of re­

tarded children. The method chosen to accomplish this was analyses of direct observations of mother-child

interaction. The design of the study was based on the

investigation of two major issues. The first issue is

that a review of the literature on overprotection in­

dicated that, among other reasons, parents are overpro­

tective because they are affected by various psychologi­

cal dynamics as the result of their being parents of a

retarded child. The second issue is the question raised

by some authors as to the necessity of parents being

more directive and intrusive because of the child's ob­

vious limitations.

The sample used In this Investigation was composed

of seventy-two persons: twenty-four boys, their natural

mothers, and other adults familiar to the boys. Twelve

of the boys attended a county preschool program for the

mentally retarded. Their chronological ages ranged from

ii three years and five months to six years and three months, with developmental age mean of three years, eight months.

Six were diagnosed with Down's Syndrome and six with eti­ ologies unknown. None evidenced gross physical or sen- \ sory handicaps. The other twelve boys attended a pre­ school for normal intellectual children. Their chron,-. ollcal ages ranged from four years three months to four years ten months with a developmental mean age of four years and ten months.

There were four groups of dyadic interactions:

1) mothers of nonretarded children interacting with their child, 2) the same nonretarded child interacting with an adult familiar to him, 3) mothers of retarded children interacting with their child, and A) the same retarded child interacting with an adult familiar to him. Video­ tapes were made of dyads engaged in structured play ac­ tivities involving skills of which the child was capable.

The behaviors were then sequentially rated at fifteen second intervals on twenty precategorized behavioral items for both child and adult.

The, basic findings are 1) mothers of retarded children are significantly more overprotective than familiar adults interacting with the same child. 2)

Mothers of retarded children are signifcantly more

ill overprotective than mothers o£ nonretarded children.

3) Familiar adults interacting with retarded children were significantly more overprotecting than familiar adults interacting with nonretarded children. 4)

Mothers of retarded children controlled and intruded upon child's playing of activities when she knew the child had the skills required during play. 5) Chil­ dren's behaviors such as refusing. Ignoring and ini­ tiating a behavior generally not acceptable by adults, were significantly related to an adult's overprotec­ tive tendency. Discussion and implications of these findings are offered by the author.

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to several people who helped to make this investiga­ tion possible. I thank the mothers and their boys of

Franklin County Program for the Mentally Retarded

Preschool and First Community Church Preschool, Colum­ bus, Ohio, for their cooperation and enthusiasm in participating in this study. To Peggy Goodman and

Sue Narwicz I owe very special thanks for their many hours of labor spent in rating the videotapes. The valuable suggestions and constructive criticisms from my reading Committee, Dr. Charles Wenar, Dr. Charles

Wolfgang, and particulary from Dr. Henry Leland, ad­ visor, were very much appreciated. The guidance from

Randy Potter on the statistical analyses was invalu­ able. The moral support and encouragements I received from my family and friends, particularly Linda Bott, throughout the process of accomplishing this investi­ gation were very much appreciated especially through the difficult times.

C.C.ll.

v VITA

July 19, 1950 . . . . Born - Taipei, Taiwan

1972 ...... B.S., Psychology Major, Purdue Univer­ sity, West Lafayette, Indiana

1972-1973 ...... Staff Psychology-Associate, Orient State Institute, Orient, Ohio

1973-1975 ...... Psychology Trainee, Nisonger Center, Columbus, Ohio

1974 ...... M.A., Developmental Psychology with minor in Developmental Disabilities, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1975...... Staff Psychology-Intern, Franklin County Program for the Mentally Retarded, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

Behavior Modification: Inservice Training and Training Program Manual. HIP Grant 51-P-70801-5-03, 1974.

Accuracy of Recognition of Emotions By Trainable Mentally Retarded. Masters thesis (unpublished)

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Developmental Psychology

Specialty: Developmental Disabilities

Studies in General Developmental Psychology. Professors John Horrocks, George Thompson and Charles Wenar

Studies in Developmental Disabilities. Professors Barbara Edmonson and Henry Leland vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... li

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

VITA ...... ,...... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vil

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Background Of The Problem Purpose Of the Present Study Statement Of Hypotheses

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE...... 8

Parent Dynamics Overprotective Tendency Methodological Issues

III METHODOLOGY...... 40

Sample Method Of Investigation Procedure

IV RESULTS ...... 55

Hypothesis 1 ■ Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Relevant Data Analyzed

V DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 81

Methodological Issues General Findings Application Of Findings Implications For Future Research Summary vii APPENDICES

A Learning Accomplishment Profile...... 97

B Index of Socioeconomic Status ...... 114

C Mother's Evaluation of Child's Skills ...... 122

D Familiar Adult's and Mother's Form...... , 123

E Consent Form ...... ,. 125

F Working Manual For Rating Dyadic Interaction ...... 126

G Directions For Scoring F o r m ...... 149

H Roster of Overprotective Score For Adults With NMR Children. . 155

I Roster of Overprotective Score For Adults With MR Children . . 156

3 Correlation Matrix For All Mothers ...... 157

K Correlation Matrix For Mothers With MR Children ...... 158

L Correlation Matrix For Mothers With NMR Children...... 159

M Correlation Matrix For Adults With MR Children ...... 160

N Correlation Matrix For Familiar Adults With MR Children • . . 161

0 Correlation Matrix For All Familiar Adults ...... 162

P Correlation Matrix For Familiar Adults With NMR Children . . 163

Q Correlation Matrix For Adults With MR and NMR Children . . . 164

R Correlation Matrix For Adults With NMR Children ...... 165

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 166

viii LIST OF TABLES

1 Characteristics of Subjects ...... 42

2 Means, Standard Deviations Of Overprotection Score For All Subjects...... 56

3 Analysis Of Covariance For Overprotection Score Of Adults With MR and NMR Children Adjusted For Time Differences...... 58

4 Means and Standard Deviations Of Mothers...... 60

5 Correlation Coefficients For OPSCORE...... 61

6 Comparison Of Mother's Individual OPSCORE With Familiar Adult's ...... 64

7 Means and Standard Deviations Of MR Children...... 66

8 Means and Standard Deviations Of Familiar Adult ..... 69

9 Means and Standard Deviations Of Child's Behaviors .... 69

10 Multiple Regression Procedure With Child's Behavior As Predictor of OPSCORE ...... 71

11 Comparison Of Evaluations By Mothers and Investigator . . . 72

12 Summary Of £ Test For Evaluation By Mothers...... 73

13 Summary of £ Test For Evaluation By Mothers Of MR Children ...... 74

14 Means and Standard Deviations For Adults With MR and NMR Children...... 76

15 Two-Way Analysis Of Variance For Fine Motor, Cognitive, and Self-Help ...... 78

16 Two-Way Analysis Of Variance For Forms ...... 80

17 Summary of Jt Test For. Conversation...... 80

- l x CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of The Problem

Within the past twenty years professions concerned with the problems of the mentally retarded have pro­ duced a relatively large body of literature on the effect of a retarded or handicapped child on his parents. How­ ever, Wolfensberger (1971), In his review of the liter­ ature concerned with counseling parents of retarded chil­ dren, have pointed out that later writers only perpetu­ ated cliches voiced by the pioneers. Stereotypes fre­ quently cited included notions that parents of retarded children are guilt-ridden, overprotecting, rejecting, and have unrealistic expectations of their children.

Wolfensberger found that the bulk of literature he re­ viewed was impressionistic, and what empirical research

there was lacked rigor. He suggested it is entirely pos­ sible that in their reasoning, professional workers have been victims of their own theoretical expectations, to orient themselves towards contrary evidence.

Certain implicit assumptions - some with good

theoretical foundations - about the way in which parents view their children appear to underlie these stereo­

types. For example, it is assumed that a retarded child can make parents feel Inadequate even in routine baby care. In seeking to maintain some feeling of adequacy, some sense of worth, it is hypothesized that parents will devote themselves almost completely to meet the needs of a dependent child. Professions have come to characterize this as overprotection (Stang, 1957; Stone,

1948).

Levy(L943), in his well-documented case studies of maternal overprotection, has listed four criterion for overprotection manifested in the mother-child relation­ ship. Three of these concern maternal activity primar­ ily and paraphrase the common observations: 1) "The mother is always there"; 2) "She still treats him like a baby"; and 3) "She won't let him grow up." These ex­ pressions are rendered into the groupings; 1) excessive contact-continuous companionship; 2) infantilization - per­ forming of activities in the care of the child beyond the time when such activities usually occur; 3) prevention of 3 independent behavior-prevention of child's growth in the direction of self-reliance. The fourth criterion is ma­ ternal control indicating a "defect" in maternal disci­ pline in either extremes - a) overindulgence* i.e. yielding to the wishes or actions of a child or submit­ ting to demands ordinarily not tolerated by most parents; or, b) dominating, i.e., attempt to mold the child ac­ cording to maternal conception, thwarting any expression that is not in the determined direction. Most manifesta­ tions of overprotection are classifiable under the above headings except those which denote anxious behavior.

However, Levy's data indicates that maternal anxiety or oversolicitude is always manifested in one or more of the categories enumerated; therefore, the problem of inclu­ sion is partly solved. The amount of oversolicitude was observably measured generally by the type of activities prevented by the mother, the extent of infantlllzation, and the amount of contact.

Dingman, Eyman, and Windle (1963), and Klebanoff

(1959) have reported overprotection and authoritarian child rearing attitudes in mothers of the handicapped.

Boles (1959) also found mothers of cerebral palsied and mostly retarded children to be highly overprotective.

Cook's findings (1963) demonstrated that parental rejection was more likely to be associated with a mild handicap, while parental overprotection was associated with more severe conditions. However, findings obtained

in the studies cited utilized information and question-

aire-type instruments completed by mothers only, s Ibo

they did not adequately control for certain important variables such as education, social economic, and sex.

There is convincing evidence that research on mother-

child interaction based on reports by parents or other

informants is, to varying extents, inconsistent and in­

accurate (Robbins, 1963; Wenar, 1963; Yarrow, 1963).

This evidence haB led many investigators to suggest direct behavioral observation as an alternative approach.

The parent-child interaction is an important fore­

runner of the more varied interpersonal relationships

in which the child participates as his contacts broaden.

The patterns of communication to which and with which

the child interacts with his parents would be important

to define since these are the patterns which he can be

assumed to bring with him into other relationships. In

the past socialization research was predominantly con­

cerned with unidirectional effects, mainly those of

parents upon children. Within the recent years, however,

there has been Increasing emphasis on studying interaction from a bidirectional point of view, questioning possible

' *effeets of children upon parents (Bell, 1968, 1971; Farber,

1960; Gewartz, 1968; Rheingold, 1969). Despite the in­

creased concern for theoretical issues relatively few

studies have investigated this interaction empirically

(Moss, 1967; Osofsky, 1971; 1972; Yarrow, 1971).

In summary, parents of mentally retarded children have

been characterized as overprotective; however, empirical

studies to validate and explore this stereotype has been

scarce. Individuals are labeled as mentally retarded among

other reasons because of deficits in adaptive behavior, and

one dimension of adaptive behavior is independent function­

ing (Leland, 1974). If parents of mentally retarded chil­

dren are overprotective they, in essence, foster dependent

response patterns and encourage the child’s deficit in adap­

tive behavior, thereby making him more visible in his soci­

ety. The Information whether parents’ behavioral patterns

of interaction with their retarded child is to do more for

the child than is needed in terms of his handicap would be

valuable to professionals concerned with problems of mental

retardation in their guidance and counseling of parents of

mentally retarded individuals. This author feels that one

of the most effective methods of studying an overprotective

tendency in parents of mentally retarded children is through

direct observations of parent-child interactions analyzed

from a bidirectional point of view. Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of this study is first to investigate through direct observations of mother-child interactions whether pothers of mentally retarded children tend to be overprotective in comparison to mothers of non-mentally retarded children. Approaching the events of mother- child interactions as a reciprocal relationship rather than mother-on-child, or child-on-mother, the second pur­ pose is to explore behavioral differences of mentally re­ tarded and non-mentally retarded children that might ef­ fect mother's overprotective behavioral tendencies. The third purpose is to try to determine whether other adults who are not affected by psychological parent dynamics of having a retarded child interact with retarded children in an overprotective manner. The fourth purpose is to deter­ mine whether mothers know the child's capabilities and whether they perform certain activities for the child knowing he is capable.

Statement of Hypotheses

Stated in null form, the five hypotheses to be in­ vestigated in this study are the following: 7

Hypothesis There is no significant difference

in overprotective behavioral tendency

between mothers of mentally retarded

and mothers of non-mentally retarded

children.

Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference

in overprotective behavioral tendency

between the interactions of mother

and other adults with the same men­

tally retarded child in similar sit­

uation.

Hypothesis ' 3 There is no significant difference

in overprotective behavioral tendency

between the interactions of non-mother

adults with mentally retarded and non-

mentally retarded children.

Hypothesis 4 There are no significant correlations

between child's behaviors and adult's

overprotective tendency.

Hypothesis 5 Overprotective behaviors of mothers are

significantly affected by her knowledge

of the capabilities of the child. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the search for relevant literature pertaining to overprotective tendencies, the author found it disappoint­ ing that there has been little empirical research reported.

It is conceivable for this author to write a statement - parents of mentally retarded children are said to be over- protective, and then list innumberable other authors of that statement. Many writers provide this statement with­ out further elaborations. Some writers, however, do hy­ pothesize and share, their theoretical conceptions con­ cerning this statement.' Most of these writers are in general agreement that the fact of having a retarded child places considerable strain on the psychological adaptive mechanisms of the parent and have pointed out a relatively standard group of reactions when parents learn their child is retarded. The first part of this literature review will pertain to parent dynamics of having a retarded child. The second part will be concerned with overprotection and attitudes of parents of mentally retarded. The third and last part of the review will speak 9 to methodological issues.

PARENT DYNAMICS

There are two main ways parents may come to recognize that their child is mentally retarded; directly after birth or gradually as the child develops. Most writers

•* are in agreement that there is a regular pattern that par­ ents undergo in coping with their retarded child, but they differ in their categorization of stages, some identifying as few as three, others as many as six distinct steps

(Wolfensberger, 1967). The superiority of one categoriza­ tion over another has certainly not been demonstrated; therefore, rather arbitrarily, Rosen's (1955) five stages have been chosen and will be discussed here. Much in the same sequence, these five steps were also described earlier by Rheingold (1945).

The first stage, according to Rosen, is characterized by an awareness that a problem exists. By the time the family has reached the diagnostic clinic, it is ordinar­ ily the case that at least one parent suspects and is'* ' concerned about the child's unusual behavior. However, the other parent and relatives xfill often deny that there 10

Is anything wrong and feel that the child "will grow out of it." Parents may also be made aware of the prob­

lem by direct diagnosis from a doctor a few days after

the birth of the baby. Wolfensberger (1967) has cited the following variety of initial or early reactions that were mentioned or described in the literature he reviewed:

"alarm, ambivalence, anger, anguish, anxiety, avoidance, bewilderment, bitterness, catastro­ phic reaction, confusion, death wish, denial, depression, despair, disappointment, disbelief, dissociation, embarrassment, envy fear, frustra­ tion, grief, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, identification, Immobility, impulses to destroy the child, lethargy, mourning, over-identifica- tion, pain, projection, puzzlement, regret, re­ jection, remorse, self-blame, self-pity, shame, shock, sorrow, suicidal impulses, trauma, etc.." (p. 330).

The list is not exhaustive of the possible reactions

during this stage and throughout.

The second stage is the parent's recognition'of re­

tardation for what it is. Parents often perceive their child's mental subnormality with a profound sense of con­ fusion and shock. Children tend to be seen as an exten­ sion of the parents; hence, to bear a mentally retarded child is experienced by the parent as a personal failure.

(Cummings and Stock, 1962; Rheingold, 1945), Many authors

Indicated the almost universal feeling of inadequacy of parents when they learn that their child is retarded, or

> 11 that something Is wrong with the child (Goodman & Rothman,

1961; Hersh, 1961; Kclman, 1953; Willie, 1961; Dalton &

Epstein, 1963). Solnit & Stark (1961) view the similarity of the situation to a mourning reaction be­ cause the anticipation of an expected child being .a com­ bination of desirable traits of the father, the mother, the grandparents, etc., is crushed when the child is born defective. The parent may feel responsible for disappoint lng his mate, his own family, and other family members.

The possibility of genetic etiology leads some parents to decide not to have other children. Self-esteem may be further lowered by threat to the fantasy of immortality through one's children (Roos, 1963). The parents feel a loss of reward, a loss of hope when they realize that their child cannot fulfill their hopes and dreams, (Blod­ gett & Warfield, 1959; Michaels & Schueman, 1962; Olshan­ sky, 1962).

One of the most prevalent parental reactions noted by a large number of writers is guilt. While Roith (1963) correctly points out that whatever the parents do, some professionals are apt to attribute it to guilt, many good reasons have been offered for this prevalent reac­ tion. One of the major sourcesbf guilt is seen in the parent's questioning of "Why did it happen to me?", and 12 then a review of all possible causes. Husbands may feel they treated their wife inconsiderately during pregnancy; mother may remember the extra drink she had during her first trimester; or they may accuse themselves for not seeing the doctor when the child fell and bumped his head* or when he had a small fever; or any innumerable inconsequential events. Guilt may also arise from viewing the child as a form of punishment from God for some trans­ gression of the past. Even with the more understood type of retardation, Kramm (1963) found that 12 percent of parents of Down's children saw the retardation as a direct act from God. Because of the close connection with sexu­ ality and reproduction, many parents also feel that their sexual sins provoked the divine punishment.

Ryckman & Henderson (1965), in their enumeration of influences of the retarded child on the parent, suggest it is relatively universal in our culture that a parent views his child as a personalized love object, but be­ cause the parent cannot do this, as he feels he should, he feels guilty. Inherent in this guilt feeling is the element of rejection described by Dalton & Epstein (1963),

Hersh (1961), Zwerling (1954), and Grebler (1952) in terms of parents' inability to love the defective child whole­ heartedly. A more acute form of rejection, the parents' 13

"death wish" towards their child can also elicit very real guilt feelings (Bales, 1959; Kramm, 1963) as docu­ mented by Smith (1952) in his Interviews with parents of young severely retarded children. Parents may also have guilt feelings because of angry and hostile feelings in­ curred from repeated reminders of the child's inability to fulfill their hopes (Alford, 1955; Zuk, 1962).

It is generally implied by most of the writers that parental guilt is usually without a reality basis and leads to maladaptive and nonadaptive behavior. Wolfens- berger, however has noted that such views can be only considered assumptive, he further asserts that not all guilt is necessarily disruptive, that "perhaps a bit of guilt may go a long way in motivating a parent to provide the extra attention, effort, and even love a child may need ... some parents may need to be helped to a realis­ tic and manageable dose of it" (1967, p,331). Some writers in more recent years have become a bit more skep­ tical regarding the universality of guilt. McDonald

(1962) has suggested that the guilt feelings documented by other writers during their interviews with parents may have come from parents who read accusatory implications into the questions from the interviewer and displayed sit­ uational guilt, Patterson* (1956) believes that "regret" 14 may be a better term, especially regret for the occasional

negative behavior toward a retarded child.

Another reaction mentioned by some writers is ambiva­

lence. The parents may feel the impulse to love and pro­

tect the young which is deeply rooted in human values,

but the parent also may feel anger, frustration, and

disappointment toward the child. According to Schlld

(1964) ambivalence is never completely resolved and is

constantly renewe.d with each new crisis.

The third of Rosen's espoused parental coping stages

is the search for a cause. Robinson & Robinson (1976)

have suggested that at least two kinds of motivation seem to

underlie this search. First is a hope that they may

find a cure or prevention of its occurrence in any other

children they might have later if the etiology of the disorder is discovered. The second motive may stem from

an ardent wish to be relieved from a heavy burden of re­

sponsibility and guilt (Korkes, 1955). Most parents will

seek a cause, but few will find one of which they can be cer­

tain even with the most expert medical assistance.

The next stage is the search for a cure and the pa­

rental reactions here seem also relevant to the previous

stage, search for a cause. The search for either often

is in the form of multiple professional consultations 15 which can be costly. The parents may become involved in what Leland (1974) describes as "musical doctors!' going

from one professional to another in search for the .magical

cure or for falsification of the diagnosis they cannot

accept. Frequently this search ends due to lack of further

financial resources or more ideally, because the parents

have come to accept the fact that the etiology and cure

are unknown at the present time.

The fifth and final stage, labeled as "acceptance"

of the child, Rosen maintains is seldom attained in full.

Although the word "acceptance" is frequently used in the

literature an explicit definition is hard to find. Ol­

shansky (1962) points out that professionals often

ask parents to "accept" mental deficiency, yet it is

not clear just what they are being asked to do. Robin­

son & Robinson share Olshansky's view, but found that

acceptance "usually seems to involve a warm respect

for the child as he is, appreciation of his assets, tol­

erance for his shortcomings, and active pleasure in rela­

tion to him" (1976, p. 420). Wortis (1966) has defined

two indices of acceptance, the degree of similarity in

meeting the needs of her retarded child and her normal

child, and the degree to which the mother functions in her

usual manner, such as continuing her personal social 16 associations.

Although their basic reactions have already been pointed out in the five stages discussed above, some writers have viewed the effects of a retarded child on a family as evolving from crisis situation. Klein &

Lindemann (1961) labeled the birth of a retarded child as a family "crisis" because they reason, as in other crisis situations, disorganization follows the event and how the family resolves it will determine how the family will function later on. Farber (1960) has hypoth­ esized two types of crisis reaction. The "tragic crisis," resembling bereavement as expectancies for life careers are crushed, is especially common in high socioeconomic groups. The second role "organization crisis "occurs when the parents are not able to cope with the child over a long period and this is particularly common with the low socioeconomic group. Wolfensberger (1967) proposes three types of crises. First is the "novelty shock crisis" in realizing the actual birth of a defective child. The second crisis is described as "value crisis" where retardation and its manifestations are unacceptable to the parents.

This crisis is seen as leading to various degrees of emo­ tional rejection and may last a long time. The third is the "reality crisis" where external forces are only 17 partially controllable by the parents making the situa­ tion exceedingly difficult for the retarded child to . remain integrated in the family.

In recent years several writers have urged pro­ fessionals to view the majority of parental reactions more in terms of natural, understandable reactions rather than the traditional psychiatric clinic view. Roos (1963) for one asserts that if feelings of depression are ab­ sent in a parent with a retarded child his defenses may be quite atypical and even pathological. Dalton & Epstein

(1963) indicate that attempts to deny retardation may ac­ tually be a defense against deep depression. Cohen (1962) points out that parents' realistic initial grief reaction should not be mistaken as inability to accept the handi­ cap. Olshansky (1962) has identified what he believes to be understandable psychological* reactions, as "chronic sorrow", particularly for'parents of severely and moderately retarded children who would be considered retarded in any society and in any cultural group. Our culture re­ quires that this sorrow be concealed, and professional workers may thus mistake it as a pathological symptom.

The helping professions have somewhat belabored tendency of the parent to deny the reality of his child's mental deficiency. Few workers have 18

reported what Is probably a more frequent oc­ currence, the parent's tendency to deny his chronic sorrow. This tendency is often re­ inforced by the professional helper's habit of viewing chronic sorrow as a neurotic man­ ifestation rather than as. a natural and un­ derstandable response to a tragic fact. All the parental reactions reported in the liter­ ature, such as guilt, shame, and anger, may well be intertwined with chronic sorrow (p.190).

Similarly, Stone (1948) had earlier pointed out that

the pattern of the culture itself appears to contribute as well to make rearing a retarded child painful to his parents. The cultural anthropologist, Mead, (1942) has

described the competitive nature of the American com­ munity. She says, "American parents send their children

to school, to measure up and to be measured against their

contemporaries." The standard which parents use in judg­

ing their children is how they measure in comparison to

their age mates; they reward and punish by this relative

standard. Mead further notes that a mother does not

feel free to love her child unconditionally unless he

measures up to his contemporary age norms; then experts

scold her because she does not love her child enough.

Thus, she is thrown into conflict with herself in her de­

sire to love her child and to be accepted by her culture. 19

OVERPROTECTIVE TENDENCY

The term maternal overprotection covers the range of parental attitudes from normal, biologically useful, to pathogenic, that Is, In different degrees harmful to the child. Genuinely responsive protectiveness Is a manifestation of normal mothering. It Is a develop­ mental process In the mother "that enables her to 'out-

* grow' the symbiotic phase of motherhood and thus to over­ come her resistances against the child's individuation;

(however,) the latter is often disguised by overprotec­ tion." (Anthony, 1970, p.374).

Levy (1943) in his studies of over 2000 case records from a child guidance center on maternal overprotection has identified four criteria of maternal overprotection: excessive contact, prolongation of infantile care, pre­ vention of independent behavior, referring to active pre­ vention of child's growth in the direction of self-reli­ ance, and maternal control of either extremes, over in­ dulgence or dominating. The first type of maternal control is seen as a weakness in maternal control, that is, the mother yielding to the wishes or actions of a child or submitting to demands ordinarily not tolerated by most parents. The second, dominating, is an attempt to mold 20 the child according to the maternal conception, thwarting any expression that is not in the determined direction.

