THE„FSE OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR INFORMATION

BY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SECONDARY AGE STUDENT§/by

Charles FrederickQCapps

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATIONA

in

Counseling/Student Personnel Services(Vocational School Psychology)

APPROVED:

Thomas H. Hohenshil, Chairman

/ .6* rg Q Z „_ C;Q„,.„Q__

Susan B. Asselin Marvin G. Cline

«¤ —¢ ·>” Ä ,4--(kségi

lxßhkzHarrietCobb Lou Talbutt

August 1985

Blacksburg, Virginia

l

[THE USE OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR INFORMATION BY

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE PSYCHOLOGICAL

EVALUATION OF SECONDARY AGE STUDENTS

byi

Charles Frederick Capps

Committee Chairman: Thomas H. HohenshilStudent Personnel Services

(ABSTRACT)

An analysis of how adaptive behavior information is

obtained and used by school psychologists with secondary age

students was the focus of this investigation. School

V psychologists are often considered to be important sources

of information regarding the initial identification and

programming of students placed in special education classes.

Because the adaptive behavior instruments developed for

public school use have emphasized the initial placement/

identification of elementary age students, it was not known

how school psychologists approach the adaptive behavior

issue with secondary age students. This question was criti-

cal in light of research indicating the poor post secondary

transition of many handicapped students and the limited

training of school psychologists in providing services for

secondary age students. The study was undertaken to examine

the dynamics of practicing school psychologists' current use

of adaptive behavior information in the psychological assess-

ment of secondary age students.

To gather the data needed for the study, a questionnaire

was mailed to a representative sample of the membership of

the National Association of School Psychologists residing in

the United States. An 81.4% return rate was obtained.

One hundred eighty-seven school psychologists practicing

primarily in the schools provided data used in the study.

The results of this study indicate that if school

psychologists are to adequately address the post secondary

needs of secondary age students, they will need to become

familiar with newer adaptive behavior instruments which

address issues beyond the non-biased assessment of mild

mentally retarded students. Reforms in current re-

evaluation practices are needed to facilitate the use of

adaptive behavior instruments that can help facilitate the

post secondary transition of secondary age students. Also,

training programs need to place greater emphasis in skill

development for optimal psychological services with secon-

dary age students. More research is needed regarding the

experience/continuing education factor mentioned earlier.'

Also, test publishers need to encourage the development and

marketing of new adaptive behavior instruments which can

better help to facilitate the post secondary transition of

this population.

[ C

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ....................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................... v

LIST OF TABLES .................... x

Chapter

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

Adaptive Behavior Instrumentation .... 3

Adaptive Behavior Measurement inSecondary Schools ......... 8

Rationale for the Study ......... 9

Purpose of the Study ........... 11

Limitations of the Study ......... 13

Definition of Terms ........... 13

Summary and Organization of the Study . . 15

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........... 17

The Construct of Adaptive Behavior:History and Development ........ 17

Early Use of the Construct ..... 17

Contemporary Influences ....... 21

Adaptive Behavior in the NondiscriminatoryAssessment Process ........... 25

Litigation and Legislation ..... 27

v

Chapter Page

Instrumentation in NondiscriminatoryAssessment ............ 29

Adaptive Behavior Measurement forProgramming and Intervention ...... 36

Instrumentation for Programming/Intervention ........... 37

Adaptive Behavior of Secondary AgeStudents ................ 40

Vocational Education for theHandicapped ............ 42

Assessment with Secondary AgeStudents ............. 43

The School Psychologist in theAssessment Process ........... 46

Mail Questionnaire Surveys ........ 5l

Sumary ................. 52

3 METHODOLOGY .................. 54

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

IInstrumentation............. 55

The Questionnaire .......... 56

Data Collection ............. 59

Preliminary Letter ......... 59

Survey Packet ............ 59

Postcard Follow-up Contact ..... 60

Second Follow-up Contact ...... 60

vi

Chapter page

Data Analysis ....l .......... 6l

Summary ................. 62

4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ............. 63

Response Rate .............. 63

Description of Sample Characteristics . . 65

Age Distribution .......... 65

Sex Distribution .......... 68

Years of Experience as a SchoolPsychologist ........... 68

Highest Degree Earned ........ 68

Graduate Program .......... 69

Graduate Course In Assessment .... 70

Other Pertinent DemographicInformation ............ 70

Adaptive Behavior Orientation ...... 88

Techniques Used with SecondaryAge Students ........... 88

Approaches in Collecting AdaptiveBehavior Information ....... 92

Overall Approach ........ 95

Initial Referral for Behavioral/Emotional Problems ...... 96

Re—evaluation for Behavioral/Emotional Problems ...... 96

Initial Referral for LearningDisabilities ......... 97

vii

Chapter Page

Re-evaluation for LearningDisabilities ......... 97

Initial Referral for LimitedMental Abilities ....... 98

Re—evaluation for Mild MentalRetardation ......... 98

Referral for Moderate MentalRetardation ......... 99

Referral for Severe ProfoundMental Retardation ...... 100

Approaches to Initial and Re-evaluations with Secondary AgeStudents ............. 100

Purpose of PsychologicalEvaluations ......... 102

Important Components inPsychological Evaluations . . 102

Perceived Competency to ProvideAssessment Services to Secondary °Age Students ........... 105

Areas in Which School PsychologistsEntering the Profession NeedGreater Assessment Skills ..... 105

Beliefs Regarding Adaptive BehaviorMeasurement ............ 107

Results of Statistical ProceduresAssociated with Survey Variables .... 110

Variables .............. 115‘

Independent Variables ........ 115

Analysis of Survey Responses toResearch Questions ........... 123

viii

Chapter Page

Analysis of Survey Responses toSupplemental Questions ......... 139

Summary ................. 151

5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, ANDA

RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 154

Review of the Problem and ResearchMethods ................ 154

Summary of Findings ........... 157

Conclusions ............... 165

Discussion ............... 170

Implications of the Study ........ 177

Recommendations for Future Research . . . 178

Recommendations for the Profession .... 180

BIBLIOGRAPHY 182

APPENDICES

A National Survey on Assessment PracticesIn Secondary Schools ............ 205

B Correspondence ................ 216

C Additional Tables ............... 221

VITA ......................... 248

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Description of Sample and NASP Characteristics 66

2 Formal Assessment Training That Included theMeasurement of Adaptive Behavior ...... 71

3 Formal Assessment Training That AddressedServices to Secondary Age Students ..... 73

4 Experience During Training with SedondaryAge Populations ............... 75

5 Continuing Education in Adaptive BehaviorMeasurement Between 1979 and 1984 ...... 76

6 Continuing Education in Secondary SchoolPsychological Services Between1979 and 1984 ................ 77

7 Characteristics of Worksettings ........ 79

8 Selectivity of School PsychologistsAccording to Region of the Country andthe Size of Worksetting ........... 85

9 Distribution of School PsychologistsAccording to Age and Region of the

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I10Frequency Distribution by Region ....... 87

ll Rank Order in Frequency of Techniques Usedfor Collecting Adaptive Behavior Informationwith Secondary Age Students ......... 90

12 Rank According to Type of StandardizedAdaptive Behavior Instrument ........ 93

13 Additional Standardized Techniques Used BySchool Psychologists to Measure theAdaptive Behavior of Secondary Age Students . 94

x

Table Page

14 Rank Order of Perceived Purpose of InitialEvaluations and Re—evaluations with MildMentally Handicapped Secondary Age Students . 103

15 Rank Order of Components............ 104

16 Areas in Which Additional Skills Are Needed . . 106

17 School Psychologists' Impression ofColleagues Opinions About Adaptive

- Behavior Measures .............. 108

18 Eigenvalues and Percent of Common VarianceAccounted for by Each Psychologist Factor . . 118

19 Rotated Factor Matrix for Psychologists .... 119

20 Factor Transformation Matrix for Psychologists 120

21 Eigenvalues and Percent of Common VarianceAccounted for by Each Training Factor .... 120

22 Rotated Factor Matrix for Training ...... 121

23 Factor Transformation Matrix for Training . . . 122

24 Adaptive Behavior Measurement Techniquesby Type of Referral ............ 126

25 Distribution of Techniques with Referral . . . 128

26 Summary of Oneway ANOVA of Type of AdaptiveBehavior Instruments Used By Types ofTraining with Emotionally DisturbedSecondary Age Students ........... 129

27 Sumary of Oneway ANOVA of Type of AdaptiveBehavior Instruments Used By Types ofTraining with Learning DisabledSecondary Age Students ........... 130

28 Sumary of Oneway ANOVA of Type of AdaptiveBehavior Instruments Used By Types ofTraining with Mild Mentally RetardedSecondary Age Students ........... 131

xi

Table Page

29 Summary of Main Effects for Differences inReasons for Initial and Re—evaluations . . . 134

30 Sumary of Oneway ANOVA for Differences inReasons for Evaluating and Region ofthe Country ................. 138

31 Summary of Main Effects in the Degree SchoolPsychologists Feel Prepared to ProvideAssessment Services to Secondary AgeStudents .................. 141

32 Summary of Non—significant Interactions forPerceived Level of Preparation ....... 144

33 Summary of Oneway ANOVA for Degree Preparedand Region of the Country .......... 149

34 Non—Parametric Correlations BetweenProfessional Maturity, District Size,and Areas in which Greater Skills AreNeeded ................... 150

xii

CHAPTER l

Introduction

Concern for the ability of individuals to lead a produc-

tive life and take part in the affairs of the community was

expressed as far back as the early Greek and Roman civiliza-

tions (Oakland and Goldwater, 1979). Mental competence was

determined in regard to behaviors that were viewed as

important within specific social and cultural norms. This

emphasis on social competence as a major criterion for

normal behavior extended throughout the nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries (Lambert, Windmiller, Tharinger, and

Cole, 1981; Oakland and Goldwater, 1979).

Emphasis on social competence was included in many turn

of the century definitions of intelligence and mental retar-

dation (Coulter and Morrow, 1978b; Oakland and Goldwater,

1979). For example, Binet stated in 1906 that "the most

general formula we can adopt is this: An individual is

normal if he is able to conduct his affairs of life without

having need of supervision of others, if he is able to do

work sufficiently remunerative to supply his own personal

needs and finally if his intelligence does not unfit him

for the social environment of his parents" (Coulter, 1980).

Despite Binet's multidimensional definition, modern approaches

to identifying mental retardation have tended to rely almost

l

2

exclusively on an individual's performance on standardized

psychometric techniques involving a sample of cognitive and

motor skills (Lambert, Windmiller, Tharinger, and Cole,1981). lThe emphasis on psychometric approaches in identifying

mental retardation has been used, to a large extent, by pub-

lic school personnel (Mercer, 1970, 1973, 1978). This

method was widely used throughout the United States in the

l950's when states began to provide special education ser-

vices to the mentally retarded. The passage of Public Law

94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975)

and judicial decisions involving Diana v. State of

California (1970), Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary District

(1972), and Larry P. v. Riles (1974, 1979) forced public

educators and psychologists to address the issue of social

competence as well as intellectual functioning in placing

students in special education classes.

In each of these cases, the use of individual intelli-gence tests as the sole criteria for special class placement

was ruled illegal. It was decided that disproportionate

numbers of minority children were placed in classes for the

mild mentally retarded without regard for their culturally

relevant environment. Consequently, nondiscriminatory

assessment techniques must now be utilized in gathering data

regarding possible special education placement.

3

Responding to the need for nondiscriminatory assessment

procedures, school psychologists have explored the use of

adaptive behavior measurement scales as a possible supple-

ment to traditional intelligence tests (Lambert, Wilcox, and

Gleason, 1974; Tucker, 1977). The American Association of

Mental Deficiency defines adaptive behavior as "the effec-

tiveness or degree in which the individual meets the standard

of personal independence and social responsibility expected

of his age" (Grossman, 1973). Therefore, these scales are

designed to account for factors in an individua1's social

competence that are not manifested in more conventional

intellectually oriented techniques.

Adaptive Behavior Instrumentation

Coulter (1980) reported two surveys to determine what

adaptive behavior instruments were being used in the public

schools. The results of both surveys ranked the AAMD Adap-

tive Behavior Scale—Public School Version (ABS-PS), and the '

Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) as the two instruments

most commonly used for special education placement decisions.

Since the results of these surveys were first reported, the

Adaptive Behavior Inventory for Children (ABIC) has been

used frequently in some localities (Boyd, Slay, and Shiver,

1981; Coulter, 1980). In addition to these scales, a new

instrument which has been addressed in the school psychology

4

literature and is likely to gain more attention in regard to

the nondiscriminatory assessment issue is the Children's

Adaptive Behavior Scale (CABS) (Richmond and Horn, 1980).

Lambert (1979) reported that the ABS-PS was developed

in response to the assessment needs created by federal man-

dates. This scale was developed using the same format as

the original AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale. The major dif-'

ference between the two scales is that the public school

version was normed on public school handicapped students

rather than institutionalized subjects. Also, there is a

difference in the age norms of the two scales. The institu-

tional sample ranges in age from 3 to 69 years, whereas the

public school version was normed with children aged 7 years,

3 months to 13 years, 2 months. Close examination of these

norms indicated that the use of the ABS-PS in placing stu-

dents in special education classes is questionable because

the sample was not normally distributed and an overall level

of adaptive behavior is not obtainable. This is supported by

at least one study which indicates that Part I of the ABS-PS

does not differentiate between children who are mildly

retarded and slow learners (Bailey and Richmond, 1979).

Consequently, accurate prediction of an individual's rela-

tive level of adaptive functioning is limited (Bailey and

Richmond, 1979; Coulter, 1980). Also, the upper limit of

the ABS-PS norms only addresses adaptive behavior for early

5

adolescents. Thus, its utility with secondary school age

students appears to be questionable.

The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) was developed

for use with individuals from birth to 30 years of age.

Although this age range appears appropriate for use with the

population served by public schools, its norms are

generally considered to be dated and there is no measure of

maladaptive behavior in the scale (Taylor, Warren, and

Slocumb, 1979).

Both the ABIC and the CABS were developed in response

to the nondiscriminatory assessment issue. The ABIC is part

of the System of Multicutural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA).

The standardization sample included 700 Hispanics, 700

Blacks, and 700 Anglo children ranging in age from 5 years

to ll years, ll months (Baca and Cervantes, 1978; Mercer,

1977). The CABS is a new self-reporting instrument developed

for children aged 5 through 10 years. Like the ABIC, it is

normed on an inappropriate sample for addressing adolescent

needs (Richmond and Horn, 1980). It appears that the

emphasis on the nondiscriminatory identification/placement

dimension of adaptive behavior measurement by public schools

has encouraged the development of scales which address the

age ranges of children who are typically evaluated for

initial special education placement.

6

In assessing the adaptive functioning of secondary

school students, it might be assumed that the use of this

type of instrument has limited value. That is, most high

school students referred for psychological evaluations have

already been placed in special education classes and they

are usually re-evaluated for the sole purpose of determining

continuation in the program. Consequently, initial identifi-

cation and placement are seldom made at the secondary level.

The few adaptive behavior instruments that address

adolescents were, for the most part, developed by individuals

in the field of mental retardation. These scales tend to

focus on the needs of institutionalized clients (Coulter and

Morrow, l978c). A common feature of these scales is that

they were developed to address programmatic needs of the

institutionalized retarded in the areas of self-help, com-

munication, motor development, and socialization. The idea

is to assess the client's level of functioning in each of

these domains and then develop a program that will facili-

tate the individual in progressing through each of these

domains. Improvement in each of these areas will help the

retarded individual toward maximum independent functioning.

It appears that adaptive behavior scales have emerged

through the needs of two separate camps. The public school

camp has been involved in designing instruments that can help

in identifying the levels in which one might be deficient in

7

adaptive functioning. Consequently, if one is below a mini-

mum criteria level, then special education placement may be

recommended. Since initial placement in special education

is the main concern of the public school camp, instrumenta-

tion development has centered on elementary age pupils. On

the other hand, the mental retardation camp has concentrated

on developing scales that will help in programming for the

deinstitutionalization of handicapped individuals. Although

these scales have norms which address adolescents, their use-

fulness with milder handicapped pupils in the public schools

appears limited. Recently, a few scales have been developed

for secondary age public school students. These instruments

which include the Social and Prevocational Information

Battery (SPIB) (Halpern, Raffeld, Irvin, and Link, 1975),

Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale (VARS) (Malgady, Barcher,

Davis, and Towner, 1980), and the AAMD Adaptive Behavior

Scale-School Edition (ABS-SE) (Lambert, Windmiller,

Tharinger, and Cole, 1981) have been totally ignored in the

school psychology literature. The reason for this lack of

attention is unclear. It can only be speculated that school

psychologists have limited understanding of the potential

use of adaptive behavior information beyond the nondiscrimi—

natory assessment issue (Coulter, 1980).

8

Adaptive Behavior Measurement inSecondary Schools

Coulter and Morrow (1978c) have expressed concern about

the limited amount of information concerning adolescent adap-

tive behavior. This issue needs to be addressed so public

schools can better prepare handicapped secondary school stu-

dents for their post school environments. The difficulty

handicapped individuals experience adapting to post school

environments is well documented (Brolin and Gysbers, 1979;

Livingston, Korn, and McAlees, 1982). Much of this problem

involves poor vocational and social development (Karayanni,

1981; Lombana, 1980; Sabatino, Goh, and Jenson, 1982;

Sinick, 1979). Consequently, many of these individuals have

difficulty achieving levels of personal independence and

social responsibility required when they leave school. ·

Career and vocational education are logical approaches

to helping handicapped secondary students develop skills

that will facilitate their adaptation to post school environ-

ments (Brolin and Gysbers, 1979; Epstein, 1982; Hohenshil,

1974; Hohenshil, Ryan, and Warden, 1978). Until recently,

these students had little, if any, opportunity to participate

in such programs. The passage of Public Law 94-142, along

with Public Law 94-482 (Vocational Education Act of 1976)

and Section 504 of Public Law 93-112 (The rehabilitation Act

of 1973) have mandated public schools to provide career/

9

vocational services for the handicapped. This legislation

has begun to have an impact on our public schools. Increased

numbers of handicapped individuals have been identified and

educated in the public school setting since the passage of

Public Law 94-142 (Hohenshil, 1982). Many of these indivi-

duals are now in or preparing to leave public secondary

schools (Hohenshil, Shepard, and Capps, 1982). To better

serve these students it is vital that the vocational and

social development issues stated earlier are addressed.

That is, to facilitate handicapped students in reaching the

standards of personal independence and social responsibility

expected for post school adjustment, school psychologists

need to stress the measurement of adaptive behavior skills

beyond the nondiscriminatory assessment issue.

Rationale for the Study

Effective use of the techniques developed from the two

camps mentioned earlier could have a tremendous impact on

how well our public schools prepare the handicapped for

their post school environments. Techniques that address

placement issues may be helpful with decisions regarding

appropriate vocational placement (Malgady, Barcher, Davis,

and Towner, 1980). That is, this approach could help deter-

mine appropriate placement in settings such as sheltered

workshops, prevocational training programs, regular

10

vocational training centers, on-the-job-training, and so on.

Once a student is placed in a program, the development of

individual objectives could be facilitated through the use

I of intervention/programmatic techniques. Standardized as

well as sociometric and qualitative approaches have been and

are still being developed to gather both types of infor-

mation with school age populations (Guidubaldi, Kehle, andI

Murray, 1979; Irvin, Halpern, and Reynolds, 1977; Malgady,

Barcher, Davis, and Towner, 1980). It seems reasonable to

assume that school psychologists could play on important

role in maximizing the effective use of these techniques.

School psychologists are often considered to be impor-

tant sources of information regarding the initial identifica-

tion and programming of students placed in special education

classes (Fagan, 1981; Senft and Snider, 1980). Because the

adaptive behavior instruments currently used in public

schools emphasize the initial placement/identification of

students, it is unknown how school psychologists approach

the adaptive behavior issue with secondary school students.

The question is critical in light of recent surveys which

suggest that school psychologists receive limited training

for providing services to secondary school populations

(Carroll, Bretzing, and Harris, 1981; Pfeiffer and Mormo,

1981; Shepard, 1982).

ll

Purpose of the Study

The major purpose of this study is to examine how adap-

tive behavior information is obtained and used by school

pscyhologists with secondary age students. This data will

be based on a sample of the membership of the National

Association of School Psychologists. The following research

questions will be directly addressed:

l. To what extent do school psychologists' age, sex,training, experience, and worksetting relate to the type ofadaptive behavior information gathered in the psychologicalassessment of secondary age students? That is, do certaincharacteristics of school psychologists relate to whetherthey use adaptive behavior measurement techniques designedto address the instructional needs, placement needs, both,or neither with secondary age students?

2. To what extent do school psychologists utilizeadaptive behavior measurement techniques differently fordifferent types of handicapped secondary age students oninitial evaluations and re-evaluations?

3. To what extent do school psychologists who differin training and other demographic characteristics alsodiffer in the way they assess adaptive behavior with varioustypes of secondary age handicapped students referred forinitial evaluations and re-evaluations?

