DOCUMENT RESUME ED 033 744 PS 002 106 AUTHOR Boger, Rctert P.; Knight, Sarah S. TITLE Social-Emotional Task Force. Final Report. INSTITUTION Merrill Palmer Inst., Detroit, Mich.; Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Head Start Evaluation and Research Center. Spcns Agency Cffice of Economic Opportunity, Washingtcn, D.C. Repert Nc CL c-14118 Put Date 31 May 65 Note 176p. EERS Price ERRS Price ME-$0.75 HC-$8.90 Descriptors Culturally Disadvantaged, Curicsity, *Emotional Development, Group Status, Measurement Techniques, Persistence, Pilot Projects, Preschool Children, *Preschool Tests, *Program Evaluation, Self Concept, Self Control, *Social Development, Testing Prcgrams, Test Reliability, *Test Selection, Test Validity Identifiers *Head Start Abstract To develcp and field test new assessment procedures for the 1969-7C Head Start national ev9luation, a list of existing tests measuring selected sccial and emotional variables was compiled. Tests were selected on these criteria:(1) ccnceptual soundness, (2)relevance for preschool children, (3) whether disadvantaged children might be expected tc show a deficit ccmpared to their advantaged peers, and (4) the degree of cverlap with the cognitive dcmain. The variables and respective tests finally selected were(1) curiosity: Curiosity Box subtest of the Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery (CATB), (2) frustraticn: Michigan State University Puzzle Bcx Task based cn the Keister-Funich task,(3) socicmetric status: Play Situation-Picture Board Sociometric Technique, (4) self-ccncept: Brown IDS Self-Ccncept Referents Test, the Self-Sccial Ccnstructs Test, Preschool Self-Concept Test, and Experimental Phctcgraphic Self-Concept Test, (5) delay of gratificaticn: The Mischel Technique,(6) task persistence: Persistence subtest of the CATB, and (7) impulsivity: Motor Impulsivity subtest of the CATB. Other variables identified but not examined in depth were sex-identification, dependency, anxiety, and aggression. The authors discuss each of the assessment instruments and give field testing results. (NH) U. $. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION Research and Evaluation Papers of the 1.00ifr,I.ENT E!I.P1411Y AI RECEIVED FROM TIDE PE7;',0:: OP, 01.'.1...1,1;i7,C! ti. 01 VILAOR OPINIONS' STATT.0 NoT ii.4:44*.:StiTOFFICIAL.. DUNEOE pup, QII fio MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY May 31, 1969 COLLEGE OF HOME ECONOMICS in conjunction with the MERRILL-PALMER INSTITUTE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT Robert P. Boger Sarah S. Knight Michigan State University CID Robert P. Boger, Center Director, Michigan State University 711.'"1 Irving E. Sigel, Director of Research, Merrill-Palmer Institute Donald J. Melcer, Associate Director for Evaluation, Michigan StateUniversity Patricia P. Olmsted, Associate Director for Research,Merrill-Palmer Institute Supported by 0E0 Contrcct 4118 with th Office of Economic Opportun f TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables and Figures iii, iv, v Acknowledgments vi 1 Overview . , Instruments and Techniques 7 Preschool Self-Concept Picture Test 22 Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test 39 The Self-Social Constructs Test . 58 The Experimental Photographic Self Concept Test 82 The MSU Puzzle Box Task 99 The Cincinnati Autonomy Test Battery 123 Curiosity Box 123, 127, 138 Motor Impulse Control 125, 130, 139 Persistence 126, 132, 139 The Mischel Technique 148 The Play Situation-Picture Board SociometricTechnique . 155 ii List of Tables and Figures Preschool Self- Concept- Picture Test Table 1 Preschool Self-Concept PictureTest Norm Sample Pretest and Michigan StateUniversity Field Test, Distribution of Positive Responsesfor "Who Am I" Items. 35 Table 2 Preschool Self-Concept PictureTest Norm Sample Pl'eteat an0 Elcbiaan StateUniversity Field Test Distribution of PositiveResponses for "Who AmI" Items. 36 of Table 3 Preschool Self-Concept PictureTest, Comparison Field Test Subgroup onAgreeMent Scores. 37 Brown IDS Self-ConceppReferents Test Table 1 Brown IDS Self-ConceptReferents Test, Distribution 55 of Scores on Self Referentitems. Table 2 Brown IDS Self-ConceptReferents Test, Distribution of Scores on MotherReferent Items. 56 The Self-Social ConstructsTest Table 1 Self-Social Constructs TestItem Group Total Score Distribution inField Test Sample of 39 Subjects. 72 Table 2 Self-Social Constructs Test,A comparison of Item Group Mean Total Scoresfor Ethnic Groups. 73 Table 3 Self-Social Constructs TestIntercorrelation Between Item GroupTotal Scores. 74 Table 4 Self-Social Constructs Test,Average Item Reliability for Each Groupof Items. 75 Itztental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test Figure 1 The Experimental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Dirty, Using Poster Paint. 89 Figure 2 The ExperimentalPhotographic Self Concept Test, Weak-Strong. 