The first three are seen as activity of the mother, the fourth one as activity of the child. When overprotection is revealed by all four criteria, the picture presented is a mother whose energies are directed toward preserving her infant as infant for all times, preserving it from harm and from contact with others.

Certain specific conditions in the mother's life are hypothesized by Levy to "cause maternal overprotection."

These conditions include a long period of anticipation and frustration during which a desire for a child is thwarted, factors in the child which threaten his surviv­ al (e.g. defects, illness), social isolation, thwarted ambition, development of dominating characteristics through the assumption of undue responsibility in child­ hood and marriage, sexual lncompatability with the husband, and emotional impoverishment in early life. Support for

Levy's theory concerning specific conditions in mother's life was evidenced by Witmer, Hough, Foley,

Lewenberg, Figge, Brunk, and Freeman (1952) in a series of seven papers designed to test his hypothesis. Specif­ ically, Hough asserts that, according to Levy's hypothesis, rejection is traceable to much the same combination of 21 circumstances as lead to overprotection. The first four conditions espoused by Levy are not difficult to observe in mothers of mentally retarded children.

A point should be made here before continuing on paternal overprotection. It appears that the information presented above under Overprotective Tendencies has been concerned with only mothers. The fact is that there has been little written on paternal overprotection; litera­ ture has either spoken of both parents collectively, or mothers only. However, there are some studies on whether mothers and fathers have different abilities in accepting or managing problems of mental retardation. Anderson

(1962) suggests that fathers accept the diagnosis more readily. Hersh (1961) sees fathers as more remote and objective, less involved and expressive, and less threat­ ened than mothers. An alternative view presented is by

Stang (1957) who hypothesized that the father is more likely to view the retarded child as a danger to his social status, while the overprotective and possessive mother may be more threatened by progress and growth in the child. Gumz and Gubrium (1972) found a tendency for fathers to perceive the child's effect in terms of prac­ tical problems such as finances, whereas mothers tend to react more in terms of emotional issues. There is Borne 22 indication that if the child is a boy, fathers tend to react in either extremes of great involvement or total withdrawal, whereas sex of the child has little influence on the mother's relationship with him (Tallman, 1965).

Sources of Overprotection

Various sources for maternal overprotection behaviors have been offered. Most writers are in agreement that parental rejection is the basis of overprotection, al­ though some have considered it more meaningful to view it as a manifestation of ambivalence, or of guilt (Roos,

1963; Solnit & Stork, 1961). Levy (1949) from his case studies also found that the most frequent clinical type of maternal overprotection is in the group where over­ protection masks a strong rejection or is compensatory to it. With few exceptions most writers do not elaborate further on the source. Robinson & Robinson (1976), and

Poznanski (1973) are the exceptions and have enumerated some purposes overprotection may serve.* Some that are mentioned by other writers will also be included in the following.

First, and most obvious, parents are helped to deny their feelings of anger, resentment, and guilt by behav­ ing as if they felt the opposite emotions. Over­ protection may be a defensive maneuver to conceal 23

irritation with the child who has made the parents' lives

so problematic (Grebler, 1952). In addition, many par­

ents may feel ashamed or guilty because they are spontan­

eously drawn toward their normal children. Painful emo­

tions can be assuaged somewhat and repressed if mother goes

"beyond the call of duty" in caring for her child. Water­ man (1948) describes it as the "martyr syndrome" - "I, your martyred mother, will shield you from this dangerous world because I love you so much and you must love me

also." Her behavior tells him implicitly, "you are part

of mother; you are fragile; you are special", (Sharlin &

Polansky, 1971).

Second. the busy mother may find that it is easier

and less time consuming to continue to feed, bathe, dress

and do other self-care functions for the child than to

teach the slow learning child to do these things alone.

For example, the mother of a normal child is rewarded by

the child's delight and her own relief after suffering only a few weeks of mess while her child learns to

spoonfeed; whereas the same process may take months

for the slow learning child.

Third, in doing things-for the child the par­

ents also are spared the pain of watching a child strug­ gle with his limited capacities, while they are once again 24 being reminded Chat the limitations exists.

Fourth. it allows parents to "make up" to the child

for his disability - a need that arises in part from the parent's sense of guilt at having endowed the child with

"defects."

Fifjth, the most obviously satisfying aspect of mother's relationship with her retarded child is the pleasure of mothering. The mother may achieve a sense of her own value, or a feeling of worth because the retarded child stays a baby longer and needs more mothering than the non-retarded child (Cummings & Stock, 1962; Willie, 1961;

Stone, 1948). This prolonged infancy and greater depend­ ency of retarded children make it especially difficult for parents to set limits when the child becomes older.

"Today's parents are encouraged to gratify their infant's every whim. Extended infancy establishes a closely de­ pendent and in some ways mutually gratifying relationship.

The pattern can be easily overlearned by both mother and children." (Robinson & Robinson, 1976, p.426).

Influence of Overprotection

Some investigators have been concerned with the neg­ ative influence of parental overprotection on the mentally retarded child. McCarthy (1954) concludes from his find­ ings that parental overprotection is often associated with retarded verbal behavior. The parents are over- attentive, anticipating and satisfying every real and

Imagined need of the child before a normal request for aid Is made, and the child has less need for language.

His reinforcements come without contingency response to speech, and thus speech is further delayed.

Sharlin & Polansky (1971) asserts that overprotection tends to perpetuate the child's dependence on his parents, prevents his mastering Bkills of which he is capable, and may lead to a decrement in intelligence. From her obser­ vational study, Poznanskl (1973) states that the frequent description of the handicapped child as being excessively passive and Immature seems to correlate with parental overprotection. The child is overprotected both in com­ parison as to how much more attention he gets than is given his siblings, and as to how much more he receives than is needed in terms of his handicap.

The definition of mental retardation specifically includes the concept of deficit in adaptive behavior

(Grossman, 1973), and one of the major dimensions of adaptive behavior is independent functioning (Leland,

1974). If overprotection perpetuates child's dependence on others, it would imply that the child's Independent functions are not'encouraged, thereby possibly 26 intensifying his retardation. Parents who are overpro­ tective tend to retreat from their social life and also tend to discourage any socialization by the mentally re­ tarded son or daughter (Poznanski, 1973). Restricting the child's access to social Interchange would also fur­ ther limit the child's adaptive behaviors. In addi­ tion, in limiting their own socialization, the parents may feel additional resentment towards the child. Often the child may sense resentment and guilt of the parents and use it to pressure the parents into complying with still more of his demands. Thus, the stage is set for a vicious cycle of resentment, guilt and then overprotection.

In his series of studies, Farber (1960) found that the degree of dependence of retarded children seemed to be the most important variable on the effect of the sib­ lings. The more dependent the children, and also the younger they were, the more adverse was their effect on their siblings. However, the fact that the child's real dependency needs may be minimal is not a variable when the parents are overprotective* The example below cited by Robinson & Robinson illustrates this point well.

A mother of four children devoted practically her - every waking moment to Eileen, her first born, a severely retarded daughter. Household help looked after the younger children, who did not lack atten­ tion but grew up resenting what they felt to be 27

usurpation of their rightful place. In her old age, the mother said proudly, "Everything Eileen knows, I taught her. I gave her everything I could," Eileen, who at age 58 was painfully shy of strangers, did show the effects of her addi­ tional training. Despite her tested IQ of 20 her conversation and facial expression resembled those of a less retarded woman, and she played the piano rather nicely. One could not, however, miss the irony in her spinster sister's comment, "and we," she added, "gave her our mother." (p.431).

Parent Attitude and Observational Studies Related to Overprotection

With the advent of the Parent Attitude Research In­ strument (PARI) developed by Schaefer & Bell (1958) in the late 50's, several Investigators concerned with mental retardation utilized this tool to assess atti­ tudes of parents of mentally retarded correlating it with variables of interest. Several studies relevant to overprotection were conducted. Based on factor analysis of the PARI, Schaefer (1959) identified two orthogonal dimensions that would encompass all parental attitudes toward child rearing as Autonomy-Control and Hostility-

Love. These two dimensions were noted to be very sim- llan.to those stated by Zuckerman (1958), Sears (1957), and Loevinger (1962). Cook (1963) using these two dimen-‘ sions-defined high authoritarian control and.high parental warmth as overprotective attitudes and high authoritar­ ian control and high parental coldness as punitive 28 attitudes.

From his study using the PARI completed by mothers,.

Cook found that mothers of severely handicapped children held overprotective attitudes while mothers of Down's children held punitive attitudes. He also found very significant differences in mother's authoritarian control between mild and severe retardation groups and argued that perceived functional inadequacy of a child may well be a determinant of the mother's strong attitudes of authoritar­ ian control. Studies by Dingman, Eyman, and Windle (1963),

Fredericks (1957), and Klebanoff (1959) have also reported overprotective and authoritarian child rearing attitudes to be correlated. Oppenheira (1963), using an inventory other than PARI, however, found mothers of psychotic and

Down's children to be less autocratic than a comparison group of normal mothers. Contradiction between these studies may be due to the method of investigation to be discussed later.

Many impressionistic writers have agreed with Cook's assertion that the maternal authoritarian control varies as a function of the degree of the child's retardation.

This author, however, sees the need to differentiate types of parental control as Bell (1968) has indicated from his 29 theoretical point of view. He asserts that two types of parent control repertoires must be differentiated:

"Upper-limit control behavior reduces and re­

directs behavior of. the child which exceeds

parental standards of intensity, frequency,

and competence for the child's age. Lower-

limit control behavior stimulates child be­

havior which is below parental standards...

for purposes of illustration we might say that

the average parent would show an increase in

upper-limit control behavior in response to

excessive crying in the infant, or in response

to Impulsive hyperactive, or overly competent

or assertive behavior in the child. Parental

lower-limit control would be simulated by le­

thargy in the infant, by low activity, overly

inhibited behavior, and lack of competence in

the young child." (p.88).

Bell's urge to differentiate is from theoretical con­ siderations but it is supported by Schaefer (1959) who found that punitive and strict behaviors are not corre­ lated with intrusive and demanding behavior in parents of young children.

Stoddard (1959), who also used the PARI, found no cor­ relation between the measured parental attitude, including awareness and acceptance, and the achievement level of 30

the child. Although Zuk (1961) found no significant

correlation between maternal acceptance and religious

practice when he administered part of the PARI and a

questionnaire on religious practices to mothers of

retarded children, his data indicated significant cor­

relations between overprotection and acceptance of diagnosis, acceptance of cause, and mother's religious observance, .23, .29, .24, respectively.

The PARI was quite.popular with researchers

in the early 60*s; however, Becker & Krug (1965),

in their research review of the PARI, stated that

"the bulk of the evidence suggests that the PARI does not predict much very well " (p.329). There is a

lack of control for response sets and particular measures of authoritarian attitudes (a primary measure of overprotection) are strongly influenced by an acqui- escence-resportse set and by the educational level of the respondant. One of the studies illustrating this criti­ cism is by Silversteln & Dingman (1965) who report that initial analysis of respondants in two groups differ sig­ nificantly in 15 of the PARI scales; however, after a reranaly- sis of the data using a procedure described by Bell (1962) for "isolating the elevation and scatter of the response profile," only 3 of the 23 scales showed significant 31 differences. This study provided evidence for a rather pervasive general response tendency on the PARI.

The following studies also pertain to relevant is­ sues on overprotection but do not utilize the PARI..

Saenger (1957) ,' using subjective estimates of overprotection by interviewers, found several external variables to be related to high frequency of overprotec­ tion. Parents of children with physical handicaps, with

Down's Syndrome, or with "vacant facial expression" were three of the variables Included. Thus, she suggests that overprotection might serve to compensate for rejection due to the child's appearance., Saenger also found overprotec- tion to be related to cultural background of the parents.

Jewish parents were more overprotective; whereas, Italian parents were not.

Peck & Stephens (I960), in their study using parent's own rating and rating by a home visitor, showed that the needs of MR children frequently were not met and understood by parents. Parents showed there was a marked tendency to criticize and evaluate the child's behavior. Six of ten homes studied were low-middle socioeconomic status, two mid­ dle-middle status, one upper-low, and one low-low.

The accuracy of parental estimation of their child's functioning ability is said to be related to the degree 32

of acceptance of their child's condition (Ewert & Green,

1957). Several studies have indicated that parents do

not distort their perception of the child's ability as much as professionals have been inclined to assume.

Rheingold (1945) found that when parents were asked to

estimate the developmental age of their child, instead of IQ or labels, they would usually come very close to his assessed level. This was confirmed by Rosen (1955) and Sheimo (1951) from clinical experience, although

the latter felt that parental behavior toward the child might not be consistent with this parental knowledge.

Ewert & Green (1957) convert the mothers' estimates of their child's mental age to IQs and found that 63 percent were within 15 IQ points. Their study also showed that the following factors did not affect the estimates: 1) Child's functioning level or sex,

2) multiple handicaps, 3) mother's socioeconomic level and 4) previous psychological tests. Their findings were also supported by Capobianco & Johnson's study re­ ported by Capobianco & Knox (1964). They asked parents to fill in items from the Stanford-Binet the way they thought their child would respond and found that, on the average, parents were only four points higher than the child's performance. A rather surprising finding was 33

reported by Capobianco & Knox (1964) whose study showed

that fathers had significantly more accurate estimates

than mothers.

The next four studies to be reported are observation­

al studies of parent child interactions; the first two are with "normal" functioning children, whereas the last two

are with mentally retarded children. Dibartolo &

Vinacke (1969) evidenced a close correspondence between adult nurturant behavior and preschool age child depen­ dency, with children high in dependency keenly sensitive

to changes in nurturance level. Settings in which depen­ dency-gratifying behaviors are absent may be defined as stressful for a highly dependent child.

Osofsky fir O'Connell (1972) showed that children's behavior had an effect upon the parents, with mothers and fathers interacting more and being more controlling when the children were dependent. Some differences were noted between mothers and fathers; for example, mothers more often encouraged the children's effortrs while fathers were more likely to help them with the task. Subjects were normal five year old girls.

Interactions of mothers of six mentally retarded children, ages three to seven, with their child were anal­ yzed and compared to non-mentally retarded four and five 34 year olds and their mothers in a study by Kogan, Wim- berger, and Babbitt (1969). They found that mothers of the retarded children displayed greater incidence of assertive control and warm behaviors. This finding was later supported by Kogan & Tyler (1973) and Marshall,

Hegrenes, and Goldstein (1973) in similar analysis of mother-child interactions.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

There is convincing evidence that research on mother-child Interaction based on reports by parents or other informants is, to varying extents, inconsistent and Inaccurate (Robbins, 1963; Wenar, 1963; Yarrow, 1963).

This evidence has led many investigators to suggest dir­

ect behavioral observation as an alternative approach.

The observations of children as a method of study has a

long history and can be dated back to Tiedemann's diary

published in 1787. However, observations then and for

sometime thereafter were unsystematic * and lacked theoreti­ cal considerations. It was only after World War II that

systematic observations of parent-child relationships

began to appear. The first one was the well known Fels

Study, a longitudinal study of human develproent that be­

gan in 1929 (reported by Kagan & Moss, 1962). 35

Although "scientific" parent-child interaction research is said to have dated from this period, only ten studies could be traced before 1960 (Lytton, 1971).

Lytton (1971) has provided an excellent methodologi­ cal review on observation studies of parent-child inter­ action. Some of the methodological issues discussed by

Bell (1964), who dealt mainly with the effects of structur­ ing situations on direct observation, and Lytton (1971), will be presented here.

The first of these issues is concerned with the amount of control necessary or desirable to exercise over stimuli and behavior. One extreme is the com­ pletely unstructured situation in the home, the other is tasks that are highly structured for parents and children in a laboratory which provides a standardized setting. Obviously it is the latter that approximates most closely the specification and standardization of stimuli and conditions that are a general requirement in experimental psychological laboratory research. The maximum control of this type would allow comparisons of a situation from child to child since the external stimuli affecting the child's behavior are kept reasonably con­ stant. However, very real objections to these studies are that the stimulus conditions in such studies are not constant, that certain kinds of behavior of inter­ est will not appear sufficiently, and that there are doubts about generalizability of the data from the strictly defined laboratory conditions to the natural situation in which the child grows up and is socialized.

In light of this, Bell (1964) argues that the testing of certain theoretical models would be best served by a definite kind of structuring. He points out that in unstructured situations there would be very high fre­ quencies of some, perhaps unwanted, categories, while overall the behavior of parent and child is distributed across a large number of categories, so that some cate­ gories will hardly appear or not be represented at all.

The second issue, recording behavior, is concerned with the amount and kind of primary data recorded. One end of the continuum in methods of recording is "ratings after observation" where actual behaviors are not noted, or re­ corded only informally. Instead, ratings on global charac­ teristics, such as "anxiety" and "rejection," are made af­ ter the observation. This method involves the greatest a- mount of abstraction. The other end of the continuum is the "specimen recording" method which is frequently as­ sociated with Barker & Wright (1955). Here an attempt is 37

made to provide a complete record of the behavior observed,

thus supplying the greatest amount of information and ab­

stracting the least. The method, however, that appears

most promising is "precoded behavior categories." This

method appeared to be first employed by Bishop

(1951). It implies that the investigator has determined

beforehand certain aspects of behavior he will focus on

and note their occurrence by means of a code symbol. The

degree of abstraction here depends on how broad and inter­

pretive or how specific the categories are made. Summary variables, such as "restrictiveness," and "compliance"

have been employed by some investigators. Kogan (1969)

(later revised in Kogan & Gordon, 1975) has developed a

particularly specific objective type of coding system that

approximates to an efficient shorthand form of a specimen

record.

The third issue of concern is conceptualization of

summary variables. Gewirtz (1969) argues that the use of summary variables, even if they are carefully defined

(and.they usually are not), tend to emphasize the general­ ized response tendencies either of the child or the en­ vironment and to neglect the sequential contingencies and the reciprocity that characterize the interactions. 38

The real problem arises with concepts that are vague and ill-defined. Different investigations may subsume under one label a variety of different behaviors that cannot easily be ordered on one behavioral dimension .

The fourth issue concerns the reliability of data, mainly the agreement of ratings obtained from the same observation by two different raters, and the stability of the behavior sampled over different occasions. The usual procedure has been to compute reliability coeffi­ cients on part of the data, and if satisfactory agree­ ment is obtained, observation is continued with one ob­ server only. Patterson (1970) reports,though, that fol­ lowing training,abrupt decreases in observer reliability frequently occur. He therefore suggests a system of regular monitoring of observers.

The fifth issue of concern is validity of data, de­ fined as the degree to which the data are representative of normal parent-child interaction. However, the cri­ terion of "normal parent-child interaction" is beyond the reach of the objective outside observer.

"The problem here is that theory in the area .

of child socialization rests on very shaky

foundations and is itself extremely tenuous.

Small wonder then that the validity of ob­

servation studies and other methods of 39 parent-child interaction have rarely been investigated empirically11 (Lytton, 1971, p. 673).

In short, the central problem, formulated by Shakow

(1959, p.51), "How can one study human psychological phenomena scientifically with a minimum of distortion and ethically with a minimum of trespass?" has not been solved. As Lytton writes, "The experimenter’s dilemma consists in deciding, given his basic alms and opportun­ ities for research, which kind of distortion he is will­ ing to tolerate, at the same time doing his best to mini­ mize it". (p.678). CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Sample

The sample used In this investigation was composed of seventy-two persons: twenty-four boys, their natural moth­ ers, and other adults familiar to the boys. Twelve of the boys attended Franklin County Ohio Preschool Programs for the Mentally Retarded. Six were diagnosed with Down's

Syndrome and six with etiologies unknown. Hone evidenced gross physical or sensory handicaps. All twelve met the criterion characteristics described below. The other twelve boys attended a preschool (First Community Church

Preschool) for "normal" intellectual children, and were randomly selected from a sub-population of sixty-three boys (See Table 1).

Characteris tics

A. Boys

1. Chronological Age: The mentally retarded boys

ages ranged from 3-5^ to 6-3 inclusive, with mean

of 5-1, and mode of 4-8.

The non-mentally retarded boys ages ranged

from 4-3 to 4-10 inclusive with mean of 4-5, and

mode of 4-6

1. All reported ages are in years-months.

40 41

2. Developmental Age: The Learning Accomplishment

Profile (Sanford, 1 975)2 which yields a develop­

mental age was administered to each of the 24

boys individually less than two weeks prior to

his taped session with an adult. A basal devel­

opmental age was arbitrarily placed on the MR

boys; they could not have two or more years de­

lay in two or more of six developmental areas:

gross motor, fine motor, cognitive, language,

socialization and self-help as measured by LAP.

The non-MR boys did not have developmental age

below their chronological age. (Appendix A)

Developmental age range for the mentally re­

tarded boys was 2-0 - 4-10 inclusive, with mean of

3-8, and mode of 3-10.

The non-mentally retarded boys developmental

age ranged from 4-7 - 5-3 witn mean ox 4-10, and

mode of 4-11.

2. The Learning Accomplishment Profile (Sanford, 1975) is a criterion-referenced test providing a detailed sequential order of developmental skills for children of ages 0 through 6 years in six areas of development: cogni­ tive, language, fine motor, gross motor, self-help, and socialization. The items in the test were drawn from a number of well known normative assessment tools such as The Bayley Scales of Infant Development and Stanford-Binet. 42

TABLE I

CHARACTERISTICCES OF SUBJECTS

Number of Your ger Sibl ings

0 1 2 3 or more

3 MR 2 MR 2 MR Number ^ 6 NMR

of 1 4 NMR 1 MR

1 NMR Siblings ^

3 4 MR or 1 NMR more

Number inside the cell denotes the number o£ mentally re­ tarded or non-mentally retarded subjects.

CHRONOLOGICAL AGE1

• MR Boys Non-MR Boys

RANGE 3-5 - 6-3 4-3 - 4-10 MEAN 5-1 4-5 MODE 4-8 4-6

DEVELOPMENTAL AGE1

MR Boys Non-MR Boys

RANGE 2-0 - 4-10 4-7 - 5-3 MEAN 3-8 4-10 MODE 3-10 4-11

1, In terms of years-months TABLE I (cont'd)

CHRONOLOGICAL AGE RANGE FOR ADULTS

MR Boys Non-MR Boys Age Range in years Mothers Familiar Adults Mothers Familiar Adults

20-25 0 0 0 3

25-30 4 4 4 1

30-35 5 5 3 6

35-40 2 2 3 0

40-45 1 1 1 1

45-50 0 0 1 1

Total 12 12 12 12 Family: So that the socioeconomic status (SES) variable could be controlled, only those boys from middle to upper-middle SES family partici­ pated in this study. The Hollingshead Index of

Social Position was used to compute the SES level rating. This index utilizes both education and occupation of the main supporter of the family in the computation. All twenty-four boys were from families of level II or III rating (See

Appendix B).

All 24 boys were from intact families living with their natural parents. There were no others, such as grandparents, living in the same home.

The number of siblings is summarized in Table 1.

Mothers

None of the mothers were employed at the time of this investigation. Both mean and modal age ranges for mothers of non-MR boys were 30-35 years.

Mean age for mothers of retarded boys was also 30-

35 years. The modal age range was 25-30 years.

Familiar Adult

The familiar adults were neighbors or friends whom the boys knew. In most cases the familiar adult 45

had children with whom the boys played. Three

MR boys had familiar adults they knew for less

than one year but more than nine months; whereaB six

non-MR boys knew their familiar adults for the same

duration. There were the same number (4) of MR boys

and non-MR boys who had familiar adults they knew for

over two years. The familiar adults were matched

within a five year range plus or minus of mother's

age. Also they were from the same SES level as

measured by Hollingshead Index of Social Position.

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

APPARATUS

The experimental room was approximately 12 ft. x 14 ft. equipped with a one-way mirror and a microphone system connected to the adjoining observation room. The experi­ mental room contained a child's size table 2% ft. x 3 ft., two chairs situated at the table across from each other, a big chair against one wall, a truck and a ball placed on the floor.

A Sony-Matic portable vldeocorder, model number AV-

3400, was Bet up in the adjoining observation room to videotape each dyadic interaction. 46

ACTIVITIES

Items from each of the three developmental areas: fine motor, cognitive, and self-help at each of the three developmental age 2, 3, and 4 of the LAP assessment were taken to derive a list of activities that each dyad would engage in. An attempt was made to keep the two activities of the same area at each age level as similar as possible.

Two activities were required so that the child would have variety in his fifteen minutes play with each adult.

Items from Leiter International Performance Scale^ were used for the cognitive skills activities to preserve as much similarity of task across age. The matching con­ cepts tapped by the Leiter at each of the three ages were also tapped by the LAP. The list of activities are as follows:

Fine Motor Skills

2 years

a. Completing a 3 shape formboard (circle,

square and triangle).

b. Build a tower of 6 one inch cubes.

3. The Leiter International Performance Scale (Leiter, 1969) is a non-language test for the measurement of general intelligence. Nature of the test involves matching blocks with pictures to a strip of pictured stimuli accordiug to cognitive concepts developed at each age level. 47

3 years

a. String four one-half inch beads.

b. Build a tower of 9 one inch cubes.