4. To what extent do the training and experience ofschool psychologists contribute to the differences betweenthe reasons and procedures they utilize in initial evalua-tions versus re-evaluations of mild mentally retardedsecondary age students? ’

The two surveys reported by Coulter (1980) addressed

policies and practice regarding the use of adaptive behavior

information in public schools. The results of these surveys

indicated a need to refine existing approaches to the

l2

measurement of adaptive behavior. Particular problems were

identified regarding the lack of consistent approaches used

to measure the adaptive behavior of secondary age popula-

tions. Many of the problems indicated in the surveys were

explained by Coulter as resulting from limited instrumenta-

tion development and training for adequate use of these

techniques in the public schools. Since the results of the

surveys were first reported, several adaptive behavior in-

struments have been developed for use at both the elementary

and secondary levels. Also, practitioners have had time to

gain training and experience in adaptive behavior measure-

ment. Therefore, it seems appropriate at this time to gain

further insight on the "state of the art" in the measurement

of adaptive behavior by school psychologists.

The relevance of this study is indicated through three

major points. First, the way in which adaptive behavior in-

formation is used (or not used) with secondary age students

by school psychologists may impact the need for pre- and

inservice training. That is, if school psychologists are

not using adaptive behavior information to optimally facili-

tate the post school adjustment of handicapped secondary

students, then current pre- and inservice practices may need

revision. Graduate training programs in school psychology

may need to add courses and training relating to the career

13

and rehabilitation needs of the handicapped. State depart-

ments of education and licensure boards may decide to require

such training in order for a school psychologist to be cre-

dentialed to provide services through the secondary level.

Secondly, the results of this study could impact the future

development of adaptive behavior instrumentation for secon-

dary age populations. If adequate assessment services are

not being provided by school psychologists, then test pub-

lishers may become motivated to support the development of

better adaptive behavior instruments. Finally, it seems

logical to assume that improved training and instrumentation

would ultimately impact the ability of secondary school per-

sonnel to prepare handicapped students for their post

secondary environments.

Limitations of the Study

Because the study focuses exclusively on practitioners

who are members of the National Association of School Psy-

chologists, findings may not be generalized to psychologists

who are not associated with this organization.

Definition of Terms

Key terms used in this study are defined as follows:

1. Adaptive behavior. Involves the effectiveness or

the degree in which an individual meets the standards of

14

personal independence and social responsibility expected for

his/her age and relevant culture (Grossman, 1973; Morrow and

Coulter, 1978; and Oakland, 1976).

2. Psychological assessment. The employment of any

relevant data regarding the attributes of an individual,

along with environmental or situational determinants of his/

her behavior. Data collection is not restricted by a narrow

focus on psychometric validity (Mahoney and Ward, 1976). In

terms of this study, psychological assessment involves the

systematic collection and integration of data by psycholo-

gists regarding identification/placement or intervention/

programming of students suspected of having difficulty ad-

justing to societal and/or personal expectations (Coulter

and Morrow, 1978a).

3. Nondiscriminatory assessment. A modification of

traditional psychological assessment procedures which ensures

that professional decisions are based on data that do not

discriminate against ethnic minorities. In terms of this

study, such techniques assure that minority students are not

disproportionately placed in special education classroom

settings (Coulter and Morrow, 1978; Mercer, 1973).

4. Special education. Involves services provided over

and above the regular school program for handicapped students

in facilitating the development of their potentialities

and/or the correction of disabilities (Kirk, 1972).

15

5. Vocational assessment. A comprehensive process

conducted over a period of time, involving a multi-

disciplinary team which helps students increase their career

awareness and understand how their personal attributes relate

to the world of work. This process is useful to educators

in planning a student's individual program to facilitate the

attainment of his or her vocational potential (Texas

Education Agency, 1982).div

6. Vocational education. That part of the career edu-

cation process that emphasizes the exploration and attainment

of specific work-related skills with secondary and post

secondary students (Shepard, 1982).

Summary and Organization of the Study

The development and use of adaptive behavior instruments ~

have evolved through two separate sources. One source

involves individuals concerned with the nondiscriminatory

assessment needs of public schools in identifying students

for special education placement. The other source is com-

posed of individuals interested in programming for the dein-

stitutionalization of mentally retarded individuals. Both

sources have devoted marginal attention to the adaptive be-

havior of secondary age students. The purpose of this study

is to examine how school psychologists address the problem

16

of collecting adaptive behavior information with this popu-

lation. This will be accomplished through data obtained in

a survey of the membership of the National Association of

School Psychologists.

In Chapter 1, the problem was introduced and elaborated.

The rationale and purpose of the study were presented along

with its limitations. Also, key terms were defined.

Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature concerning the

measurement of adaptive behavior. Details concerning the

methodology are discussed in Chapter 3 regarding subjects,

instrumentation, data collection, and analysis. The results

are presented in Chapter 4, while conclusions and

recommendations are provided in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

A review of the relevant literature is presented in this

·chapter. Included are five major sections which address

adaptive behavior. The first section focuses on the deve-

lopment of adaptive behavior as a construct. The measure- .

ment of this construct in the nondiscriminatory assessment

process is discussed in the second section. The third sec-

tion includes a discussion of how adaptive behavior infor-

mation is used in developing intervention strategies. The

next section involves the measurement of adaptive behavior

with secondary age populations. The school psychologist's

role in measuring the adaptive behavior of secondary age

students is addressed in the fifth section. An additional

section involves the use of mailed questionnaires in social

science research. A final section is included to summarize

the contents of the chapter.

The Construct of Adaptive Behavior:History and Development

Early Use of the Construct

Historical records indicate that the degree of nor-

mality in an individuals behavior was addressed as far back

as early Grecian and Roman Civilizations (Oakland and

Goldwater, 1979). Normal mental ability was judged by the

17

18

ability of an individual to integrate into the productive

functions of the community. These early concepts of adap-

tive behavior viewed deficits in productive functioning as

mental illness (Coleman, 1972; Oakland and Goldwater, 1979).

Such historical figures as Hippocrates, Euripides and Plato

viewed maladaptive functioning as an organically based

illness in the brain (Coleman, 1972; Oakland and Goldwater,

1979).

Distinctions between the adaptive functioning of the

mentally ill and the mentally defective were not made until

the late seventeenth century (Doll, 1962). At that time,

Locke stated that ”herein seems to lie the differences

between idiots and madmen, that madmen put wrong ideas

together and reason from them, but idiots make very few or

no propositions and reason scarce at all" (Oakland and

Goldwater, 1979, p. 125). As the humanitarian reform move-

ment gained momentum in Europe during the eighteenth cen-

tury, increased effort was made to differentiate the

educational, medical, and social welfare needs of these

groups of handicapped individuals. The emphasis of inter-

vention was to help individuals develop the social competen-

cies necessary to function in society (Colemen, 1972;

Coulter and Morrow, 1978). Most notable among Europeans

addressing these social competencies were Itard, Sequin,

Haslan, Guggenbahl, and Voisin (Coulter and Morrow, 1978a).

19

These reformers established educational institutions for the

mentally defective that addressed both the sensory-motor and

vocational competencies needed to function successfully in

society (Doll, 1967; Oakland and Goldwater, 1979). The work

of these humanitarians influenced the development of programs

in the United States which addressed the differential treat-

ment of the handicapped (Oakland and Goldwater, 1979).

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,

adaptive behavior became closely associated with the con-

cepts of intelligence and mental retardation (Oakland and

Goldwater, 1979). Many psychologists and educational refor-

mers such as Itard, Sequin, and Binet viewed intelligence as

a multilevel and multidimensional construct. This approach

recognized intelligence as being manifested through many

different behaviors in a variety of settings.

The popularity of this multilevel—multidimensiona1

approach to intelligence influenced the American Association

on Mental Deficiency to develop a classification system for

mental retardation. This system recognized mental retar-

dation as a continuum of maladaptive skills that inhibits

community functioning. The categories included idiots,

imbeciles, and morons. In essence, it was implied that the

more severe the individual's inability to develop adaptive

skills, the greater the degree of mental retardation.

20

This increased sensitivity to the differential needs of

the mentally ill and mentally retarded stimulated the concern

to accurately and parsimoniously diagnose each category.

Alfred Binet, a French psychologist, was the first to

receive recognition regarding the objective measurement of

intellectual differences (Anastasi, 1976). His work was put

to practical use in 1904 when he was appointed by the French

Minister of Public Instruction to study methods of educating

mentally retarded children (Wolf, 1972). In 1905 Binet,

along with his associate Simon, developed a 30 item scale to

test students who failed to respond to normal schooling.

This testing was conducted to determine the appropriateness

of special classes for these failing students. This test

and its revisions (i.e. 1908, 1911) covered a variety of

functions including practical judgment, comprehension, and

reasoning skills Binet felt were essential for intelligent

behavior (Anastasi, 1976; Sattler, 1974). It did not take

long for objective psychometric testing to spread to the

United States. This method quickly became the dominant

system for classifying individuals (Anastasi, 1976; Oakland

and Goldwater, 1976). Emphasis was soon placed on the deve-

lopment of psychometric instruments which could differentiate

intellectual performance rather than techniques consistent

with existing theories of intelligence (Mahoney and Ward,

1976). Consequently, it appears that Binet's psychometric

21

contributions had a greater impact in the identification of

mental retardation than his multilevel-multidimensional

theory of intelligence (Coulter and Morrow, 1978b; Kamin,

1974; Oakland and Goldwater, 1979). .

Contemporary Influences

The use of standardized psychometric instruments has

remained a popular approach to identifying the mentally

retarded throughout the twentieth century. Development of

these instruments has typically focused on skills related to

academic performance (Kamin, 1974; Mercer, 1978). This

trend was logical because the early school years are typi-

cally the first time close comparisons are made in

childrens' performance and abilities (Heber, 1962; Reschly,

1982). As states began to mandate educational programs for

the mentally retarded, placement procedures were initiated

which used performance on psychometric tests as the basis

for identification. Mercer (1973) found, during a study in

the mid-sixties, that the Riverside California Public Schools

relied almost exclusively on intelligence test data when

identifying mentally retarded children. This psychometric

approach to identifying the mentally retarded was not

limited to public schools. Mercer also found that many com-

munity agencies relied on intelligence test data in labeling

the mentally retarded. It was concluded by Mercer (1973)

22

that psychologists, physicians, and educators believed, to a

large extent, that intelligence tests tapped some general

ability that reflected performance in a variety of roles and

circumstances.

One of the first attempts to study the community

aspects of mental retardation was started in 1954 at Pacific

State Hospital in California (Coulter and Morrow, 1978b).

This study focused on the identification of all mentally

retarded individuals in Riverside, California. Techniques

were used to insure that mentally retarded individuals never

before labeled were identified. The definition of mental

retardation used in the study addressed impairment of both

intellectual and social role functioning (Mercer, 1973). „

This latter function was called "adaptive behavior." It was

found that many individuals, labeled mentally retarded on the

basis of an intelligence test, functioned quite well in their

community. Mercer (1975) argued that the results of the _

Pacific State Hospital study suported a multidimensional

approach to assessing individua1s' intellectual functioning

as it relates to relevant sociocultural settings. The

impact of Mercer's conclusions was most apparent in the

fields of special education and school psychology (Reschly,

1982). Sensitivity to children who appeared retarded only

while in school (i.e., The Six-Hour Retarded) and concern

for the questionable quality of public school classes for

23

the mentally retarded gained a great deal of momentum from

these findings. According to Mercer, these results indi-

cated that large numbers of minority and disadvantaged stu-

dents were over represented in these classes. Furthermore,

it was suggested that these students were receiving an

inferior education because they were being segregated due to

unfair comparisons with the majority culture through theI

sole use of intelligence test data.

In 1959, while the Pacific Hospital study was in full

swing, the American Association on Mental Deficiency pre-

sented the concept of adaptive behavior as a dimension in

the classification of mental retardation (Heber, 1959). In

1961, the AAMD Manual on Terminology and Classification in

Mental Retardation defined this handicapping condition as

“subaverage general intellectual functioning which originates

during the developmental period and is associated with impair-

ment in adaptive behavior" (Heber, l96la, p. 499). Sub-

average general intellectual functioning involved scores

below one standard deviation of the mean on standardized

intelligence tests. In this definition, adaptive behavior

was referred to as "the effectiveness of the individual in

adapting to the natural and social demands of the environ-

ment. Impaired adaptive behavior may be reflected in (1)

maturation, (2) learning, and/or (3) social adjustment.

These three aspects of adaptive behavior are of different

24

importance as qualifying conditions of mental retardation

for different age groups" (Heber, 1961b, p. 3-4). In this

approach, diagnosis focused on current levels of functioning.

Consequently, academic performance in the active learning

environment of the school would be the major criteria in the

identification of school age mentally retarded children

(Reschly, 1982).

Reschly (1982) suggested that publicity gained from the

results of the Pacific State Hospital Project influenced

further modifications of the above definitions of mental

retardation and adpative behavior. These revisions to the

definition of mental retardation were published in the 1973

and 1977 AAMD Manuals on Terminology and Classification

(Grossman, 1973, 1977). In these revisions, mental retarda-

tion was addressed in the following manner: "Mental retar-

dation refers to significantly subaverage general intellec-

tual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in

adaptive behavior ...." (Grossman, 1977, p. ll). Reschly

(1982) argues that the term 'significant' means that the I.Q.

cut off no longer includes individuals functioning on the

borderline level (i.e., I.Q. cutoff--2 standard deviations)

and the term concurrently places additional emphasis on

adaptive behavior. The revamped definition of adaptive

behavior stated that "adaptive behavior is defined as the

effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets the

25

standards of personal independence and social responsibility

expected for his/her age and cultural groups" (Grossman,

1973, 1977, p. 11). This definition puts more emphasis on

an individual's ability to function outside of the academic

environment of the school. Consequently, the quality of

one's adaptive behavior is now determined in regard to

social role performance in relation to his or her age and

relevant culture. It has been argued that this definition

is essentially the same as Binet's original definition of

intelligence (Kamin, 1974; Oakland, 1976).

Adaptive behavior in the NondiscriminatoryAssessment Process

A major function of psychological assessments is the

identification and/or placement of individuals in appropriate

treatments or categories (Coulter and Morrow, 1978a). For

example, this could involve diagnosis to determine the

psychological state of a psychiatric patient or eligibility

for placement in a special education program. The ability

to make such fine distinctions using psychological test data

without discriminating unfairly against a particular group

or groups has been seriously questioned (Weintraub, Abeson,

Ballard, and LaVor, 1976). Kamin (1974) argued that psycho-

logical tests were used unfairly to discriminate against

southern and eastern Europeans entering the United States

26

during the early part of the twentieth century. These

immigrants were apparently administered intelligence tests

in English as they entered the United States. Few of the

immigrants were fluent in this language which caused them to

earn low scores. According to Kamin, the results of this

biased testing procedure were presented to prove the heredi-

tary inferiority of these immigrants.

Until the mid l950's, the psychological testing move-

ment received wide public acceptance (Laosa, 1977). At that

time, criticism of these instruments centered on their bias

against minorities, promotion of homogeneous educational

placements, and the advancement of low expectations mani-

fested in a self-fulfilling prophecy (Laosa, 1977; Oakland,

1976; Throndike, 1971). ‘

Jane Mercer, a sociologist and field director with the

Pacific State Hospital Project, used the results of the

study to publicly support criticism that intelligence test

data unfairly discriminated against minority populations

(Mercer, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1978). She based her argument on

the findings that disproportionate numbers of minority stu-

dents were placed in public school classes for the mild men-

tally retarded. Also, it was found that determination of

these placements was made almost exclusively through intel-

ligence test data. The increased concern stimulated by

Mercer about bias in testing led to litigation and legislation

27

relating to the nondiscriminatory assessment of minority

children.

Litigation and Legislation

Several judicial decisions have had direct impact on

the nondiscriminatory assessment issue. The first case to

reach the courts involving bias in testing was Hobson v.

Hansen (1967). This suit involved the screening procedures

used in the "tracking system" in the Washington, D.C.,

public schools. It was ruled that the standardized tests

used to place students in educational tracks appropriate to

their needs and abilities were disciminatory. The basis for

this decision involved evidence that poor black children were

over represented in the lower tracks. Although this case

was not related to special education placements, it was used~

as a precedent in such cases (Reschly, 1979).

The first class action suit involving overrepresentation

of minorities in special education classes for the mentally

retarded involved Diana v. State of California (1970). This

suit was filed in behalf of bilingual children placed in

Monterey County California Public School classes for the

mild mentally retarded. It was argued that the intelligence

tests used to identify these students were inappropriate

because they were administered in English with middle class,

white-oriented content. The evidence presented by the

28

plaintiffs demonstrated that 33.3% of the children placed in

classes for the mild mentally handicapped were Spanish sur-

named, while only 18.5% of the entire school population were

of Spanish ancestry. A settlement was made out of court

which resulted in these students being retested in their

native language. Upon completion of the testing, 4,000

Spanish speaking students were placed out of classes for the

mild mentally retarded and into the mainstreamed environment.

Despite the haste in which these children re-entered the

regular education environment, many made the transition with

little or no difficulty (Hewett and Forness, 1974; Yoshida,

MacMillan, and Meyers, 1976). Because few adjustment

problems were identified in this process, the belief that

bilingual children were being mislabeled due to biased test

results was reinforced (Reschly, 1979).

The assessment of adpative behavior first became a

judicial issue in Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary District

(1972). This case was similar to the Diana suit in that it

concerned the overrepresentation of minority students, but

it went one step further in specifying appropriate diagnostic

procedures. Among the procedures required as an outcome of

this case was the assessment of adaptive behavior which must

include information pertaining to a chi1d's out of school

functioning.

29

The above cases had a major impact on public policy re-

garding the education of handicapped children (Reschly, 1979;

Weintraub, Abeson, Ballard, and LaVor, 1976). Legislation

4 soon followed which mandated nonbiased services for the han-

dicapped. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and

Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children

Act of 1975, are federal laws which provide guidelines forh

the assessment and placement of handicapped students. Among

the procedures required is a multifactual assessment which

includes the measurement of adaptive behavior (Tucker,

1977). Both laws have been important determinants of state

policies regarding the assessment of students for placement

in special education classes.

Instrumentation in NondiscriminatoryAssessment

Several adaptive behavior measurement scales have been

developed in response to the nondiscriminatory assessment

issue. During the late l960's and early l970's, Lambert

lead a team from the University of California, Berkeley, in

an attempt to find an appropriate adaptive behavior instru-

ment to identify mild mentally retarded children in the

public schools (Lambert, 1978). This group concluded that

the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale was the best constructed

and theoretically sound instrument available at the time.

30

Because the scale was developed for the programmatic needs

of institutionalized populations, its appropriateness for

public school utilization had not been examined. The team

renormed the original scale with 2,800 California children

ages 7-3 years to 13-2 years. Item feasibility was examined

through the data obtained from this sample. Inappropriate

items for school settings were identified and omitted in the

new scale. This adaptation was named the AAMD Adaptive

Behavior Scale-Public School Version (ABS-PS) (Lambert,

Windmiller, Cole, and Figuerna, 1975). This instrument

quickly became a popular tool in assessing adaptive behavior

for the identification of mild mentally retarded students

(Coulter and Morrow, 1978c). Studies examining the psycho-

metric credibility and practical utility of this instrument

led to major revisions of this scale (Lambert, Windmiller,

Tharinger, and Cole, 1981). These revisions have been incor-

porated in the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale-School Edition

(ABS-SE).

Several changes and additions were made to maximize the

utility of the ABS-SE in the public schools. First, the

standardization sample was increased to include a Florida

fieldtest sample, a California preschool sample, a California

reevaluation sample, and a California secondary school

sample. The new samples were added to the original sample

for a total of 6,500 subjects. Secondly, these norms were

31

expanded to include preschool children three years of age to

secondary school students up to sixteen years of age. Norms

were also developed separately with discriminant coeffi-

cients for regular, mild mentally retarded and moderately

mentally retarded students. A third feature of the ABS-SE

is a result of factor analytic studies indicating that the

twenty behavioral domains in the scale could be grouped into

five factors for parsimonious interpretation (Guarnaccia,

1976; Lambert, 1981; Lambert and Nicoll, 1976; Nihira, 1969a,

1969b). These factors include personal self—sufficiency,

community self-sufficiency, person-social responsibility,

social adjustment and personal adjustment. The authors

reported that these factor scores make it possible to obtain

a total comparison score for determining appropriate place-

ments. This ability to make comparisons is a significant

feature since much of the criticism surrounding the ABS—PS

involved the inability to compare the overall adaptive beha-

vior of regular and retarded students (Bailey and Richmond,

1979; Coulter, 1980). Additional improvements include step-

by-step directions for scoring and instructional planning,

along with updated technical data (Lambert, Windmiller,

Tharinger, and Cole, 1981). Reliability of the ABS-SE

appears satisfactory (Sattler, 1982). Lambert (1978)

reported internal consistency reliabilities ranging from

r = .70 to .92. Givens and Ward (1982) reported satisfactory

32

test-retest reliabilities on all but one domain on Part I of

the Scale. However, their results suggest that test-retest

reliability of maladaptive behavior domains (Part II) is

questionable.