90 iii ;1P ExperimentalPhotographic Self- Concept Test (continued) Figure 3 The Experimental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Clean. 91 Figure 4 The ExpeL:ivental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Dirty. 92 Figure 5 The ExperimentalPhotographic Self-Concept Test, Clean. 93 Figure 6 The Experimental PhOtographicSelf-Concept Test, Dirty. 94 Figure 7 The Experimental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Weak. 95 Figure 8 The Experimental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Strong. 96 Figure 9 The Experimental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Weak. tr, 97 Figure 10The Experimental PhotographicSelf-Concept Test, Strong. 98 The MSU Puzzle Bon Task Figure 1 Keister Puzzle Box 110 Figure 2 MSU Puzzle Box 111 Figure 3 MSU Puzzle Box Task Observation Schedule 112 Figure 4 MSU Puzzle Box Observation Schedule, Revised 113 Table 1 MSU Puzzle Box Task, All Subjects: Percent of Total Responses Occurringin Each Behavior Category. 119 Table 2 MSU Puzzle Box Task, Femalevs. Male: Percent of Total Responses Occurringin Each Behavior Category. 120 Table 3 MSU Puzzle Box Task, Afro-Americanvs. Other: Percent of Total Responses Occurringin Each Behavior Category. 4 ...121 iv Zilecni4tot!prnv.Test Battery Table 1 Curiositl, DisUibution of TotalScores by Observation Category. 142 Table 2 Puzzle Board Persistence Task,Score Distribution of Total Scores by ObservationCategory. 143 Table 3 Summary of CATBReliability Coefficients. 144 Table 4 Product-MomentCorrelations AmongFourteen CATB Variables, 145 The MischelTechnique Table 1 Mischel Technique,Frequency of DelayWithin Field TestSubgroups. 153 Me MaoSituation Pic ure Board SociometricTechnique Table 1 Aeproducibilities ofPeer Choices: Two- Day Interval. 169 Table 2 Reproducibilities ofIndividual PeerChoices: Two Day Interval. 170 Table 3 Correlations BetweenSociometric and Teacher's Rankings of Children'sPopularity. 171 1 Acknowledgment The authors wish to acknowledge andexpress their appreciation for the excellent counsel and directionprovided by the task force's principle consultant, Dr. Robert Hess of StanfordUniversity. Through a series of meetings, over the several months ofour work, Dr. Hess provided extensive and valuable consultativeadvice, particularly with regard to the identification of criticalsocial-emotional dimensions toward which the task forcewas able to focus its efforts, We also wish to expressour appreciation to all of the profess- ionals who so willinglygave of their time in responding to our requests for information concerning their work. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the extensive anddiligent efforts of Dr. Lois-ellin Datta in guiding the taskforces work and aiding us in completing our assigned tasks. Working with professionals of this calibre is indeed a privilege. Robert P. Boger Sarah S. Knight Overview The Task The social-emotional task force was originally charged with developing and field testing new assessment procedures for the 1969- -70 Mead Start national evaluation. P.ecognizing that many instruments existed which might be appropriate to the area of concern, and which were already in a more nearly finished state than could be achieved for a new test, the work of the task force has evolved. It has become the development and/or further study of a group of early childhood social and emotional assessment techniques, and the field testing of each instrument within the appropriate Head Start population. Procedures The task involved several pllases. The first was concerned with a general search of the literature; communication with professional people and research centers in areas relevant to early childhood social and emotional behavior; and contact with specific instrument information sources. The second phase involved identification of specific instruments for further study and variables for which assessment techniques might be developed. The third phase involved instrument development and field testing. Literature Search The following isa bibliography of the general literaturesources used in the task! Annual Review of Psychology Child Development Abstractsand Bibliography Dissertation Abstracts Education Index Education Index ERIC Clearinghouse for Documentson the Disadvantaged ERIC Clearinghouse for Early ChildhoodEducation Handbook of Ilesearch rethods in ChildDevelopment, P. H. Itussen, Ed. Read Start ResearchReports International Bibliography ofNarriage and Family Measurement Resources in Child Research,O. G. Johnson Mental Measurements Yearbooks,Buros, Ed. NSSE Yearbooks Per&pectives on Human Deprivation' Biological, Psychological,_ and Sociolopical, The National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development Projective Techniques for Children,Rabin and Haworth Psychological Abstracts Review of Child Development Research,Hoffman and Hoffman, Eds. Review of Education 'research Science Information