4 years

a. Throw bean bag through a hole.

b. Toss ring onto a stand.

Cognitive Skills

2 years

a. Color matching (item 2-4)^*.

b. Object matching (item 2-3).

3 years

a. Matching block design (item 3-2).

b. Picture completion (item 3-3).

4 years

a. Matching 8 forms (item 4-2).

b. Matching form and color (item 4-1).

Self-Help Skills

2 years

a. Lifts and drinks from juice cup and replaces

on table.

b. Same as above.

A. The items are from Leiter International Perform­ ance Scale; e.g. (item 2-4) is the fourth item at age 2 level. 3 years

a. Spread peanut butter on cracker with a dull

knife; use napkin.

b. Same as above.

4 years

a. Dress Dapper Dan doll (zip, buckle, snap,

button and lace shoe string). Although

lacing is a 60-72 month skill and the in­

vestigator through the LAP evaluation

found that none of the subjects had at­

tained the skill, she was interested in

observing what adults and children did

with it.

b. Same as above.

FORMS

A form containing the activities described above was given to the mothers to complete after her play session with her child. The mothers were instructed to check those activities they believed their child had attained. (See

Appendix C).

Two forms, one for the familiar adult and the other for the mother, were composed for the purpose of occupying their attention during the last five minutes of the fifteen minute video-tape. First part of the form asks for demo­ graphic information, latter part is questions about 49 children's games, toys, stories, television shows Which most of the children could assist in answering if re­ quested (See Appendix D).

PROCEDURE

The investigator administered the LAP and the ac­ tivities of his developmental age described in the sec­ tion above either at the boy's home or at his preschool.

At the time of the evaluation a consent form to partici­ pate in a study of adult-child Interaction was signed by the mother (See Appendix E).

Mother of the boy subject accompanied her son and his familiar adult to one of the two experimental rooms chosen on basis of convenient location for the mother.

Each dyad of mother-child, and familiar adult-child was given a few minutes to familiarize themselves to the ex­ perimental room and was then given standard instructions to play for 10 minutes with the three activities on the big chair.

"I would like for you and (name of child) to play with these three things: (this is for matching, this is for throwing at a target and this Dapper Dan doll is for dressing).5 You have ten minutes to play with all three activities and then I will come back in to change the activities. You may begin when you hear a knock on the mirror."

5. The statement enclosed in ( ) varied according to the age level of activities. 50

The investigator returned to the adjoining observa­ tion room and videotaped the ten minutes interaction.

At the end of the ten minutes, the dyad was interrupted by the investigator with the standard instruction:

• "oh, (name of adult). I forgot to ask you to fill this form out before we began. Would you please complete this form right now. I am going to take away these activities now and when you are finished with the form, I will bring in other activities, thank you."

While the adult was completing the form the inves­ tigator also videotaped the first five minutes of this dyadic interaction when the adult was supposedly pre­ occupied with the form.

At the end of the 15 minute videotape session, mothers were asked to fill out a form of skills her son has or has not attained. A more detailed explanation of the nature of the study was then given to both mother and familiar adult.

Since each child engaged in two fifteen minute play sessions, the sequence of the dyad was varied; that is, first child subject played with mother for fifteen mlntues, then with familiar adult for another fifteen minutes, second child subject played with familiar adult first, then with his mother. Therefore, all odd numbered subjects played in the order of mother with child, then familiar adult with child and even 51 numbered subjects played In the reverse order.

DATA RATING

Various rating methods were considered by the in­ vestigator but none were exactly suitable for this study.

The investigator developed her own categories and rating method modeled after Kogan's (1975) Interpersonal Be­ havior Constructs: A Means for Analyzing Video-Taped

Dyadic Interaction Laboratory Manual, and Filler's (1976)

Working Manual for Coding Mother-Child Interactions.

A precatagorized sequence behavior rating was the method employed. There are twenty pre-categorized be­ havioral items within six behavioral categories: Atten­ tion - Does Own Thing, Working Together, Watches; Con­ trols and Demands - Demands, Lead Taking, Lead Taking -

Teaching, Intrusion, Intrusion - Higher Level, Cue,

Demonstration, Prompt/Guidance, and Initiates Negative;

Positive Affect - Positive Affect, and Shared Conversa­ tion; Nonacceptance - Ignores, Explicit Refusal, and

Negative Content; Submissiveness - activity follows and

Seeks help/guidance/permisslon; and Other - close phys­ ical space (See Appendix F, Working Manual for defini­ tions and examples).

Each interval was 15 seconds. A cassette tape with a number (1-60 consecutively) called every fifteen seconds 52 marked each interval. All behaviors were rated in se­ quence of its occurrence during that interval. All be­ havioral items, unless specified, were rated separately for adult's behavior and child's behavior. Since each of the three activities was not time structured, the raters also recorded the activity engaged by the dyad during each interval. Each dyadic interaction was 15 minutes, the first 10 minutes where the dyad engaged in the three activities were rated in Intervals 1-40, the latter five minutes where the adult was supposedly preoccupied were rated in intervals 41-60.

Two Developmental Psychology graduate students who were unaware of the nature of this Btudy rated the videotapes. They were trained by the investigator for thirty-three hours over a month period. Training

terminated when the inter-rater reliability was mea­ sured at 85%, 87%, 8 6 % consecutively over a two week period. Inter-rater reliability was calculated from the number of behavioral items agreed by both raters in each interval divided by the sum of the number of behavioral items agreed in each interval and the number of behavioral itemB disagreed in each interval (Haraer- lynck, Handy, and Mash, 1971). Each rater was given, twelve tapes or six hours of dyadic interaction to rate. Each rater had six tapes of non-retarded child, three tapes of non-Down's re­ tarded child, and three tapes of Down's retarded child.

Each rater also had equal number of tapes with mother- child Interaction occurring first, then familiar adult- child interaction. The raters were asked to rate the tapes in the order that were given to them by the in- vistigator. The investigator interspersed the tapes with the following factors considered: whether the child was retarded, the sequence of dyadic interaction, and the order when it was videotaped so that the raters would not rate all the tapes of retarded children, or mother-child interactions first and its counterpart at the end. When the raters completed rating the tapes, the investigator recorded 1 the frequency of each behavioral items or behavioral sequences using the directions and form in Appendix 6 .

Having taken into consideration the literature reviewed on overprotection, and particularly few of

Levy's criteria of overprotection, this investigator considered the following behavioral items and behavioral sequences to be indicators of overprotectlve behaviors: 54

1. Close physical space (CL) (1)

2-2 2 : are indicators when the adult is the agent of the stimulus behavior in the behav­ ioral sequence that occurred during activi­ ties and Form (when dyad were engaged in activities requiring skills child had attained).

2. Intrusion (I-A), I-R, I-IG, I-NC) (2,3,4,5.)

6 . Cues (C-A, C-IG, C-R) (6,7,8)

9. Demonstration (DS-A, DS-IG, DS-R, DS-I) (9,10,11,12)

13. Prompt/Guidance (PG-A, PG-R) .(1.3*14)

15. Lead Takes (L-A, L-R, L-NC, L-IG, L-I) (15,16,17, 18,19)

20. Demands (D-A, D-R, D-IG) (20,21,22)

23-28: are indicators when adult is the agent in response behavior of the behavioral sequence that occurred during Activities and Form.

23. SH-A actively follow when child sought help.

24. IN-A actively follow when child initiated negative

behavior.

25. I-A actively follow when child intruded.

26. D-A actively follow when child demanded.

27. L-R explicitly refusing a child's lead.

28 L-IG ignoring a child's lead.

Definitions and examples for these 28 items are found in

Appendix F.

An Overprotective Score was obtained from tallying

the frequency of occurrence of the 28 behavioral sequences

listed above. CHAPTER XV

RESULTS

The results of this study will be presented in the

order of the hypotheses tested and will be followed by re­

sults of additional relevant data, which was also analyzed.

Hypothesis 1

To assess the hypothesis that there is no signifi­

cant difference in overprotective behavioral tendency

between mothers of retarded and mothers of nonretarded

children, a £ test was applied to test the difference

between means of overprotective score (Opscore) of the

two groups. A roster of the Opscore is presented in

Appendix H and X. Mothers of nonretarded children at­

tained a mean Opscore of 14.3; whereas the mean score

for mothers of retarded children was 41.6 (see Table 2).

Result of the _t test showed that there was a highly sig­ nificant difference between the two means (t “ -5.69,

22 df, p 4. .0 0 1 ) .

Since the group of retarded children were composed of

6 Down’s Syndrome children and 6 non-Down's Syndrome chil­ dren, a J: test was also computed for mean difference in moth­ er's overprotective scores. Results showed that there was no

55 56

TABLE 2

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SDs) OF OVERPROTECTION SCORE FOR ALL SUBJECTS

Subjects Number of Cases Mean SD

Mothers of NMR 12 14.3 7.2

Familiar Adults of NMR 12 10.3 4.2

Mothers of MR 12 41.6 14.9

Familiar Adults of MR 12 '27.8 8.8

All 48 23.5 15.5 57 significant difference (t“1.86, lOdf) between the two means, 48.8, 34.3 for mothers of Down's, and Non-Downs

Syndrome children respectively. Therefore, all analyses performed hereafter did not differentiate the two groups of retarded children.

Because the overprotective score was obtained from frequencies of behavior sequences that occurred only when dyad was engaged in skills the child had already attained and when adults were preoccupied with filling out the forms, the number of Intervals which overprotective be­ haviors were measured varied with some dyads. An analy­ sis of covariance was used to adjust for differences in the number of intervals overprotective behaviors were measured, and to determine whether the means of over- protective score were still significantly different be­ tween adults with retarded and nonretarded children (adults refer to both mothers and familiar adults). Results of the analysis of covariance (see Table 3) showed that time, or number of intervals overprotective behaviors were mea­ sured is significantly related to overprotective score

(p <. 0 0 1 ), and that with the time differences adjusted there is still a highly significant difference in over- protective score means between adults interacting with retarded children and adults interacting with nonretarded children. 58

TABLE 3

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR OVERPROTECTION SCORES OF ADULTS WITH RETARDED AND NONRETARDED CHILDREN ADJUSTED FOR TIME DIFFERENCES

Source of Variance MS F P

Covariates Time 1940.8 17.4 .001

Main Effects (MR or NMR) 4389.1 39.3 .001

The first null hypothesis that there Is no signifi­ cant difference in overprotective behavioral tendendy be­

tween mothers of mentally retarded and mothers of non-men-

tally children is therefore rejected.

Although the hypothesis has been answered, the in­ vestigator was interested in exploring the 28 behavior items from which Opscore was derived. An inspection of the data revealed that the frequency of some of the behav­ ioral sequence was too small to be further analyzed, namely,

'Demands (Demands-Actively Following, Demands-Refuse, and

Demands-Ignore), Negative Content, and Seek Help. However, ♦ it is interesting to note that there were six adults who made one or more demands on the retarded children. With the nonretarded children only one adult made one demand. 59

In response to the need to simplify the data for computations the following transformations were done:

Child's behaviors were analyzed in terms of frequencies when he:

1. initiated a negative behavior (INNGG),

2. ignored any of adult's stimulus behavior (IGNORE),

3. refused any of adult's stimulus behavior (REFUSE).

Adult's behaviors were analyzed in terms of frequen­ cies when she:

1. intruded on child's behavior (INTRUDE),

2. lead-took (LEAD),

3. intruded and lead-took, frequencies of INTRUDE plus

LEAD (LTPI) ,

4 . gave cues, demonstrated, prompted, or guided the

child to complete a task he is capable (HELPED),

5. lead-took for teaching purpose or when she in­

truded to elicit higher functioning level of be­

havior from the child (HIGHER).

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to determine which of mother's behaviors correlated with Op­ score, and correlated with each other. The means and stan­ dard deviations are listed in Table 4. As shown in Table 5^*

1. Those variables in the correlation matrix not dis­ cussed here will be discussed under their relevant hypothesis. TABLE 4

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SDs) OF MOTHERS’

Mothers Of Mothers Of All Mothers MR Children NMR Children Variables Means SD Means SD Means SD

•

OPSCORE 27.9 18.0 41.6 14.9 . 14.3 7.2

INNEG 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.4 1.1

IGNORE 3.8 4.5 5.9 5.0 2.0 3.0

REFUSE 2.4 3.5 3.3 4.6 1.5 1.5 h e l p e d 4.4 3.4 5.7 4.0 3.2 2.3

POSAFF 9.0 6.3 12.5 6.7 5.5 3.3

WORKTO 3.2 5.3 1.9 3.4 4.5 6.6

LTPI 18.6 11.6 27.3 10.0 9.9 4.1

INTRUDE 2.0 2.7 3.7 2.9 0.3 0.8

LEAD 16.6 9.9 23.7 9.1 9.6 4.0

HIGHER 1.9 2.1 1.5 2.1 2.3 2.2 TABLE 5

CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR OPSCORE

All Fam. Adults Adults Mothers Fam. Adults Mothers Fam. Adults Cases Mothers Adults with MR with NMR with MR with MR with NMR with NMR OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE OPSCORE

OPSCORE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

INNEG .41** .56** .55** .24 .18 .59* .46 .12 -

IGNORE .46*** .40* .77*** .13 .64*** -.03 .73** .71** .50

REFUSE .35** .30 .24 .35* .15 .18 .32 -.05 .14

HELPED .51*** .58*** .43* .22 .69*** .40 -.08 .86*** .55*

POSAFF . .53*** .61*** .10 .31 .51** .27 -.47 .55* .48

WORKTO -.22 -.32 -.15 -.24 -.19 -.14 -.45 -.40 -.03

LTPI .85*** .80*** .95*** .66*** .87*** .43 .91*** .94*** .70**

INTRUDE .64*** .62*** .61*** .49** .17 .31 .56* .15 -.09

LEAD .81*** .76*** .89*** .57** ,86*** .37 .77** .34*** .69**

HIGHER _.13 -.26 .01 -.14 -.06. -.25 .07 -.12 -.07

*** p <.001 ** p <-01 * p < .05 62 the following variables (in the order of highest correla­ tion coefficient to the lowest) were correlated with Op­ score: LTPI .80 (p 4.001), Lead .76 (p 4.001), Intrude .62

(p 4.001), and Helped .58 (p ^.001). Variables signifi­ cantly intercorrelated were: LTPI with Lead .98 (p 4,001),

LTPI with Intrude .69 (p 4.001), Intrude with Lead .53

.(p 4.01), and Intrude with Higher -.35 (p 4.05) (See Ap­ pendix J).

The above correlation matrix discussed was computed with all 24 mothers, the next two correlation matrices were computed first, with mothers of retarded children and second, with mothers of nonretarded children.

Although for mothers of retarded children no variables were significantly correlated with Opscore, the correla­ tion coefficient for Helped and LTPI were .40, and .43 re­ spectively. The only significant correlation was LTPI and

Lead .95 (p4 .001). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 4; correlation matrix is presented in

Appendix K.

For mothers of nonretarded children the following variables were significantly correlated with Opscore:

LTPI .94 (p4 .001), Lead .94 (p4.001), and Helped .86

(p 4*^01). LTPI correlated with Lead .98 (p 4.001),

Helped with Lead .74 (p 4*01), and Helped with LTPI ,69

(p 4.01) (See Table 4 for means and standard deviations, 63

and Appendix L for correlation matrix).

Hypothesis 2

The hypothesis that there is no significant differ­

ence in overprotective behavioral tendency between the

interactions of mother and other adults with the same mentally retarded children in similar situation is ex­

amined by using .t test. Results of the Jt test showed

that there was significant difference (t**2.74, 22df,

p=.0 1 2 ) in the overprotective score means between mothers

and familiar adults interacting with the same retarded

child (See Table 2). Therefore hypothesis 2 is rejected.

The same test was also applied to the overprotective

score means between mothers and familiar adults interact­

ing with the same non-retarded child; however, no signi­ ficant difference was found.

Looking at individual cases of the difference in overprotective score between mothers of retarded children

and familiar adults interacting with the same retarded

children, there was only one case where mother attained a lower score, one case where both mother and familiar adult attained the same score, and 10 cases, or 83% of

these mothers attained a higher overprotective score than the familiar adults interacting with the same child. Of

the 10 cases 7 were over 10 points higher (See Appendix

H and I for individual cases. In comparison, there were 4 cases where mothers of non-retarded children attained scores lower than their counterpart, 1 case where the same scores were attained, and 7 cases, or 58% where mothers attained higher scores. Of the 7 cases, only 1 case was over 10 points higher (See Table 6 ).

TABLE 6

COMPARISON OF MOTHER’S INDIVIDUAL OPSCORE WITH FAMILIAR ADULTS

. Lower Same Higher Over 10 Points Higher No. Cases % No. Cases % No. Cases % No. Cases %

MR 1 8% 1 8% 10 83% 7 58%

NMR 4 33% 1 8% 7 58% 1 8%

Using the transformed variables as explained under

Hypothesis 1, Pearson Correlation Coefficients were also computed for adults with retarded children, and familiar adults with retarded children, they will be compared to

the correlation matrix computed for mothers of retarded

children already discussed under Hypothesis 1.

For adults interacting with retarded children the fol­

lowing variables were significantly correlated with Opscore 65

they are listed here from highest coefficient to the low­

est (See Table 5 for correlations, and Table 7 for means

and standard deviations): LTFI .66 ( p<.001), bead .57

(p<.01), and Intrude .49 (p<.01). Significant inter­

correlations were found for the following pairs: LTPI with Lead .95 (p <.001), LTPI with Intrude .50 (p <.01), and Intrude with Higher -.38 (p <.05) (See Appendix M).

Correlation matrix for familiar adults with retarded

children is presented in Appendix N, and the means and

standard deviations presented in Table 7. The following variables were found to be significantly correlated with

Opscore: LTPI .91 (p^.OOl), Lead .77 (p ^.01) and In­

trude .56 (p .05) (See Table 5). LTPI was also found

to be significantly correlated with Lead .93 (p<.001).

Hypothesis 3

A t. test was applied to examine the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in overprotective be­ havioral tendency between the interactions of familiar adults with mentally retarded and non-mentally retarded children. Comparison of the overprotective score means between familiar adults with nonretarded children and familiar adults with retarded children showed that there wasahlghly significant difference (t=-6 .2 2 , 22 df p <.0 0 1 ) between the two means (See Table 2). Therefore, the third TABLE 7

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SDs)' OF RETARDED CHILDREN

Adults With Mothers With Their Familiar Adult Retarded Children Retarded Children With Retarded Children Variables Means SD Means SD Means SD

OPSCORE 34.7 13.9 41.6 14.9 27.8 8.9

INNEG 2.1 3.5 1.5 1.7 2.8 4.7

IGNORE 7.5 7.5 5.9 5.0 9.3 9.2

REFUSE 1.9 3.6 3.3 4.6 0.5 1.0

HELPED 5.5 3.7 5.7 4.0 5.4 3.6

POSAFF 9.8 5.9 12.5 6.7 7.1 3.6

WORKED 2.0 3.4 1.9 3.4 2.3 3.6

LTPI 23.5 9.4 27.3 10.0 19.6 7.2

INTRUDE 2.7 2.9 3.7 2.9 1.8 2.6

LEAD 20.8 8.3 23.7 9.1 17.8 6.6

HIGHER 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.1 1.9 2.6 67 null hypothesis is rejected*

The adult variables In the Interaction of familiar adults with children found to be significantly correlated with Opscore were: LTPI .95 (p <..001), Lead .89 (p £.001),

Intrude .61 (p £.001) and Helped .43 (p £.05) (See Table 5).

LTPI with Intrude .53 (p £.01), and LTPI with Lead .97

(p .001) were also significantly correlated (See Table 8 for means and standard deviation, and Appendix 0 for correla­ tion matrix).

Variables of familiar adults with nonretarded children which correlated with Opscore were: LTPI .70 (p£.01),

Lead and Higher .99 (p <.001), and -.49 (p £.05), respec­ tively (See Appendix P).

Hypothesis 4

To assess the hypothesis that there are no significant correlations between child's behaviors and adult's overpro­ tective tendency, Pearson Correlation Coefficients were com­ puted. As mentioned previously, the three child's behavior under study are INNE6 , i.e. when child initiates a negative behavior, IGNORE and REFUSE. Results of these three behav­ iors correlated with Opscore were: INNEG r**.4l,(p=.002);

IGNORE r».46, (p < .001); REFUSE r». 35, (p < . 01) (See Table 5).

Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is rejected. TABLE 8

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SDs) OF FAMILIAR ADULTS

Familiar Adults Familiar Adults All Familiar Adults With MR Children With NMR Children Variables Means SD Means SD Means SD

OPSCORE 19.0 11.2 27.8 8.9 10.3 4.2

INNEG 1.4 3.5 2.8 4.7 0.0 0.0

IGNORE 5.4 7.6 9.3 9.2 1.6 2.0

REFUSE 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.0 .3 .8

HELPED 3.7 3.7 5.4 3.6 2.0 3.0

POSAFF 6.2 3.0 7.1 3.6 5.2 2.2

WORKTO 2.2 4.3 2.3 3.6 2.2 5.1

LTPI 13.5 8.2 19.6 7.2 7.5 3.3

INTRUDE .9 2.0 1.8 2.6 0.1 0.3

LEAD 12.6 7.4 17.8 6.6 7.4 3.3

HIGHER 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.6 1.9 2.6 69

Since each child interacted with both mother and fa­

miliar adult, the investigator was interested in finding

whether the child-'s behaviors differ for the two adults.

The frequency of the three behaviors were summed, Jt tests

were then applied to test the mean difference between

the two groups of adults. Results indicated that there

was no significant difference between the means of nonre­

tarded child' s behaviors when interacting with mother and

with familiar. adult (t=1.59, 22df, p=.13); neither was

there significant difference between the means of retarded

child’s behaviors when interacting with the two adults

(t»-.54, 22df, p " .60) (See Table 9).

TABLE 9

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SDs) OF CHILD'S BEHAVIORS

Variables Means SD

NMR with Mother 3.9 3.5

NMR with Familiar Adult 1.9 2.5

MR with Mother 10.4 5.9

MR with Familiar Adult 12.6 12.5 70

Of further interest to the investigator was whether one could predict adult's Opscore from child's behavior.

Thus, three multiple regressions were computed: 1) With all 48 cases; 2 ) with mothers, and 3) with familiar adult’s

(See Table 10). Results indicated that one could very well predict (p< .001) Opscores in all three cases, for adults, mothers and familiar adults. The regression equa­ tion for adults is:

OPSCORE “ 15.6 + 1.1 x child's behavior score.

For predicting mother's Opscore and familiar adult's

Opscore the regression equations are:

OPSCORE *» 14.1 + 1.9 x child's behavior score, and

OPSCORE ■ 13.0 + .8 x child's behavior score respectively.

Hypothesis 5

To determine whether overprotective behaviors of mothers are significantly affected by her knowledge of the capabilities of the child, Jt tests were employed.

From Table 11, ten mothers of nonretarded children were in agreement with the investigator's evaluation of their child's abilities; whereas, two under evaluated, and none over evaluated. In comparison, six mothers of re­ tarded children were in agreement with the investigator's TABLE 10

MULTIPLE REGRESSION PROCEDURE WITH CHILD’S BEHAVIOR AS PREDICTOR OF OPSCORE

Standard Variable Multiple R R Square B Beta ’ Error B F

ADULTS OPSCORE -

Child's Behavior .58857 .34641 1.09521 .58857 .22181 24.381***

Constant 15.60538

MOTHERS" OPSCORE

Child's Behavior .62909 .39575 1.93967 .62909 .62909 14.409***

Constant 14.05737

FAMILIAR ADULTS" OPSCORE

Child's Behavior .76944 .59204 .83186 .76944 .14722 31.927***

Constant 13.01067

***p <.001 72 evaluation, three under and three over evaluated. It is interesting to note that the only mother of nonretarded children who attained an Opscore higher than the mean of all adults is also one of the mothers who under evaluated.

TABLE 11

COMPARISON OF EVALUATIONS BY MOTHERS AND INVESTIGATOR

Mothers of Mothers of NMR Children MR Children Number Percent Number Percent

In Agreement With Investigator's Evaluation 10 83% 6 50%

Over Evaluated Child's Abilities 0 OX 3 25%

Under Evaluated Child's Abilities 2 17% 3 25%

To tal 12 12

When the mother over evaluated the child's abilities it is implied that she believes her child has attained those skills questioned in the evaluation. Thus, mothers who cor­ rectly evaluated and mothers who over evaluated were grouped together as those who believed their child was capable of the 73

skills required during their play Interaction. The Opscore

mean of this group (Group 1) was compared with the mean

from mothers who under evaluated (Group 2). Results of

the J: test Indicated that there was no significant differ­

ence. (See Table 12 below).