The Adaptive Behavior Inventory for Children (ABIC)

(Mercer and Lewis, 1978) has received much attention in the

field of school psychology (Oakland, 1979a, 1979b). It is a

component of the System of Multicultural Pluralistic

Assessment (SOMPA), which was designed to address mandates

requiring multifactual assessment of school age children

(Reschly, 1979). The ABIC measures six areas of adaptive

behavior: family, peers, community, school, earner/consumer,

and self—maintenance; thus, addressing the child's ability

to function in a variety of roles and situations. Studies

indicate that it appears to measure performance in these

areas fairly accurately (Oakland, 1979a). Sattler (1982)

suggests that pattern analysis may be done between these

areas. Weaknesses of the instrument appear to involve its

exclusive reliance on information provided by a guardian,

its inability to differentiate between expectations of

various social systems, and the lack of national norms

(Oakland, 1979; Sattler, 1982).

A relatively new instrument designed to measure adap-

tive behavior of public school children is the Children's

Adaptive Behavior Scale (CABS) (Richmond and Kicklighter,

33

1979). This instrument was designed as a brief self report

technique to determine a child's functioning in the areas of

language development, independent functioning, family role

performance, economic-vocational activities, and socializa-‘

tion. The self report format was used because of inconsis-

tent data obtained on other adaptive behavior instruments

from third party informants. Also, its brevity is in

response to criticism of other instruments which take con-

siderable time to administer. Research on the CABS has been

limited but encouraging (Richmond and Horn, 1980). A major

weakness of the CABS, besides limited reliability and vali-

dity studies, involves the representativeness of its norma-

tive sample. Although a national standardization study is

in progress (Estabrook and Cummings, 1983), the instrument

was developed and marketed with a limited normative group of

250 educable mentally retarded children between 5 and 10

years of age in South Carolina and Georgia. Richmond and

Horn (1980) have suggested that information obtained from

the student may be useful along with data gathered from

guardians and teachers in making educational decisions.

The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) (Doll, 1965)

has been frequently used to measure adaptive behavior in the

nonbiased assessment process (Coulter, 1980). It covers an

age range between birth and adulthood in seven categories:

34

self-help dressing, self-direction, occupation, communica-

tion, locomotion, and socialization. Sattler (1982) suggests

that information obtained from the VSMS may add to clinical

insight during counseling and interviewing. However, the

VSMS was not developed to address nonbiased assessment issues

and its norms and other psychometric properties are not

adequate for such functions (Reschly, 1982).

Few studies have been conducted regarding the psycho-

metric quality of these recently developed instruments.

Reschly (1982) suggests that these scales need to be examined

in respect to their relationship to measured intelligence,

effect on special education placements, and the ability to

generalize from their norms. Among these recently developed

scales, the ABIC appears to have the lowest correlations with

measured intelligence. Mercer (1978) reported correlations

of near zero to .3 with a median of .15. Correlational stu-

dies with the CABS and measured intelligence appear moderate

(Reschly, 1982). Lambert (1981) indicates that the ABS-SE

also moderately correlates with intelligence. It appears

that the CABS and the ABS-SE have a stronger relationship to

academically related expectations than the ABIC (Reschly,

1982).

Research regarding the effect of adaptive behavior

measures in reducing disproportionate numbers of minority

35

children in classes for the mild mentally retarded are

scarce. Fisher (1978) reported that the ABIC has been suc-

cessful in reducing overrepresentation of minority children.

In fact, reduced placements for all groups were indicated in

this study. No studies have been reported to date concerning

overrepresentation with other adaptive behavior instruments

(Reschly, 1982).·

None of the instruments have been standardized on a

representative national sample. Instead, each was normed on

relatively small samples in specific regions of the country

(Reschly, 1982). Studies investigating how the ABIC genera-

lizes to populations outside of its standardization group

indicates that such attempts are questionable (Oakland, 1979;

Scott, Mastenbrook, Fisher, and Gridley, 1982). Local norm-

ing of such instruments has been suggested as a preferred

technique to national sampling (Estabrook and Cummings, 1983;

Richmond and Kicklighter, 1979). At present, this would

appear to be an overly time consuming task for most

practitioners.

In sum, it appears that little research has been done

regarding the development and use of adaptive behavior

instruments in the nonbiased assessment process. The ABIC

was developed to address adaptive behaviors outside of the

academic environments; whereas, the CABS and ABS—SE attend

36

to adaptive functioning important to academic success. Of

these instruments, only the ABS—SE addresses pre—school and

secondary age students' instructional needs. Each has unique

characteristics that may contribute to special education

decision making. It seems logical to assume that none of

these instruments have obtained "state of the art" credi-

bility. Much of the problem appears to center on the lack

of consensus regarding the most appropriate information to

be gathered. Reschly (1982) suggests that it is important

to gather data on in-school and out of school adaptive

behavior from as many sources as possible (i.e., guardians,

teachers, students, etc.) in making appropriate placement

decisions.

Adaptive Behavior Measurement forProgramming and Intervention

The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) was the only

instrument available to address social competencies when the

American Association on Mental Deficiency first addressed

adaptive behavior in its definition of mental retardation

(Coulter & Morrow, 1978c). Because of the limited instrumen-

tation developed to address adaptive behavior, the American

Assoication on Mental Deficiency initiated a project in 1965

with Parsons State Hospital (Kansas) to address the adaptive

behavior of institutionalized mentally retarded individuals.

37

The specific purpose of this study was to (1) review the

literature on social competence, (2) develop approaches to

validate the independent dimensions of adaptive behavior,

(3) formulate a workable definition, (4) develop a reference

library, and (5) establish a manual to guide in the measure-

ment of adaptive behavior that would facilitate planning for

the remediation of deficit behaviors among institutionalized

mentally retarded individuals. In other words, the assess-

ment of deficits in essential behavioral domains could help

institutional staff develop individual programs that would

help the client progress through each domain toward maximum

independent functioning. The project developed two adaptive

behavior scales that were revised and consolidated into one

instrument which became known as the AAMD Adaptive Behavior

Scale-Clinical Version (ABS-CV) (Nihira, Foster, Shellhaas,

and Leland, 1974). Since the project's initiation, a number

of adaptive behavior scales have been developed for the

programmatic/intervention needs of the handicapped (Coulter

and Morrow, l978c; Walls and Werner, 1977).

Instrumentation for Programmingglntervention

Adaptive behavior instruments designed to address insti-

tutional needs have often placed little emphasis on the need

for representative norms. Instead, these instruments have

38

focused on criterion behaviors deemed important in develop-

ing optimal levels of personal independence and social

responsibility. Thus, baseline behavior would be established

with the instrument and remedial programming would address

the specific areas, sequence, and content of instruction in

appropriate behavioral domains (Carver, 1974; Coulter and

Morrow, l978c). Several of these instruments were included

in the surveys reported by Coulter and Morrow (1978c).

These scales include:

Balthazar Scales of Adaptive Behavior

Behavior Characteristics Progression Chart

Cambridge Assessment, Developmental Rating and Evaluation

Developmental Evaluation Scale

Fairview Behavior Evaluation Battery

Oakwood Resident Movement Scale and Curriculum

T.M.R. Performance Profile for the Severely andModerately Retarded

Y.E.M.R. Performance Profile for the Young Moderatelyand Mildly Retarded

A common feature of the above scales is that they were

developed for use in specific institutional settings. Conse-

quently, these instruments are used to measure an individual's

progress through specific behavioral domains within a par-

ticular institutional setting. Thus, normative information

is ignored.

39

It has been argued that norms may be useful in the

measurement of adaptive behavior for instructional

programming. Here, information could be obtained to group

individuals with similar instructional needs, compare indi-

viduals with larger groups, plan and implement programs,

monitor program progress, and evaluate instructional out-

comes (Halpen, Raffeld, Irvin and Link, 1975). Some of the

better known adaptive behavior instruments with norms that

address programming/intervention needs include:

Adaptive Behavior Scale-Clinical Version

Adaptive Behavior Scale-Public School Version

Adaptive Behavior Scale-School Edition

Cain-Levine Social Competency ScaleI

Collier-Azusa Scale

Camelot Behavioral Checklist

Preschool Attainment Record

Social Prevocational Information Battery

The TARC Assessment System

Many of the instruments designed for programming/inter-

vention address the needs of adolescent populations. These

scales tend to focus on severely handicapped individuals in

institutional settings. The Adaptive Behavior Scale-School

Edition and the Social Prevocational Information Battery are

the only programming/intervention instruments that have

40

public school norms. It appears that little has been done

to develop appropriate instrumentation for milder handicapped

public secondary school students.

Adaptive Behavior of Secondary Age Students

Public schools have focused on the nonbiased assessment

dimension of adaptive behavior. Because of this orientation,

instrumentation has been developed to insure that the social

role performance of elementary school students is addressed

when placement in special education is considered. This

process is logical_since most students are intitially iden-

tified for special education during the early school years

(Hohenshil, Shepard, and Capps, 1982; Reschley, 1982).

Empirical support has been reported for the develop-

mental process implied in common definitions of adaptive

behavior (Lambert and Nicoll, 1976; Mercer, 1973; Nihira,

1969a, 1969b, 1979). These studies indicate that vocational

role expectations and functions are major issues in adoles-

cent adaptive behavior. These findings are consistent with

major social/career development theories which state that

the formation of a vocational role identity is an on—going

process facilitated by achievement of various milestones

throughout an individual's development (Crites and Semler,

1967; Erickson, 1968; Krumboltz and Rude, 1981; Super, 1953,

1957, 1980; Tiedeman and O'Hara, 1963). A longitudinal

41

study conducted by Gribbons and Lohnes (1968) found that

differential career patterns emerge during early adolescence.

That is, the type of career process a young adolescent is

engaging can have a major impact on his or her future voca-

tional pursuits. For example, an adolescent who fixates on

fantastic, unrealistic goals would have more difficulty

developing realistic career pursuits than an adolescent

realistically and actively testing his or her fantasiesj

interests, and abilities (Ginzberg, Ginzberg, Axelrad, and

Herma, 1951; Tiedeman and Mil1er—Tiedeman, 1979). Thus, the

quality of an adolescent's vocational role identity may vary

greatly.

The difficulty handicapped individuals experience in

developing a vocational role identity is well documented

(Karayanni, 1981; Lombana, 1980; Sabatino, Goh, and Jenson,

1982; Sinick, 1979). Problems related to reduced mobility,

sensory and mental impairment, prolonged medical treatment,

and societal sterotyping are major factors involved in this

”delayed" or "disjointed" development (Sinick, 1979). Con-

sequently, many handicapped individuals experience major

problems in their post secondary adjustment (Brolin and

Gysbers, 1979; Livingston, Korn, and McAlees, 1982). Voca-

tional education has been suggested and used as a means of

facilitating the vocational identity of the handicapped

42·

(Bro1in, Duran, Kramer, and Muller, 1975; Chaffin, Davison,

Regen, and Spellman, 1971; Kendall, 1981).

Vocational Education for the Handicapped

Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, Public Law

94-482 (Vocational Education Act of 1976) and Section 504 of

Public Law 93-112 (The Rehabilitation Act of 1973) public

schools have assumed an expanding role in the provision of

vocational education for the handicapped (Batsche, 1981;

Hohenshil, Shepard, and Capps, 1982; Poplin 1981). A major

goal of vocational education is to prepare students with

necessary skills for success in the world of work (Shepard,

1982). It seems logical that such training could help handi-

capped secondary students develop some of the skills neces-

sary for adaptation to their post-secondary environments

(Brolin and Gysbers, 1979; Epstein, 1982; Hohenshil, 1974;

Hohenshil, Ryan, and Warden 1978).

Essential vocational skills involve social as well as

technical competencies. Rodhouse (1977) conducted a survey

to see what work behaviors are improtant to vocational suc-

cess and job retainment. The main objective of this study

was to examine the extent in which rehabilitation personnel

and local employers agreed or disagreed on the major elements

of job related behaviors. Both the employers and rehabili-

tation personnel agreed on approximately fifty different

43

behaviors important to job success. A significant finding

to this study was that each behavior listed related to social

competencies rather than to specific technical skills. These

results suggest that social competencies are major factors

in job success and should be addressed in vocational

training programs.

Handicapped adolescents often display many deficits in

their adaptive behavior (Irvin, Halpern, and Reynolds, 1977;

Kendall, 1981; Kronick, 1978). For example, mild mentally

handicapped adolescents often have a limited behavioral

repertoire, low motivation, a limited range of reinforcing

events, and an external locus of control (Schloss and Sedlak,

1982). These features would intuitively suggest a poor

prognosis for successful employment. Consequently, secondary

age students must learn appropriate adaptive behaviors, along

with technical vocational skills so they can achieve the

standards of personal independence and social responsibility *

expected for post—school adjustment. To facilitate voca-1

tional and other educators in addressing deficits in adaptive

behavior, appropriate assessment techniques must be utilized.

Assessment with Secondary Age Students

There has been little research concering the measure-

ment of adolescent adaptive behavior. Most of the available

studies center on predictors of training and employment

44

success with mentally retarded individuals. These studies

suggest that the inclusion of adaptive behavior measures

during the vocational assessment process (i.e. vocational

aptitudes and interests), adds significantly to the predic-

tion of successful vocational placements (Stodden, Casale,

and Schwartz, 1977). Such behavioral domains as adaptive-

maladaptive language functioning (Malgady, Barcher, Towner,

and Davis, 1979), personality characteristics (Kolstoe, 1961)

and attitudinal variables (Mullins and Hays, 1980; Sali and

Amir, 1971) can be major influences in an individual's

success at a work or training site. Thus, a variety of

dimensions must be addressed when considering vocational

placements (i.e. sheltered workshops, prevocational training

programs, regular vocational training centers, on-the-job

training, etc.)

The Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale (VARS) (Malgady,

Barcher, Davis, and Towner, 1980) is a recently developed

adaptive behavior scale which addresses the predictability

of an individua1's success in a vocational setting. It was

developed to measure the frequency and severity of maladap-

tive behavior likely to occur in a vocational setting that

might jeopardize the employment status of severely, moder-

ately, and mildly retarded workers. Individuals are rated

on their level of maladaptive functioning in the following

45

domains: verbal manners, communications skills, attendance

and punctuality, interpersonal behavior, respect for pro-

perty, rules and regulations, grooming and personal communi-

cation. The results of this test may be used to predict

success in a vocational program or to indicate domains which

need remediation before placing an individual in a training

or employment site. Studies reported in the VARS manual in-

dicate moderate to high interrater reliability and uniformly

high internal consistency reliability. Construct validity

was established with the AAMD ABS and the San Francisco

Vocational Competency Scale. Concurrent and predictive

validity was found with mentally retarded workers in

sheltered workshops.

Adolescent adaptive behavior involves more than voca-

tional social competencies. Adaptive functioning in the

community and society is also an important aspect of ado-

lescent adaptive behavior. An instrument which addresses

this broader range of adaptive domains is the Social and

Prevocational Information Battery (Halpern, Raffeld, Irvin

and Link, 1975). This instrument was developed in response

to the need for community adaptation of public school edu-

cable mentally retarded students (Halpern, Irvin, and

Landman, 1979; Irvin, Halpern, and Reynolds, 1977). The

battery has a true/false format that includes nine tests

46

which cover the areas of employability, economic self-

sufficiency, family living, personal habits, and communica-

tion skills. The instrument is designed to address

remediation/programming needs in each domain. Technical

data on this instrument indicates predictive validity coef-

ficients of r = .75 to .81 (Browning and Irvin, 1981). A

modified version of this battery is currently available for

use with moderately retarded adolescents.

In summary, adaptive behavior instrumentation has cen-

tered on the needs of the institutionalized mentally retarded

and the issue of nonbiased assessment in the public schools.

Little attention has been directed to the adaptive behavior

of secondary age handicapped students. Instrumentation has

been developed recently to facilitate public educators in

addressing the adaptive behavior deficits of handicapped

adolescents. Research suggests that these instruments are

psychometrically sound and can be pragmatically used in

numerous public educational settings (Halpern, Irvin, and

Landman, 1979; Malgady, Marcher, Towner, and Davis, 1980).

The School Psychologist inthe Assessment Process

Through the years, many roles and types of training

have been proposed for school psychologists. These roles

include diagnostic testing (Bardon and Bennett, 1974;

47

Valett, 1963; White and Harris, 1961), consultation (Fine

and Tyler, 1971; Gallessich, 1974; Lambert, 1974; Meyers,

1973), educational policy making (Lambert, 1973; Meacham and

Peckam, 1978), program evaluation and research (Kratochwill,

1977; Trachtman, 1979), psychotherapy (Herron, 1966), and

adolescent and adult services (Hohenshil, 1974; 1982;

Sheldon and Prout, 1982) to name a few. Most of these func-

tions are represented to some degree in school psychology

training programs and school based practices (Lacayo,

Sherwood, and Morris, 1981; Pfeiffer and Mormo, 1981).

Surveys of current roles of school psychologists indicate

that psycho-educational assessment functions occupy major

portions of practitioner time (Laycayo, Sherwood, and

Morris, 1981; Ramage, 1980).

The emphasis on the assessment role by school psycholo-

gists appears to be in response to the need for objective

data in making appropriate decisions regarding the placement

of students in special education classes (Hohenshil, Ryan

and Warden, 1978; Reschly, 1979; 1982). Most students are

initially referred for formal evaluations to school psycho-

logists early in their school careers (Reschly, 1982). This

early referral procedure is logical since many special edu-

cators and psychologists believe that early remediation of

school related problems can offset later educational

48

difficulties (Boehm and Sandberg, 1982; Reschly, 1982).

Thus, data obtained by school psychologists on students

demonstrating initial school related problems may be used to

facilitate decisions regarding students' special and regular

education needs.

In recent years, there has been increased concern re-

garding the quantity and quality of school psychological

services in secondary schools (Carroll, Bretzing, and Harris,

1981; Fagan, 1981; Hohenshil, 1974). Since the passage of

Public Law 94-142 (Education for A11 Handicapped Children

Act of 1975) increased numbers of handicapped students have

been identified and educated in public school settings

(Hohenshil, 1982). Many of these students are now in or

preparing to enter public secondary schools. A recent

national survey cancerning school psychological services in

secondary education found that traditional assessment func-

tions occupy most of the practitioner's time in these set-

tings (Carroll, Bretzing, and Harris, 1981). Also, it was

reported in this study that a large number of school psycho-

logists sampled did not feel adequately prepared to serve

secondary age populations. The majority of school psycholo-

gists are trained at the nondoctoral level in Colleges of

Education (Fagan, 1985). No studies have been reported in

the professional literature to indicate if level of education

49

(e.g., Master, Sixth Year, Doctorate, etc.) or location of

graduate program (College of Education, College of Arts and

Science, etc.) have a differential impact on school psycho-

logists preparation for serving school age populations

(Fagan, 1985).

It has been suggested that many school psychologists

lack the necessary skills to provide diagnostic services for

secondary age students (Anderson, Hohenshil, & Brown, 1984;

Brown and Cobb, 1982; Hohenshil, 1982). That is, traditional

psychoeducational assessment procedures appear to be of

limited value in meeting the needs of secondary age students.

Typically, these evaluations are conducted to determine stu-

dents' eligibility for special education and programmatic

needs for academic remediation. At the secondary level, this

process usually involves the triannual re-evaluation of handi-

capped students already placed in special education programs

(Anderson, Hohenshil, & Brown, 1984; Hohenshil, 1982).

The information needed in evaluations of secondary age

students involves more than identification and remedial aca-

demic issues for special education programs (Anderson,

Hohenshil, & Brown, 1984; Hohenshil, 1982a). Cegelka and

Phillips (1978) suggest that educational programs for handi-

capped adolescents should focus on vocational competencies

that will provide skills for their post-secondary employment.

50

This emphasis on vocational training has been reinforced by

federal mandates (Anderson, Hohenshil, & Brown, 1984;

Batsche, 1981; Hohenshil, 1982). In order to address the

vocational needs of secondary age students, school psycholo-

gists need to broaden the focus of their assessment proce-

dures. It has been suggested that school psychologists

include a vocational component in their evaluations which

may involve career interests, aptitudes, and maturity

(Anderson, Hohenshil, & Brown, 1984; Hohenshil, 1982).

Adaptive behavior is another dimension of vocational

behavior in the evaluation of secondary age students

(Halpern, Raffeld, Irvin and Link, 1975; Malgady, Barcher,

Davis and Towner, 1980). To facilitate secondary age handi-

capped students in reaching the standards of personal inde-

pendence and social responsibility expected for post school

adjustment, school psychologists need to stress the measure-

ment of adaptive behavior skills beyond the non—discriminatory

assessment issue. Such factors as adaptive-maladaptive

language functioning (Malgady, Barcher, Towner, and Davis,

1979), personality, and attitudinal variables (Mullins and

Hays, 1980) are major predictors in the work success of the

handicapped. Consequently, adaptive behavior information

can enhance objective decisions regarding job readiness and

remediation of specific behavioral domains important to

vocational success (Malgady, Barcher, Davis, Towner, 1980).

Sl

Mail Questionnaire Surveys

The use of surveys has been reported throughout history.

Most surveys conducted prior to the twentieth century in-

volved census and social welfare studies (Erdos, 1979;

Kerlinger, 1973). Since the turn of this century, survey

instruments have been used in all aspects of social science

research. This methodology is most commonly used by psycho-

logists, sociologists, educational researchers, anthropolo-

gists, economists, political scientists, and statisticians

(Dillman, 1978; Kerlinger, 1973).