TABLE 12

SUMMARY OF t TEST FOR EVALUATION BY MOTHERS

Variable No. Cases Mean Stand. Dev. t df P

Group 1 19 27.1 19.3 -.44 22 .66

Group 2 5 31.2 13.2

A second t_ test was applied with only mothers of

retarded children. Group 1 were mothers who correctly

evaluated their child; whereas Group 2 were mothers who

Incorrectly evaluated their child. When the Opscore

means of the two groups were compared, no significant

difference was noted (See Table 13). 74

TABLE 13

SUMMARY OF t TEST FOR EVALUATION BY MOTHERS OF RETARDED CHILDREN

Variable No. Cases Mean Stand. Dev. t df P

Group 1 6 42.3 13.0 .17 10 .87

Group 2 6 40.8 17.9

Results indicated that the null hypothesis, overpro- tectlve behaviors of mothers are significantly affected by her knowledge of the capabilities of the child, be rejected.

RELEVANT DATA ANALYZED

Pearson Correlation Coefficients

The correlations of Opscore with adult variables and child variables have been presented as part of the apro- prlate hypotheses. Of equal importance is the corre­ lations of Opscore with the adult and child variables when all 48 cases were considered in the analysis. As shown in Table 5 (See Appendix Q for complete correlation matrix), the following variables were correlated with Op­ score (in the order of the highest correlation coefficient 75

to the lowest): LTPI .85 (p<.001), Lead .81 (p<.001),

Intrude .64 (p<.001), POSAFF (positive Affect) .53

(p^.001), Helped ,51 (p <.001), Ignore .46 (p <.001),

Inneg .41 (p^.05), and Refuse .35 (p ^.05) Means and standard deviations are presented In Table 14.

Variables Intercorrelated were (in the order of highest to lowest coefficient): LTPI with Lead .98

(p<.001), LTPI with Intrude .66 (p<.001), LTPI with

Ignore .55 (p^.001), Ignore with Inneg .54 (p<.001),

Intrude with Inneg .54 (p4,.001), Lead with Ingnore

.53 (p ( .001), Lead with Refuse .51 (p 4..001), Posaff with Lead .50 (p^.001), Posaff with Refuse .50 (p^.001),

Intrude with Lead .49 (p^ .001), Posaff with LTPI .46

(p { .001), LTPI with Refuse .46 (p^.001), Helped with

Posaff .42 (p^.01), Intrude with Ignore .40 (p^.01),

LTPI with Inneg .36 (p^.01), Lead with Ignore .27 (p<.05),

Intrude with Higher -.27 (p ^.05), and Helped with LTPI

.25 (p <.05).

Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

The reader -is reminded that during the first 40 in­ tervals of dyadic interaction, the dyad was given three different types of play activities: fine motor (FM),

Cognitive (CO), and Self Help (SH). The Investigator was 76

TABLE 14

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SDs) FOR ADULTS WITH RETARDED AND NONRETARDED CHILDREN

Variable Mean SD

Opscore 23.5 15.5

Inneg 1.2 2.7

Ignore 4.6 6.2

Refuse 1.4 2.7

Helped 4.1 3.5

Posaff 7.6 5.1

Workto 2.7 4.8

LTPI 16.1 10.3

Intrude 1.5 2.4

Lead 14.6 8.9

Higher 1.9 2.3 77

interested in finding whether particular dyad(s) (mother

of MR child with child, familiar adult with MR child, mother NMR child with child, and familiar adult with NMR

child) spent more time on one type of activity than an­ other. Three two-way ANOVAs, dyad x retardation (ret.), were

computed for FM, CO, and SH. Results (See Table 15) in­ dicated that there were no significant differences in any of the three ANOVAs; therefore, no further analysis was applied. It is interesting to note that the grand means was 13.0, 8.0, 17.4 intervals for CO, FM, and SH respectively.

During the latter 20 Intervals the adults were supposedly preoccupied with completing a form. When the adults were filling out the form the raters had rated "doing own thing" or "working together" if the adult had asked the child to help complete the form.

A two-way ANOVA, dyad x retardation, was also applied to test whether the time spent in completing the form sig­ nificantly differ among the adults of the four dyads.

Results of the ANOVA (See Table 16) indicated that there was no significant difference. t Test r ~

Throughout the 60 intervals, the raters also recorded the frequency of shared conversation. All of the children TABLE 15

TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FINE MOTOR, COGNITIVE, AND SELF-HELP

Source SS df MS F P

.FINE.. MOTOR

Dyad 20.02 1 20.02 .92 .99

Ret. 38.52 1 38.52 1.78 .19

Dyad x Ret. 22.68 1 22.68 1.04 .31

COGNITIVE

Dyad 102.08 1 102.08 2.19 .14

Ret. .75 1 .75 .02 .99

Dyad x Ret. 4.08 1 4.08 .09 .99

SELF-HELP

Dyad 117.19 1 117.19 1.57 . .22

Ret. 35.02 ‘ 1 35.02 .47 .99

Dyad x Ret. 9.19 1 9.19 .12 .99 were verbal, although at various levels of language de­ velopment ranging from single word utterances to sentences,

Siegel (1963) found that the linguistic level of children

exerts a control over adult verbal behavior. The results of comparing the means of adults with retarded children

(lower linguistic ability), and adults with nonretarded

children (higher linguistic ability) supports Siegel's

assertion (See Table 17). 80

TABLE 16

TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR FORM

Source SS df MS F P

Dyad 14.75 1 14.75 2.03 .16

Ret. 30.08 1 30.08 3.26 .07

Dyad x Ret. 3.0 1 3.0 .32 .99

TABLE 17

SUMMARY OF £ TEST FOR CONVERSATION

Mean Stand. Dev. t df P

Adults With NMR Children 22.3 13.3 4.98 46 .000

Adults With MR Children 7.8 5.0 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this study was to empirically in-* vestigate an overprotective tendency in mothers of re­ tarded children. The method chosen to accomplish this was analyses of direct observations of mother-child

Interaction. The design of the present study was based on the investigation of two major issues. The first issue is that a review of the literature on overpro­ tection indicated that,-among other reasons, parents are overprotective because they are affected by various psychological dynamics as the result of their being par­ ents of a retarded child. The second issue is the ques­ tion raised by some authors as to the necessity of par­ ents being more directive and intrusive because of the child's obvious limitations.

There were four groups of dyadic interactions:

1) mothers of nonretarded children interacting with their child, 2) the same nonretarded child interacting with an ad,ult familiar to him, 3) mothers of retarded children interacting with their child, and 4) the

81 82 sane retarded child interacting with an adult familiar to him. Videotapes were made of dyads engaged in struc­ tured play activities involving skills of which the child was capable. The behaviors were then sequentially rated according to twenty precategorized behavioral items for both child and adult. Behavior sequences were analyzed to test the hypotheses.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Several methodological issues will be discussed before the results of the present study are explored..

The first one concerns the measurement of overprotective tendency. Overprotection was not studied in terms of binary yes or no, but rather in degrees toward an over- protective tendency. Since there was no instrument available which measured observable overprotective be­ haviors, a list of behaviors collectively believed to be indicative of an overprotective tendency was composed.

They are listed below (the definitions and examples illustrating them are found in Appendix F): Close Phys­ ical Space, Intrusion, Cues, Demonstration,Prompt/Guid­ ance, Lead Takes and Demand. The next six behaviors . are when the adult responds to the child's behaviors: 83 actively followed when child sought help, actively fol­ lowed when child initiated a negative behaviot, actively followed when child intruded, actively followed when child demanded, explicitely refused a child's lead, and ignoring a child's lead. These behaviors were only measured when the adult and the child engaged in activities requiring skills of which the child was capable.

The second concern is one of the objections fre­ quently raised with structured laboratory observations, namely, "experimenter effect" where the adults may have behaved in a manner not natural to them to meet the experimenter's expectations and approval. This.ef­ fect, in the present study,would be felt by all four groups of adults. However, this "experimenter effect" may be more confounding with the adults interacting with retarded children than adults with nonretarded children. The mother of .a retarded child is affected by the psychological dynamics of parenting a retarded child. She may be more concerned about others passing judgement on her as to whether she is a good mother, whether she loves him enough, whether she can manage her child, and whether she does enough for her "poor little retarded child." She may also feel the need to 84 spare her child from struggling with an activity, and in turn, sparing herBelf of the embarrassment of her. child demonstrating his limited capabilities to the ex­ perimenter. Whereas the mother of the nonretarded child would not have these needs and concerns. She would not feel the need to prove that she is as capable a mother as the others; and she would not be concerned with what is the "appropriate" interaction with ones son, feeling hers is as "appropriate" as the others.

The familiar adults interacting with the retarded child are most likely not as comfortable in the situa­ tion as familiar adults interacting with the nonretarded child. The latter may view the situation as simply a time to play with the child and to be responsive to the child's leads. On the other hand, the familiar adult interacting with the retarded child may view the situa­ tion more as a task. She may be concerned with "what is the appropriate thing to do with a retarded child," instead of being responsive to the child's behaviors.

She may feel the need to show the experimenter that she can work with a retarded child effectively.

The third concern is generallzability of the re­ sults. As with every laboratory observation, the ques­ tion arises as to whether one can generalize from the defined laboratory condition to the natural situation in which the mother interacts with her child. The author, at the expense of questionable generalization, felt that unsystematic observations of the mother-child interactions would be less tolerable in the purpose of this Investigation.

GENERAL FINDINGS

The results of the present study support the im­ pressionistic writers that mothers of retarded children are,to a high degree, significantly more overprotective than mothers of nonretarded children. To determine whether the psychological impact of having a retarded child is a main factor contributing to mothers' greater overprotective tendency, mothers were compared to fami­ liar adults who would not be affected by similiar psy­ chological dynamics. Results showed that mothers of retarded children were significantly more overprotective than familiar adults interacting with the same child.

Similiar comparisons were made with mothers of nonre­ tarded children. However, there was no significant dif­ ference in overprotective tendency observed between mothers and familiar adults interacting with the same nonretarded child. This latter finding seems to further strengthen the psychological impact of having a retarded 86

child on the mothers' overprotective behavioral tendency.

The overprotective tendency in mothers of retarded

children should not be simply considered as: she is over-

protective it is bad; she is not overprotective it is

good. Overprotection, as measured in this investigation,

primarily concerns with mother's intrusiveness, helping

behaviors, and lead taking when it is not necessary.

These behaviors are important in working with a retarded

child; however, when and how these behaviors occur are

critical. The mothers, though, do not appear to be

sensitive to the "when's and how's." Leland (1974) writes

that "the major difference between the mentally retarded

child and any other child is that the former, when left

to his own devices, is unable to utilize the cues and stimuli from his surroundings as appropriate guides to behavior (p. 6)." The mother from her interactions with her retarded child may soon realize that she needs to repeatedly tell the child some information concerning his adaptation to his environment. Most professionals would probably praise the mother who can be repetitive and con­ sistent in rearing a retarded child. But in so doing the mother may become habituated in her need to direct, lead take, and intrude on the child's behaviors whether it is necessary or not. The mother may behave somewhat similar to a special educator who in his Instructing is directive and intrusive. However, the special educator requires 87

feedback from his pupil, and gives him the opportunity to

practice and take responsibilities of his emerging skills;

whereas, this is probably missing in the mothers’ approach.

The familiar adults Interacting with the retarded children were found to be significantly more overpro­ tective than familiar adults interacting with the nonre­ tarded children. An explanation for this might be that the.familiar adult may view the play situation as more job oriented, as discussed previously, and take on the role of a teacher instead of a play companion. She may feel that because he is retarded he needs more direction from her. Whereas the familiar adult interacting with the nonretarded children would view the play situation differently. She probably took on the role of a play companion.

It was interesting to find that when the relation­ ship of positive affect to overprotective tendency was explored, only the familiar adults with retarded children attained a negative relationship (ra.47, p=.06) between these two variables. Perhaps in their involvement with the role of an instructor, they are not as relaxed and responsive to the child's behaviors as the familiar adults with nonretarded children. When all four groups of adults were studied, positive affect was found to be significantly correlated with lead .take and intrusion (r=.46). This is in agreement with Schaefer's (1969) assertion that punitive and strict behavior is not correlated with intrusive and demanding behavior in parents of young children. Lead take, intrusion, positive affect, and helped (r**.81, .64, .53, and .51 , respectively) were all highly significantly correlated with overprotective

tendency. This finding is supported by Cook (1963) who defined overprotective attitudes as high authoritarian control and high parental warmth.

An analysis of the child's behaviors, ignoring, re­ fusing, and initiating negative behaviors usually not acceptable by an adult,, showed that they were signifi­ cantly related' to the adult's overprotective tendency.

As the adult becomes more overprotective, the child is more resistive and negative. An explanation may be that the more the adult is "caught up" with the psychological dynamics of interacting with the retarded child, the less responsive and attentive she is to the child. The child then resorts to negative behaviors and other manipula­ tions to elicit the adult's attention and response to him.

Further analysis indicated that it is possible to predict an adult's overprotective tendency by knowing the child's behaviors. The possibility that the retarded child may have behaved considerably different with his mother than with the familiar adult was tested. Results Indicated that there was no significant difference in the three behaviors of the child analyzed, refusing, initiating a negative behavior, and ignoring. In fact, there were higher frequencies of the ldtter two behaviors, 2.8 and

9.3 respectively during familiar adult-child interaction in comparison with 1.5 and 5.9 during mother-child in­ teraction. It seems that mothers of retarded children do not support Bell's (1968) contention that parent con­ trol behavior is homeostatic relative to child's behav­ iors. It appears that the child adapts to the adult's behaviors. An explanation of this might be similar to that discussed above. The mothers of retarded children are so affected by the psychological dynamics of having a retarded child of doing the "right" thing with the child, that they are not as "appropriately" responsive to the child's behaviors. The child in turn has adapted to less healthy behaviors.

Knowledge of Child's Capabilities

Mothers were asked to evaluate whether their child had attained certain skills. Their evaluations were 90 compared to that of the investigator who had also eval­ uated the child within two weeks of the mother's evalu­ ation. Fifty percent of the mothers of retarded children were in agreement with the Investigator's evaluations, twenty-five percent over evaluated, and twenty-five per­ cent under evaluated. Whereas, eighty three percent of mothers of nonretarded children were in agreement with investigator’s evaluation, none over evaluated, and sev­ enteen percent under evaluted. Although fifty percent of mothers of retarded children were in disagreement with the investigator's evaluation, the maximum number of items disagreed was four out of twenty-five possible items. In most cases the number of items disagreed were only two or three. This is consistent with earlier findings by Capobianco & Knox (1964), and Ewert & Green

(1957) that parents usually come close to the child's assessed level.

Rosen (1955), and Shelmo (1951) support the above finding, but contend that parental behavior toward the child might not be consistent with parental knowledge.

Their contention is verified by the findings in thiB study. Three adult variables, Lead take, Intrude, and

Helped (which Included frequencies of demonstrations, 91 prompts, guidance, and cues given by the adult) were highly significantly correlated with overpro.tective tend­

ency at .81, .64, and .51 respectively. The reader is

reminded that these variables were only measured during activities involving skills of which the child is capable, also that these variables of intrusion and lead take do not include situations where the adult intrudes or lead

takes to encourage a higher level of behavior from the child. Despite the fact that only three mothers of re­ tarded children believed their child had not attained the skills, they attained very high frequency of lead take and intrusion in comparison to other groups of adult. If this pattern of Interaction observed in a structured setting is generalized to every day situa­ tions, it is no wonder that Ross (1969) and Poznanski

(1973) have both pointed out retarded children's tendency toward passive avoidance and have related it to parental overprotection. A point should be made here, though, that from observations, the investigator noted that the nonretarded child gave feedback to his mother on his capabilities. If the mother should intrude or demonstrate the child may state, "I can do that," and the frequency of the mother's intrusions seemed to lessen as the session 92 proceeded* On the other hand, mothers of retarded chil­ dren rarely received this feedback. Four hypotheses as

to why retarded children rarely gave this feedback to their mothers are offered. The first is that the child has not attained the required level of expressive language.

The second is the child's inability to cognitively process the feedback, i.e. when the mother intrudes on his activ­ ity, he must remember that he can do it, that mother does not have to help him, and therefore he should tell mother he doesn't need her help. The third, related to the second, is that the child may not know he has the option to ask mother not to intrude. The fourth hypothesis is that the retarded child who may be cognitively and functionally able to give mother the feedback has not been reinforced in the past for doing so, and this behavior has been extinguished.

The child's statement "I can do that, you don't have to help", has not been heeded by his mother who is so preoc­ cupied by the psychological dynamics of parenting the re­ tarded child that she is not attentive or responsive to the child's behaviors. The investigator noted from ob­ servations of these children that all .four hypotheses seem plausible.

APPLICATION OF FINDINGS

Many of the present findings discussed above have direct implications for those professionals working with 93 retarded children. Those involved with parent counseling should explore with the parents the.psychological dy­ namics of parenting a retarded child, and their effects on the interactions with their child. The parents should be encouraged to occasionally take an inventory of the child's skills as objectively as possible. When they have the information they should encourage the child to use the skills, and further challange him on those skills.

Emphasis should be made concerning the importance of being responsive to the child's positive initiations, of giving the child opportunity for lead takes and for positive ' control of various situations; thus, to foster a more active role in the environment for the child, to build on his self-confidence, and to encourage independent func­ tioning. This would help to Increase his adaptive behav­ iors and decrease the visibility of his limitations.

For those professionals directly involved in child counseling or other child therapies, if a child is seen to be quite passive, but negativistic, parent's over- protective tendency should also be explored as a pos­ sible relationship.

In Zeitgeist of mainstreaming the retarded children with nonretarded children in schools and day care centers, 94 teachers and workers may tend to become more overpro- tective with the retarded children. The information discussed above with.the parents should be also dissem­ inated to these adults as well as others in the community.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Because of the limitation and scope of the present study with boys and mothers of middle socioeconomic level families it is obvious that the study should be replicated with the following variables considered:

1 ) to Include fathers,

2 ) to include girls,

3) to include families of lower socioeconic level, and

4) to Include familiar adults interacting with

girls.

Various, combinations of these variables should be employed in the study(s). For example, fathers and mothers with boys of middle socioeconomic level families should be studied as well as fathers and mothers with girls. Fathers may be more overprotective with boys but less overpro- tective with girls in comparison to mothers. Osofsky &

O ’Connell (1972) would probably suggest fathers to be more overprotective wl.th girls than mothers. In their study with "normal" five year old girls, they noted that mothers more often encouraged the children's efforts while fathers were more likely to help with the tasks. 95

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to empirically inves­

tigate overprotective tendency in mothers of moderately

retarded children through analysis of mother-child in­

teractions. Other groups of dyadic interactions analyzed

for comparisons were an adult familiar to the retarded

child-child interaction, mother of nonretarded child-child

interaction, and familiar adult of nonretarded child-child

interaction. The dyads engaged in structured play activ­

ities requiring skills of which the child was capable.

Videotapes were made of the interactions, then rated se­ quentially at fifteen second interval on twenty precate­ gorized behavior items.

The basic findings of the present study are 1) moth­ ers of retarded children are significantly more overpro­ tective than familiar adults interacting with the same child. 2) Mothers of retarded children are signifcantly more overprotective than mothers of nonretarded children.

3) Familiar adults Interacting with retarded children were significantly more overprotecting than familiar adults interacting with nonretarded children. 4) Mothers of retarded children controlled and intruded upon child's playing of activities when she knew the child had the skills required during play. 5) Children's behaviors such as refusing, ignoring and initiating a behavior generally not acceptable by adults, were significantly related to an adult's overprotective tendency. APPENDIX A

LEARNING

ACCOMPLISHMENT

PROFILE*

* Permission was granted to Franklin' County Program for the Mentally Retarded to print this variation of Learn- Accomplishment Profile, Sec. 1, Anne R. Sanford, Chapel Hill Training Outreach Project, Chapel Hill, North Car­ olina, 1975.

97 GROSS MOTOR

Behavior Age Assmt. Date Behavior Age Assmt. Dace (Mos.) Dace Aehmt. (Mos.)__ Date Aehmt. Lifts head when held at shoulder 1 mo. * Creeps backward dovnstairs 13-24 * Lateral head movements 1 mo. Picks up coy from floor Prone— makes crawling movements 1 mo.' without falling 18-24

Prone— Lifts head momentarily 1 eo. Pushes and pulls large toys, boxes, etc. around floor 18-24 Turns from side to back 2 mos. Can carry large teddy bear Held sitting, head position pre­ or doll while walking 18-24 dominantly erect 2 mos. Throws ball overhead 19 mos. Rolls over 3 mos. Walks with one foot on walk­ Held standing, lifts foot 3 mos. • • ing board 20 mos. Pulls to sit— no head lag 4 mos. Walk down stairs (hand held) 21 mos. Turns from back to side 4 nos. Get down from adult chair, without assistance 21 mos. Sit without support 5 mos. Kick large ball 21 mos. Stands, holding on 6 mos. Stands on left foot alone Pull self to stand 8 mos. 22 mos. Walk with assistance 11 nos. Walks on line, general dir­ ection 23 mos. Stand Alone Veil 11 nos. Walk up and down stairs, • Attains sitting position unaided 12 mos. . without assistance 21 mos. Crawls rapidly on all fours 12 mos. Jump in place 24 mos. Walks alone TIT mos. Pedal tricycle 24 mos. llirows ban 13 nos. Walk on tiptoe 30 mos. Walks sideways 14 mos. Balance on one foot five seconds 36 mos. Walks backwards 14 mos. 36-48 Lets himself down from standing Walk on a line to sitting Jump from bottom step 36-48 Kneels unaided with slight support 15 mos. Go up stairs using alternating Able to scoop to pick up toys from feet 36-48 floor 15 mos. Squat in play 36-48 Stands on right foot with help 15 mos. lun 36-48 Tries to stand on walking board 17 mos. Throw ball overhead 36-48 CROSS MOTOR

Behavior Age Assmt. Date Behavior Age Assmt. Date (Mos.)• Dace Aehmt. (Mos.> Date Aehmt. T.lfts head when hold at shoulder 1 no. * Creeps backward down'stalrs 13-24 * Lateral head movements 1 mo. Picks up coy from floor without falling 18-24 Prone— nakes crawling movements 1 mo.'. Pushes and pulls large toys, Prone— Lifts head momentarily 1 BO. boxes, etc. around floor 18-24 Turns froa side to back. 2 mos. Can carry large teddy bear Held sitting, head position pre­ or doll while walking 18-24 dominantly erect 2 mos* Ihrows ball overhead 19 mos. Rolls over 3 mos. Walks with one foot on walk­ Held standing, lifts foot 3 mos. • - ing board 20 aos.