There are several methods in which survey data may be

gathered. Techniques frequently utilized include personal

interviews, panels, telephone questionnaires, and controlled

observations (Dillman, 1978; Kerlinger 1973). Although each

of these methods has certain strengths, mail questionnaire

techniques offer some additional advantages (Shepard, 1982).

For example, mail questionnaires are usually less expensive,

reach a broader sample, involve less interviewer bias, allow

for more truthful and reflective expression, and facilitate1

more centralized control of data collection than other survey

methods (Duckworth, 1973; Erdos, 1970; Sax, 1979).

As in all techniques used in social science research,

mail questionnaires have several weaknesses. Most common

weaknesses cited include ambiguous and leading item content,

52

irrelevant questions, length, difficulty, and non-response

rate (Dillman, 1978; Kerlinger, 1973). Careful planning and

design of mail questionnaire surveys can help overcome these

problems (Dillman, 1978; Duckworth, 1973; Kerlinger, 1973).

For example, use of the Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978)

of mail questionnaire research has demonstrated that it is

not unusual to obtain response rates of 90% or better for

some specialized groups. This rate of response exceeds the

80% criteria suggested by Kerlinger (1973) and the Advertis-

ing Research Foundation (Erdos, 1970). In essence, the

systematic development of questionnaires, along with the use

of cover letters and follow-up, can facilitate accurate and

representative responses to mail questionnaires from

specialized samples such as school psychologists (Shepard,

1982).

Summary

The development of adaptive behavior as a construct was

reviewed in this chapter. The evaluation of the construct

was traced from early Grecian and Roman Civilizations to its

present definition and use by educators and psychologists.

The influence of the nondiscriminatory assessment movement

on the measurement of adaptive behavior in the special edu-

cation process was discussed. Also, intervention procedures

were presented regarding the development of adaptive behavior

53

skills for handicapped individuals. The school psycholo-

gist's role in the process of measuring adaptive behavior,

especially with secondary age populations, was highlighted.

Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of mail survey

questionnaires were discussed.

CHAPTER III

Methodology

This chapter includes a detailed description of the

research methods that will be utilized in this study. The

chapter is divided into four sections describing the par-

ticipants, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and

methods used in analyzing the data. A fifth section will

include a summary of the study's methodology.

Subjects

To gain information regarding the "state of the art" in

measuring the adaptive behavior of secondary age students, a

sample of 367 school psychologists were randomly selected

from the membership of the National Association of School

Psychologists {NASP). The sample was drawn from this popu-

lation because NASP represents the largest organization that

addresses the sole concerns of school psychologists. Also,

NASP's membership directory can assure the availability of

information that can facilitate contact with a large number

of school psychologists across North America (Shepard,

1982). The size of the sample was based on the current mem-

bership of NASP (i.e., 8,000) and determined through the use

of a formula developed by the research division of the

National Education Association (Krejcie and Morgan, 1970).

This sampling procedure has been used in several recent

54

55

national surveys_of school psychologists (Lacayo, Sherwood,

and Morris, 1981; Shepard, 1982; Stevenson-Hicks, 1981).

Prior to the initial mailing of the survey question-

naire, a letter was sent to all selected subjects to

encourage maximum participation. In this letter, subjects

were informed of the potential benefits that the field of

school psychology could gain from the study and the assur—

ance of the confidentiality of their responses. A follow-upV

postcard was sent to all participants one week after the

initial mailing. A second follow-up and duplicate question-

naire was sent exactly three weeks after the original

mailing to all non-respondents.

InstrumentationNumerous

studies have addressed the role and function

of school psychologists through the use of mailed question-

naires. These studies have varied in target populations and

topics. Some of the most recent studies have addressed such

areas as characteristics of subdoctoral school psychologists

(Barclay, 1971; Berman, Gottlieb, and Hornick, 1979); charac-

teristics of trainers and training programs (Brown and

Lindstrom, 1978; French and McCloskey, 1979; Prout, Toler,

and Eklund, 1976); trends in the characteristics of school

psychologists and their roles (Ramage, 1979); congruence

between training, preferred role, and competence (Carroll,

56

Harris, and Bretzing, 1978; Meacham and Peckham, 1978); and

job satisfaction (Anderson, Hohenshil & Brown, 1984; Miller,

Witt, and Finley, 1981) to name a few. The questionnaire

utilized in this study was the first to specifically address

the use of adaptive behavior measures with secondary age

populations.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire (Appendix A) was developed by the

researcher. Examination of the school psychology, special

education, mental retardation, career development, and re-

habilitation literature finds no other study of this kind.

Articles relating to the role and function of school psycho-

logists, psychological assessment, adaptive behavior, and

the career development of the handicapped~were essential

resources in the construction of this instrument. Feedback

from members of the Virginia Tech/James Madison University

faculties and pilot testing of the instrument with twenty

practicing school psychologists who attended a professional

workshop at James Madison University helped to assure

adequate construction of the questionnaire.

Support for participation in the pilot testing was eli-

cited by members of the James Madison University faculty and

the researcher. The twenty participants in the pilot study

were practicing school psychologists representing four states.

Fifteen of the respondents represented various sections of

57

Virginia, three were from West Virginia, and one each worked

in Iowa and Michigan. All participants were requested to

write comments on their questionnaire regarding the clarity

of questions and any other concerns they may have about the

instrument. They were also asked to report the time re-

quired to complete the questionnnaire. A median time of

twenty-three minutes was required for completion with times

ranging from eighteen to thirty-five minutes.

Five participants were asked to complete their question-

naire with the researcher present. This allowed the re-

searcher to ask participants questions concerning their

perception of what was being asked on each question. The

use of this format helped the researcher identify several

questions that needed to be revised for clarity.

Frequency distributions and bivariate correlations were

used in the analysis of the pilot study's results. The

bivariate correlations ranged from near .0 to .99. This

range in correlations appears to indicate both consistency

and uniqueness between the questions.

The forty—five questions that comprise this question-

naire are divided into sections involving characteristics of

school psychologists, characteristics of their worksites,

assessment procedures used with referred secondary age stu-

dents, beliefs about the purpose and necessary components in

58

psychological evaluations of secondary age students, and the

orientation of school psychologists regarding the measure-

ment of adaptive behavior. One or more of four formats

were used in developing each question (Dillman, 1978).

These questions are structured according to the following

procedures: _

l. Open-ended. These questions do not provide answer

choices for the respondents.

2. Close—ended with ordered choices. These questions

provide a gradation of choices for respondents to select

concerning a single variable.

3. Close-ended with unordered response choices. These

questions require respondents to choose from a number of

independent choices. Several of these questions involved

rank order preferred choices.

4. Partially close-ended. Respondents may select from

a number of choices or include their own response. (Refer

to Appendix A for a copy of the instrument.)

The last section of the questionnaire was designed to

account for biased responses due to social desirability

effects. That is, questions forty through forty-five, which

involve the opinions of school psychologists, were developed

to avoid eliciting responses which put oneself in a good

light which may or may not accurately reflect the person's

59

behavior or attitudes. Here, participants were requested to

respond to questions forty through forty—four the way they

think other school psychologists would who are employed in

their worksetting. On the final question, participants were

asked to state the degree in which they agree or disagree

with other school psychologists.

Data Collection

Preliminary Letter

Three days prior to the initial mailing (March 7, 1984)

of the instrument, a letter was sent to all selected parti-

cipants. This letter was prepared by the researcher and

signed by the Chairman of the National Committee on

Vocational/Secondary School Psychology who was also the

researcher's major advisor. In this letter, subjects were

encouraged to participate in the study.

Survey Packet

Each participant selected for the study received a

packet which included a questionnaire, a cover letter, and a

stamped, self-addressed envelope. The following techniques

were utilized in conjunction with these materials:

l. A small, one—serving package of instant coffee was

attached at the bottom of each cover letter. It was

suggested that the participants use this package to take a

coffee break while filling out the questionnaire.

60

2. Each of the selected participants was offered a

copy of the study's findings.

3. Participants were assured that their responses

are held in strictest confidence.

4. The American Association on Mental Deficiency's

definiton for adaptive behavior was provided to all

potential participants.

These materials were sent to selected participants

three days after the mailing of the preliminary letter

(March 10, 1984). A copy of the cover letter can be found

in Appendix B.

Postcard Follow—up Contact

Exactly one week after the initial mailing (March 16,

1984), a postcard follow—up was sent to all selected par-

ticipants. Each pre-printed postcard had an individually

typed name and address on one side and an individually

applied signature on the other. On the card, participants

who had already returned their questionnaire were thanked,

- while those who had not were reminded to do so. A copy of

this card can be found in Appendix B.

Second Follow-up Contact

Three weeks after the initial mailing (March 31, 1984),

a second follow-up contact was made. A letter and duplicate

61

questionnaire was sent to all non—respondents. The letter

was signed by the researcher's advisor and included informa-

tion about the percentage of questionnaires received and a

plea to return their copy of the survey.

Data Analysis

Data from all returned questionnaires were collated and

analyzed with the assistance of the computer facilities at

Virginia Tech. Analyses of the data were performed through

use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences X

(SPSSX) (1983).

Analysis will address the following:

l. Determine if school psychologists' age, sex,training, experience, and worksetting relate to the type ofadaptive behavior information gathered in the psychologicalassessment of secondary age students.

2. Determine if school psychologists utilize adaptivebehavior measurement techniques differently for differenttypes of handicapped secondary age students on initialevaluations and re—evaluations.

3. Determine if school psychologists who differ intraining and other demographic characteristics also differin the way they assess adaptive behavior with various typesof secondary age handicapped students referred for initialevaluations and re—evaluations.

4. Determine the extent to which the training andexperience of school psychologists contributes to the dif-ferences between the reasons and procedures they utilize ininitial evaluations versus re-evaluations of mild mentallyretarded secondary age students.

62

The specific computational techniques employed in data

analysis were:

l. Condescriptives, frequency distributions, PearsonProduct-Moment Coefficients, Partial Correlations, FactorAnalysis, and Chi Square-procedures were used in preliminaryanalysis of data obtained from respondents. These procedureswere used to examine bias in sample selections, quality ofdistributions, item response rate, multicolinearity,interaction effects, and unique features of variables.

2. Chi Square procedures were used to examine selec-tivity in employment of particular types of schoolpsychologists in different kinds of worksettings.

3. Frequency distributions were used in examiningdependent variables in research questions which lacksufficient variance for further analysis.

4. Multiple Regression Analysis, Chi Square Analysis,Oneway Analysis of variance, and Pearson Product-MomentCoefficients were used to examine the relationship of inde-pendent variables with dependent variables in the analysisof research questions.

iSummary

The research methods selected for use in this study were

described in Chapter Three. The first section of the chapter

descibed the participants involved in the study. The second

section provided information on the instrumentation that was

utilized. The last two sections described the data

collection and analysis procedures.

CHAPTER IV

Results of the Study

The results of the study are presented in this chapter.

The first section involves the response rate of participants.

Descriptive data is included in the second section. The

orientation of school psychologists in the measurement of

adaptive behavior is included in the third section. The

fourth section presents the results and supplementary

analysis of how school psychologists' characteristics,

training, and work setting relate to the use of adaptive

behavior information in the psychological assessment of

secondary age students. The last section includes a summary

of the chapter.

Response Rate

An essential factor in a successful mail questionnaire

study involves a high response rate by individuals selected

for participation in the study. Therefore, a combination of

prompts were used to encourage maximum participation by

selected subjects.

Four separate mail contacts were included in the data

gathering process: (l) preliminary letter, (2) survey

packet, (3) postcard follow-up, and (4) second survey

packet. Each questionnaire returned was identified with the

63

64

appropriate mail contact follow-up by a return date placed

on the front of the instrument and on a data records booklet.

A response rate of 42.5% was received as a result of the

preliminary letter and the first mailing of the survey

packet. The third mailing (postcard follow-up) was followed

by an additional 20.3% return. The final mailing (second

survey packet) resulted in an additional 18.6% return.

A total of 81.4% of the questionnaires were returned.

Four different sets of survey packets were returned labeled

"Return to sender" or "Unable to forward." Three other

packets were returned incorrectly filled out. Therefore,

the above percentages are based on a sample of 360 rather

than 367 potential participants. Of the 293 total responses,

187 were useable responses by school psychologists practicing

primarily in the schools.

Contingency tables (crosstabulations) involving the sex

and region of the country of respondents, non—respondents

and the NASP membership (NASP Membership Directory, 1983)

were used to determine biases in sample selection and

responses to mailed follow-up. Statistical procedures

involving Chi square analysis found no statistically signi-

ficant differences in school psychologists regarding selec-

tion, participation, or response to prompts (Appendix C).

65

Description of Sample Characteristics

As mentioned earlier, 295 subjects returned survey

questionnaires. The majority of returned questionnaires were

completed by school psychologists practicing primarily in

the schools (64.2%). Responses by other subjects included

school psychologist trainers (5.1%), students (7.5%), school

psychologists in private practice (3.1%), and those not

employed or are employed in other capacities (20.1%).

Descriptive data obtained through the questionnaire and

included in this study involved school psychologists who

practice primarily in the schools. Specific information

involved subjects' age, gender, education, graduate training

in adaptive behavior assessment/secondary school psychologi-

cal services, post graduate training in adaptive behavior

assessment/secondary school psychological services and work

settings. Data involving age, gender, educational level,

and graduate training in assessment are presented in Table 1.

Age Distribution

A mean age of 39.3 years was indicated from the

responses of subjects on the questionnaire. The youngest

practitioner was 25 years of age and the oldest was 68 years

of age. The distribution of responses was as followsz

12.8% between 25 and 30 years of age; 35.8% between 3l and

36 years of age; 20.9% between 37 and 42 years of age; 12.3%

66

Table 1

Description of Sample and NASP Characteristics

Sample NASPVariable Value Percent Percent

Role Practitioners 64.2 76Trainers 5.1 6Students 7.5 *Private Practice 3.1 *Others 20.1 *

Age 25 - 30 years 12.8 *31 - 36 years 35.8 *37 - 42 years 20.9 *43 - 48 years 12.3 *49+ years 18.2 *

Sex Male 41.7 42Female 58.3 58

Years in 1 — 3 years 17.7 *Profession 4 - 6 years 26.3 *

7 - 9 years 21.0 *10 - 12 years 12.9 *13+ years 22.0 *

Highest Degree Bachelors .5 .3Earned Masters 28.3 17

Sixth Year/Specialists 48.7 57Doctorate 21.9 22

Graduate Program Psychology Department 12.8 *in school of education

School Psychology Program 24.1 *in school of education

67

Table 1 (continued)

Sample NASPVariable Value Percent Percent

School/Counseling Psychology 10.2 *Program in school of education

Psychology Foundations 2.1 *Program in school of education

Counselor Education 10.7 * 4Special Education 4.3 *

Elementary/Secondary 5.3 *Education

Clinical/Counseling Psychology 4.8 *in Arts and Science

Psychology Department in 23.5 *Arts and Science

OtherS

1.6 *

Graduate Courses Intellectual 99.5 *in Assessment Personality 95.7 *

Behavioral Observations 86.1 *Educational 84.0 *Multicultural 39.6 *Vocational 36.9 *

* Not comparable with Sample

68

between 43 and 48 years of age; 18.2% of the practitioners

were 49 years of age or older. Comparable data was not

available in the NASP Membership Directory (1983).

Sex Distribution

Males comprised 41.7% and females 58.3% of subjects.

This compared with 42% and 58% reported in the NASP

Membership Directory (1983).

Years of Experience as aSchool Psychologist

The distribution of responses for years of experience

as a school psychologist was as followsz 17.7% had 1 to 3

years experience; 26.3% had 4 to 6 years experience; 21.0%

had 7 to 9 years experience; 12.9% had 10 to 12 years

experience; 22.0% had 13 or more years experience as a

school psychologist. The subjects had a mean of 8.7 years

experience. The least experience reported was one year and

the most experience was thirty years. Comparable data was

not available in the NASP Membership Directory (1983).

Highest Degree Earned

The distribution of responses for the highest degree

earned was as follows: .5% bachelors; 28.3% masters; 48.7%

sixth year/specialists; 21.9% doctorates. This distribution

compared with 3%, 17%, 57%, and 22% reported in the NASP

69

Membership Directory (1983). It is possible that the

phrasing of survey questions may have had an impact on the

discrepancy in the responses involving masters and sixth

year/specialist education. It may be difficult to make

accurate distinctions between these levels of education

without specific guidelines.

Graduate Program

The majority of subjects in this study received their

masters degrees in schools of education (75.5%). The

distribution according to departments is as follows: 12.8%

in psychology programs in schools of education; 24.1% in

school psychology programs in schools of education; 10.2% in

school/counseling psychology programs in schools of educa-

tion; 2.1% in psychology foundations programs in schools of

education; 10.7% in counselor education programs in schools

of education; 4.3% in special education programs in schools

of education; 5.3% in elementary/secondary education programs

in schools of education; 4.8% in clinical/counseling psychol-

ogy departments in arts and science schools; 23.5% in

psychology departments in arts and science schools; 1.6% in

none of the above categories. Comparable data was not

available in the NASP Membership Directory (1983).

70

Graduate Courses in Assessment

Subjects took graduate course work related to assessment

techniques in the following areas: 99.5% in intelligence

testing; 95.7% in personality assessment; 86.1% in behavioral

observations; 84.0% in educational testing; 39.6% in multi-

cultural assessment; 36.9% in vocational testing. No other

types of assessment technique training were examined in this

study. Comparable data was not available.

Other Pertinent DemographicInformation

Additional demographic information regarding assessment

training is presented in Tables 2 and 3. The amount of

experience subjects gained with secondary age students

during their graduate training is presented in Table 4.

Postgraduate educational experiences of subjects in adaptive

behavior measurement and secondary school psychological

services between 1979 and 1984 are presented in Tables 5 and

6. Finally, the characteristics of subjects' worksetting

are presented in Table 7. The most salient findings from

this data involves the limited postgraduate training school

psychologists receive in secondary school psychological ser-

vices and adaptive behavior measurement.

7l

mQas

0-•-4AJ>U:·•·|C® NDIHQNFOP4

x¤¤NmcMM mmmv MN$3*0 HQ'--4r-4 NM•—I•-4 NM--I HML-•-·

Eu

m0

0··-¢33OS Lhkßöl N'OmU‘

3.. 235O InH--1O>:0H.:

04J¢¤ s40 O.:0 CD

·-·•-E•>

: > U¤0 UY0 U10·•-• ··-¢O¤$ :0} :m :m¤'~4J ¤AJ..c: dPdPw$dP·•-4: cndoancoan--1¤ uoovooaoeo--ec¢:¤. ··-• 0 omonno¤O c¤.no¤.no:O cu*>cmo¤Ooa ww wwm -1M<1·~¤·-AQ. «-1M<s-so--AQ. •-•m<1•«¤·-•¤4:"U H0 rdm Mm rdm0--44} B4-*0 IIIIH0 Illll-40 IIIIH0H fd fU> HM EQ? E-•Qä

..Q HU-I '·|-In-|·•-| Wdtßüü üüäü dPMüdPG3 BO 004-J »-··l~¤·—Ix¤OO •—4x¤¤-4~¤OO •-4xo•-HDOOB M »-•c··s<-ZZ wmwzz •-IMWZZ33 "" 300 R!EE -m0mko05mmma! :410 rn-•-10

2 4J 5•-•ow

n10 00--4 an cx coE.: *•"¤¤¤ co :~ anuu ..Q·-•.1: •-v •-•

-1O 500Q4 U)$-00

E•E·•

0O

um: :AJ AJ AJ:0--•0: >«: H:

05: •—IU¤0 AJ0 00E¤•··-• ru--•E ·-•E'.· :5m--dm 5¤—·Im «-um Ommcs-6 '¤•-am rum ·•-•m0.:54 --400 :0 AJ0mO >AJm Om dmm0: ·•-I:m mm Um<aw www uw ¤w: 0 'U

H Q4 Ex'-!

72

Q U}A ¢D^A Q)--*JJ

I·•-•¤<D GNOGNQOQQ

MD •-IM•-I •-·I¤—I :-1 In

Fu

A 0)0)

QID--•JJODGI-IC) k¤Q•·-Ir*'IQkD¢"1 ¤\<¤mk¤¤-Ik¤N @QN<!'«—InDkD

A 0:1 Nm-1 •-e <-u.nm•—1c~¤c~1 m•—••—••—1c>A mv •-I •-•~.-GG.)nis-•~ fra

LnO

{7* -•'-*‘G > @0 UNI} {7*0)·•·*OfU GID GU! GUIGJJ..C'„ dPdPdPd9dP·•-IG dPdPdPdPdP·•-IC'. dPdPdPdPcv·•-IG·•4 0) ¤¤.hQLhOGO QLDOLDQGO OLDQLDOGO

Q HQ) KGV! RIU} MO')5*4-JG) IIIII-IG) II|I!·-IG) I||I$-•<D

, ¢¤> 5*% EM ECG;‘J-I:-I·•-I o9dPdP¢ d9dPd0dP dPdP#dP,OwnAdpcäm «—1m<•zZ A-•m<•ZZ •-··Im<•ZZI

. 'U

. ·< .

IA G

Q II)--*¢DJJ 5

A U"!}CDG)--4 cs cx•-4 xn nn

..¤·•-1.: •—¢ «-I ¤~A DIUUQU}$-IO)A 5*5*

'U 1GJ AIJ AC j r-I

JJ Q G •—IG _JJI’hG JJ OJJ IUJJO ~ GQ)••-4 G \·•-IG $·-JGU ; (DDG •-40) •-14-JG) 50)~· A &¤*··< mE «¤¢¤E 4-va

Q Ul·•-IM GU} $-¤>UJ •-lv)N A UIGIJ OU! OHG! 50)

(DI-'5* *-**0) ·¤-*<D¢D UG)G) A U10 JJU} >UIU) ·•-IU)¤-I A IHGJG MU! f6.0U‘! JJUI.¤ UM .-COM •-**5*5 A O Q) 55-* > CD E

73

V mV

‘D^

IOIIOIO IOOIIOJ OOIIOOO

L mus-4 cocs«.nc~mo•-• oc«~oc1~m„-1 csoco•—+<rm~rög'0) Nr'•1•—r ¤—iNNN MN•-·r •-I

V Cu

V

V, mV 0)V

Q)-•-•

JJODC

'O OS •-IL¤k¤M«—r NL¤r.nr*'••—r •·4•.hr.nN N0.) mO"

3 23Om InH-IJ V'UC V'UQ) Vnl'!} 1

5 ; mJJJJ Q JJrdf!) C„C Ur G)FG) V CO'!} UG) UND UNDO -•—IJJ'.3 Cm Cm CmU'•¢

Q C JJ dßdßdvwdß--IC dPdr>d9dPdP·•-IC dPd¤d9dPdP·•-ICc: cmc¤.no¤O ¤mcmc¤O o¤.no¤.nc¤Om ~·-•>« VmtvCHV HJJ rdm rdm rdm®··-rrd E·•rd$-4 IIIIHQ} IIIIHGJ ||II$-IQ)•—I rd'U •-rrd E·rr¥• Erl! BM.¤ aooouvav wcooouo aoaoeoooru BO V O¤5¢: •—an¤«-·n¤OO -•~o•-r=¤OO «—noV-—noOOEr ug dp 8 ·—4m<·zz «-•m<•zz •-1c•·><:·zZ

CU) 0CD Q 0)EO .mJJ QW V(Dm Qma, Vml) Q C“2 +3*2•-ru , O"Omw V <v<D··-• <2· co a~Em oo r~ anS-• •-4 ¤—I ¤—|O V 5rdUEu UJHG)

V ErE·*

Q)O

JJmC C-IJ JJ JJ„ Cd)--r UC >•C r-VCV (DCC ¤-VUWGJ JJQ) rdü.)

¤E, m-·-rrd ¢3•-Im •-Im OmV mC>-• 'U•·-rm rdm ·•-Im0).CEr ~•-rQ)<D CG) JJQ)

ml) >-Um Om rdm. mG)C -•-1Cm mm Um

Mrd Srdi C G) "U

l-I D-•Kü

74

. U!we-

q)·•-•JJ_ >OG

MGM NN<I•¤'«-JNN NLnMMMM«—|¤-I •—HD ¤-·|M¤—-·I•—4 «—-I •-I Ln1¤5l-•-·1 In

V In1 GJ1 Q)--4

JJOGG

OZ! N N•-·I NLDMN N •—IM•—I•·-I O1 WU" •—I •-I**28V BJ

V UIJJ

. GU'* 0)

1 GO'O CDG)Gm GU} Gm

1 G JJC>LnOLnOGO OLnOLnQGO OLnQLnOGO

1MwVMJJ MU) MU! MU!BMM IIIIMCD IIIIMQ) IIIIMG)

1 «-JM E-•¤4 am E-•¤:'J-40J"O wdßdvdß dßdßdvw dßdbdßdß1O¤5¤ «-•»o•-•~¤OO •-«Lo•—•L¤OO •—4L¤„-J~.oOO.* 8 «—1m~a·Zz •-1m<•ZZ •—-emvzz

1 Q)l1

11

1 GU}-·-Gd.)

. JJ GO"U00)--•

1~ w <•'*"*GG MD Ln I\„Q·-1.:: «-1

1 GMOUJMQ)

BB

"O0):3 1G «·-I-•-•

MJJ V G •-IG JJUJG JJ OJJ MJJO G<1J·•-4 c: \·•-ec: M:U ¢1)¤G »—|G) ¤-IJJQ) 50-

E¤•··-•ME MME J->E

In--IM GU) M>!ß e-lv)M 1 MGM OU) OMUI GU)

¢D.GB ··-•Q) ~•·!G.)¢D UG)Q) 1 wo um >u1m ·•-am•-I 1 U)<DG MU) M26) JJU).1O 1¢B•··¢ OM •-COM •·¢MM O Q) GE-4 > tII E

75

1UI

Ü <¤>*1 GJ--4-AJ

>UGI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I‘ füD$-4 ML¤<DM<'NN NQ<¤<•¤l¤|•-I1-4

,-4¤'0} ,-4vw ,-4 mw,-4GJGJM4-nv

1E14

1"J 1¤ 1O ~ U).,.4 Q}JJ GJ--4fü JJU,-4 [ zu:¤ 4 ,-40} 1~coommmv,-4 mm,-ammmmwQ,1 0:5 wmv w,-44~vwO 1 UJUJDJ 5.,QGJ

¢H .GJ 1 EhU'•<1M*4 1fü 1 M GJ QGJ·¤ mu Eu ··-40C Cfü DC GJ .CC GJO 1-•·~I'U!fJ UGJdPdPdP¤PdPUl O7GJdP#dP1$Pd>UJU 1 CGJJ -•-4·•-4C>¤C>3C>G C--ICDOOQOC

0}U11 füOGJ UGJ v-IQ GJGJ 1-IO-1

<' 1 HGJ"G füQ O'} JJQ U!.CEfU).'3 HXIIIIIGJ CXIIIIIGJ

0} JJ 1 JJ ¤JErl M Hlrl M,-4 ·•-4 1*4-4.,CU) dPdPdPd9d9 Qdßdßdßoß,9 5 OJJ OO:-4•-4•—|¤-4•-IO OO•-4·—4•-In-Iv-IOfü 1 -,-4 ZZ wvxoooz ZZ wvnocozH cn 14193

G ..,..4 11

-g-{1

fü 1 VJ*-4 JJEf 5 U

5 GJ ND LnUr 1 -1*1 co mC 1 .1Q 4-4 •-I

-,-4 5J-4 U)EJQ ,

GJOCGJ

·•-IHGJ ~ GJQ O>< CErl 1 GJ-,-4

$-4GJ

1 Q>< Q,td -,-1

fü .1C*4-4 U 01

1 O --4 GJJ H

GJ O GJQ fü JJM H CE ¤• 1-1

76

Table 5

Continuing Education in Adaptive BehaviorMeasurement between 1979 and 1984

Source of Absolute RelativeEducation Subjects Categories Frequencies Frequencies

(Qercent)

Conferences/ 187 None 50 26.7workshops One 46 24.6attended on Two 48 25.7adaptive Three 15 8.0behavior More 28 15.0

Readings on 187 None 4 2.1adaptive 1 · 3 71 38.0behavior 4 - 6 51 27.3

7 · 9 18 9.69 + 43 23.0

Authored on 187 None 165 88.2adaptive 1 - 3 12 6.4behavior 4 · 6 6 3.2measurement j 7 - 9 0 0.0

9 + 4 2.1

Post-graduate 187 None 109 58.3courses in One 39 20.9adaptive Two 17 9.1behavior Three 8 4.3

More 14 7.5

Courses taught 187 None 153 81.8related to One 19 10.2adaptive Two 8 4.3behavior Three 2 1.1measurement More 5 2.7

77

Table 6

Continuing Education in Secondary School PsychologicalServices between 1979 and 1984

Source of Absolute RelativeEducation Subjects Categories Frequencies Frequencies

(Qercent)

Conferences! 187 None 70 37.4workshops One 41 21.9attended on Two 33 17.6secondary school Three 14 7.5psychological More 29 15.5services

Readings on 187 None 13 7.0secondary 1 - 3 65 34.8school 4 — 6 39 20.9psychological 7 — 9 19 10.2services 9 + 51 27.3

Authored on 187 None 175 93.6secondary One 5 2.7school Two 1 .5psychological Three 2 1.1services More 3 1.6

No response 1 .5

Post-graduate 186 None 115 61.5courses One 35 18.7related to Two 17 9.1secondary Three 5 2.7school More 14 7.5psychological No response 1 .5services

Post-graduate 186 None 140 74.9courses in One 18 9.6secondary Two 7 3.7school Three 2 1.1psychological More 19 10.2services No response 1 .5

78

Table 6 (continued) ·

Source of Absolute RelativeEducation Subjects Categories Frequencies Frequencies

(percent)

Courses taught 187 None 167 89.3in secondary One 13 7.0school Two 1 .5psychological Three 3 1.6services More 3 1.6

Courses taught 186 None 162 86.6related to One 14 7.5secondary Two 4 2.1school Three 1 .5psychological More 5 2.7services ‘

No response 1 .5

79

1 U)1 m^

Q)--IJJi >U¤ ·

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

NNHHN NHNH H HH:-I H HÄMS-uvY In

11 U'}

1 GJ0.)·•·*

1ää1r-4G) N®OI‘\DMH O\G\®Hl‘<"b ONCd\<'<°H<'N<'LD\9. Qä H¤*1<'NN<' <'N<I'N C") HHNNNHNH N

1 U1.Q¢D

1 In

¤= ccxcxmcxcscxcscmmc ocscxcwcxcxcxcxmcx-•4 • OC7\G\¤\d\O\5\5\¤\G\4,) •Q•

s~s~~~ss~sJJ 1 OMO0 «-••-1c~J<1•¤~•-—1cxcxcx¤·1 00) 1 UI HCHJJNUT InU} CU fU¢U-OJGDJJCZ E C

1·•-•

!—•..¤020O oooocoooan MIIIIIIIII O.2 L1 ¤>-a2 Em cscsmcxcx .¢: Q.H O D€D E U) HNMQ JJOOOQQOOOO U)O 1 5* ¤-II |H.'5<D(D OOOOQOQOQ GJ3 0 r¤--•--·1•—1·•-1 ¤'•¤5

I I I I I 0 mccc>ccccc¤0¤<5 4,) $4 (|]~~~sss~s~$4

u-1 1 cu 50 E01¤0 ccocccO U ßdcncnmze-IZ ·—4Nm~a•£ A «-1Nm<•zz

..Q U)IU O

I

U) JJ-»·1 1 O ~S-1 0 xn :~ 1-60 1 -1*1 co c¤ uaJJ 1 .O H H H0 1PH

füEU

1 5*11 ·•·<|¢U E

>¤-•-•

HO. >~1

0--•m

1 JJ U!JJ JJ1 ·•-I fl! C· 0 UI 00 G)

--1 ¤ EO *5JJ (D ·•·*> D· U! '0 JJ JJ•·‘|

>1 U)1 LJ C *4-IH JJ

0) O OCUYD *4401 u ··-•'UH O--4

1 0 JJ JJGO $4· FU GS GOO HJJ1 s.« -1 00.¤ 0m1 0 5 000

.¤··-•

1 .c: ¤1 uvam Sw1 U O G)

ßa O-• Z

80

4))4 <l)^4 0.)--44JI >UQ, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _

.:350) :-IMN :-4 N:—4:—4 M :-4Q :-4Q,%)-4*-*I E!-4

U)I 0)

0)·•·4JJU4 5Q

:-40) QNBNMDN CHOGNQN:-4kD QQM M:-4MO5 Nnnnn:-44*6 In:-4N:—4:-4kD Nm NQ4n¤* :-4 :-4

..Q0.)·<¤

Fr-4

I 'U 'UI 0) 0.) 0) 0) 0)

07 U! $-4 U1 $-4 U}I 0) Q ·•·F C: ·•·F Q-:-4 anaocvaouo G ¤·¤G ¤·GG1-: coccc cxcxcncscn G: ¤'0¤: ¤‘0¤:O «-4Nm<•|.n •

~• • • 0) 0))-4U) 0)$-441)

I us :-4~m<2· 0 M--40 M-400) I I|||0) 0)% 5% 5%JJ $-4 I||II$·4JJU‘

JJC)"_ FU O:-4:-4:-4:-40 00 00)O 00)0U :-4Nm-¤•:: c:-4c~4m<•::Z ZMZ ZMZ

I 41)I JJE U ‘

I 0.) 4~ :-4‘ <1• <•

I ·r'1 Q N Q QI .Q :-4 :-4 :-4 :-4

5· U)

U) 0)%I 0) FDE

h hI >~• 5 50)

$-4 U) IDJJI FU FU FUFUI 'O 0) 0)h"‘x U mc E Ew

"G - -:-4 JJO M 'G0) I JJ QO hä $-40:3 cn 00 :-4 G OEQ I -:-4 "dm Qu) -:-4 -:-4·•-4

I h 5 OJJ >$-4 >$·4JJ 0) JJQ SU) FU0 FU0Q JJ U1--4 U--4 .Q*4-I ..Q‘4-40 O UHU) 0.) 0)O FU *4-I'501 0 -Q'5 -¤'Ö- I $-4 OFDE 0):-4 0.) 0)

z FU :-4FU EO 0)h 0))-44- I .¤ JJ:-44-4 ·•·4..C:' :>··-4 >·-v

I U COC!) JJU -:-45 -:-450) I 0))-40 I>• JJ0" -4JO‘:-4 I OC$-4 :-40) O40) 0:0).Q I )·40.)¤.: :-40: FU)-4 ÜNFU 4 0) 5 "U "UE4 Q4 In < »<

8l

1 (01 0J^0·•-4JJ„ >UQ1 znmw NB•-I dsmw <•Qw www M•-dw

MSS-• mm-•Nenn! ·-••~o•-•

mw-1 oocs•—-1•-Iw BN u‘S<|' wu-! w wu-J1%S-JV

1 In

0Q)-•-4JJO5Q•-10 GNLDM Lnwv BBM <'OM wwM NNM05 Nm M<' Chw •.nM w•—| LHMm¤• •-• •-• •-• •—1 «-•.00¤1s-•

ka

*0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0) S4 U! SJ U1 SJ U1 SJ U! S-J U} SJ U11 0 ·•·1 Q ·•·| Q ·•·| Q ·•·¢ Q ·•·¥ Q ·-·| Q-•-I 5*00 5*00 5*00 5*00 5*00 5*00SJ 0*004 0"0¤a 0‘00J 0*004 0"0Q• U‘00«O 0S-40 0SJU1 0S-JU! 0S·•lü 0}-401 0S-am1 US %···€0 %·•·¢0 %·•·!0 %·-40 %·•·¢ 0 %·•·400 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%JJ JJO" JJO‘

JJ0" J-*0* JJO" JJO"1 0 000 000 000 000 000 000U Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z1

UIJJ

1 U _1 0 <1• m <·

<• <•<r1 -n w w w w w w1 .g •·-I r-4 •-I •-I r-4 •-I

1 U)

1

U1 In U) UI U) U}0 0 0 0 0 0SJ SJ SJ:-4 SJ SJ SJ1 5 50* 50 5 5 5>1!fJ\Q UJQ WQ D10! U) tüv-11 000 0·•-I 00 0Q 0.-Q 0e-40SJ··-4 0Q 0·•·| 0·•·¢ 00 00^ 0 E0JJ ES-I EJJ Eu E0 E5*0 -·-1 >0 0 0 0 0 U!0 JJ S-•0*0 SJ0 nä S-00 HQ-n SJ--I5 1 cn OUISJ On-! 0 0.Q OM O>Q --1·•-•

eu --1 ·•-•-S-1 ·«-1 --4-•-•

SJ >SJJJ >S-JU) >S-um >SJ >S-• >S-•JJ 0 000 000 000 00 00 00Q JJ .Q‘J-ISJ .Q*J-I--O .Q*J-I·•-4 .Q*J-•.Q‘J-4 .Q'J-40 O 0 0 JJ 0 JJ 0 0 0O 0 1}*0*0 -9*0--4 -0*0--4 -O*0*0 9*0*0 -0*0*0V SJ 0Q 0•-I 0•-I 00 00 000 0S-45 0SJ--1 0SJ·•·1 0SJS-J 0S-•S-n 0S•S•

|~ ,.Q >·•-JQ>··-•.Q

>·•·¢„Q>···1·•-¢ >···*···¢ >·•··|···¢1 U ·•·|5¤-I ·•·¢50 -•-I50 ·•-I50 ·-450 ·-4500 JJU*O JJO"vJ J-1U*w JJ¤'O.• JJ¤‘Q«

JJ¤"¤J•-·| , Q«0S• Q10--! Q10--! ¤«0E Q«0E ¤J0E.¤ 1 MS-«¤« ¢¤S•'¤ MS-•"¤ IBS-•··-• ¢¤!—•-•-• ¢¤SJ·•-•0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0 *0•¢ ßß

82

1 01 0^

(D·•·4-IJ>0¤1 mmm vOm -4m-4 -·4m:-4 vm:-4 NN-4

1 ¢¤¤>-: mv-4 com-4 WN•-4 OQr-4 mm-4mv m <¤•-4 NN w-4 NN.M$-4-·§ I'=•

E1 U!Ii0""

Ovf'! QLOF'4 4-4vN •-4*d*N W04 W0\NOU CQ W4-! WN LON tüv00* :-4 •-4 :-4 -·-4 •—·4 :-4

22*.Fu

0 0 04-4 -4 :-4

1 *0 .0 .0 .0*0 *0 0 --4 --4 --4

1 0 0 0 0 ·-40 000 000 0001 0 $-4 0 $-4 0 *4-40 C.:-40 C!-40 C3-40

0 --4 c: --4 4:: *0--4c 0.¤¤ O.¤¤ O.¤¤1 ·•··4 0*00 0*00 000 Q·-·40 Q···¢0 Q--401 $-4 0*0Q

0‘0Q·-40Q 00Q 00C!4 00Q

1 0 04-40 ÜHU] *4-4040 000 000 0001 ¤= ¤:··-40 os--40 ~·-40*10 c¤o0 ¤¤o0 D5001 0 'JM SM 0 M QM QM QM1 -4J -4J0‘

-4J0‘0-LJ 4-J0 -4-30 -4J0

1 0 000 000 Q00 000 000 0001 U ZMZ ZMZ U)ZZ ZMZ ZMZ ZMZI

1 01 -4-J1 O ·0 <4· LO an an an

'f'\ Q Q Q Q Q1 :-4 ¤-I -4 •-4 «-41 U2

1 0Q

, 0 $-41 0 0 0

0 0--4 0 --4 4J0 0*0 -4J C!> 04-4 $-40 *0 0 00 0D :40 0 0 --4.: -4vz rn.: 0--4 --4 00 -40l ru >¤-4 -4 --4.0 O0--4 04.4 --4--4 O 4.4 0

^ 0 E-4J E0 -I-JU UH 00 $-4*¤ --4 .-4 .¤ 040 O 0:> 4-:00 4.4 s.4·:.4 $-4-IJ ¢¤¤4 s-4--4 ::--4 O--40 0 ca 00 *00 0> 0"4-IJ •-4>¤ --4 --4 --4 0 .¤0 0¤4 00-•-4 4-4 >$-4 >$-4 -4J 0.0 ·-40 0.1:4J 0 00*0 00 44-40 00 *0*0 00Q 4J .€U-40 .C'.•4-4 OC'. 0.0 0 D.00 0 0 Q 0 -4-J -4 00 1 0 .0*0Q .0*0 ¤$-4 0 00 00-· 1 $-4 00 0 00 E> ¤4J >0 0}-40 0$-4 -•-4--4 0--4 00 0--4N .¤ >--4--4 >·-4 -4J> O-4J --40 04J

1 U --40*0 ·•·40 00 $-4Q -4J•-4 0040 -4J0"C.' -4J0" 0.0 00 0-4 00-4 0400 ¤40 •-40 01*4: 00 *¤·¤.0 04-4.4: ÖH •-4.0 00 50 ·•·400 *0 *0 0 ¤-4 *0 DE4 #*2 < U U 431 L')

83

1I Ü1 0**I 0-0-0JJI>0C cnnxo Nr--4 0-N-4 OG'1-0 Nr--4 com-4I 0¤$-0 -1Q0-0 I.f$¢'0r·'I

•¤•<I•0—0MLO-1 1:10*10-0 0*10.00-0

I-00*0 Nu- nom um cn cw us00

I klI

II ÜI 01°·""*I +-IUISG-0-00 0-00*10*1 NMN 0-1<•N #0-IN Q1~N <!•0-IN

05 <!'<' NQNQm¤‘0-4 0-4 0-0 0-0 0-4 0-4*23

Cr-4

I 0 0 0 0 0 0I 0-1 -0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-1. .0 ..0 .0 .0 .0 .01 -0-1 -0-0 -•-1 -0-0 -0-0 --1”

01100 U100 U100 UJ00 UI00 U100I In :r—0¢I1 C10-0d! Cu-IÜ C10-101 C10-1U1 C0-1U1I 0 0.0C 0„0¤ 0.-0¤ 0„0¤ 0.0C O..0¤ .I --4 Q.,--4 0 m·0-0 O m··-0 O m··-4 O m-·-0 0 m--0 O1 s4 mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm

0 0¤U1 0¤U1 0¤U1 0¤U1 000 0¤¤IO1 %00 %00 %00 %00 %O0 %000 Qvlm 04% 04% 04% 04% 04%1 JJ JJU1 JJU1 JJU1 JJUI JJU1 JJU10 000 000 000 000 000 000

I U Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z Z%Z

g ÜJJ

, 05 0 <I‘ 1.0 Ih 0.0 1.0 1.0I -0*1 Q Q Q Q Q Q

I..3 0-0 0-0 r-0 0-1 0-1 0-1

E U)II

In $-4 $-4 $-4 $-4JJ 0 0 0 0Q •«·1

-•-1-0-1 ·•-1

0 > $~4> > >0-4 cu wa! rt! 0:00-0 ..¤ .-CL2 11 .¤ 00 0 00 0 0 >0 ..Q <¤..Q .¤ ..¤ -0-4

$-4 0 $-4 I JJ^ I 0 JJ1-4 00 JJ0 00 0 04"0 --1 U10 ¥> > JJ> 1-4> 00 JJ --0 --0 $.0-0-4 C'.--1 ¢¤·•-4 011--0 *0D 1 U1 0"•> 0JJ OJJ ¤JJ .:2-4J 0C I ·•-1 00 300 -•-*04 0-104 004

--0 $-4 0-0..¤ 0 JJ0 00 00 JJJJ 0 00 0-1*0 0*0 >*0 0*0 0E I JJ .0.-0 00 00 00 JJ0 00 1 0 0 --1 5 4-10 _ at >0¤J 0m 00m 0-4m 0-4m 0-1$·0-¤ I $-4 U1> OJ-I 0JJ 0JJ 0JJ 00

I 06 m-0-0 m0 0 :0 :0 0-0-1l* I IJ JJ 0 0-00 00 00 >

I U 0-004 4-I4-1 00-I --10-0 -0-10-0 U100 ~ 00 Or-I -4-14-I JJ0-1 4-,0-*0 $4-C•—* 0*0 00 00 00 00 00..0 I L20 L20 00 00 00 .1:.00 0 0 04 0 0 JJB0 cn cn co :> > 0

84

Characteristics of school psychologists were analyzed

through chi-square procedures to determine if specific types

of school psychologists are employed in particular regions

and/or work settings. Cells had to be collapsed to account

for low cell frequencies on several of the analyses. The

transformations involved the following:

1. Age by region. Younger (25 to 36 years of age) and

older (37 years of age and older).