Pulls to sit— no licad lag 4 mos. Walk down stairs (hand held) 21 aos. * Turns froa back to side 4 BOS. Get down from adult chair, without assistance 2 1 mos. Sit without support 5 mos. Kick large ball 2 1 nos. Stands, holding on 6 mos. Stands on left foot alone 2 2 b o s . Pull self to stand 8 BOS. Walks on line, general dir­ Walk with assistance 11 BOS. ection 23 mos. Stand Alone Well 11 BOS. Walk up and down stairs, Attains sitting position unaided 12 mos. without assistance 21 BOS. Crawls rapidly on all fours 12 mos. Jump in place 24 mos. Walks alone 12 mos. Pedal tricycle 24 aos. Throws ball 13 mos. talk on tiptoe 30 cos. Walks sideways 14 mos. balance on one foot five seconds 36 mos. Walks backwards 14 mos. talk on a line 36-48 Lets himself down from standing to sitting Jump from bottom step 36-48 Kneels unaided with slight support IS mos. Co up stairs using alternating feet 36-48 Able to stoop to pick up toys from floor IS mos. Squat in play 36-48 Stands on right foot with help 16 mos. tun 36-48 Tries to stand on walking board 17 mos. fhrov ball overhead 36-48 CROSS MOTOR

Behavior Assmt. Dace (>l§s.) Date Aehmt. Catch bounced ball 36-48 * COMMENTS Skip on one foot 36-48 Stand on one foot 4*8 seconds 36-48 Hop on one foot 36-48 Balance on one foot for 10 • seconds 36-48 Climbs ladders and trees 48-60 Walk Backward - hecl-toe 56 mos. Run lightly on toes 60-72 Skip on alternate feet 60-72 Can jump rope 60-72 Use overhead ladder 60-72 Dance- to music 60-72 Roller-skate 60-72 Hop 2-3 years forward on each foot separately 60-72 Walking board: 6 cm. board, with­ out stepping off for full length 60 mos. Jump from height of 12", landing on toes only. 60-72

* Mark + for positive demonstration of skill Hark - for negative demonstration of skill TINE KOTOR

Age Assmt. Date Age Assmt. Date Behavior Behavior (Mos.) Date Aehmt. (Mos.) Date Aehmt. * * Retain red ring when placed In hand 1 Tower of two cubes 13 Holds hands together 2 Can pick up & hold Reaches for dangLinz ring 3 2 small objects in one hand 14 Hatches movement of own hands 3 Dumps raisins from bot­ tle spontaneously 18 Grasps rattle 3 Turns pages of book 2 Recovers rattle from chest 4 or 3 at a time 18-23 Reaches for objects 4 Turns knob (radio) 18-23 Picks up cube 5 Can throw small rubber Bancs In play 5 ball 20 Rakes & attains raisins 6 Tower of 5 — 6 cubes 21 Lifts cu p with handle 6 Paper: Folds once lmitaelvely 21 Grasps st'ring 7 Book: Turns pages singly - 24 Pulls out peg 7 Has well developed handed­ Shakes bell 7 ness 24-29 Bangs spoons 8 Turns door handles 24-29 Transfers cube hand to hand 6 Can roll, pound, squeeze, lilts cup with spoon 10 pull clay 24-29 -Neat Pinccr grasp of raisin 10 Fills 4 dumps containers with sand 24-29 Can remove cube from cup in Imitation 11 Formboard: Adapts In 4 trials 24

Docs not drool 11 101 Manipulates egg beater 27 Holds crayon 11 Enjoys finger painting 30-35 Pushes car 11 Hakes mud & sand pics 30-35 * Puts 3 or more cubes in cup 12 Faints strokes, dots 4 cir­ Harks with pencil 12 cular shapes on easel 30-35 Recovers cube concealed Cuts with scissors 35 by cup 12 FINE MOTOR

Age Assmt. Date Age Assmt. Date Behavior Behavior (Mos.) Date Aehmt. (Mos.) Date Aehmt. Ik * Picks up pins, thread, Imitates V strokes 2A etc., with each eye sep­ Imitates circular stroke 2A arately covered 36-A8 Paints strokes, dots & Drives nails and pecs 36-48 circular shapes at easel 30-35 Builds cower of nine cubes 36-A8 Enioys fincer painting 30-35 Holds crayon with fincers 36-A8 Holds crayon by fincers 30 5trines A beads 36-A8 Imitates V & H strokes 30 Can close fist & wiggle Copies circle 36 thumb in imitation R&L 36-A8 Imitates cross 36 Puts 6 round pegs in round holes on pecboard 36-A8 Copies V.H.T 36-A8 Imitates building of Traces diamond 42 brldee with cubes 36-48 Copies cross . A6 Builds tower of 10 or more Copies T.H A8-60 cubes A8-60 Draws man with 2 parts A8 Draws with pencil or crayon A8-60 Adds 3 parts to incom­ Draws simple house A8-60 plete man A8 Prints simple words A 8—60 Draws simple house A8-60 Paper: Imitates folding & Prints a few capitals A8-60 creasing paper 3 times A8-60 Prints capital initials Paper: Folds triangle from of own name A8-60 paper 6" square in Imitation 48-60 Holds paper with other hand Learns to lace shoes 60-72 in writing A8-60 • . FINE KOTOR— Writlnc Draws 3 bubbles correctly 5A Holds cravon adaotivelv 11 Copies star A8-60 Marks with oencil 12 Copies square 56 Scribbles spontaneously 13 Copies a cross A8-60 ' Begins to show hand prefer­ Copies trlancle 60-72 ences 18-23 Copies rectangle with Imitates horizontal line 2A diagonals 60 Imitates vertical line 2A FINE MOTOR— Writing

Age Assmt. Dace Behavior (Mos.) Date Aehmt. * Draws simple house with • COMMENTS door, windows, roof & chimney 60-72 Prints first name 60-72 Writes a few letters spon­ taneously 60-/2 Draws rccognizeable man with head, trunk, legs, arms & features 60-72 Frequently reverses letters, especially "S" 60-72 Adds seven parts to Incomplete man 60-72 Prints numbers 1-5 60-72 Copies diamond 72 * Marie

Age Assmt. Date Age Assmt. Date Behavior Behavior (Mas) Date Aehmt. (Mos 0 Date Aehmt. * * Smile spontaneously 3 Understands taking turns 36-48 Laughs a]ond 4 Makes effort to keep sur­ Discriminates strangers 4 roundings tidy 36-48

Plays peek-a-boo b shows affection for younger siblings 36-48 Reaches for familiar persons 12-24 Performs for others 44 lmlcaces housework IT Carries a tray i’lays with other children IB 36-48 Helps with adult activities Picks up and puts away toys 18-23 in house and garden 36-48 independent movement about house Understands sharing 36-48 causing little concern 19 Helps at little household Helps with simple household tasks 19 tasks (dusting, drying dishes 36-48 Demands personal attention 12-24 Associative group play takes Imitates simple actions 18-23 place of parallel play 42 Plays contentedly alone if near Helps put things away 48 adults 18-23 Imaginative pretend play 36-48 Enjoys short walks 18-23 flays cooperatively wicn Parallel play predominates 24 other children 48 Initiates own play activities 24 Goes an errands outside home 48 Participates appropriately in Enjoys dressing up in adult water play 24-29 clothes 48-60 Helps put things away 30 Plays competitive exercise games 48-60 Plays simple group games as "Ring Around the Rosy” 30-35 Inclined to verbal imper­ tinence when frustrated 48-60 Domestic make-believe play 30-35 • Shows concern and sympathy 48-60 Observes other children at play and joins in for a few minutes 30-35 Becomes aggressive with playmates 48-60 Listens attentively to stories 36-48 Bosses and criticizes 54 Asks for favorite stories 36-48 Calls attention to own per - Enjoys floor play with blocks formance 54 .others toy alone or with Shows off dramatically 54 SOCIAL SKILLS

Age Assmt. Date Behavior (mos.) Date Aehmt. * Comforts playmate in distress 60-72 Comments Performs simple errands 60-72 Understands need for rules and fair play 60-74 Respects property 60-66 Plays complicated floor games 60-74 Chooses own friends ” 50=74' Plays simple cable games 60-74 Goes to school unattended 60-74 Plans and builds construct­ ively 60-74 Explores neighborhood 60-74 * Relates clock time to dally schedule 60-74 Gets along well in small groups 60-74 Conforms to adult ideas ” 50=75“

* ✓ for positive demonstration of skill - for negative demonstration of skill SELF-HELP

Age Assmt. Dace Age Assmt. Date Behavior Behavior (Kos.) Date Aehmt. (Mos.) Date Aehmt.

Picks up spoon 5 Masticates food 12-24 Lifts cups vlth handle 6 Pulls off socks 12-24 * Feeds self cracker 6 Discriminate* edible sub­ Holds, bites & chews biscuit 9 stances ___ 12-24 Drinks from cup vhen held Removes coat or dress 24-36 ' (some spilling) 11 Verbalises toilet needs Finger-fceds self for part fairly consistently 24 of meal 12 Pulls on simple garment 24 Fusses to be changed after Lifts & drinks from cup & B-H' 12 replaces on cable 24-29- Usually dry after nap . 12 Spoon-feeds without spilling 24-29 Enjoys taking off hat, shoes Takes off shoes, hat, mltcens 24-29 pants 12 Pulls down pants at toilet 24-29 Holds spoon, brings to mouth, licks it 14 Unrips rippers 24-29 Indicates vet pants 15 Eats vlth fork 28 * Helps put things away Has bowel control 15 30-35 Uses spoon, spilling little 16 Buttons one button 31 Dresses vlth supervision 32 Drinks from cun 17 Remembers where objects Buttons 2 buttons 33 belong 18-23 Puts on coat or dress 34 Can unrip zipper 18-23 unassisted______Indicates desires by ges­ Gets drink unassisted 24-36 turing & utterances 18-23 Dries own hands 24-36 106 Picks up toys & puts them Unbuttons accessible buttons 36-48 away 18-23 Feeds self vlth little Lifts & holds cup between spilling______36-48 hands 18-23 Spreads butter on bread Unwraps candy 23 vlth knife______36-48 Inhibits turning of spoon 24 Is usually dry all night 36-48

Dry at night if taken up 24 . Pouro veil from pitcher 36-48 SELF-HELP

Age Assmt. Date Behavior (Mos.l . • Date Achnt. X Undresses self 36-48 Washes hands & face unaided 36-48 Pulls on shoes 36-48 Buttons coat or dress 40 Dresses without supervision 42 Dries face and hands 42 Eats with fork and spoon 36-43 Can carry breakable oblccts 36-48 Cares for self at toilet 45 Undresses self except for back buttons, laces & tics 48-60 Coes about neighborhood unattended 48-60 Loccs shoes 48-60 Distinguishes front'and - back of clothing 48-60 Dresses self except tying 48-60 Can cut with a knife 48-60 Buttons 4 buttons 50 Washes face and hands - unassisted 54 Can brush and comb hair unassisted 60-72

Uses bathroom unassisted 60-72- 107 Puts toys away neatly in box 60-72 Dresses & undresses alone 60-72 Crosses street safely 60-72 Tics shoe lace’ 72 COCNITZVC

Age Assist. Date Ase Assmt. Date Behavior Behavior (Mos.) Date Aehmt. (Mos.) Date Aehmt. * ft Gives use of oMect 30-35 Can find pictures of animals that arc alike (lotto) 42 Recognizes himself when shown photographs 30-35 Can give sensible answer to "Why do we have stoves?" etc. 42 Repeats 2 dip.its 30-35 Can tell how amny circles when Listens to musical instruments, 30-35 including record player shown two circles 45 Compares texture 48 Participates in storytelling . (with words or phrases) 30-35 Can respond correctly to "A . hat goes on your head. Shoes Labels nud and d a y products co on you — ." 49 as "cake" and "pie", etc. 30-35 Karnes 14 of 18 pictures of Karnes 6 of 6 common objects: common objects 43-60 flag, chair, car. box. key.fork 30-35 "Reads" pictures 48-60 Can point to teeth and chin on request 34 Can assemble 7-piece puzzle in 150 seconds ’ 51 Knows sex 36 Can name materials objects Matches tuo or three primary are made of 54 colors 36-48 Knows day. night . 54 Kanes all colors 36-48 Can compare three pictures Can point to tongue, neck, - (which one is prettier 54 arm, knee, thumb 43-48 * Can tell pictorial likenesses Tells action in pictures 36-48 and differences 54 Can name ten pictures of 18 Can follow three commands in common objects 36-48 proper order 54 Can name one pictured animal Counts four objects and from n'-irory 36-48 answers how many 54

Can count two blocks 36-48 108 Selects heavier weight Puts together seven-piece invariably 48-60 puzzle 36-48 When shown 3 elreles, counts 3 48-60 Shows appreciation of past and Can make opposite analogies 43-60 present 40 Matches & names four primary • Comprehend throe prepositions colors 48-60 (on top of, under, inside) 42 C0GSIT1 7 E

Age Asset. Date Age Date Behavior Behavior (Has.) Date Aehmt. (Moo.) Dace Achat * * • Responds co sound of rattle 1 Follows one-step direction 18 Responds to sudden voices 1 Points bo 3 body pores (hair, * eyes, nose) 18 Awareness of now situations 3 . Reaches for familiar persons A Identifies pictures in book f'Flnd ball") 18 Reacts to sight of toy 4 Tries to sine 18-23 Discriminates strangers S Points to pares of doll on Turns head to look for . request 21 dropped-spoon 5 * « Follows three directions with Plays Peek-a-boo 6 ball 21 • Uncovers toy 8 Discriminates 2 - cup, plate, Rings bell purposely 8 box 22 ‘ - Responds to name 9 Names familiar picture cards 24 Plays pat-n-coke 9 Recognizes his own 24 Waves bye-bye 9 Comprehends "another" 24 Responds to •'no-no’1 10 Hatches familiar objects 24 Looks at pictures in book 10 Responds correctly to 2 of 3 requests: 1) "Give me-— ", 2) Squeezes doll to make soucak 11 "Put — in the 3) "Put Look3 in correct place for toys the — on the — " 24 which roll out of sight 12 Joins in nursery rhymes & 24-29 Fetches or carries familiar songs objects 12-24 Shows & Imitates names for Uses names of familiar objects 12-24 hair, hands, feet, nose,eyes mouth, shoes 24-29

Imitates putties? objects in box 13 109 Sings phrases of songs 24-29 Understands & follows simple commands 15 Answers correctly "What do you hear with?" 29 Points to 1 named body part 17 . Associates use with objects 30 Attains toy with stick 17 Enjoys simple 'stories read • Labels one object 18 • from picture book 30-35 ■ ■cocsnivE

Age * * Assmt. Date . Behavior (mos.) Date Aclmt.

> • * • Can obey commando uglng 4 *• COMMENTS: nrcnositlons. ball & chair *8-60 * Appreciates pastpresent and future *8-60 • Can define 6 words *8-60 Matches 10 or 12 colors 60-72 Given home address 60-72 Known sourec of 15 or 20 actions ("What bounces?")- 60-72 Acts out stories ’GO-72 Gives one 60-72 • Can form rectangle of tuo^ • triangular cards 60-72 Can ludr.e weights 60-72 Knows names of following coins: dine, penny. nickel 60-72 Bearn's left from rlp.ht GO-72 Can tell similarities or differences in 9 of 12 pictures 60-72 Can count 6 objects when • asked "llow many?" 60 Can tell which is bigger when asked "Which Is bigger, a cat • * or a mouse?" 6** 110 Can tell what number follows B 66

Can tell how a crayon and 'a t pencil are the same and how they are different 70

Understands numbers up to 10 72 . . LANCUACE DEVELOPMENT

Age Assmt. Date Age Assmt. Date Behavior Behavior (Mos.) Date Aehmt. [Mos.) Date Aehmt. * * Responds Co sound of rattle 1 Claps hand upon verbal Responds to voice 1 request 6-12'

Small, throaty noises 1 Expresses 2 words besides "mama" and "dada" 12 Responds to bell 2 Jabbers with expression 12 Makes single vowel sounds fah-eh-uh) 2 Responds to one name 12 12 Vocalizes— not crvine 2 Indicates wants Responds to social approach Responds receptively to family bv smillne 2 names, bye-bye, kitty, ball, etc. 12 Vocalizes— babbles or coos in play when alone or when Says 3 words other than mama he is talked to 2 and dada 14 Looks directly at examiner's Says names of several ob_1ect3 14 • face 3 Gives several common objects Chuckles 3 on request 15 Responds vocally to social Points to familiar persons animals, toys on request 15 approach 3 Turns to voice 4 Follows simple commands: "Give me the — "Get the — ." 15 Babbles, using series of syllables 4 Has four or five words including names 15 Locates source of sound 6 Points to one named body part 17 Vocalizes to his image in . Says 6 words (Besides mama and mirror 6 dada) 17 Dad a or MaiMa— nonspecific 7 Names one object (What is Imitates speech sounds 7 this?) 18 Activity stops when hears Combines two different words 18 no*no 9 Carries out two-step direc­ Imitates sounds such as cough, tions with ball 18 tongue click, etc. 9 Asks for wants by naming objec Mama or Dada— specific 10 (milk, cookie, etc.) 18 tfavcs '’Bye'bye" 6-12 • LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

Ago Assmt. Date Behavior (Mos.) ' Date Aehmt. * Verbalizes opposites 38 COMMENTS: Names own d ravine 36-48 Listens eaecrly to stories 36-48 Talks to self In long mono­ logue mostly concerned with the present. Including make- believe activities 36-48 Relates experiences, describes activities 36-48 Uses most frequently word: I, it, you, that, a, do, this, not,-the 36-48 Can give sensible answer to “why do we have stoves?" etc. 36-48 Can name what he has drawn after scribbling 36 Carries out four-step com­ mand using prepositions 48 Articulates, not in Infantile style 54 Defines four words In terms of use of 54 Gives home address 48-60 Gives age and birthday 48-60 Listens to and tells long stories, sometimes con­ fusing fact and fantasy 54 112 Speaks fluently & correctly except for confusions of s, f, th 60-72 Asks meaning of abstract words 60-72 LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

' Date Age Assmt. Date Age Assmt. Behavior Behavior (Has.) -Date Aehmt. (Mas.) Date Aehmt. * On one word response, often Soys a few nursery rhymes 30-35 gets Initial consonant with Labels own mud and d a y a vowel but seldom the final - products as "pie", "cake” 30-35 consonant 18 Points to 6 body parts 30-35 Indicates desires by gestur­ ing and uterances 18-23 Understands 3 prepositions 30-35 Attempts to sine 18-23 Utters negative statement 30-36 Points to 3 body parts of Forms a verbal unsolicited self 19 • question 30-36 Finds pictures in book 21 Follows a 2-stage command 30-36 Refers to self bv name 18-24 Tells sex: "Are you a girl or a bov?" 36 Has twenty words 21 Speaks in approximately six- Names 3 of 4 pictures of word sentences 36-48 common oMects 22 Uses nouns and verbs most Points to 5 body parts of frequently 36-48 self and doll 22 Tells action in pictures 36-48 Imitates 2 or 4 words 22 Can whisper 36-48 Asks for food when hungry 23 Can change voice to faster Asks for water when thirsty 23 rate 36-48 Uses three-word sentences 24 Can Increase volume of voice 36-48 Uses pronouns 1, me, you, but Says at least one nursery not always correctly 24 rhyme 36-48 Imitates words 24 Can repeat three digits 36-48 Expressive vocabulary of 50 Has 900-word vocabulary 36-48 or more words 24-29 Asks many questions beginning Names common oMects 27 "What?". "Where?", "Who?" 36-48 113 Understands concept of "one" 30 Uses plurals 36-48 Gives full name on request 30 Verbalized opposite analogies 36-48 Gives use of oblect 30-35 Can repeat a 6-word sentence 41 Uses 200 or more recog­ Verbalizes sounds: b.p.m.w.h 36-48 nizable words 30-35 APPENDIX B

Index of Socio-economic Status

The Index of Socio-economic Status was developed at the

Institute for Developmental Studies in New York City.# The index utilizes the two following factors in estimating the relative social positioning of individuals in a given community:

1). occupation of the main support of the family

2). education of the main support of the family.

In using .the indext it is assumed that the social status of an individual can he derived from certain ohaxacterists of the head of his family. A second assumption is that within a community, one is accorded‘more prestige than another on the basis of his occupation, education, and/or income.

Instructions for use of the Index of Socio-economic Status axe as follows:

* » l). There axe three tables given in the following pages;

Table A is the Occupational Rating Scale. Table B is the

Educational Rating Scale, and Table III is the SES Conversion.

♦Institute For Developmental Studies, Department of Psychiatry, New York Medical' College. Original, l£6l; Revised, 1$6$*

114 115

2). Thera are tea clusters of occupations in Table A; a prestige rating, ranging from one to ten, has been designated to each cluster. • * 3). Find the occupation of the main support of the family in one of the occupation clusters; the number designated to that cluster will be the occupation rating.

It). To obtain the education rating, locate the level of education and rating number, ranging from one to eight, from

Table B.

5). Locate the occupation rating in columns and education rating in rows of Table C. The coordinate of the two ratings will meet in a box numbered 1, 11, or 111. This numerical value is the overall SES rating for the individual. 4 116

TABLE A

OCCUPATIONAL RATING SCALE

OCCUPATION RATING

U.S. Supreme Court Justice U.S. Diplomat or Foreign Service State Governor, Mayor of large city U.S. Cabinet Member U.S. Senator, Congressman Physician College President or Chancellor 10 College Professor Scientist (Government or other) State Attorney Dank Executive Investment Broker Captain of ocean-going vessel • County Judge Department Head, .State Government Motion Picture Actor, (not "extra") Minister Lawyer Architect Postmaster, City Chemist Dentist - Electronic Engineer Nuclear PhyBicist Civil Engineer Mathematician Radio entertainer (except announcer) Director, Large Corporation Business Executive, Advertising Executive Airplane Pilot Inventor 117

• • Bditor-Owner Newspaper • Psychologist Veterinarian Historian, Eoonomist Socilogist Medical Researcher, Biologist Author Accountant, C.P.A. Registered Nurse , . Justive of the Peace Government Investigator (FBI, Justice Dept., etc.) 8 Artist, performing artist Professional Athlete Interior Decorator, Industrial Designer Fashion Designer Factory, Department Store Owner High School Teacher Building Contractor . Radio Operator

Mine owner-operator Owner of Logging camp Musician in symphony orchestra Small Retail Owner Sheriff-County Axmy-Captain or above Elementary School Teacher ' 7 Railxoad-Supervisor Real Estate Agent Agricultural Agent-County Laboratory Technician Detective of Police lire Lt. or above

• Private Seoretary Undertaker Social, Welfare Worker Foreman or Supervisor, Factory j Labor Union official - Rational only ^ Radio Announcer Farm owner-operator Ho;bel Manager Newspaper Columnist Owner-operator print chop Railroad Engineer Electrician Watchmaker, factory Trained Mechanist Mason Dental Technician Auto Salesman Office -Manager

Owner-operator dry cleaning Linotype operator, printer Newspaper reporter, proof-reader Oil well driller (not engineer) Manager small store Policeman, private investigator Nail clerk, carrier Bookkeeper Insurance Agent Traveling Salesman Receptionist, typist secretary Bank Clerk Railroad Conductor, ticket agent Practical Nurse I.B.N. Keypunch operator

Playground worker Teachers Aid Structural Iron Worker Carpenter Tenant fanner Auto mechanic Dressmaker Beautician Plumber Telephone operator, lineman Labor union offical - Local only Lunch stand operator Painter, house and/or non factory Salesclerk, grocery clerk Musician - popular, dance, singer Furniture finisher T,T. repairman Fireman Welder, offset pressman Hachinist-Facotry Barber Shoe repairman.. Railroad baggage handler Other semi-skilled Cook — restaurant or hotel, short order Chauffeur - private Fisherman Motorman, bus driver, conductor Milk route man Shipping clerk Cashier Merchant seaman Truck driver

Cas station attendant Quarry worker High club singer Forter - railroad Taxi driver Waiter - Bartender Farm worker All unskilled laborers Coal miner Night watchman janitorial - Building superintendent Evevator operator Freight handler Nurse's Aide

Laundry worker Newsboy . . Soda clerk Peddler Grinder - tool, eto. Odd job worker Share cropper - migratory worker Scrub woman Caxbage collector Street sweeper Shoe shiner 120

TABLE B

EDUCATION RATING

O-U years 1

5-6 years * 2

7-8 years ' 3

Some high school

High school graduate 5

Some college 6

College graduate 7

Post graduate or professional training 8 121

SES CONVERSION TABLE

Education of Main Support

1 2 3 k $ 6 7 8

1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11

2 1 1 • 1 1 11 11 11 111 3 1 1 1 1 11 11 111 111 Oocupatlon of main i i ' i l l It . 1 11 11 111 111 support $. l l 1 11 11 111 111 111 6 l l 11 11 111 111 111 111 7 l n 11 111 111 111 111 111 8 n l i 11 111 111 111 111 111 9 l i l i 111 111 111. 111 111 111 .0 l i n 111 111 I l l 111 111 111 APPENDIX C

Please mark if your child CAN do the activity. Please mark - if your child CAN NOT do the activity.

lifts and drinks from cup and replaces on the table. spoon feeds without spilling. feeds self without spilling, using a fork. spreads peanut butter on bread with a dull knife. zip zippers after it has been started. buckle a belt. snap snaps. button on small buttons. lace shoes. tie shoes. complete a 3 shape (circle, square, triangle) form board. build tower of 6 blocks. string 4 one inch beads. build tower of 9 blocks. write the distance (e.g. 6 Inches, 1 foot, 2 yards) which your child can toss a ring onto a stick, or throw a bean bag through a hole. draws simple house with door, windows, roof and chimney. draws recognlzeable man with head, trunk, legs, arms, and features. match 4 primary colors. match pictures of objects. match 2 piece block design. put together a picture that has been cut into half. match 8 shapes. match pictures that require him to attend to both color and form at the same time. match 2 color circles (Jj one color, % another color). match geometric designs.

Your name __ Child's name ______

122 APPENDIX D

Please answer completely Mother's Form

Name of child ______

Date of Birth ______How long In preschool?__

Siblings (sex and age)______.______

Your husband's occupation and education______

Age: 20-25___ 25-30___ 30-35____ 35-40___ 40-45

45-50 50-55 55-60

Your occupation and education ______

Age: 20-25___ 25-30___ 30-35___ 35-40___ 40-45

45-50___ 50-55___ 55-60___

Are you working now? Yes No___

1. List 10 games or toys that your child plays with at home or would like to play with.

2. Name 5 stories (including fairy tales) that you have or would read to your child.

3. List 5 television programs that you would allow your child to watch.

4. Name 3 different places that you and your child have gone together during this past month.

5. What would you like to see your child do in the future.

123 APPENDIX D

Please answer completely Familiar Adult's Form

Name of child . ______

How long have you known this child?______

Your name______

Marital Status: single______married______

Do you have children? yes no If yes, how many and how old_

Your occupation and education

Age: 20-25___ 25-30___ 30-35___ 35-40___ 40-45___ 45-50_

50-55___ 55-60___

Your husband's occupation and education______

Age: 20-25___ 25-30___ 30-35___ 35-40___ 40-45___ 45-50_

50-55___ 55-60___

Address ______

Phone number _____

1. List 10 games or toys that you think children ages 4-6 would like to play with.

2. Name 5 television programs that you think children would enjoy.

3. Name 5 stories that you would read to a child.

4. Name three different places that you would.take a child to see.

5. Would you play with a mentally retarded child and a non-raentally retarded child in the same manner, if not, how would it differ? APPENDIX E

CONSENT FORM

I consent to serve as a subject in a research in­ vestigation on adult-child Interaction. The nature and general purpose of the research procedure have been ex­ plained to me. I understand that any further inquiries

I make concerning this procedure will be answered. I understand my identity will not be revealed in any pub­ lication, document, videotape, computer storage, or in any other way which relates to this research. Finally,

I understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation at any time following the not! fication of the investigator.