2.‘ Age by size of district. Small (to 2,999 students,

middle (3,000 to 19,999 students) and large (20,000 or more

students).

3. Years in the profession by region. East (Northeast

and Southeast), Central (North Central), and West (West

Central and West).

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 8.

The only significant relationship found involved the age of

school psychologists in particular regions of the country.

Examination of the crosstabulation presented in Table 9

illustrates how school psychologists in the North Central

region have a higher proportion of older school psycholo-

gists than the other regions. Thus, there appears to be

some selectivity according to age in the North Central

region. Table 10 included the frequency distribution of

85

subject's educational level and graduate program according

to region. Selectivity in the North Central region will be

addressed in the final section of this study.

Table 8

Selectivity of School Psychologists Accordingto Region of the Country and the

Size of Worksetting

Analysis Chi Square DF Significance

Age

Region of country 10.264 4 .05Size of district 4.701 8 N.S.

Years in profession

Region of country 5.816 4 N.S.Size of district 9.827 8 N.S.

Graduate program

Region of country 5.362 8 N.S.Size of district 2.551 4 N.S.

N.S. = not significant

86

Table 9

Distribution of School Psychologists Accordingto Age and Region of the Country

Age Region .

North South North WestEast East Central Central West

Younger 25 23 13 14 16 (91)(25-36years)

Older 27 18 31 8 12 (90)(36 yearsand up)

(52) (41) (44) (22) (28)

87

ID§'•'IGI Ä G7 O

¢")kD¢\lÄ Ä LD Ähl <rM«-·1 LD 1-1 N

1+-*[ cn • •—|1‘*IGIL¤ LD <' Ä{ G) U'

•"‘I ••—I;3 GJ1 L[ L1.1

O1- O¢<!'N CN(Ü1*5

}Q • • •

-

• • •

L Ok¤u¤A O A •-14; ('Ö(")¢\| N (ÜG)(_) •

O'4-> ev OQQLO cs •.o AVI LG) LL3

C•—O(U Or-(WIND LO N (Ü

·r- L }Q • • • • • • •UI 4-*

O€'{\]("‘I I~D O Ö')U) C ("'ILDI-I F7 NZ GJ

L)3

•.O .C U'

-1-> ¤J OLDMLD O M OC L L •-IN N •-I 1-IO O LL

O ·•· Z1-I 4-*

3G.] .O

1-* ••- Q.¤ L. O<'MM Q ¢ Q{Q 4.) 4.) }Q • • • • • • •

1- an uv O<r1oc1 N cs A-1-· M N¤'N LO v-I N

LIJ

>·1 .: •U 4-* U'C 3 O) OOONGI GI Ä OGJ c L 1-I1-—I•-4 1-• 1-1Z (/I LLCTULLL

OOÄÄSD A O M

4.) }Q• • • • • • •

ua OMNM 1-1 A 1-1(U •*'I*«D(\I LO .•-I N

[LI.]

1.: •14-* O'

2 L 0.1 QANN cx cb c1 O L fV')•-I N •-I

[Z LL1

1 E 12 1-• (U VII2 cu L >• •:¢v>•2 > IUII OUO72 G) GJ L O IOI••-CO

r- .1 (UG) L Cr·•C4-*GJ•·-‘-O LGJ4-*

Q- OOO(U••···OM C O >·(U ·•·•.=·r•UU.C

-1-Q •-L

L G) 4-*L)4-*C(/IL)

·L ‘l"° CJ®.CO4-*~(U 4-* .C4-*4-*4-J (U UVIUOVIVI

P> (U UVIXU U SD-3].1.4-*¤.E U (U(U'•'O

‘O ‘OÜ L

1 : mzc/Ia ns 1.1.1 1.1.1 <2‘O

LLIJ LD

88

Adaptive Behavior Orientation

Several questions were included in this study which

addressed school psychologists' orientation to the measure-

ment of adaptive behavior. The first question that addressed

this issue involved the frequency in which various adaptive

behavior assessment techniques are used by school psycholo-

gists with secondary age students. The second set of ques-

tions addressed specific approaches to collecting adaptive

behavior information with secondary age students according

to type of referral. The approaches to initial evaluations

and reevaluations with mild mentally retarded secondary age

students were addressed third. The fourth area involved

perceived competence in providing assessment services to

secondary age students. The next area explored involved

assessment skills in which entry level school psychologists

need greater training. Finally, the beliefs of school

psychologists regarding the assessment of adaptive behavior

were addressed.

Techniques Used WithSecondary Aqe Students

A review of the school psychology, mental retardation,

special education, and rehabilitation literature facilitated

the development of a set of questions regarding the types

of adaptive behavior measurement techniques that might be

89

used by school psychologists. Techniques were included

which address instructional/programmatic needs, non—biased

assessment issues, and both standardized instruments and

non-standardized approaches to assessment. Numerical values

of one to five were assigned to response categories regard-

ing the frequency in which each technique was used by school

psychologists during the 1982-83 school year.° The response

values were listed as:

l. Never

2. Seldom

3. Sometimes

4. Frequently

5. Always

The ranked frequency in which these techniques were

used is reported in Table ll. Total responses to this set

of questions indicated that non-standardized techniques were

used more frequently than standardized instrumentation in

the collection of information regarding secondary age stu-

dents' adaptive behavior. The Vineland Social Maturity

Scale was the only standardized technique that appeared to

be used by the overall sample with any regularity. Tech-

niques developed specifically for secondary and post secon-

dary populations (e.g., Social and Prevocational Information

Battery, Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale, and the San

90

Table 11

Rank Order in Frequency of Techniques Used forCollecting Adaptive Behavior Information

with Secondary Age Students

StandardTechnique Mean deviation

Information from classroomteacher 4.104 1.199

Clinical impressions 3.778 1.426

Vineland Social Maturity Scale 2.862 1.337

Structured observations 2.690 1.341

Information from schoolsocial worker 2.688 1.602

Naturalistic observation 2.669 1.467

Information from vocationalevaluator 1.951 1.292

Adaptive Behavior Scale--Public School Version 1.614 .959

Local or state developed scales 1.552 1.166

Sociometric Techniques 1.521 .900

Adaptive Behavior Scale--School Edition 1.479 1.058

Adaptive Behavior Inventoryfor Children 1.370 .831

Social and PrevocationalInformation Battery 1.248 .712

Chi1dren's Adaptive Behavior Scale 1.179 .536

Cain Levine Social Competency Scale 1.166 .565

91

Table ll (continued)

StandardTechnique Mean deviation

Vocational Adaptation Rating Scale 1.124 .525

Adaptive Behavior Scale--Clinical Version 1.097 .478

San Francisco VocationalCompetency Scale 1.076 .426

Camelot Behavior Checklist 1.062 .242

92

Francisco Vocational Competency Scale) were rarely used.

Ranked frequencies in which different types of standardized

instruments were used are presented in Table 12. Additional

techniques reported to be used by school psychologists are

listed in Table 13. These additional techniques were

reported by a minority of the total sample in the study. It

is clear that the current practice of school psychologists

in the psychological assessment of secondary age students

does not include standardized adaptive behavior techniques

other than the Vineland Social Maturity Scale.

Approaches in CollectingAdaptive Behavior Information

Subjects were requested to indicate the techniques they

used most frequently to measure the adaptive behavior of

secondary age students according to each of the following

reasons:

1. Initial referral for behavioral/emotional problems.

2. Re-evaluation for behavioral/emotional problems.

3. Initial referral for a possible learning disability.

4. Re-evaluation for a learning disability.

5. Initial referral for limited mental ability (mild

mental retardation).

6. Re-evaluation for mild mental retardation.

7. Referral for moderate mental retardation.

CU OL -4- |\ 4-I ID N LD LD RD NGIM

4-* F) Q Q 4-4 Q N N <' LO LOU M Q Q LO I\ LO LO Q' N Q O:

•p¤•I I I I I I I I I I

I5 > -4 •-•

4-*GJ

V') U

N G Q Q Q <f Q N <I' UIC Q rx rx <· Q N I\ Q 4-4 rxI5 co M -4 cx: PI PI G G Q •=rQ) • • • • • • • • • •E N •-4 •-•

-4 •-1«·-4 -4 •-4 --4 --4

‘2

>s -4-

GJ4-* GJ GJ

N C 4-J P >·¤·- GJ I5 M :Ü U P QS- JJ 'U V7 O •I·*M C P C O +4

O N >5 ,: ·r•C .C GJ ·¤· P GJ U U UM 3 L) P

4-* M •— C I/I Lu

ZZ 3 L 8 E 8 8 B Q P

P P QL. 2°’

E '^ 2 >, "’ä ‘”°

°O I-4 M L *4- U UI E .¤ .CN U >» o : : c: o : U•-I GJ L I./I L ·•-·•-4

41 ·•— Q 4-I Q. L/7Q. O 0 > +4 4-I en u IGJ >$"' >1 JJ I5 P GJ M 1- ••·- I IP I- > 4-* C .C I5 Q. Q M •— GJ GJL M •I" GJ GJ C E C .¥ P PM O .C L > Q O O C O U I5 I5IP 4-* GJ 3 C

·¤-·L) O ·•- GJ U U

¤•°° *2"‘

2 *2 13 *2 S"’

°"C GJ Z L ·•·U M M U L L

·r·· > O 4-* O'•‘•

4-* O L O O

E L3 E "" 2 ä ° 2 >°

"' °"‘> O ·¤· > >8 2 E E E ät

“"E 8 2

‘° ‘°.C .CU U Q GJ GJ an .: GJ GJ

<c V7 Q VJ 'U C P •r-N Q Q• C ·•—

M U Qté E E E"’

ä 2 2 3°’ ‘”> >M M

·4-· L P _,|·¤- L Q ·¤- ••-

Z P 44 U I54-* LI. r-

4-*4-*

GJ Q P -•- C M GJ Q QC M -0- U ••··

U C E I5 I5·¤· U .C O I5 O M I5 U U> < <.> In G > an G < <

C U'IO C

4-* 4-* äGJ I5 C CIn U \ O GJ MQ 3 4-* U'I·•-· E LO. U C C 4-* GJ UIL GJ GJ ·•- U U O:¤ E : «¤ LO. P GJ L P Q

M U M4-* O.

·G M E, UI UP C .C C

GJ C. O•-4

4-* MQ. L QU') Q. Q

94

Table 13

Additional Standardized Techniques Used By SchoolPsychologists to Measure the Adaptive Behavior

of Secondary Age Students

Technique Frequency ofreported use

Street Survival Skills Questionnaire 6

Developmental Scales (general) _ 4

Meadow Kendall 4

Burks Behavior Rating Scale 2

Behavior Checklists (general) 2

Weller Shawser 1

Deveroux l

PACSPD 1

SVI 4 1

Maxfield Buckholz 1

Hahnemann 1

Walker _ 1

Money Problem 1

Clifford 1

Achievement Tests l

95

8. Referral for severe/profound mental retardation.

9. Other referrals.

Overall approach. The overall ranked frequency in

which different approaches are used in collecting adaptive

behavior information is reported in Appendix C. Total

responses indicate that adaptive behavior instruments are

reported to be used more frequently than other approaches to

collecting adaptive behavior information when open—ended

responses were elicited according to reason for referral.

The use of interview (information from others) techniques

were used quite frequently by themselves and in combination

with other techniques. Forty—one different approaches to

collecting adaptive behavior information were listed by par-

ticipating subjects. The five most common approaches to

data gathering involved one or some combination of adaptive

behavior instruments, interviews (information from others),

and observations. Other approaches to data collection

involved one or some combination of the following:

behavioral/personality scales, projective tests, clinical

impressions/student interviews, local or state developed

scales, achievement tests, cognitive or intellectual scales,

developmental scales, learning or cognitive styles, voca-

tional tests, and perceptual motor tests. A large percentage

96

of subjects reported that they did not measure adaptive

behaviors for all listed referrals.

Initial referral for behavioral/emotional problems.

A total of eighty-nine subjects indicated that they obtained

adaptive behavior information regarding the initial referral

of secondary age students during the 1982-83 school year

with behavioral/emotional problems. Twenty-one different

approaches to data gathering were reported. Interviews

(information from others) and observations were reported as

the most commonly used methods of collecting adaptive

behavior information with secondary age students. Data

gathering approaches ranked close behind, involving one or

some combination of adaptive behavior instruments,

behavioral/personality scales, and interviews (information

from others). Twenty—two subjects indicated that they did

not collect adaptive behavior information (see Appendix C).

Re—evaluation for behavioralgemotional problems.

Ninety-two subjects indicated that they obtained adaptive

behavior information regarding re-evaluations of secondary

age students with behavioral/emotional problems. Twenty

different approaches to data gathering were used with these

referrals. The use of only interviews (information from

others) and interviews along with observations stood out as

97

the most commonly used approaches to data gathering. Twenty-

one subjects indicated that they did not collect adaptive

behavior information (see Appendix C).

Initial referral for learning disabilities. Eighty-six

subjects indicated that they obtained adaptive behavior

information in initial evaluations for learning disabilities

with secondary age students. Twenty-two different approaches

to data gathering were reported. Interviews (information

from others) combined with observations were the most

frequently reported approaches used by participating sub-

jects. Ranked a somewhat distant second were interviews

(information from others). Adaptive behavior instruments

were ranked third, along with interviews (information from

others) and clinical impressions/student interviews. Intel-

lectual, perceptual-motor, and projective tests were reported

to be used by a minority of subjects as a means of collect-

ing adaptive behavior information. Thirty-four subjects

indicated that they did not obtain adaptive behavior

information (see Appendix C).

Re-evaluation for learning disabilities. A total of

seventy-two subjects indicated that they collected adaptive

behavior information for secondary age students referred for

re—evaluations regarding learning disabilities. Nineteen

98

approaches to data gathering were reported. Rank frequencies

indicate that there is little difference in the approaches

used in initial and re—evaluations. Thirty—nine subjects

indicated that they did not collect adaptive behavior

information (see Appendix C).

Initial referral for limited mental abilities. Ninety-

three subjects indicated that they collected adaptive t ·

behavior information in the psychological evaluation of

secondary age students initially referred because of limited

mental abilities (possible mild mental retardation). Ranked

frequencies indicate a strong orientation towards the use of

adaptive behavior instruments. Eight of the twenty—two

approaches to data collection reported by subjects involved

the use of adaptive behavior instruments. Interviews

(information from others) were also mentioned as an approach

frequently used in data collection. Developmental, cogni-

tive, achievement, and projective tests were included as

techniques used by subjects. Nine subjects indicated that

they did not collect adaptive behavior information (see

Appendix C).

Re—evaluation for mild mental retardation. A total of

one hundred and seven subjects reported that they collected

adaptive behavior information in the psychological evaluation

99

of secondary age students referred for a re-evaluation

because of mild mental retardation. Rank frequencies indi-

cated the use of similar data gathering approaches as those

used in initial referrals for limited mental abilities.

That is, there was a strong orientation towards the use of

adaptive behavior instruments with the use of interviews

(information from others) mentioned either alone or combinedwith other techniques at a somewhat moderate rate of occur-

rence. Twenty—one approaches to data gathering were indi-

cated which included projective, cognitive, achievement, and

vocational tests as methods of data collection with this

population. There were only six subjects who reported that

they did not collect adaptive behavior information (see

Appendix C). q

Referral for moderate mental retardation. Adaptive

behavior instruments were again the most frequent approach

used in data gathering. In general, responses were similar

to those reported for limited mental abilities and mild

mental retardation. Developmental, vocational, cognitive,

achievement, and projective tests were mentioned as tech-

niques used in collecting adaptive behavior information with

moderatley retarded secondary age students. Seven subjects

reported that they did not collect adaptive behavior

information (see Appendix C).

100

Referral for severe profound mental retardation.

Much like other referrals mentioned earlier concerning

mentally retarded students, adaptive behavior instruments

were ranked, by far, as the most frequently used method for

collecting adaptive behavior information. Also, interviews

(information from others) were also mentioned with relative

frequency as a method of collecting adaptive behavior infor-

mation. A total of seventy subjects indicated that they

obtained adaptive behavior information for severe/profoundly

retarded students during the 1982-83 school year. Only

seven reported that they did not collect adaptive behavior

information.

Approaches to initial and re-evaluationswith secondary age students

Four questions involving approaches school psycholo-

gists use in the psychological evaluation of secondary age

mild mentally retarded students were included in the study.

Subjects were asked to rank what they felt were the relative

importance of several possible reasons for conducting

psychological evaluations with secondary age mild mentally

retarded students. The list of reasons involved assessment

issues regarding possible placements in various educational

programs and instructional needs at the secondary level.

Responses were ranked so that”l"

indicated the most

101

important reason,"2“

the next most important, and so on.

The following are the reasons subjects ranked for both

initial evaluations and re-evaluations:

l. Determine appropriateness of special education

placement.

2. Determine appropriateness of a vocational placement.

3. Determine instructional needs for academic

performance.

4. Determine instructional needs for vocational

training.

5. Determine instructional needs for social competence.

Subjects were also asked to rank what they felt were

the relative importance of several assessment components in

psychological evaluations with secondary age mild mentally

retarded students. The list of components are mandated by

law and/or considered appropriate by NASP's Professional

Standards. Again, responses were ranked so that“l"

indicated the most important component,"2“

the next most

important, and so on. The following are the components sub-

jects ranked for both initial and re-evaluations:

l. Intellectual functioning.

2. Adaptive behavior.

3. Personality development.

4. Vocational aptitudes and interests.

5. Academic achievement.

102

Purpose of psychological evaluations. Responses to

questions involving the rank order of reasons for conducting

psychological evaluations with mild mentally retarded

secondary age students are presented in Table 14. Subjects

indicated that determining eligibility for special education

placements is the most important reason for conducting both

initial evaluations and re-evaluations. In fact, there was

total agreement in the rank order of each reason for referral

with both types of evaluations. The next three rankings

involve instructional needs related to academic, vocational,

and social competency issues. Determining appropriate voca-

tional placements ranked last in relative importance by

participating subjects.

Important components in psychological evaluations.

Responses to questions involving the rank order of important

components in psychological evaluations with mild mentally

retarded secondary age students are presented in Table 15.

Subjects indicated that intelligence scales were the most

important component in both initial evaluations and re-

evaluations. Adaptive behavior and academic achievement

were ranked second and third respectively on both scales.