Mother's signature______

Child's name

Address .______

Date

125 APPENDIX F

WORKING MANUAL

FOR RATING

DYADIC INTERACTIONS

126 127

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Each interval Is 15 seconds. A behavior is rated if it has occurred any time during that interval.

2. All behavioral items except: WORKING TOGETHER, SHARED CONVERSATION, and INITIATES NEGATIVE, may be rated separately for adult and child's behavior. Rate under "A" for adult's behavior, and under "C" for child's.

3. Most behavioral items, unless specified, may be rated for both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Differenti­ ate the two behaviors by circling the nonverbal be­ havior .

4. If two behaviors occur simultaneously, rate in the same slot, if it occurs In sequence, rate the second behavior in the next slot whether it is the same per­ son or not.

5. Draw an arrow if the same behavior continues into the next interval.

6 . List activities in the space after the slots for each interval. Please be specific when listing the activi­ ties of dressing - i.e. zipping or lacing. 128 BEHAVIORAL CATEGORY

ATTENTION Behavioral Item Code

1 . DOES OWN THING 0 2 . WORKING TOGETHER WT 3. WATCHES W

CONTROLS AND DIRECTS 4. DEMANDS D 5. LEAD TAKING L 6 . LEAD TAKING-TEACHING LT 7. INTRUSION I 8 . INTRUSION-HIGHER LEVEL IH 9. CUE C 1 0 . DEMONSTRATION DS 1 1 . PROMPT/GUIDANCE PG 1 2 . INITIATES NEGATIVE IN

POSITIVE AFFECT 13. POSITIVE AFFECT PA 14. SHARED CONVERSATION SC

NONACCEPTANCE 15. IGNORES IG 16. EXPLICIT REFUSAL R 17. NEGATIVE CONTENT NC

SUBMISSIVENESS 18. ACTIVELY FOLLOWS A 19. SEEKS HELP/GUIDANCE/PERMISSION SH

OTHER 2 0 . CLOSE PHYSICAL SPACE CL 129

ATTENTION

1. DOES OWN THING

Definitioni Being occupied by oneself with

either manipulating an object or with a purposeful

physical activity. Not engaging in an interaction,

as if no one else is in the room.

If these behaviors occur along with DOES OWN

THING, DOES OWN THING can still be marked:

Occasional glances toward other person.

Other person is trying to be involved in activity, but first person continues own activity without responding to what other has done.

- Sharing ideas with other (e.g. partici­ pating in a conversation.)

DOES OWN THING cannot be marked if:

- Looking away from own activity, and watch­ ing the other person beyond mere glancing.

e.g. Interval 1; child directed by adult to play ball by himself. Mark: A Demands; C Active­ ly Follows.

2; Child is till playing ball by himself, while adult is filling out a form. Mark: A Does Own Thing; C Does Own Thing.

2. WORKING TOGETHER

Definition: Being jointly occupied in a manip

ulative or physical activity. Taking turns and pauses, each handling same objects in turn or work­ ing on same structure are common expressions. Both people involved has "equal status" during the ac­ tivity.

WORKING TOGETHER can still be marked if these behaviors occur:

Pauses while other is taking turn, provided visual attention remains on activity. e.g. Interval 1, adult, "let's play ball"; child replies,"okay, you throw first and I'll catch,

A Lead Taking] Act. Fol.j Lead Taking

Interval 2, the ball is being thrown back and forth.

Mark: A ft . . _ .. -— Working -Together c e.g. A: "I have to fill out a form for her, will you help me".

C: "hmmmm hmmmm"

A: "Let's see, she wants to know what kind of toys you want to play with".

C: "I like trucks".

A Seeks Help I -— -— :— f—1Working Together Ac C• * OX• k

WATCHES

Definition: Visual attention primarily on other or other's activity. Must be more than mere glances. 131

e.g. Child spreads butter on bread; adult's visual attention focused on his activity.

Mark: A Watches______C Does Own Thing

CONTROLS AND DIRECTS

4. DEMANDS

Definition: orders or commands conveying that

the person expects compliance. Some may be phrased

as questions. For example: "will you come here?,"

may be rated imperative if the intent is to command,

as inferred from context and intonation. •

Orders which tell the other to do or not to do

something in the future. Orders which tell the

other not to do something he is already doing are

checked under NEGATIVE CONTENT.

Orders or directions of firm commanding quality,

as inferred from context and intonation; whereas di­

rections marked under LEAD TAKING have a suggestive

quality inferred from context and intonation.

e,g. "we are staying here."

"you turn on the light right now."

"put it over here"; however, if "put it over here" is said in the context of increasing the probability of child responding correctly then it is marked as CUE. LEAD TAKING

Definition: Attempts to impose structure

on other's activity or conversation* and for ex­

plicitly calling attention to own ideas or activity.

LEAD TAKING behaviors are also included in other

more specific behavioral items such as DEMANDS*

or INTRUSION. If the more specific behavioral

item is marked for a particular behavior* LEAD

TAKING should not be marked for the same behav­

ior.

The other person does not necessarily need

to accept being led in order for LEAD TAKING to

be rated.

LEAD TAKING is further differentiated in the

following behavioral item. If LEAD-TEACHING is

checked* LEAD TAKING of behavioral item 5 is not

checked for the same behavior.

Examples of LEAD TAKING would be "wouldn't

you like to play with the Dapper Dan doll now?,"

or* "first we will play with the blocks"* or ques­

tion like "what color is that?", when the questioner

clearly knows the answer and is not seeking infor­

mation.

e.g. A: "You stand here, and you take this bag, and you throw it in the hole." 133

C: "No."

A Lead Taking C Explicit refusal

e.g. A: chooses activity and brings over Dapper Dan, puts it on the table.

C: "No, I want a cracker".

A: "First you have to dress Dapper Dan".

C: "No"

A: "Okay, we will have crackers first".

A (Lead Taking Demand Act. Fol. C Exp, Ref. Exp. Ref.

6. LEAD TAKING-.TEACHING

definition: The above devlnitlon also applies

to LEAD TAKING-TEACHING. Specifically for LEAD TAK­

ING-TEACHING is that the person must be teaching or

there is a teaching quality, i.e. explanations are

given in the attempt to impose structure on other's

activity.

e.g. A: "you should tie his shoe lace, other­ wise he will trip over them and fall down and hurt himself".

Another example may be:

A: "I know you don't know how to lace, but this will be a good time to teach you." INTRUSION

Definition; Pre-emptive interference with other's on going activity or person, including various Instances of physical interruption, hind­ rance, resistance, tussling, intrusion into other's working space, or obtrusive unsolicited entering into or taking over activity or objects with which other is (or has just been) occupied.'

If the INTRUSION is in response to a request, such as "Help me up on the chair", INTRUSION is not checked.

INTRUSION as defined above is further differ­ entiated more specifically into INTRUSION-HIGHER

LEVEL. If the intrusive behavior is rated as

INTRUSION-HIGHER LEVEL, do not rate as INTRUSION also for the same behavior.

Common examples are: repositioning what the other person is working on, taking something out of the other's hand when it has not been offered,

or leaning across close in front of other in order

to reach something.

e.g. A: brings blocks over and says "what shape is this?"

C: continues to button

A: "what color is this?" 135

A Intrusion Intrusion C Actively Fol. Inores

If C Is buttoning, and A: "what pretty buttonsl", INTRUSION 1b not marked for A.

8 . INTRUSION-HIGHER LEVEL

Definition; In addition to the definition of

behavioral item 7, the Interference with other's

ongoing activity or person Is done to encourage a

higher level of behavior, or to further challenge

the other.

e.g. moving a target that the person has been aiming at further away.

e.g. child stacks block, A: "I'll mix the blocks and you have to find out which is in the wrong place."

A Intrusion-Higher Level C Does Own Thing

9. CUE

Definition: Behavior specifying a response

or clarifying a previous behavior which increases

the probablity of the other person to respond in

the correct manner. CUES can occur through ges­

tures (pointing, tapping) which are employed for 136

the purpose of having the child respond correctly.

e.g. A: "which one does that block match with", then pointing to the correct picture that matches.

If adult took the child's hand with the the block and directed it to the correct picture, PROMPT/GUIDANCE is marked.

Any readily apparent and significant place­ ment or manipulation of an object for the purpose of Increasing the chance of cor­ rect response.

e.g. - moving the target to the spot where child has been throwing thereby increasing the change of success.

- pushing the button almost through the hole, then ask the child to button.

placing the jacket together then ask child to snap.

A: "I'll put my finger under this snap, then it will be easier for you to snap it."

Giving directions or hints that will increase

the chance of success.

e.g. - "move up closer, then you will be able to hit the target."

- "put the block over to the right so it won't fall". The activity is to stack blocks.

10. DEMONSTRATION

Definition: Person models or demonstrates the

required behavior. It must be quite clear that the 137

person wants the other to Imitate his behavior

for the behavior to be checked as a DEMONSTRA­

TION. If other does not imitate it is still

marked as DEMONSTRATION.

DEMONSTRATION may be gesturally done without

involving the actual object.

e.g. A: "spread it like this", A then holds up one hand, palms open, then with other hand gesturally spreads.

11. PROMPT/GUIDANCE

Definition: When one person establishes

physical contact with the other for the purpose

of getting him to do what he wants. It is always

helping one to make the correct response, not

preventing the child from making the wrong one.

e.g. A: "this is how we zip", then takes the child's hand and together zip.

12. INITIATES NEGATIVE

Definition: Initiating a behavior which is

clearly a "NO-NO". Mark this category'only for

child's behavior,

e.g. A: filling out a form

C: turns off light 138

A Does Own Thing C Initiates Negative

While throwing a bean bag, child hits mother purposely.

A: "what do you say"

C: "I'm sorry"

A Demands C Initiates Neg. Actively Fol.

POSITIVE AFFECT

13. POSITIVE AFFECT

Definition: Expressions of enjoyment, warmth,

enthusiasms, or approval. Some examples are:

big smiles

- "WOW!"

"Boy, that sure is a tall tower you make".

- "Good job"

"Oh, you are too smart for me",

hugging the other person

14. SHARED CONVERSATION

Definition: Talking back and forth over a

commonly shared topic. Topics can change several

times. If questions are asked, and answered by 139

the other it is marked SHARED CONVERSATION only when questioner cleary does not know the answer.

e.g. "There is a picture of a tiger". "yeah, he is cute", "I think his name is Tony". "I think so too".

C: "I wonder why she wants us to do this",

A: "I don't know".

A: "Are you having fun?

C: Hmmm hmmm."

If adult makes comment which would not norm­ ally elicit a response and child makes no response,

it is not marked as SHARED CONVERSATION, nor is it marked IGNORE.

e.g. A: "Why don't you get Dapper Dan dressed"

C: Takes Dapper Dan

A: What are you doing now?"

C: Child is buttoning

A: "Johnny, I asked what you are doing now."

C: "I'm buttoning"'

A: "Do you button your clothes in the morning."

C: "Yes, the big ones".

A: "Look at the buttons you have now, did you button those?" Cl: "yes"

A Lead Tak. ILead Tak. Demand ni , Shared Con1.1 C Act. Fol.f Ignore Act. Fol. NONACCEPTANCE

15. IGNORES

Definition: Falls to respond verbally or non­

verbally to activity or statements which would be

expected by the other to elicit some response or

recognition.

If the person looks up momentarily and frowns,

or otherwise indicated that his response to the

statement is something other than compliance, the

item would not be rated as IGNORES. Continuing

without any break to do what you were told not to

do is rated as IGNORES.

If a suggestion, request, or offer has been

given and the responder changes the subject, IGNORES

Is checked.

e.g. Adult filling out form, child begins to whine and bangs the door; adult glances toward child, then continues to fill out form. Child still whines and bangs door, adult - "stop that".

A Does Own Thing Ignores Neg. Content C Initiates Initiates Negative Negative

16. EXPLICIT REFUSAL

Definitioni This covers any statement of"

"no" or "I don't want to" in response to a suggestion 141

order* or request. Occasionally refusal is ex­

pressed by "I can't", and if it is clear that this

statement conveys a decision not to try or not to

continue trying (as opposed to a helpless "I can't".)

e.g. A: "you do this right now".

C: Whines and struggles to get away from mother's hold;

A: "If you do this first then you can have

some crackers.

A Demand Lead Taking C Explicit Refusal

17. NEGATIVE CONTENT

Definition; Any response which involves ac­

tive nonacceptance of or opposition to the other

person or something he has said or done.

NEGATIVE CONTENT is included in IGNORES and

EXPLICIT REFUSAL, if they are checked, do not

check NEGATIVE CONTENT for the same behavior.

Some common examples of NEGATIVE CONTENT are:

Threat of punishment or deprivation di­ rected toward the other.

- "I can't" followed by "you can". Where if the second statement is true, the first one could not be true. 142

"Stop that", or "don't touch that", if child is already doing it or starting to do it is rated as a NEGATIVE CONTENT. However, "don't touch that", when child has not yet started to touch is a rule checked under DEMANDS.

Criticisms, "you sure are cranky today".

SUBMISSIVENESS

18. ACTIVELY FOLLOWS

Definition: To actively and submissively

carry out other’s lead or control. When rules or

statements are agreed with "Mmm hmm", "okay",

ACTIVELY FOLLOWS can be checked, but must be an

explicit statement of acceptance of idea. Some

examples are:

“ "Look" - eyes shift from own activity to other's activity.

A: "Let's see if you can match this".

C: Child takes block and puts them in - does this for 3 intervals.

All three intervals are checked as ACTIVELY FOLLOWS.

e.g. A: Will you put this elephant block with the elephant picture?"

C: Child places block one on top of other.

e.g. A: "No, put the elephant block with the elephant picture". 143

C: Child places elephant block with star.

A: "Put the block where it belongs right now".

C: Child puts elephant block on elephant picture.

A Cut Cue Demands C Neg. Cont. Neg. Cont. Act. Fol.

e.g. ACTIVELY FOLLOWS

A: "Can you take the lid off the peanut butter?"

Child takes off lid, then adult gives knife to child, child takes it, adult places hand over child's and says "this is how we spread the peanut butter. Child allows adult to guide him through.

Prompt A Lead Tak. Lead Tak. Guidance C Act. Act. Act. Fol. Fol. Fol.

19. SEEKS HELP/GUIDANCE/PERMISSION

Definition: Behaviors which look to the other

person as having superior expertise, authority, or

knowledge. Questions asking for information can

be difficult to evaluate and generally are not

rated in this category unless there is clear evi­

dence of their submissive quality,

e.g. A: "May I play with the doll also?"

C: "Yes". 144

A Seeks Permission C Actively Follows

OTHER

20. CLOSE PHYSICAL SPACE

Definition: A sense of crowding where one

is hovering over the other person. This must

occur throughout the majority part of the in­

terval (10 sec/15 sec.) for close physical space

to be marked* TAPE SO. EATER______PART« A U (clr. one) CHILDM5 SAKE * TNT*______:______ACT* A 1. • E

A 2 c

A

J C % •

A 4 C

A

5 C

■ A 6 C *

•

A • 7 C TAPE VOt RATES ---- PACT A E (c ic . one) CHILE'S UAKK

A * 16 C

A 17 C

A 18 C

•

A I | 19 C 1 | *

a I cl i

•

A 91 C

* 1 LI j - cL - . •TAPE HO. HATER-^ PART A u Icir. one) ClIlW'S HAHE_ i TOT, ACT.

31

A 32 — C

A • "J c

A 1 J*» c 1 I

a ] L*l y j c l TAPS KO. EATER______ITtT. ACT. l’AUT A fl (c lr. one) ClIILD,rS NAME, A . I ! ! 53 INT.______*______ACT. t c ! i ! I A 46 C t A • 1 C ! 5 r 1 i A Hi * c A j ... 1 j ■ i a . C • • *1 tI . a I

' c l A •i 1 t ' • C • . 1. J 1 A A 9 c A 57 —i * C A *

C • • A * C • i A i • * 4 • c ' A • •• . * c . * * A . . 4 * • 52 • ' C * * A • • % c • APPENDIX G

DIRECTIONS FOR SCORING FORM

ITEM

X Subject Number

2 Dyad

Write 1 If the interaction was mother with child;

2 if the interaction was familiar adult with

child.

3 Char

Write 1 if the boy subject is non-mentally retarded;

2 if the boy subject is non-Down's mentally

retarded;

3 if the boy subject is Down's mentally retarded.

4 Number of Intervals Spent On Activities

Write the number of intervals spent on:

FM: fine motor activities

CO: cognitive activities;

SH: self help activities;

FORM: adult being preoccupied with completing form;

OTHER: other activities not designated as one of the

above structured activity such as both playing with i 149 150

a ball. The sum of the above Intervals should equal

sixty.

SKILLS NOT ATTAINED: engaging In an activity that

requires skills the child has not attained such as

tying shoe lace.

5 3 Boxes Under FM, CO, and SH

Note here comparisons of mother's knowledge of child's

capabilities in each of the three areas, Fine Motor,

Cognitive and Self Help with investigator's assess­

ment of child's capabilities.

Write 0 if mother underestimates child's ability;

1 if both mother and investigator agrees;

2 if mother overestimates child's ability.

6 Agent

All frequency behavioral items except for PA (positive

affect) is a behavioral sequence with a stimulus be­

havior, and a response behavior.

A-C denotes that adult was the agent of stimulus

behavior, whereas child was the agent of response

behavior. C-A denotes that child was the agent of

the stimulus behavior, and adult was the agent of the

response behavior.

For single behavioral items first letter of either 151

A-C or C-A. denotes the agent of behavior. For SC

(shared conversation) and WT (working together) it

is only necessary to mark in A-C.

7 Activities, Form, and Skills Not Attained

These three rows denote type of activities dyads were

engaged in when the behavioral items occurred.

8 Duration Behavioral Items

These five items are behaviors that had occurred

through majority of the interval (10 of 15 seconds).

For each interval that had been rated with the be­

havioral item, it is a count of one occurrence.

Example:

A W — > 1 C 0 — >

A — * 2 C — >

W; two occurrence 0 : two occurrence

Mark the number of occurrence in the correct row

that denotes during which type of activity the be­

havior had occurred. 9 Frequency Behavioral Items

All items here are behavioral sequence items ex­

cept for PA. Whenever the behavioral sequence had

been rated it is a count of one occurrence regardless

of interval(s).

Example:

AL 1 C A

A 2 C ---- > AI II 3 C IG R

A DD 4 C IG A A

L-A: one occurrence I-IG: two occurrence I-R: one occurrence D-A: two occurrence

Mark the number of occurrence: in the correct row that

denotes during which type of activity the behavior

had occurred in. 153

SCORING FORM

I 1 i 1 s D C Number bf i V H i U Ittervjals Spent:.on i B A A ACTIVIriES J D R l t • -E- 1 : LNMR 0 DU!ATI ON BE C M-C F 2: MR T T F . C . s . 0 * T 3MRD H i R AGl:nt S( W < % E 'J • A-C M 0 H -M i # R t AT 4 f ActIv­ itles %ET j ; i Foim 14 ! t A-( ! t : Skills i i not . L.Attained 1 / Activ­ ! * ities ' 1 .1 i : •

: i ; ! : ; ' ! C-,i H Form 1 1 , ! 1 \ i i < Skills ! not 1 1 ! ! i 1 1 Attalnec

1 1 : 1 ' i i i i . »

1 , I- I 1-1:g I M D- 1 d-Ig I-A a g e n t 1 LT-IG t i 1

1 I 1 1 i 4 I 1 i t 1f ‘Activ­ 1 ! ities } I 1 t Form i A-C " 1

" ‘1 1 Skills < not 1 * Attalnec

\ ! Activ­ 1 % \ i \ ities * \

‘ fr Focra 1 < C-A^ i i i Skills i l ' i i 1 not t • Attalnec . "I ' . , (c o n tin u e id n e x t , p a g e ) i ; : J * * i

•U o LT-A -c fl 0 1 '• i o A o ' ■ i ph j u *E 1 w | l *

O^— i O j 1 1 a — ... -----03, ------** ... ■ O i ■ j • l ►a o | O ■sc -----f-i------. ------— u 1 £3 CJ . ■ ■ O' i

- r •c ------: 1 o

1 a(H ------— - - i i 'C/S M *S! ------iH o [M *? 1 33 H 1 * :* <1 — 53------jo M if>

w ;oa O !. 1 i H ! i :* l• Os 1 M i ------1 5 - — u --- 1 154 SCORING FORM (continued)

FREQUENCE f BEHAVIORAL

1 f PG-R IN-IG' IN-NC NC-A NC-R NC-IG DS-i-1 DS-R_. .AGENT t I » ! I1 i J f i 1 i 1 1 i » i Activ­ ! 1 i ; ities i 4 J i

i i i i • i Form • • i AJC ^ i < t » Skills : j ? not I J ' Attalnec t 1 / i i Activ­ « i ■ * i 1 ities i j \ , r i * t j Form * i C-A * j t 4 t Skills i i i » t i * ■ Atta£nccJ • •

< » t it i 1 I ! L-I IN-A IN-I ’agent • I-H.C SH-A SH-rR SH-IG 1 I 1 1 I1 1 1 1 , « . 1 4 » t Activ­ t ♦ • • 1 1 » ities 1 1 i j Form A-C 'i • i I J » *i • ( i Skills ; i i • i |1 i • not 1 <\ Attained « 1 i1 11 * l » Activ­ i 1 t i i ities i 1 • 4 Form ! C-A ^ i ------4 1 Skills • t »• Attalnec . APPENDIX H

ROSTER OF OVERPROTECTIVE SCORE FOR ADULTS OF NONRETARDED CHILDREN

Mothers of Non- Familiar Adults of Comparison of Retarded Children Nonretarded Children Mother's and Familiar Adult's Subject Subject Opscore (Mother*s- Code Opscore Code Opscore Familiar Adult's)

01 15 13 17 -2

02 01 14 08 -7

03 29 15 13 +16

04 18 16 08 +10

05 15 17 17 -2

06 06 18 06 0

07 12 19 13 -1

08 16 20 06 +10

09 11 21 05 +6

10 23 22 13 +10

11 14 23 08 +6

12 12 24 09 +3

155 APPENDIX I

ROSTER OF OVERPROTECTIVE SCORE FOR ADULTS OF RETARDED CHILDREN

Mothers of Non- Familiar Adults of Comparison of Retarded Children Nonretarded Children Mother's and Familiar Adult's Subject Subject Opscore (Mother's - Code Opscore Code Opscore Familiar Adult's)

25 65 37 37 +28

26 29 38 15 +14

27 59 39 31 +28

28 48 40 37 +11

29 63 41 21 +42

30 29 42 29 0

31 42 43 30 +12

32 31 44 43 -12

33 18 45 13 +5

34 38 46 27 +11

35 32 47 24 +8

36 45 48 27 +18

156

______

) . 74) 7 6 .ccoo 1 0.09*1 G.07«9 C .0967 I I 76) I 25) r {■) I I ( ( 241 t t 76) I I 75) I I 26) 5=0.326 - 0 .7 5 9 ! 5 = 0 .1 2 6 i 5 = 74) 0 .1 3 6 HIGHER -0 .1 0 6 3 -0.178? -C .2 6 1 3 - 0 .2 3 * 0 - 0 . 3 * 8 3 * - 0 .1 2 6 4 -S-d.Civl . 5 = 0 .3 2 7 __S?0.P4?.