There were some differences in the last two rankings as

personality development was ranked fourth for initial

103

4 >; 41) N O Q 4*5 kb

¤ w 4~ 1~ •-4 ca noIO nn m N N N•F€I • • • • •

JJ "Cl •·-I r-4 4-4 •—I 4-I46 JJC U)

•'>41)I

41) I\ ß GN O QM ¤ •-4 xo M o om 46 o c~ o ¤• <•

Q l Q) • • • • •Ow . E N N m m M·-uw

88C46r-JO .46--4>"U .WC

(5 •

•·-·I¤3 C >46 O w -4 N 4-4 cs 1~··-4>4 --4 w 4~ no r~ ua ¤~JJ•—I JJ <•

N Q N •—-I-p-{|—|U] fß

• • • • • •

C46JJ _¤ "U 4-I ¤-I •—I r-I •—-IHJJC JJ

CQ) 46 U}IJ-4<U"¤ 4 >OSZ! 41)

JJ·¤- www 4-4•-4 ¢n•—1 46

Q ID r-4 I* LKNw ¤«E!¤*• „ JJ 4: r~ an o m no·-4 $-4 4--4 46 cs M ¤• <:•~¤_Q

Q Q) • • • • •46 DJJJ>1 I-I E 4-~I N 4*) M 4**7&·•

·•-44-u"G346Q) 'U; 4>4I!C,•*6¤Oj

000

I—JJJUJ~<D46 , JJ94C , C

4-4 _ G)u-I46 EO> 41)

4D OS-4l 4600) 4 ¤-4 41) JJ'UM gl O UN CS'!} C >~1

0

¤ 0 E CI 0 äM46 4 ·•-4 $-4 -·-4 C OC ; JJ O 46 41) 4646 46 ¤J-4 >-4 JJ 4-J9ä „ U H E4 41) gl

C 4D Q4'U DJ r-I E

•-I„ C!] 46 O 46; U C O C4 ¤—I ·-I O O46 4-4 ~•-J

--4 JJ 46 JJO 'G 46 -•-4 46

8 8 8 8 8w 4 > w >

‘

l I I I I

«-I N M <• LD

104

O

>GJ N Q H Q kb

¤ ·¤ cs Ih M N cxO <• J-I M M •-I

·•·I• • • • • •

JJ "U H H H H HI5 JJIJ U)HI5>GJI

GJ <• •-J N cx JDM I: N M J-I c> <1-I5 •-4 an •—• M N

Q) • • • • •

E N N M M M

I

C >O GJ N N c <•-·-• 'U ND M .-1 •-I cUJ JJ Q O N N HJJ (Q •

¤\ • • • •C 'J 'U • H H H HGJ H JJC I5 U)

EL äE

Ih O HH U I5

·-I H co N<•

NGJ MJ JJ C •-4 Q M M NH O ··-I I5 Ih N Q N OQ Q Q) • • • • •IG JJ

I-•2

•-•N N M <:·E·•

GJ'UJ-JO

.2CIUM

JJCGJ

4-* EIJ) C OJGJ GJ OH JJ E HIU O GJ GJ InO ·•·¢ > > JJU) > GJ GJ In

I5 ··-I Q GJGJ ..C .C EIU GJ U >·1I: c¤ 4 JJ •-1GJ ·•-I I5UI GJ O H C-·-I > ·-I at O•-I -•-I

E C -•-JH JJ 0 O JJGJ OJ 'U UJ I5

E S 8 E 8•-•4 4 cn >

H N M <J· Ih

105

evaluations while vocational interests and aptitudes were

ranked fourth for re—evaluations.

Perceived Competency to ProvideAssessment Services toSecondary Age Students ‘

Subjects were requested to indicate on a one to five

scale the degree in which they felt prepared to provide

assessment services to secondary age students (ages 14

through 2l years). Responses ranged from "l" indicating

"not prepared at all" to "5" indicating "fully prepared."

Only .5% of the subjects reported that they were not pre-

pared to provide assessment services to this population. At

the opposite extreme, 31% felt that they were fully prepared

More than two—thirds of all subjects felt less than fully

prepared to provide psychological assessment services to

secondary age students. Specific rates of responses were as

follows: 1 = .5%; 2 = 7.5%; 3 = 23.5%; 4 = 35.3%; 5 =

31.0%; No response = 2.1%.

Areas in which School PsychologistsEntering the Profession NeedGreater Assessment Skills

Subjects were requested to rank the areas in which

school psychologists hired for entry level positions in

their department during the past five years should gain

greater skills for providing assessment services to secondary

106

age populations. The same options were provided for this

question that were included in earlier mentioned rankings

involving initial evaluations and re—eva1uations. Responses

were ranked so that"1”

indicated the most important com-

ponent,"2”

the next most important, and so on. Participant

responses are reported in Table 16. Results indicate that

participating practitioners felt that greater training was

most needed in vocational aptitudes and interests assess-

ment. The next area in which greater training was needed

involved adaptive behavior assessment. Personality

assessment was ranked third, followed by more traditional

skills involving intellectual and academic testing.

I

Table 16

Areas in Which Additional Skills Are Needed

- StandardRank Technique Mean deviation

1 Vocational Development 2.201 1.258

2 Adaptive Behavior 2.207 1.050

3 Personality Development 2.649 1.172

4 Intelligence 3.837 1.434

5 Academic 3.994 .933

107

Beliefs Regarding AdaptiveBehavior Measurement

Subjects were requested to indicate on a one to five

scale how they perceive the general feelings of colleagues

in their work settings regarding the measurement of adaptive

behavior. The final question in this section involved the

degree in which individuals agree with their overall percep-

tion of colleagues' opinions. This approach was used to

avoid eliciting responses which put oneself in a good light

which may or may not accurately reflect an individual's

behavior or attitude. Responses ranged from "l" indicating

"poor quality," "not relevant," or "total disagreement" to

"5" indicating "excellent quality," "extremely relevant," or

"total agreement." Results are reported in Table 17. It

was indicated that participants generally felt that adaptive

behavior instruments are of generally poor quality, espe-

cially when addressing the needs of secondary age students.

There were a wide range of opinions (both strong and not so

strong) regarding the current definition of adaptive behavior

which emphasizes out of school behaviors. Wide ranges of

opinions were also indicated regarding the relevance of

adaptive behavior in the measurement of personality develop-

ment and in addressing the needs of students referred for

reasons other than limited mental ability.

108

I U)1 °*^IÄßfäfäfäfäIJJfl)U

<‘¤®<•:-4N Qnowm M Qwcßmm 0!:—4®:-4kDNf¤¤:-: w<1•w mm:-: I-:mw:-4 wmwfl)0M4-:~¤

I Fr:IÄ mI 0I 0-:-:

0 Sd

I 0:1 <:·:-:.n :-wm :—:mmu¤w :-:<:·:~·=:·:-:füdß I U2U‘0}-: .QfD:-1:: 4:.::-402 I Fl:Ofü

-2 I II IIve-: I >: >: c: czOf-: I JJ JJ fü fü

O I '•"‘ "" > >U2-:-4 I :-4 :-4 CD fl)¤> I U2 fü fü :-4 :-4Ofü ; G) >«: Z! >·: 5 JJ 0 JJ fl)

-:-4..CZ I -:-4 JJ _U’0

JJ U"fD C 2-:0 C2 2-:0U20 L: ·•·f U2 -:-4 U2 fü U2 fü U2

l~ U2t¤ O :-4 JJC! :-4 JJC > >:¤ > >:¤:-4 41) U! fü ¤O fü f'1O G) :-40 fl) :-40$-:41) I 0 5 OO: Z5 UO: :-4 QJQ: -4 00-:CI) Q.:> I JJ U"'U ..¤:-4U2 O""U IICI:-402 0"O .-CEU2 0*0 I-CEU2

:-4 E--I 1 fü C'UJJ:—40 ¤"UJJ:-40) 2—:¤"UJJ00 $-:¤"UJJ00.IO U $-:02-:2-:02-: 1-:O$-•L:fDL: OH:-::-:$-: Of-:2-:4-:2-:fü fü OO·--450 OU·-450 ·4JU·•·4¤JJ JJO--4.’5JJE4 ·-O.: Of!)-C-OXO OQLGONO OG).-COXO Of!).-QONO

32D-:U)EfF¢Jl¢lZ ¤:U)E•l'=:F='IZ ZU}E4C¢:IZ¢lZ ZU)E•E¤ICrJZ

IW 1.,.:4,)I

.

.9.,8 1 ti0f¤ Ä 0 m :-4 :-1 a:.:1 I ·¤ co co cz: mOU2 I ..¤ :-4 :-4 :-4 :-4>·:¤ — DU‘20 I U)43:--·f I

C! I:-4-:-4OD.:20O >«:U) >·: U2JJ

I 0 :-:&: fu--:I > ¤$0 •:-:

:-:·:-:::2 *0-:-: 0:-: $445JJ0 C‘.>

O OC!I 0::-4 ON -:.:·-• --:0I f¤fü UL! 'J> >U2I 0 ·'¤O 00 Oft: fü:-::.1

23 füU2 U2..Q .f3 .-¤0¤U2 Cd) G)QI:fUum fu:-: ::-:0 0.¤ .¤ E. 1-: 00 0> *4-IQ.:_ -I-J --:::*1 rn:-: 000

I >~:> >«-IJ0 --40 > :-4~ JJfü JJQ::-4 U20 ·•-:4-lf!)

-:-:1: ·-ffufu f¤.¤ JJ:-:>:-40) :-4'UU I-GO Oefüfllfü.!} füfüfß G14!) füQ:"U

I 9 5 E 'UO O fil ¢G

109

I

>OCJJOU L0<¤•.h¤-ILf'•<"‘! :—Iu"•O6\wf'7 'IGUH FINNN NMN

I 00IZ!-tv

IFI-•

IIII U!I

Q,

10--IJJO

IUC

0:1 ~¤.n<•<2·I-I r-•m¤~mImU‘

.00421-I

Ch

I JJI C

G>0 0

U! •-I 0I 0 JJ 0 H·•-J

¤ nw ¤·• wwH G U! G 0U!

I O > >1C U! HCU'! 0 r-IO '•" OO

I 0 •—I 004 'U mglI JJ a>'¤ ::Em ·¤ 1: cnI G !·JC"UJ-I00 «—IC"UJ-I:-·I0I U OIJHSJH GOIJHGHI JJO·-IGJJ JJO-•-IZBJJI O0.CONO O0.-COOOI ZCDEIFIJEIJZ E·*U)E·Iü’-IEIZ

U) II JJI OI 0 O «·-4I '|'I G) Q

.0 r-I •-I5U}

I

JJ0C 007

^ I >¢D 0¤·¤ I -·-•E>« HO0

GCC 5 IUÖIU "'I-•-I *¤wJ-I UIQ4JJ GGC JJOC 0 00 •—IU!0 I ¤ u-IEE O--Id)U I U! O I OU*>~« I U1 II-•¤*U .¤OO

I-J QJOOGJU•-•.¤

¤~ I0--•c:•‘¤

momI-I I C> H .-C

GG.CG 00.-C0 I >.CJJJJ 0>1JJI-4 ww-•-am

s4m·•-•.¤ •-·I.¤3s4 ¤~¤«3G 0 0E-• Q1 · Q

ll0

Results of Statistical Procedures. Associated with Survey Variables

Several statistical procedures were used in selecting

appropriate variables in the analysis of research questions

presented in this study. The first step involved the analy-

sis of condescriptives and frequencies of each variable.

Forty-nine of the original one hundred fifteen variables

were eliminated, through this process, because of poor dis- X

tributions and/or limited responses. Highly skewed distri-SU

butions were related to a strong agreement among school

psychologists on many questions which minimized variance to

the point that this data could not be used in the analysis

of results. Limited responses to many questions appeared to

be a result of poor wording of questions and disqualifica—

tion for completion of a question because of responses on

previous questions.

Bivariate correlation coefficients product-moment pro-

cedures were used to identify highly correlated variables in

avoiding multicolinearity. Analysis through partial corre-

lation procedures were conducted to identify possible

interaction effects among variables. Chi-square analyses

were used to determine if significant differences occurred

in subjects' responses to related variables.· Factor analy-

sis and Chi-square procedures were conducted to insure that

variables included in the analysis were representative of

lll

the sample, that unique features of the variables were

addressed and that variables were independent in their

contribution to statistical analyses in this study. The

above procedures helped to maximize the reliability and con-

tent validity of variables used in the analysis of research

questions.

As a result of the above procedures, several variables

were eliminated from the analyses while others were tran-

formed into new variables and/or values. Transformations

involving the creation of new variables included the

following:

l. A variable called Differences in Purpose was com-

puted from variables involving the sum of squared differen-

ces between initial evaluations and re—evaluations regarding

the purpose of psychological assessments. variables used in

this transformation included special education placements in

initial evaluations, special education placements in re-

evaluations, vocational placements in initial evaluations,

vocational placements in re—evaluations, academic perfor-

mance in initial evaluations, academic performance in re-

evaluations, vocational training instruction in initial

evaluations, vocational training instruction in re-

evaluations, social competence in initial evaluations, and

social competence in re-evaluations.

ll2

2. A variable called Differences in Components was

computed from variables involving the sum of squared dif-

ferences between initial evaluations and re-evaluations

regarding the relative importance of assessment components.

Variables used in this transformation included intellectual

functioning in initial evaluations, intellectual functioning

in re-evaluation, adaptive behavior in initial evaluations,

adaptive behavior in re-evaluations, personality development

in initial evaluations, personality development in re-

evaluations, vocational needs in initial evaluation, voca-

tional needs in re-evaluation, academic achievement in

initial evaluations, and academic achievement in re-

evaluations.

3. A variable called Formal Training in Adaptive

Behavior Assessment was computed from existing variables

with logarithmic adjustments. Variables used in this trans-

formation included adaptive behavior in intelligence test

training, adaptive behavior in personality test training,

adaptive behavior in educational test training, adaptive

behavior in vocational test training, adaptive behavior in

behavioral observation training, and adaptive behavior in

multicultural test training. Logarithmic transformations

were used because of the negative skewness of the new

variable.

ll3

4. A variable called Formal Training in Secondary Age

Assessment was computed from existing variables with

logarithmic adjustments. Variables used in this transfor-

mation included secondary age training in intelligence

testing, secondary age training in personality testing,

secondary age training in educational testing, secondary age

training in vocational testing, secondary age training in

behavioral observation, and secondary age training in multi-

cultural testing. Logarithmic transformations were used

because of the negative skewness of the new variable.·

5. A variable called Practical Experience with

Secondary Age was computed from existing variables.

Variables used in this transformation included practica

experience with secondary age students and internship

experience with secondary age students.

6. A variable called Informal Training in Adaptive

Behavior Assessment was computed from existing variables.

Variables used in this transformation included conferences/

workshops in adaptive behavior and readings in adaptive

behavior.U

7. A variable called Informal Training in Secondary

School Psychological Services was computed from existing

variables. Variables used in this transformation included

conferences/workshops in secondary school services and

readings in secondary school services.

114

Value ranges of several variables were recoded through

transformation procedures to normalize distributions. The

results of these transformations are as follows:

l. Age. 1 = 25 through 30 years; 2 = 31 through 36

years; 3 = 37 through 42 years; 4 = 43 through 48 years; 5 =

48+ years.

2. Years as a school psychologist. 1 = 1 through 3

years; 2 = 4 through 6 years; 3 = 7 through 9 years; 4 = 10

through 12 years; 5 = 12+ years.

· 3. Graduate Program. 1 = 1 through 4; 2 = 5 through

7; 3 = 8. This variable was than transformed into dummy

variables because of nominal values.

4. Formal training in adaptive behavior and secondary

age assessment. 1 = 0, 00, 8; 2 = 1; 3 = 2; 4 = 3; 5 = 4;

6 = 5.

5. Experience with secondary age students during

training. 1 = 1, 2; 2 = 3; 3 = 4; 4 = 5; 5 = 6; 6 = 7.

6. Percent of time serving secondary/vocational

schools. 1 = .00 through .09; 2 = .10 through .19; 3 = .20

through .29; 4 = .30 through .39; 5 = .40 through .49.

7. Number of students in district. 1 = 1 through 3; 2

= 4 through 7; 3 = 8 through 11.

8. Number of fu1l—time school psychologists in

district. 1 = 00.0 through 00.9; 2 = 01.0 through 01.9; 3 =

ll5

02.0 through 02.9; 4 = 03.0 through 03.9; 5 = 04.0 through

04.9; 6 = 05.0 through 05.9.

9. Geographic area in population density. l = 6; 2 =

5; 3 = 4; 4 = 3; 5 = 2; 6 = l.

In addition to the above transformations, dummy vari-

ables were computed for all categorical variables (see

Appendix C).

Variables

Eight categories of variables were included in the

questionnaires completed by participants in this study. The

eight categories include characteristics of school psychology

practitioners, training, worksettings, adaptive behavior

assessment procedures, approaches to evaluating mild mentally

retarded secondary age students, degree practitioners feel

prepared to provide assessment services to secondary age

students, areas in which new school psychologists need addi-

tional assessment training, quality of adaptive behavior

scales, and the range of relevance perceived in the defini-

tion of adaptive behavior. The specific variables comprising

each category are found in Appendix C.

Independent Variables

Factor analytic and Chi—square procedures were used

along with previously mentioned appoaches in reducing the

116

number of variables used in explaining outcomes of research

findings. Two sets of variables selected as independent

variables involved characteristics of school psychologists

and training. Specific variables under the category of

school psychologists' characteristics involved age, years in

the profession, sex, level of education and graduate program.

Training variables were collapsed and categorized as followsz

adaptive behavior measurement addressed in formal assessment

training, secondary age students in formal assessment train-

ing, practica and internship experience with secondary age

students, informal training in adaptive behavior measurement

and informal training in secondary age services. A principal

components factor analysis and orthogonal varimax rotation

with iterations were used with both school psychologists'

and training variables. This procedure was used to deter-

mine the number and nature of unique underlying variables in

the above categories. Using SPSSX subprogram FACTOR, a

three factor solution was chosen for school psychologists'

characteristics. Table 18 presents the eigenvalues and per-

centages of common variance accounted for by each of six

possible factors. Through default procedures, a minimum

eigenvalue of 1 was used as the criterion for selecting fac-

tors. For purposes of naming and interpretation of each

factor, only the highest items were utilized. For purposes

ll7

of factor scoring, however, all items were included in a

regression based scoring algorithm in order to maintain

independence across all factors. Table 19 contains a list

of variables grouped by factor and their loadings on each of

the three factors with required eigenvalues.

The first factor extracted concerning school psycholo-

gists' characteristics was labeled Graduate Program. It

contained variables involving the location of graduate pro-

grams in which school psychologists received their masters

degrees. Factor two was labeled Professional Maturity and

included variables involving school psychologists' years in

the profession and age. Variables involving sex and educa-

tion level loaded together to form the third factor which

was labeled Male Educational Ascendence.

The eigenvalues and percentages of common variance for

training variables are presented in Table 21. The same pro-

cedures were used as mentioned previously to select factors

and factor loadings for individual variables. Table 22

contains a list of variables grouped by factor and their

loadings on each of the two factors with prerequisite

eigenvalues.

118

Table 18

Eigenvalues and Percent of Common VarianceAccounted for by Each Psychologist Factor

Factor Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

1 1.86661 31.1

2 1.16683 19.4

3 1.15294 19.2

4 .86179 14.4

5 .55197 9.2

6 .39985 6.7

119

601 <'•-4 GNG1 ww6 •—I•-—·I I‘w 0'IG16 I-1 ßm 01w <I•¤-I

6 O mcs mm oco6 JJ GO •—I¤-I ww6 Q • • • • • •6 fü6 Cu I II

6 N 016-I Lt1<!' ww6 Nds LOGN u‘1¤.t16 LI @Ö ('l€\I ÖÄÖ6 O ¤~m nom ¤~<•6 JJ Gr-I ww GO6 Q • • • • • •

66 [BJ I IIIIW 6·f-I I'¤ 6

·•·I 6r-I IÜPI \D\D!—€<‘

UI 6 nocs oco oco•-I H N01 016-I 6-le-IO 6 O mm com no6-I

.-Q 6 JJ ww O•—I »-JNQ 6 Q

• • • • • •>~•

6 füfil 6 Ih I9+ 6LI IO I

«—•6

"IGJ ‘•'I6

r-I In 6„-O JJ 6fü fü 6E E .