5=C.31I

5=0.25* S=0..2JS3

—

__

) ?* 0 00

i.onco 0 .5 3 2 7 * * 1.2817 0.6 0.766*?** 0 .5766** 0 0 .9 8 0 ? ** * 0.636**** 0.15P6

1 ( ( 26) ( 241 I I 76) I I 76) I I 26) I 74) f f 26) C C 76) ( ( 7*1 LEAD S=0.k-C1 S=G.P91 E=C.GQ7 . 5=0.00? - 0 .1 7 6 9 .£=0.001 .£=0.001 - -5=0.220 .5=0.001 — .5 = 0 .0 0 1 _E?.0*G£L4 • • •_A.tC.204

.. -■

___

) 2*1 26 7 6) 0x2 .606*7* Q.006 ... 1.CCOf. s 0 .5 2 5 7 * * n.6P°3*** C.096r. 0 0 .3 2 1 0 0 .6 7 6 ? * * ( ( I I 25) t t 75) ( ( 7 6) t 761 I I C C I Cl I 7 6 ) INTRUDE INTRUDE 5 *0 .0 0 1 S = 0 .3 ? 7 . . -0 .7 ° 1 H 5 = 0 .6 0 1 5 = 0 .CC7 -0 .0 0 5 6 5 = 0 . -SsOUlPl.--- .3 = 0 .0 8 3 — -S=0-.C4l -S=0-.C4l _S .. ____

______?<»* 2*1 6 .001 .* 1 . ronr. 0.5673 ** 0.5673 0 » » 75) t t O) • I I 2*) San. 151 San. s*c 5 * 0 .0 0 2 - 0 .7 1 *>A ■ ■ S-CL.161 s?&*ncii Ss0.C 03 ______

?5) ?5) I 75) 1.0000 0.1857 0,*905“ " I 25) 5*0.0 9 6 ( ( 25) ( 75) f 25) ( I 75) ( 7 5 ) I I 75) ( 75) i 5 = 0 .2 5 0 . S*0.036 5*0.053 -0.2576 0.2108 -0,3756* 0.3572* - 0 .0 831 -0 .7 7 6 1 -c.3205 O.fOO-*** •S.sD.122 -S*G.192-... S*0 .007 _s*o.rci- .s.sn.063

**** 600 . l.OCCO *a .ca i_ _ 0 ( ( C)

5 * 0 .0 0 5 - 5 * 0 .0 0 1 . ____ i i ssi 6 1.0000 0.5338* 0.2622s 0.1005 0.3225 0.1350 o.seo?** t 2*1 ( 25) ( ( 25) ( 25) ( I 25) 25) ( 0) I 7 5) I 2*1 ( 25) 5 = 0 .5 7 2 HELPED EOSAFF. WCRKTO LTPI. -0.0152 0.5285** S-0^062. —-5=0.266- . A ll Mothers APPENDIX J -s=a*fl. _S=lUfiCL _S=0.017

___

01 2 4 ) J.613L 1.0000 0 .2 ° 9 2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients t 2 5 | I 251 I I U -0 .0 5 7 3 - 0 . 2 * 7 5 . -S iO .O lfl- -4 = 0 .0 0 1 I * VALUE OF 99.0000 IS pR1N1FD IF A C0FFF1CIFNT PE CANNOT CONPIMFO) — S.E0..122 ,

_ 1.0000 0 .2 0 1 7 0.3582* . t t 01 ( ( 251 ( 251 S=0.QS1_ Cad.577 Cad.577 J.GNCP.E J.GNCP.E REFUSE..

' o 1.0000 = L & 0 .5 5 6 6 * * ( 2 4 ) l . JHNEC_ ...... -

1.0000 I I 01 5=0.OCX. opscqpe *P<.Ci *P<.Ci ' FR '*? 4 .01 4 '*? h **♦? «. .051 * **♦?«. ” ‘ 1*C*SF1C!F)?T / ICAS5S) / SIGNIFICANCE) / ICAS5S) / 1*C*SF1C!F)?T INNEG I'flU'DE IGNORE -IG L*tO LTPI PCSAFF HELPED OPSCORE WOPKTO REFUSE

157 APPENDIX K

Mothers of Retarded Children Pearson Correlation Coefficients

-DP SCORE LNNEG------IGNORE- - REF USE— HELPED -PQSAFF- -W 0R KT0- -L T P I- - INTRUDE LE*D . HIGHER OPSCORE ■ I.0000 0.5922* -0.0267 0.1022 0 .3 9 8 5 0 .2 7 3 6 -0 .1 3 6 2 .• 0 .4 2 7 4 0 .3 0 7 P 0 .2 7 0 2 -0 .2 4 5 9 » I ^ OJ ( 121 I 1 2 ) I 12) I 121 ( 12) ( 121 I 121 I 12) f 1?) I 1?) ReQ.oni _ 5*0.071 _____ S * 0 .4 6 I- s=Q.?ns- -SrQ-.ioa. -Sad.1.95- ■Sep.33ft. s» o_afl3_ .Ss0«1.65-- 5 = C .l1E- _ s * m . .IXNEG l.OCOO 0.2137 - 0 .5 3 6 4 * 0 .3 5 3 6 - 0 .2 2 6 9 - 0 . 5 0 6 2 * 0.0D93 0.48-1 —0.0 5 7 7 - 0 .4 3 1 -' C 12) ( 12) 1 * 21 ( 121 ( 12) I 1?) ( 1?) *Jso.oSL j_ -SfIU03b... S? 0.130- -5 * 0. .2 3 9 - UM\ -S=0-.391~- -5=0.056 5 = 0 .4 2 9 . 5=0*081 ■ IGNORE 1.0000 -0 .1 8 9 7 0 .1 0 9 6 -0 .2 6 7 8 -0 .2 7 0 1 0.3462 0.4759 0 .2 2 6 * C .0293 i 01 I 12) I 12) I 12) I 121 I 1?) ( 1?) ( 12) ( 1?) -S.~0-.D0L- S?n.277„- -S sQ .200. -S—CL. 19 £ 5= 0 *135--- 5=0.050- -5=0.219-- _ _ ? = 0 .4 5 2 . REFUSE I.0000 -0 .1 7 1 0 0 .5 3 0 4 * 0 .6 7 6 * !** 0.5175* -0.2336 C .643P* 0 .2 5 5 2 ( 0) t 121 t 121 ( 12) I 12) 1 12) ( 12) -S 9 0 .0 0 L .._S*0.2.98_ . s=Q.oii_ ...SnO.OOR - .5*0.042 ■ -5*0.23? .5 = 0 .0 1 2 . . S =0.?09 HELPED 1.0000 0 .1 9 9 5 -0 .2 0 4 2 -0.3170 0.1675 -0 .4 0 2 ? -0.0110 1 01 C ^ 12) I 12) ( 12) ( 12) ( 12) t 1?) < = n .n o i S5CU262 ------5*0*1-58------5 =0 *3 0 1 - -S =0.09-7-- 5 = 0 .4F6 _ J t POSAFF 1.0000 0 .1 3 4 7 0 . 1871 - 0 .4 5 2 7 0 .3 5 1 5 0 .2 9 5 0 VI ( 0 ) . f 12) t 12) I 17) ( 1?) 171 oo L .5 = 0 .0 0 1 - —5*0.338- . ■ 5*0 .280- S=0.070 ■ - .5 * 0 .1 3 1 . J * 0 .1 7 6 . WO®KTO 1.0000 0 .2 1 9 5 -0 .2 8 8 1 0 .3 3 4 0 -0 .1 7 6 2 1 0 ) r 12) C 1?) I 12) ( 17 1 -ii>a^oni__ -S=CUZ46- —s = t t .ia 2— -S=0—144 _5=0*2a?_ LTPI 1.COOO 0 .4 3 8 ? 0 .« 5 7 1 *** - 0 .1 5 8 4 t 0 ) I 12) r i?) -$ = 0,001 S=C.C7.7_ S=0.001 UM\ INTRUDE l.OOPC 0 .1 5 8 9 -0 .4 3 4 R t 0) ( 12) ( 1?) —5=0.00.1 .. —5=0.311------S=Q .079 __ LEAD 1 .0000 -0 .0 3 3 8 t O) e 12) SrC.CO l 5 *0 .4 5 8 HIGHER 1.0000 - I 0 ) i=J2..oai..

CCCEFRICIFXT / ' (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 99.0000 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 8F CDKPUTFD) . .001* **? i .01 ! •?< .05 Mothers of Ronretarded Children Pearson Correlation Coefficients

JPSCQRE- _IXNE£_ -1GNQ&E- -REEUSE- HELPED _ PQ5AFF___ NOftXIO I I P ! INTRUDE... LEAD HIGHER 0 PSCORE 1 .0 0 0 0 0 . 1 2 2 2 - 0.7146** -0.0500 ■"07P62B*** 0 .5 4 8 2 * -0 .3 9 7 1 0.«407*** 0.1509 0.9425*** -0.1210 • ( 01 C 121 ( 12! t 121 ( 121 ( 121 I 12) I 12) t 121 I * 1-~T?) I 12) ______5=0.001 5*0.353 5=0.005 5*0.439 ^Ssfl.OCl ___ -SsQ. G3-2-.. ■SsO .lO l . -SsQ.001. ----- S aO .220- _S=0.C01.- : 1NNEG 1.0000 0.0254 0.2330 -0 .1 3 0 7 0 .3 1 5 ? -0 .2 5 2 8 0.3281 -0.0586 0.3540 , 0 -13^3 ( 01 I 12) f 121 ( 171 1 1? ) I 17) I 12) ( 12) (121 f . 1?> -SeO.QOL- _S=Q ~469 ------S = 0 .2 3 3 ------S '0 .3 4 3 ------&TP..159.. ■ 5*0.214—- --5 = 0 .1 4 9 ------5= 0 .4 2 8 - S=0.1?9- -S=0.j39. IGNORE 1.0000 -0.1569 0 .6 4 5 6 * 0 .1 2 3 8 -0 .2 0 0 4 0.5921* -0.0666 0,6302* 7°» 2t t ? ( 01 I 12 » r 121 ( 12) I , 12) 1?) I 17) 1 12) I . 1|> .£=Q..Q01- _S£H ■ 313 -S s il.3 5 1 . t-r-- --L&=£•07-1------5=0*41-9 . . S-COH --- S?Q.222_ PEFUSE 1.0000 0 .0 7 9 0 0 .1 6 2 3 -0 .0 7 7 7 0.0364 -0.2038 0.092? 7 0 *°6 2 ? ( 12) ( 12) 12) ( 12) I 121 * „ 1?> .i=a.ooi_I °> .5=0.404.. . S =0.307- _ 5=0.411 -J = 0 . 4 4 5 ----- S=Q .7 6 3 ■ 5=0.399 S=C.415.

helped 1.0000 0 .6 1 7 4 * -0 .2 0 9 3 0.6°14 ** -0.1193 0.7451** -0.1002 . I 01 ( 17) f 17) f 12) (12) * I? * _5*Q.PP1 S=I).Clh— JtoJIl. ■ Ssfi.C.G 6 . ------5 = 0 -3 5 6 ------Ss0*003- . _S*:0*a2iL , POSAFP . 1.0000 0 .0 4 5 0 0 . 5609* -0 .1 2 2 5 0.6102* ,c* 2?5 ? ( 0) ( 121 I 12) ( 121 (17) » J2 J i * -S *.0 .0 0 1 . -S=a.44s_ ..5=0.029 --.5=0.357- -5=0.018 .—S=Q.261_ j WORK.TO 1.0000 -0 .4 0 8 0 -0 -2 1 5 9 -0 .3 7 5 9 0 .1 4 1 2 1 01 t 12) I 13) I 12) ( 12) -iso.001. . S =0.»M 4_ — S sG .250. _ S = £ u ll* . . UTP1 1.0000 0 .2 8 0 ) 0.9 769*** -0.17B7 I ( 01 ( 1?) r 1?) ( 17) S=0.001 . S=0.1B9 5=C.001 . 5*0.289- ; INTRUDE 1.0000 0 .0 6 8 5 -0 .0 9 4 0 ( 0) ( 12) I 1?) Ssd-COI.. .S£ft*4l6- _SS.0 jJ3.E6. l.OOGC- -0 .1 6 4 7 1 t Cr) * I2* s=u.oci ..5 = 0 .3 0 4 ! wlGHtR l.oono t 0)

(CDEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) IA VALUE Op 99.0C00 IS PRINTED I f * COFFFICIFNT CANNOT *E COMPUTED)

)

0 0 1.0000 0.1101 0 .1 1 9 0 0 .0 3 9 7 0 .2 2 0 4 ( ( I ?4) S»Q.-001— l.o.iH ( ( 74) -0 .0 6 7 7 ( ( 26) t 24) I ?4) -0.3773* -0 .1 7 5 ? 5=0.207 t 24) ( 24) 5=

. . . S=0,.C*6

__

------

---

------

1.0000 0 .2 2 2 6 0 .574(6*0 0 .0 0 4 1 Cr.2830 0 .2 7 0 0 0 .® 5 4 7 * * * 0 .0 1 5 9 0 . e P67 * * * ( ( 0) I 24) I 74) ( 74) I 741 t 74) ( 2 4 ) C ?4) r r 24) ( 2 4 ) S =0.49? - 5=0.001 S=0.u01 S=V.C01 LFAO - • LFAO - -0 .2 3 1 ? _S=Q*13£ .. SA0.X46 .. . . 5 = 0 .1 0 1 .-5 = 6 .6 2 1 --5=0.002 . .-5=0-v9Q

-----

8 O .13 2- 1.nnoo 0 .5C 25** 0 .0 0 3 ? 0 .2 3 7 6 a 0 .4 6 5 ? * ( ( ?41 I I 0) ( ( 24) f 7 4 ) ( ( 74) ( ( 241- ( ( 24) 5 = 0 .0 0 6 ( ( 241 INTRUDE —0.2 5 ° ? * S =0.4E 9 -0 .1 7 4 4 - 0 .0 0 6 7 5 = 0 .0 1 1 - -5 = 0 *4 9 4 - -S - 5 = 0 .2 0 7 — 5=0 -6 4 2 — 5=D-*0Q1

) 0 ------.0(15 1 .0000 C .2234 0 .5 1 8 3 * * 0 .1 4 5 5 0.657®*** 0.4BA4** ( ( ?4) ( 24) ( ( ( 2 4 ) ( 2 4 ) ( 2 4 ) t t 241 ( 24) ( 24) 5 *0 -0 .2 0 4 1 -O.C®54 _s=a*i6s— -5 *0 .749 -5 * 0 .0 6 2 - ..Sad . 0 0 1 SsO*OC . . 0 .1 F 6 2 . . . _5=0..3L2S_ . . . 5 = 0 .1 9 2 S=b.C01

01 1.0000 ( ( Cl ( 741 5 x 0 *2 9 5 — 5 = 0 .1 3 7 - -0 .2 8 7 2 -5 = 0 .0 1 0 - „SffO.Q ------. ------

) ) ( 24) 0 241 012 . t.QQOO 0.1476 0.2235 -0.1159 0.5449** 0.4373* SxQ.07? I I 241 ( 24) ( 241 I 24) ( ( 241 I 24) t 24) -0 .3 7 1 3 -0.3446* -0.32P1 .isTL. .isTL. “ -5=0.00) _£*0.246 ... -5*0.047. — 5=0.059— 5*0*003..— 5=0.016- 5 -0 * 1 4 3

______

1 .OOCO 0.2159 0.307? -0.2377 I PI ( ?4| t 24) ( 24) I 241 ( 241 APPEKDIX H HELPED HELPED PQS1F.F. WORRTG T.TP I -0 .2 4 5 3 -0 .3 1 1 2 -S=0.1?4 -5 = 0 .0 6 9 .. -S = n .lS 5 S=0*001_

____ Adults With Retarded Children Pearson Correlation Coefficients 1.0000 -0.1310 I 0 ) I 24) ( 2 4 ) - 0 .1 4 2 0 S =Q .1A L (A (A VALUE OF 99.0000 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT 3F CANNOT Cn"PUTEP) -S.=Q-.001 . . S*Q*27L. REFUSE S - 0 .0 4 5 — -5=0.7 *.4 -5=0.7 ____ -. ______01 001 , .?4S 0 o 1.0000 = 0.4063** -0.210B ( 2 4 ) I 241 st ...S -a.O O u

1.0000 r r ot 5-7&..00L, IN N Ffl LG.NCRE

- - 1.0000 0.2443 0.1350 0.3532* ( 0 1 ( 24) ( 241 ( 241 Sgfl.ooi— s«n.i?s JDELSCtS!

IC LfP PIC lE 'iT / ICASE=» / SIGNIFICANCE) HELPED . HELPED INTRUDE LTPI VORtTQ INNEG t-JCHFP . OPSCORE . OPSCORE ' : : REFUSE : IGNCPE : • • LEAD ! ! POSAFF t 1 160

1 ) 1 ?) ?) ? ? 0 1 1 1 121 0 .0 6 7 2 1.0000 0.2202 0.790? G.G979 0 .3 3 1 7 0.020? f f 17) f t I? ) ( ( 17) t t t 17) 5 = 0 .1 8 9 ( t 171 ( i i S=O.OP -0 .2 R C 3 5 = 0 .0 0 7 - 0 .0 8 2 4 I *2> 5 = 0 .4 4 7 5=.Q.t2?.Z - - 0 .0 4 3 A -0 .1 5 4 0 ,5= 0.316 -5 = 0 .1 5 5 .HIGHER _S=CL.4U. . .5=0.463 .

— S s f l.a s i _ S *£ L .1 4 £ **

-- -..

---

__

) 6 3 ?) 01 ?) ?) A 1 12 121 1 1 6 770 9 . I.CuOC 0 .1 6 5 4 0 .9 3 4 7 * * * 0 .0 4 5 6 0 0 .6 2 3 3 * 0 .0 6 8 7 f I I 12) t I I t ( 171 ( ( ( ( 17) I I t 17) SaO.OQl 5 = 0 .0 0 1 5=C .304 5 = 0 .4 1 6 5 = 0 .0 7 2 -0.341C 5=0.139 -0 .0 4 6 7 -0.4491 ~Ssi:. -5.SCU644 -_SxC*Ul .-5 = 0 .0 0 2

----- ) ) 01 12 >?> 12 . 1 .00 00 0 .3 9 7 6 0 .5 5 9 1 * 0.720CP* 0 .0 1 7 7 0 .3 2 1 1

( 171 ( ( 17) f f 17) t 17) ( ( ( ( * - l? l 1 -0.4699 5 = 0 • IOC S =0.47P 5 = 0 .0 0 4 -0 .2 3 5 4 -0 .2 7 2 2 -INTRUDF - - LEAD _5aO..C2S. -5 = 0 .2 3 1 - Sa p . 154— .S = 0 .U 3 — -5 = 0 *0 7 1 — — -SnP.eeI ___

__

) ) ) 0 ?) 12 12 1 121 121 121 .££1 . 1266 1.0000 0 .9 0 7 0 * ** 0 .6 9 6 0 ** 0 .4 0 8 0 0 .G 694 0

I I 12) ( ( 17) 1 ( ( ( ( ( 1 I * I 5 = 0 .4 1 5 . -0 .4 7 3 3 - - 0. 5272* S»O.C01 .5x0. .5x0. -Sstl.094... -.5=0 .039. — SaO.OCfc 5 *0 *0 6 0 —

) ) ) ?) ?) 0 12 1 12 1 1.COOO 0 .3 2 2 4 0 .3 3 6 6 t 17) ( ( ( ( ( „ „ ( I 5= 0 .1 4 2 5x0*001- - 5x0*001- -0 .0 2 2 6 -0 .4 4 6 5 -0 .3 2 5 4 -0 .3 4 5 4 1 = C.1 5 L . ■ S rQ■ .a ? 3 . - 5 * 0 .1 5 1 - -S e p .136-

- S = 0 .1 5 3 _

) > ) 12 121 12 12 1.0000 0 .3 2 8 3 - - I G) ( 17) 1 ( ( I . . I ( ( 5 = 0 .0 0 1 . -0 .1 6 3 9 s=o.o3e. - 0 .5 3 0 7 * -0 .4 2 8 3 -0 .4 6 6 9 -S=0^L42- -5 * 0 .3 0 5 -SnQ.07.7— _SaiM 16’ _

l?) 121 .01 0.J5.01- 1 .POOP h I I 171 APPEKDIX H * * - t 121 * - - * t 5 = 0 .2 2 5 . -0 .2 4 1 3 SgQ.4PH_ - 0 .6 4 2 7 * -0 .4 8 6 6 -0 .0 7 5 1 -S . 5. * 0 .0 1 2 ... -SxOuOfA— . . HELPED . . HELPED P0S4FF WORKTQ -LTP I

01 121 O .3 2 6 — Pearson Correlation Coefficients 1.0000 0 .2 4 7 9 0 .1 4 5 3 0 .3 1 8 4 ' f ( ( I I 12) ( ( R =n-?iQ (A (A VALUE OF 94.0000 IS PRINTED IF A COFFFICIFNT PF CANNOT COMPUTED) .S .REFUSE™ -S.sQ.Q01. Faalllar Adults With Retarded Children

:.-

) U

02 1 2 12 £ Q.QQI- 1.0000 t 0 .5 2 1 9 * 0 .7 3 3 4 ** I I 01 t 5 = 0 . S S Q .0 4 L -. -IG N O R E ™ -S

121 1.0000 0 *4 5 8 5 I 01 I * -liiNECL. .5 * 0 .0 0 1 -S « 0 .0 6 7

* 01 0000 . 1 I JORSCQRE-

__ ICGEFCIC1EN7 / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) WORKTO LTPI REFUSE helped ■ IGNORE ■ • INNEG • QPSCORF • I I PC5AFF- • • INTRUDE ______. . LEAP j j HIGHER J 163. APPENDIX 0

A ll Faslllar Adults Pearson Correlation Coefficients

— CfcscmE. -LNNEG- ■ IGNORE------REFUSE — HEW ED POSAFF WCRKTO LTP I ----- IYtRUOF LFAO HIGHER 0*SC0*E .1.0000 0.5460** 0.7718*** 0.2352 0.4320* 0.0982 -0.1482 0.9451*** 0.6147*** Q.(.cp***» (>.012 3 1 ' o) t „ 24) ( 241 s = o .qc>3 . 2 9) 1 74) ( 74) ( 24) » 24) I 74) i-o-gS) i „,.?*! _SgQ -a ift i afl-2 24_ -5*0.245- .S=Q»OCl. . — S=£..C01 . _S?.C^472. .. 1VHEG 1.0000 0.6061*** 0.1431 -0.2079 -0.2752 -0.1737 0.573*** 0.7636*** -O.lP'ifc ( 0 ) _ 24) ( 74) ( 24) 0.3700* _S=.0.GG1. f 74) » 74) t 74) ( 74) ( 24) < 74) ..A =0.001____ Sf O.252 S=0.165. 5*0.096... S=0.2C9 --5*0.004 5 = 0 .0 0 1 5 5*0.159 IGNORE 1.0000 0.2754 -0.0260 -0.1205 -0.1909 0 . 7 7 U ***( 0 .4 * 9 0 * 0.7376*** -C.C5*.3 t 0) t 24) I 24) I 24) I 74) .5 =0.C0_L _S*0.Q9 f. 1 - ?9) 1 74) { 74) I 24) -Sa IL.452- -Ss0*222— ■-5*0— . —s=a.c-oi . ~S=£Uaj.Z- _s_=o_.oci___ I - ?9) f 74) r 24) ( 7 4) ro -S*JQ.D14__ —Sj*.Q—4L4_ 5*CU£lS2_. —SaQ.37-6— —Si _ .55.0,151!__ POSAFF 1.0C00 0.0459 0.C014* -0 .0 9 8 3 0 | .0 7 7 9 0 .0 0 7 * . c o) I 241 f ^ 74) 1 74) i 2 4 ) I - 2 9 ) 5*0.001 S=0.416- S*0 .497 . 5 * 0 .3 7 4 Si ■5=0.496 HCRKTO 1.0000 -0.1620 -<>.23GP -(C.lioi 0 .0 4 5 * f r.) i - 29) C 24) 1 24) r 24) . 5*0—SCI -5*0 ^2L5.. .3= 0.. 139 . Si _S=_C.AU ___ LTPI 1.0000 0 .5 3 1 1 * * 0 ( .9 ’ 4f.*** -0 .1 6 7 0 f 0) f 24) . r 24) S*0.001 5 *a .0 C 4 Si s * n . | H . INTRUDE l.OCCC ( -0 .7 0 9 7 t C) I 74) ( 74) — SsO»MrI - .Si „ 5 = 0 _ . . LEAD 1 .0 3 0 0 - 0 .1 2 4 * ( 0) C 24) SsO.UOl 5 *0 .2 6 1 hIGHEk i.o c a c ( i>i . 5 » o .r r n ___

f:r*ppKif.T / (cas*S) / sisvjFjc/NCE) f * VAlt/F OF 9C.PPP0 I f PRWTfP IF A COFFFIC If\T ■ CAMVHT Of COMPUTED) : .00: / .01 • APPENDIX P

Faniliar Adults With Nonretardcd Children Pearson Correlation Coefficients

.gp-scnaF- -l&KEG- -LGNORE- -REFUSE- HELPED _ -POSAFF— . -W0RKT0 LTP 1 — — INTRUDE -LEAD - - . HIGHER .

CPSCOPE 1* 0000' .<39.0000 0 .4 9 5 1 0 .1 3 8 9 0 .5 5 4 1 * 0 .4 7 R 9 -0.0329 0.699R -0.0937 0 .6 9 0 P** -0.0725 t 01. ( 12) ( 1?) t 12) { 12) C 12) ( 1? ) t 1?) t 1?) ( 12) ■S=Q.00L S tgn.nsi i* n .3 ? 3 . Srn.oi) -SsO.OSB.I - l?) -£sQ *A60 ____ SrO .0 0 A------S a fl*3 8 6 - — S=C.CC6. ..__S?JL.ili ; IHNEG . 1.0000 9 9 .C 0 0 0 90,0000 99.0000 9 9 .0 0 0 0 99.0000 99.0000 9 9 .0 0 0 0 99.0000 . 99.0000 ( 0 ) 12 ( 12) I 12) » 12) t 12) I 121 ( 12) I 121 ( 17) J£C l.C G L - . SI .--* * .r r ** . . S = t» * « *_____ S x .*J f± *r__ . .5 a ** * * ■ „ -S=P- , ..£=*•***_. S = * * * s * IGNORE 1.0000 0 .5 5 8 6 * 0.0 * 0 .0 8 7 7 —0.1 5 6 5 0 .6 1 3 9 * —0.2 4 6 R 0.6207* —0.0417 ( 01 ( 12) I 12) r - 12) I 12) f I? ) ( 1?) I 1?) I 12) ts n .n n i -S-0.030 .. -$30*500. _SsQ.3a3. -S s O .a U - _S*tLLW- -S=£U_2 - 6 S»r,.fc»P REFUSE 1.0000 0.0767 -0.3751 -0.06R7 0 .2 1 4 R -0 .1 3 4 R 0 .2 7 1 2 0.2*34 ( 0) I 12) I 12) I 1?) I 12) ( . 12) I 17) ( 12) _S.-Q.flQl 5=0*606- S = 0 .1 1 5 ------5 = 0 .4 1 6 -- - S = 0 .2 5 1 . -SsO.338 -- --5 = 0 .2 4 5 S*. 0.186 HELPED 1.0000 0.4383 -0.0819 -0.1372 0 .1 0 3 4 -0.1429 0.3546 ■ ( 0) f 12) I 12) I 1 2:T) c 12) f 12) ( 12) SsQ.OOl -S a l).077 ------Ss0*40C ------Ss0..33~5------SaO=0.3-75— -5 = 0 .3 2E 1.0000 -0.3219 -0.1106 t 0 ) I 12) 1 . m „£aO*Ot'l~ -S=-0~154------S=.5*i60_

l e a d l.OMOO -0.4750 ( 0) I 12) . 5=0.001 5=0.059

. wIGHtP • l . o o c e C 01 .Sifl.QOJ-

ICC===ICIFNT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 99,0080 IS PP. 1NTFP IF A CCEFFIC1FNT CANNOT FE COMPUTED) .

4

46) 44 .r.f.oo

0.0*4 0 0.0*4 0 .1 4 6 * 0 .0 6 0 5 0.0540 1 4*1 ( ( 46) ( 4 8 ) I 4p| ( ( 4?) t ( ( 461 S=G.3*B r f f 4 D ( ( ) 48 ( ( 4 8 ) 5=0.101 -0.1*03 s=o.o*a -0.1R7P. -0.07ft? -0.1326 - 0 . 2 6 * 9 * s=e.iMj —G • 1 • —G HIGHER . . S = 0 .1 6 0 ■-5Ea».Pir • t 0) . . _X*i»R9J2. _.t=C .34Ji _.t=C

. .

) 0 0 .9 7 8 8 *** l.OOCO 0,497^-* 0 .5 0 0 1 * ** t 481 t 48) t 40) ( ( 48) I S=O.OP.l S'0.001 S *0 .C C 1 . - 0 .1 2 7 3 5 = 0 .0 0 1 5 = 0 -0 5 6 . _ 5 = 6 — .GO) . .5 . = 6 .1 9 4

------____ ) ) I 4P> h

1.0060 0 .6 5 4 9 * * * 1 1 48) * * - 5 = 01 .GO 5 = 0 .0 6 4 5 = 0 ,0 0 2 .. R a ft.0 0 2 -5 = Q .C C L . ______

_____ l.COOO f 0) 53.0.0.41 -.SaOUIlO 5*0..(>C>1.

t 48) ( 44) I 4ft) _____ ) ------p 1.COOO- -0.16SP -0.2376 0.1P34 0.4546*** 0.0875 0.507**** I 481 ( 4 8 ) ( 4 8 ) ( 4 8 ) ( ( 4C) ( 48) t 4b) I I 4 I I 48) I 40) t 4 ( ( 48) ( 4P) ( 48) I 4F) ( ( 0) I 40) ( 4P) ( ( 48) I 4P) t 481 t 48) ' ' 5=0-001 -0.2224 0.PA12** 0.5381*** &.271*-* -0.0151' 0.4571*** 0.1P47 -0.2140 0.8538*** 0.64?.l*a* 0.8131*** -0.14C8 0.2538* 0.2228 6.2320 5=0.064. -0.2220 -5=0.GC6 - S=O.GLl 0.5506*** 5=C.U?.l 0.402?** 0.527H*** 5=0,IPA._ .. 5=0,GC1 . 5=0.277 .5=0.001 .. ^SQ *C62 .CCU EsO SsO^OCl _ .5=0-00.1 _ 5aC L.U G .5=0.460. - ..5=0*001 -51 . 4 0 .0 5=0.227. 0 1

____

*** ___ 4071 . 0 .4190** 0 1.0000 0 C .5 ? 9 4 *** r r 4B) I 4 8 ) I 4 8 ) I - 0 .0 4 1 2 5pc.nci S *0 *2 ® 2 -5 *0 .0 0 1 $ pointed if a coefficient cannot bf connmDi bf cannot coefficient a if pointed $ S.=Q,Ql)i 1 5=0.CC1 ------____

___ m 00 . 0^101 APPENDIX Q l.OOCO = 0 .5 0 6 4 * * * 0 .0 9 2 4 I G) t 481 ( 4 0 ( 48) ( 48) 49 -0.0587 -n.OBU S =0,4*t). 5 * 0 .3 4 6 _£=c^oin.. 5 . ______

Pearson Correlation Coefficients 1.0000 0.0194 G .3 5 ? 9 ** I 48) ( ( 48} I 0 ) I 4f>) ( 4 8 ) f 4 8 ) -0.0881 S=ll.276_. - 0 .0 1 8 2 5 = 0 , 0 0 1 u value of of uvalue .5-0^.451 .5 = 0 ,0 0 7 _

___ ADULTS WITH RETARDED AND NOMRETARDED CHILDREN ) 0 l.COOO t Frft-PP) SHitfcOfll SHitfcOfll ___ 0.^102 l.OOCO 0.5399*** = O.^lOf** 0.457C*** t G) ( 4 8 ) ( ( 48) ( 48) 5 - ... S=0.OGL.. ..S=0.G01 . . --

1 .OPOtl 1 01 t C?S£ORJE C?S£ORJE 1NNEG. IGNORE REFUSE—™- HELPED PflSAFF WDRXTC-— -LTPI -.INTRUDE-— -LEAD

'.: 0

* r ? < . t-i *•*;.. . *•*;.. r-*“== iCtrP'-ICI-NT / ICA35E) / SIGNIFICANCE! I'.TE'JBE IGNORE riN £ & LTPI =C L?tr. vn9KTO HELPED 0®SCC9 E 9 rFUSE — i i —

1 6 4 ADULTS WITH NOHRETARDED CHILDREX Pearson Correlation Coefficients

.=------QP5C0aH_L_ 1NNEG- .-IGNORE.------REFUSE HELPED P.OSAFF- WORK TO LTP-I-- -INTRUOF LEAD. - .HIGHER GPSCCRF - 1.0000 0 .1 8 2 7 0 .6 4 0 5 * * * 0.1481 ,0 .6903*** 0 .5 1 2 3 ** -0.1944 0 .E 7 1 7 * * * 0.1669 0.8623*** -0.0647 ( - . 01- t 24) I _ 24) ( 24) ( 2*1 I 24) ( 2 4 ) ( 24) I 2 4 ) t 24) - S*0.PQI- -5*Q »136- L r M l 5=n-nn;>.. -5=0-0 81- 5=fl.*cai~ .....-SS0-.2L8------S=O.OCL------_S=Q.it2— _ INNEG 1.0000 0 .0 4 1 7 0.2942 -0.0177 0.2668 -0 .1 4 0 4 0 .3 1 8 0 -0.002- 0.2258 0 .101* C .0)0) ( 24) I 24) C 24) i - 2 4 ) f 24) ( 2 4 ) I 24) ( 24) t 24) — 5 * 0 .0 0 1 . 5 = 0 .4 2 3 .. S=0.Q 8)------S=0 .4 6 7 - — 5*0.104 ■ •. .-$ *0 ,2 5 7 S=0 .0 6 5 - • •5*0 .4 94 -. -SsC.OfcO .$=0,319, IGNORE L.0000 0 .0 5 4 3 0 .3 3 3 4 0 .1 1 6 3 •0 .1 6 4 8 0 .5 9 0 6 * * * -0 .0 7 6 6 0 .6 1 7 4 *** - 0 .1 4 1 4 0) ( 2 4 ) t 24) ( 2 4 ) I 24) ( 74) ( 74) ( 74) ( 24) LQ.ao.L- -5 * 0 .3 9 2 -S s 0 .0 5 6 - — S=0*^S4— —5= 0 *2 2 1 - .5=00)01____ 5 = 0 * 3 6 1 - 5=6*001- _ -S = U ^ * 5 _ ... REFUSE 1.0000 0.1610 0.0448 0.0266 0 .2 1 9 ) -0 .0 7 9 5 0 .2 3 6 9 0.0S64 I - ,01 ( 241 ( 24) ( 24) C 24) ( 24) ( 24) t 24) ;— SjcQ-.OOI------5 = 0 .2 2 6 ------S *0 .4 1 8 — ■SsO.451 .5 = 0 .1 5 3 5 = 0 .3 5 6 - ..S = 0 .1 3 2 $=0.34,4 HELPED * 1.0000 0 .4 9 9 5 * * —0.0 °C 6 '0 .2 0 9 7 0.0020 0.3164 0.1400 i 01 I 741 I 24) t 24) ( 2 4) . - 24) t 241 5l=D*Q0L- -SsCL..0 0 6 __ -$ 9 0 .3 3 7 - R=P -H7P .5 = 0 *4 .9 6 - 1=6*066__ J53.QJ.a2__ O' ; PCSAFF 1.0000 -0 .0 4 9 0 0 .4 3 9 8 * -0.0687 0.4618* 0.1019 tn ' i o» < 74) I 7 4 ) I 24) t 74) { 24) —5= 0 .0 0 1 — 5 = 0 . 410- - -S = 0 .0 1 6 • •S=0.375~ 5=0.012 . .-S -0 .3 1 9 WORKTO 1.0000 -0 .1 6 7 1 -0.1105 -0.1516 C.01’? I O) I 2 4 ) I 74) ( 74) ( 24) —5=11.001. • -5 = 0 -2 1 8__ •5=0.30.4_ -5=0*240-- _S?J1^47.5__, L7P1 1.GC0G 0 .7 1 2 S 0.9653*** -0 .7 8 4 6 t 0 ) ( 24) t £4) I 2 4 ) -S = G X 0 1 - S = 0 .158 • 5 = 0 .U01 S *0 .0 8 ? INTRUDE tlonoo 0.0439 - 0 .0 6 7 7 C 0 ) I 74) ( 2 4 ) - 5 = 0 - 0 0 1 .. 5 = 0 .4L9___ -SEiijum. ' LEAD 1.0000 -0 .2 7 9 2 t 0) I 24) -5=0.001 5 *0 .0 9 3 WGHEP 1 .GOCO f o) ■Q..QP1-

• CGEep!ClF\'T / (CASES) t SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 99.0000 IS PRINTED IF A C0FFF1CIF.VT CANNOT BE COFPUIEO) : *« *? t . 0G1 ; ++-r < -oi '' *f < .05 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford, A.F. Mental Health despite mental retardation. Lancet, 1955, 1, 1233-1235.

Anderson, A.V. Orienting parents to a clinic for the retarded. Children, 1962, 9, 178-182.

Anthony, E.J., and Benedek, T. Parenthood Its Psychology and Psychopathology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970.

Baum, M.H. Some dynamic factors affecting family ad­ justment to the handicapped child. Exceptional Children. 1962, 28, 387-392.

Baumeister, A.A. (Ed.) Mental Retardation. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.

Beck, H. Casework with parents of mentally retarded children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1962, 32, 870-877.

Becker, W.C. and Krug, R.S. The Parent Attitude Research Instrument - a research review. Child Development. 1965, 36, 329-365.

Bell, R.Q. The effect on the family of a limitation in coping ability in the child: A research approach and a finding. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1964, 10 (2), 129-142.

Bell, R.Q. Structuring parent-child interaction situ­ ations for direct observations. Child Development. 1964, 35, 1009-1020.

Bell, R.Q. A reinterpretation of the direction of af­ fects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 81-95.

166 167

Bell, R.Q. Stimulus Control of parent as caretaker be­ havior by offspring. Developmental Psychology. 1971, 4, 63-72.

Bishop, B.M. Mother-Child Interaction and the social behavior of children. Psychological Monographs. 1951, 65, No.11.

Blodgett, H.E., and Warfield, G.J. Understanding Mentally Retarded Children. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1959.

Boles, G. Personality factors in mothers of cerebral palsied children. Genetic Psychological Mono­ graphs. 1959, 59, 159-281.

Boyd, D. The three stages in the growth of a parent of a mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1951, 55, 608-611.

Brown, D., and Jones, E. Using The Bell Adjustment Inventory with the mentally retarded. Rehabilita­ tion Counseling Bulletin. 1970, 13, 288-294.

Capobianco, R.J., and Knox, S. IQ estimates and the index of marital integration. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1964, 6 8 , 718-721.

Cohen, P.C. The impact of the handicapped child on the family. Social Casework. 1962, 43, 137-142.

Cook, J.J* Dimensional Analysis of child rearing atti­ tudes of parents of handicapped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 6 8 , 354-361.

Cummings, S.T., and Stock, D. Brief group therapy of mothers of retarded children outside of the special­ ty clinic setting. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1962, 6 6 , 739-748.

Dalton, J., and Epstein, 11. Counseling parents of mildly retarded children. Social Casework. 1963, 44, 523-530.

Denhoff, E. The impact of parents on the growth of ex­ ceptional children. Exceptional Children. 1960, 26, 271-274. 168

Dingman, H.F., Eyman, R.K., and Windle, C.D. An investi­ gation of some child-rearing attitudes of mothers with retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1963, 67, 899-908.

Farber, B. Perceptions of crisis and related variables and the Impact of a retarded child on the mother. Journal of Health and Human Behavior. 1960, 1, 108- 118(a).

Farber, B. Family organization and crisis: maintainance of integration in families with a severely mentally retarded child. Monographs of the Society for Re­ search in Child Development, 1960, 25, No.l. (b)

Filler, J.W., and Bricker, W.A. Teaching styles of moth­ ers and the match-to-sample performance of their retarded preschool-age children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1976, 80(5), 504-511. t Filler, J.W. Modifying maternal teaching style: effects of task arrangement on the match-to-sample perform­ ance of retarded preschool-age children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1976, 80(6), 602-612.

Garfield, S.L. Abnormal behavior and mental deficiency. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook in Mental Deficiency: Psychological Theory and Research. New York: Mc!Graw- Hill, 1963.

Gewirtz, J.L. On designing the functional environment of the child to facilitate behavioral development. In L.L. Dittman (Ed.), Early Child Care. New York: Atherton, 1968

Goodman, L. , and Rothman, R. The development of a group counseling program in a clinic for retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 65, 789-795.

Grays, C. At the bedside: The pattern of acceptance In parents of the retarded child. Tomorrow's Nurse. 1963, 4(3), 30-34.

Grebler, A.M. Parental attitudes toward mentally re­ tarded children. American Journal of Mental De­ ficiency, 1952, 56, 475-483. 169

Grossman, H.J. (Ed.) Manual On Terminology and Classi­ fication in Mental Retardation. Special Publica­ tion Series Mo. 2, Washington, D.C.: American Asso­ ciation on Mental Deficiency, 1973.

Gumz, E.J., and Gubrium, J.F. Comparative parental per­ ceptions of a mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1972, 77, 175-180.

Hamerlynck, L.A., Handy, L.C., and Mash, E.J. Behavior Change Methodology. Concepts, and Practice. Illi­ nois: Research Press Company, 1973.

Hatfield, J.S., Ferguson, L.R. and Alpert, R. Mother- child interaction and the socialization process. Child Development, 1967, 38, 365-414.

Hersch, A. Case work with parents of retarded children. Social Work, 1961, 6 , 61-66.

Jensen, G.D. and Kogan, K.L. Parental estimates of the future achievement of children with cerebral palsy. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 1962, 6 , 56-64.

Kagan, J., and Moss, H.A. Birth to Maturity. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Kanner, I.. Parents' feelings about retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1953, 57, 375-383.

Kelman, H.R. Parent guidance in a clinic for mentally retarded children. Journal of Social Work. 1953, 34, 441-447.

Kirkendall, D.R., and Ismail, A.H. The ability of per­ sonality variables in discriminating among three intellectual groups of preadolescent boys and girls. Child Development. 1970, 41, 1173-1181.

Klebanoff, L.B. Parents of schizophrenic children I: Parental attitudes of mothers of schizophrenic, brain-injured and retarded and normal children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1959, 29, 445-454. 170

Klein, D.C., and Lindemann, E. Preventive intervention in individual and family crisis situations. In G. Caplan (Ed.), Prevention of Mental Disorders in Children. New York: Basic Books, 1961.

Kock, R. and Dobson, J.C. (I?d.) The Mentally Retarded Child and His Family. New York: Brunner/Mazel Pub­ lishers, 1971.

Kogan, K.L., Wimberger, H.C.’, and Babbitt, R.A. An­ alysis of mother-child interaction in young mental retardates. Child Development, 1969, 40, 799-812.

Kogan, R. Interpersonal Behavior Constructs: A Means for Analyzing Video-Taped Dyadic Interaction, Lab— ortaory Manual, Seattle: University of WashingtonT 1975.

Kopfstein, D. Effects of accelerating and decelerating consequences on the social behavior of trainable retarded children. Child Development, 1972, 43, 800-809.

Korkes, L.A. A Study of the Impact of Mentally 111 Children Upon Their Families. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Institutions and Agencies, 1955.

Kramm, E.R. Families of Mongoloid Children. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

Leland, L. and Smith, D. Mental Retardation Present and Future Perspectives. Ohio: Jones Publishing Company, 1974.

Levy, D. Maternal Overprotection. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943.

Lytton, H. Observation studies of parent-child interac­ tion: a methodological review. Child Development 1971, 42, 651-684.

Mahler, M.S., Pine, F. and Bergman, A. The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers 1975.

Mandelbaum, A., and Wheeler, M.E. The meaning of a de­ fective child to parent. Social Casework, 1960, 41, 360-367, 171

McCarthy, D. Language development In children. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954.

McDonald, E.T. Understand Thoae Feelings. Pittsburg: Stanwlx House, 1962.

Mead, M. And Keep Your Powder Dry. New York: William Morrow, 1942.

Michaels, J. , and Schucman, H. Observations on the psychodynamics of parents of retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1962, 6 6 , 568-573.

Miller, E.A. A study in parent-child relationships. Exceptional Child. 1958, 24, 298-302.

Moss, H. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother- infant Interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1967, 13, 19-36.

Moustakas, C.E., Sigel, I.E., and Schalock, H.D. An objective method for the measurement and analysis of child-adult interaction. Child Development. 1956, 72(2), 109-134.

Noland, R. (Ed.) Counseling Parents of the Mentally Re­ tarded . Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1970.

Noonan, J.R., and Barry, J.R. Performance of retarded children. Science, 1967, 156-171.

Olshansky, S. Chronic sorrow: a response to having a mentally defective child. Social Casework, 1962, 43, 191-194.

Oppenheim, A.N. Inventories for child-rearing attitudes and parental behavior. Unpublished paper, 1963.

Osofsky, J.D. Children's influences upon parental be­ havior: an attempt to define the relationship with the use of laboratory tasks. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1971, 83, 147-169.

Osofsky, J.D., and O'Connell, E.J. Parent-child inter­ action: duughters’ effects upon mothers' and fathers' behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1972, 7(2), 157-168. 172

Patterson, L.L. Some pointers for professionals. Children. 1956, 3, 13-17.

Peck, J.R. and Stephens, W.B. A study of the relation­ ship between the attitudes and behaviors of parents and that of their mentally defective child. Ameri­ can Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 64, 839-844.

Foznanski, E.0. Emotional issues in raising handicapped children. Rehabilitation Literature, 1973, 34(11), 322-326.

Rhelngold, H.L. Interpreting mental retardation to par­ ents.. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1945, 142-148.

Rhelngold, H.L. The social and socializing Infant. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Robbins, L.C. The accuracy of parental recall of aspects of child development and of child rearing practices. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963, 6 6 , 261-270.

Robinson, N., and Robinson, H. The Mentally Retarded Child A Psychological Approach. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1976.

Roith, A.I. The myth of parental attitudes. Journal of Mental Subnormality, 1963, 9, 51-54.

Roos, P. Psychological counseling with parents of re­ tarded children. Mental Retardation, 1963, 1, 345-350.

Rosen, L. Selected aspects in the development of the mother's understanding of her mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1955, 59, 522.

Ro8 S, S.A. Effects of Intentional training in social behavior on retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1969, 73, 912-919. 173

Ryckman, D.B., and Henderson, R.A, The meaning of a retarded child for his parents: A focus for coun­ selors. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3(A), A-7.

Sanford, A.R. Learning Accomplishment Profile. North Carolina: Chapel Hill Tralning-Outreach Project, 197A.

Santostefano, S. Mlnature Situations and Methodologi­ cal Problems in Parent-Child. Interaction Research. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1968, 14(4), 285-312.

Schaefer, E.S. A clrcumplex model for maternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1959, 95, 226-235.

Schaefer, E.S. Converging conceptual models for maternal behavior and child. In J.C. Glidewell (Ed.), Paren­ tal Attitudes and Child Behavior. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1961.

Schaefer, E.S., and Bell, R.Q. Development of parental attitudes research instruments. Child Development, 1958, 29, 339-361.

Schlld, S. Counseling with parents of retarded children living at home. Social Work, 1964, 9, 86-91.

Schild, S. The family of the retarded child. In R.K. Koch and J.C. Dobson (Eds), The Mentally Retarded Child and His Family. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers, 1971.

Schreiber, M. (Ed.) Social Work and Mental Retardation. New York: The John Day Company, 1970.

Schulman, J.L. and Stern, S. Parents' estamate of the intelligence of retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 63, 696-698.

Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.E., and Levin, H. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, Illinois: Row-Peterson, 1957.

Sharlin, S.A., and Polansky, N.A. The process of infan- tiilzatlon. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1971, 42, 92-102. 174

Shere, E. and Kastenbaum, R. Mother-child interaction in cerebral palsy: environmental and psycho-social obstacles to cognitive development. Genetic Psy­ chology Monographs, 1966, 73, 255-335.

Silverstein, A.B., and Dingman, H.F. General response tendencies and parental attitudes in the mothers of mentally retarded children. Psychological Reports, 1965, 16, 1141-1144.

Smith E. Emotional factors as revealed in the intake process with parents of defective children. Amer­ ican Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1952, 56, 806-811.

Solnit, A.J., and Stark, M.H. Mourning and the birth of a defective child* Psychoanalytic Study of Children. 1961, 16, 523-537.

Stang, F. Parent guidance and the mentally retarded child. Public Health. 1957, 71, 234-236.

Stoddard, H.M. The relation of parental attitudes and achievement of severely mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1959, 63, 575-598.

Stone, M.M. Parental attitudes to retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1948, 53, 363-372.

Stone, M.D. Clinical team treatment of a mentally re­ tarded child and his parents, dasework with the mother. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1959, 63, 707-712.

Tallman, I. Spousal role differentiation and the social­ ization of severely retarded children. Journal of marriage and the Family. 1965, 27, 37-42.

Waterman, J.N. Psychogenic factors in paternal acceptance of feebleminded children. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1948, 9, 184-187.

Wenar, C. The reliability of developmental histories. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1963, 25, 505-509. 175

Willie, B.M. The role of the social worker. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1961, 66, A64-471.

Wltmer, H., Hough, E., Foley, P., Lewenberg, M., Figge, M., Brunk, C., and Freeman, M. Studies In maternal overprotection. Smith College Studies In Social Work. 1952, 181-282.

Wolfensberger, W. Counseling the parents of the retarded. In A.A. Baumeister (Ed.), Mental Retardation: Ap­ praisal. Education and Rehabilitation. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.

Wolfensberger, W., and Kurtz, R.A. Measurement of parents' perceptions of their children's development. Genetic Psychological Monographs. 1971, 2-92.

Wortls, J. Prevention of mental retardation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1965, 35, 886-895.

Yarrow, M.R. Problems of methods in parent-child re­ search. Child Development. 1963, 34, 215-226.

Yarrow, M.R., Campbell, J.D., and Burton, R.V. Child- Rearing: An Inquiry Into Research and Methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

Yarrow, M.R., Waxley C.F., and Scott, P.M. Child effects on adult behavior. Developmental Psychology. 1971, 5, 300-311.

Zuckerman, M. Reversed scales to control acquiescence response set in the Parent Attitude Research Instrument. Child Development. 1959, 30, 523-532.

Zuckerman, M. Barrett-Ribbach, B., and Monastkin, I. Normative data and factor analysis of the PARI. Journal of Consultant Psychology. 1958, 22, 165-171.

Zuk, G.H. Culteral dilemma and spiritual crisis of the family with a handicapped child. Exceptional Children. 1962, 28, 405-408.

Zuk, G.H., Miller, R.L., Bertram, J.B., and Kling, F. Maternal acceptance of retarded children: a ques­ tionnaire study of attitudes and religious back­ ground. Child Development, 1961, 32, 525-540. 176

Zwerling, I. Initial counseling of parents with mentally retarded children. Journal of Pediatrics. 1954, 44, 469-479.