6 0)LI 6 _m UO ‘ Q Qu I om <vU 6

·•·IC 'Öfü ~ JJO QIn 6 fü--f (D

6 *0JJ JJ U·¤ 6 cm -6-•

OlG) 6 5*0SJJJ1 O¤ 5

fü 6 E ¤-I5 JJ 6-1JJ fü O fü füO 6 H •—I¤J-l 2 QM fü O

6 O U«—4 6-I ·•-I6 LJ ·•-Ifü fü JJ

6 DJ UYQ Q IU_ OO O O6 0 6-•·—• -6-1 ¢: 56 JJ OJJ Ul O "06 fü .¤¢¤ cn ·•-• rz: 6-+6 5 OO fl) U! Q)

'O >·65 nu m <v >6 fü f!l*0 O CU ¤-I 06 u mid IJ u-6 ro 6-I1 U Ile O E6 I I H •—I6 I I OJ I fü

QQ Q= r-I OO N Q 01 O6 ·•-I·•-•

·•-• ·•-•

6 IJ JJJJ H I·J JJ .”O füfü O Ul O fü

6 JJ UO JJ LJ JJ U6 O 55 U füf1I O N5

1 fü *0*0 fü d)U'• fü fl)"0Fu mm Cu >-••<!Z in Ulm

120

Table 20 .Factor Transformation Matrix for Psychologist

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Factor 1 .70791 .69653 .11709

Factor 2 - .70578 .70395 .07953

Factor 3 .02703 .13894 — .98993

_ Table 21

Eigenvalues and Percent of Common VarianceAccounted for by Each Training Factor

Factor Eigenvalue Percent of Variance

1 2.08361 41.7

2 1.06685 21.3

3 .90070 18.0

4 .54705 10.9

5 .40180 8.0

l2l

I1 N GN ND Q SD QJ GN M GS

<•M, J $-1 ND <I' Q Ch In

J O -1 <•-1 1~ r~

J JJ Q N Q ND InQ

• • • • •II tu

[ InII

[ -1 4.0 r~ sa cn coJ LO Q <* 4-I

<•

J $-4 M G4 kb ND N1 O c N 64 c NJ JJ ON Q 4-I O MJ Q

• • • • •

I euJ CH I

0* J 1C'- ..,4

IG.,4|¤

J

ä .$4 JO

•~4-1 J UIJ U4 G O-4

N >< Q ¤ --1 --101 --1 J --1 ¤ .C-'

$-4 J G ·•·I U)0) JJ J ·•-I fü C

3 § I E 3 3Ifü J JJ JJE-1 :-4 J J-4 - c: c: m

O J JJ C -•-I ·v·4 $-4 Q)JJ J _G Ü G Ü UU 1 ¤ 0 E -·-I "¤

·•-• ··-Ieu I --1 E ua fü 1: > >Er- J I: rn rn :-1 fü fü :-4

·¤‘ [Ü

Ü Ü E eu Ü Ü3

’Ä Ü Ü Ü 94 'Q >4fü , fü fl) JJ Q) $-1-1-I 4-4 -1 E U > as

O C 1-1 fü fü fü ·•·¢ "Ucd _ 0 fü E 111 :-4 4-4 1:E E :-4 0 ¤4 ¤4 0U) $-4 O U) fü O

J rn 0 ¤4-1 an c ·‘¤0J 0 ~4-4 Q 4 --1 as m

Kü_ U) C ·•-I Q) 0 C CJ 4 --1 > U --1 --1

U! ··-·I CJ 4-4 SJ <D JJ (D U4 UIJ fü O O O ·•-I C C_

E -v-I ~•-I Q) I-J ·v-I -•-I

J I-4 > > r-4 GJ C C_ O fü $-4 (D O4 '•'I ••'*J FN L'- (I) U1 >¢ fü fü

2“’

J°’

3 3J I>1 >1-—-I Q) $-4 N 4-4 r-I 4-I

J > fü fü fü fü:-4 --1 ·¤ :-4 ·¤ E EJ O JJ C O C $4 $-1J JJ Q4 O JJ O O OJ U It: U U U I-1-4 :1-1

fü 'U G) IU (D C CIn 4 ua Fr-4 cn 4-1 4-1

122

Table 23

Factor Transformation Matrix for Training

Factor 1 Factor 2

Factor 1 .74226 .67011

Factor 2 - .67011 .74226

123

Variables involving formal training in adaptive behavior

and secondary age assessments made up the first factor

extracted concerning training variables. This factor was

labeled Formal Training. Factor two was labeled Selective

Training and included variables related to time spent serving

secondary age students during practica and internships,

workshops/conferences attended regarding adaptive behavior/

secondary school psychological services, and selective

readings regarding these topics. Each of the five sets of

factors extracted from the two factor analytic procedures

represent discrete independent variables to be used in

addressing research questions. Numeric constants were added

to each factored variable to create positive numerals with a

minimum value of one.

Analysis of Survey Responsesto Research Questions

Research Question 1: To what extent do schoolpsychologists' age, sex, training, experience andworksetting relate to the type of adaptive beha-vior information gathered in the psychologicalassessment of secondary age students.

The specific issue addressed in this question involves

the relationship of previously mentioned independent

variables to school psychologists' use of adaptive behavior

measurement techniques designed to address the instructional

needs and/or placement needs with secondary age students.

l24

Adaptive behavior instruments listed under each category

along with the relative mean frequency in which these proce-

dures are used by school psychologists in measuring the

adaptive behavior of secondary age students are presented in

Table ll. Ranges of responses were from l, indicating

”never used", to 5, indicating "always use." Because of the

limited variability in responses to these techniques no

statistical analysis was conducted. The only adaptive

behavior instrument reported to be used with any degree of

frequency was the Vineland Social Maturity Scale which is

primarily used to determine special education placement

needs.

Research Question 2: To what extent do schoolpsychologists' utilize adaptive behavior measure-ment techniques differently for different types ofhandicapped secondary age students on initialevaluations and re—evaluations.

In order to deal with this research question, a series

of chi-square analyses were run in which the use of dif-

ferent adaptive behavior measurement procedures (adaptive

behavior instrumentation, standardized instrumentation, non-

psychometric, and not measured) were cross tabulated against

types of referral (emotionally disturbed, learning disabled,

and mentally retarded) by initial and re-evaluations. Chi-

square tests of each cross tabulation are reported in Table

24. There were no significant differences in approaches to

l25

initial evaluations and re-evaluations with emotionally

disturbed, learning disabled, and mild mentally retarded

students. No significant differences were indicated in

assessment techniques used with mild mentally retarded,

moderate mentally retarded, and severe/profoundly retarded

secondary age students. Since no differences were found

between initial evaluations and re-evaluations and with men-

tally retarded students, a comparison was made between types

of techniques used during re—evaluations with emotionally

disturbed, learning disabled, and mild mentally retarded

students. Significant differences were found in the tech-

niques used and the type of handicap. The Chi—square value

was significant beyond the .00l level. (See Table 24 and 25)

Research Question 3: To what extent do schoolpsychologists who differ in training and otherdemographic characteristics also differ in the waythey assess adaptive behavior with various typesof secondary age handicapped students referred forinitial evaluations and re-evaluations.

Oneway analysis of variance was used to examine whether

school psychologists' characteristics and training differed

according to techniques used in assessing the adaptive

behavior of different types of secondary age students.

Variables examined involved graduate program, professional

maturity, male ascendence, formal training, and selective

training. Tables 26 through 28 present the results of these

analyses. Statistically significant differences were found

126

J 0~ O

IOU

I -•-4 U} VJ U) U)Z Z Z Z

9G0U*

U}

11

*4-4; 'U N N N N11

U'} J 00 I $-4 cb c kb m5 <•

an c 1~U' :5 o N cs m

~r-I n • • •

G I U) r-4 O M Q·¤ 1U 1

IE4 ··‘

IJJIU J‘ Q}.;

I s~

s~aß:-1 .

•¤*¤ ·¤ ·¤E0 J 0 0 0 0

0*4-4 I „Q"ÖG .Q"OG .-Q"OG „Q'UG<I•N0 I NGO NGO NGO NGON 5M I

5fU·•·| 5¢U••·I 5IU--I 5¢U·•·IU) I JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ

0 ¢U'J-II GUl91¢U GKü9~¤¢U G¢¤91f5 GU!9·1¢U¤-4 0O 1 O·•·|JJ"U O'•'*JJ"O O'·'|JJ'Ö O'•·I4J"O„G E

·•·I'U·•·IN ·•·I"U·-JN ·•·*"5·-IN ·•·I'U·•'4NFU 0 I JJ r-IRB JJ •-445 JJ r-ltd JJ ¤-·|¢UE4 NQ; 1 «-J 4U>q·•-IJJ ¢U>q·•-IJJ ¢5>1··-IJJ ¢U>·4--IJJ

O91 1 F5 5•—I..Q0 5•-I.Q0 5e-|.Q0 5•-I..¤0·•·4E-•N •-Iv-IIUN •—-I•—If5N v-le-INN •-I-·|¢UN

9 g N fU_lU0‘! ¢UfU<0 MG50! IUIUUI¤¤>« , ab >¤·•-4-4 >:·•-1•-4 >¤--••-4 9G·•-4»—I.G..Q *4-4 0O'U|U 0O"U¢U 0O"U¤l 0O"UfUa) I aß |·•-4 JJ I·¤-I JJ I--4 JJ |·-4 JJM I M 0JJU*G 0JJ¤'*G 0JJU*•G 0-4-JGG

I NOG0 NOG0 NOG0 NOG0al — \ä·•-IE \E··-IE \ä··-IE \ä··-*E.'-9 ¤-1 G •-40G ¤—4 G •—| G·•-4 46 NU CU N"O G3 N"U (U N"UJJ I ·•-4N¢Ur—| ·•-Il-•tU•-4 ~•-4LJ¢U•-I

·•-II-4fU•-4Q, J JJo¤.1-„-• JJOa>·•-• JJOa>--4 JJOa>·•-•as J --4•J-••-4E -•-••J-1.-JE -·-au-1HE «-Ju-1-4E"U G G G Gnr: H H H H

NGOO U

·•-4--4 --4J 9JJ N

0 Rill! JJJ 5 ..GJJ 'UJJ 0 "O

¤* aßc: aß: E aß-•-I JGG) N0 O N1: E ··-IE : 5

.·G 05 "U5 U U!O 9N NN 91 G!aß --4JJ ¢¤JJ um abEJ um ·¤m ¤« E

DJG GG I¢5·•-4 ¢U·•-I G JJ'U JJ O OG U1 Z Z

127

Q)1 U1 G

*4-Iß;OU r—11

·•·|O U}c Z

1<1*·•-• •.>G

UI

1

1 '4-41 'U cc au

0 Q8-I RD ß••-IG! M Q<•

UU‘Ih °1 U! ON •-I

~V G1 O·•-I

4-*1 'UG I5

1 ~¤O ~'¤«-I1 "¤¢¤~-4 ct-am

ID 4-* OIU4-J.¤>«¢¤ ·-aut:1 M4-VU 4J¤)<D

. ¤·•-In ais-aa+:1-am ·¤1-4 um--au s-1-4*0

1 IU O·•·|.O<D IUIUG_ $4 *4-4'UIU$-0· 4-*4-*9_ s-1 m a:¤OV ID G>1·•·¢r-I uaiu-1::1 *4-I O•-+'¤¢¤ EOO1 aJ --4-1 44 «—I I-a·•-•

1 M 4-*¢UU*G M¢l*Qa4J_ IUGGID 4-*4J\I5V ¤c·•-•E ::¢¤aJ*¤1 1-1--us: aßus-an

IU4-**-•"U EOGJIU>0¢¤•-« '¤>4-¤a>Ea>·-•

'¤O<Da>¤a>•-IE •-eams-1

1 G.) ·«-4¤5 E

'U 1 4-*G) 1 G

4-* J IU5 UC _ ·•-C

•p[1 Q4

4-I -•-aG 0* GO 1

’J U‘O U' '•'*saG

<|' 1 .G 4-*N V O O

IG,

z

Ü 1 E·**"* 1 IID 1 ¤—I •-4td 1 1-4 ¤—4 U)E·•

Z .

128

Q IM •-I IM GN1

•—I Ln GN NO. •-0

1;•-ICQ füO1«|J·•·I _

1 ::4.:Ufü ··~Q E'¤ co c cc o no

Q $-0 N «—I •-I «-I ¤—I,"Ufü e-I¤—IJJ v

-•-ewzu

¤—Ifü$-0 Q ·$-0U

1

M Q M1

¤'•«f·-‘.¤ Q ::--0JJ

1 ¤'•'I GN \D Öl GN \D3 $-n.¤ -0 -1 m m o

Q 4'üfü 0-IU) Q Uv} vU gn-]·•-I

m ¤ Q *0N U" Q

q-Q QU C 1

1-1 .C ;..Q U 1fü U QE1 Ef 1

‘*-I, M

O ,¤-4'U;r—‘IÜ

C 1 fü.„QO j CH ¤'~-•-01 0:1 c mn :~ c NJJ N N

•=•••N r-I

5 1-UID FI„Q O--4 v--0 EI!$-0 „IZ¤]JJIn·•-0Q

$-0COO O·•-I-•-I

·•-I„ >JJ $-0

U füfü JJ5 .CJJ 'UJJ U "UO" UC UC E U~•-• .¤0J NU O I-0¢: E ·-•E=. .<: cs

.-C U3 "UZ! U vlU >$-0 $J$-1 M füU --0+1 ru-IJ w 0.)9 um rum ¤« E¤•C CC I

fü·•-4fü·•-I C JJ

'U JJ O O41 U1 Z Z

L N Q nn Q •-·• rn M Q 0 0 O ~¤ M 0 N M O 0 0 MG Q hh ID Q G N N Q M •-e rs •-I N Q N Q N G GL N P') G G GI G th FG N N N Q ID G N F'1 Ih U1 snL N N •-I •-•N N •-4 N N •-I •¤ N ¤- •-I ra •-I

N •-I •-¤ N

M6 M N Q **1 N G Q G N FI P3 UI Q 61 **7 **1 N G Q'DG Ih N N N Q *1 F1 G O1 I3 I-I Q G •·•G Q Q G N •-I=”· <'• •" °* °° "' ° °2 ° *2 °'·! 3 "£ 'T "2 "t 'T °: 'T

°‘"ZE ' ..J .-1 „-. .-• .-1 .-• ....V1

Q N Q G G N Q Q N Q N Q Ib N IO N N G Q I-f1= *° °° S 3 °° EB E Z Z 2 13 Z 3 S S 3 .2 3 3.‘°

IN N N N P'! N N N N N N N Q Q Q Q F1 N N N

sh G sh th thz E 3 3 3 3 3 N N 92 N .-1 3 $2 N S 3 $2 3 S 3

L L L L LQ U O U O U O U O U· g > L > L > L > L > LC au 6 M 4-I M 6 G 6 M 6· 5 Q .: U 4: .: U tv .: U ca .:U”‘

Q GJ GJ GI GJ E GJ GJ E GI GJ E GJ GJg 3 Q N Q B N2 B N

2 -G NE Q N Q

GJ 'U LJ 'O GJ 1 U 1 GJ 1 U‘O

GJ 'D U:2 g > L >. m > L >~, U > L >, tu > L>.CL-r G un va ~•- M vv In P- G 10 er ·—M vv vi ·•— M VI VIL.; 6 U Q 3 6 U Q 3 6 U Q 3 6 U Q 3 6 U Q 3 1gg Q C I Q C I Q C I Q C I Q C I [km M M : 6 M G C

•-II5 G C A-I U I¤ C 6 M M C 6

°„- ‘¤ •·*O U 9 O O 'U 4-* O O 'G 9 O G D 4-* G G

I=>•[

€.: 1Qu

~ G1 1111*23 "· S E S. « Z2·•-6:· Q ID I; In Ih—·g¤»

=* ··· **2 . "£ C2Q U ·- 'Shui V1G <SV1N 6

eu uöggr0 O *9 *9 ··¤¤- < Q UI N N **75 Q10 Q S N 0 (1: nn.2 2=:~ 2 S - "¢•—:MN

~—• •-n(gl

LE?OLG

D-< vI N N N c3° .2%.* S $2 S S S -. S 3 S ..<m •¤•¤

er -« L Q nn 0 Qaa gl! N Q O N M 0:9 E N .-2 ' 6 .-. .-. -. N)>—GJc>·. |°·° c cx. c N ~o ¤¤ Q NQGJ

••-GJO N nb N Q MD kh •- N N N Q N Q G IVI [ GL N P- Q N hh N Q G sh ¤-I N F1 •-I N 9G O N N Q F'1 U1 Q **1 G **1 N I'1 G

= '[ G G 9 9 N N G Q=

„V1

Q: I"1 Q N I"1 Q N I'! Q N P1 I': IQ **1 I"1 I6• Q O1 GI O U1 GI GI GI 61 GI° II “ 2 2. 2. 2. Inh Q CI/I CI/I CVIII

GJ cg SQ C3 GJQ C: GJQ C3 GJQ CQ'[ U GJ3 ·•-O — GJ! -G — GJ: ·•-G -— GJ: ·•-O P- GJ: ··G•-L I ZG SL G IQ SL G !O SL G IQ SL G I': SL GI

=1 U; .19; 6 6L 6¤1 6 6L 6OI 6 6L 6QE 6 6L 6C!• 6II O [ GJO1 ·•' C GJUI ·•- O 177* ·- O GJOZ ·* C GJ71 ··- O [;[ V1 gg 3 1- 3: 3 »- :3 3 >— Q 3 I- ::1 3 •-

[

I II . 2 I[ I ..1[I I * “‘ ‘

[ E 2 - .2 |I - 2 2 2 2 = .II [ Q •- »¤ [I an · c ·— ··-GJ : LI ~ I = 2 N 2 2 I.- Q : GC *¤ I|· Q I Q uw L w·

II ¤¤ a.· ·- :U 6 > [* -•• 6 In UC ^'I L ¤¤ vv wa: ·— •·•[I M 3 GJ U M L;~1 1 ••-

um E da[ > '¢. [ IB Q »—4¤L •—[[ 1. L vu o 0 I„ I LD Q I u. v1 [

L N 0 0 Q rh Q Q Q 0 N 0 0 0 0 Q IIL N Q IG Gl N Il) kh th G 0 *0 IO fw Q N NDb **1

‘*‘"1 "1 **1 **1 "1 "Z **1 **1 "'

"‘**'

‘*‘ '“ "‘ **‘**' "' " I

IugL Q 0 0 Ih -4

-Q I'! ¤¤ Q 0 0 VIBB Q Q Q H7 Q hh N Q tb U1 N F)$1 Q Q Q Q 9 Q Q Q . . Q Q =* Q Q ¤~ ¤· ·~ <=,...„, „-I .-I •-I .-I „-• „-I I-. ' ' ' ..2I/IQ

Q 0 O Q •-« N N Q Q Ln Q •- N QI¤ N Q 0 -4 rn ·N N N Q O 0 0 N Q •-4 0 N Q Q

1hz 2 2 S S 3 E 1-: S 2*. Z S S 2.* E S 2*. El E S S

L L L L LO U U U O U O U O U6 ) L > L > L > L ) L= E I: *61 E 1:“

E 1:"’

2 1: "'"’

ESQ W W E W W W W W Ej 5 B N G G N O G N U G N O B N Q‘*

E v ZS Ü 1: v G Ü 1: Iv G Ü ua E Ü 1: I: "' Üju IJ > L >• 0 > L 0 > L >•L >•

U > E >• Icg

·•- B W VI •- G W VI ·••B III VI ·•-

B VI VI ·¤- B W Wuns- 6 B Q 2 6 B Q 2 6 B Q B 6 U Q 3 6 'U Q Z2 I Q C I Q C I Q C I Q C I Q C ILB I B B C 4-I B B C 6 B B C 6 G G C •I B B C 6gw Ü 4-I D 5 'U ‘U

6 O O‘U •-I

Q O E 6 O O4--:- ( V7 Z Z VI VI Z Z ( V7 Z V7 Z

I IIUIWC

NJ ID 02;:“'

N Q roN Q ID Q0I~·r -4 Ih 0 Ooz: VI

‘U•-Je-•N <·•-VIN Io

ß-QDI N In Q N Q

o:<0 Q I-O Q •—~2 gw- LL IN Q Q

'D.3 §=: ·: ¤2r-1 •-•

QLU

gw ev M Lo M •-« c ¤• Q N N NQ :L 0 N M 0 Q N Q N Näg run rn Q N Q QNL2: •-• Q Q 0 0 DI Q:~ IQC

I-! Q Q V7 Q Q Q Q IO ID N Ib‘•·*"

3 S S S S S S L2 S 3 S S S‘°

E 2.oz: Qi; Q r-4 0 N I IOQ Q IE: Q Q N ID D I3 N Q IO N N Q I-4 QI

Q :Iv! Q O ·—• ·—•Q O Q Q 0 QI

= . II

g: I (*7 Q IB Q Q Q LQ Q· Ic o c: o c ca I

vs3I

I I EI · I =*I I vr vr vr ve vr gII I :0 Q CW Q CQ Q CI/I Q CVI Q 1)II W I WQ CU WQ CB WQ CJ WQ C: WQ C3 W, U I W3

'•'5 •*W3 '*¢ I- W3 **5

•—WZ ·*O ·* U: "'O P" I I

L I XG IL B IQ IL G IO IL G IC IL G IO IL B I 6IQ 6L LJUI 6 61. 6Q 6 HL 6Q 6 6L 6Q 6 •-IL •-IUI

6 OI Q UUI ·•*

5 WQ ^* O UUI ·•·O WU) ·•'

O TUI '*' O I BI L/I

I Q I I- Q I I- Q I U- Q I¤—1

I 3I1I

LIrvI I

Ä ~•-I I :: :1 Lcr ·uDC I·¤ ru 1: 0 :

I ·:L E : : -·—·~:0 o

·•- ¤ I L:I vr c -—

·w c L I--¤; I L •¤ NU ~- •-I I ••-¤- Q C BC B Iw-;~, I c uu L w :B W "' BU 6 > UI•-

I 6 III ÜC "' -•·L B Ih WW u- •-I V)ru I : L'.: LJ M L; I> ·¤ L. wvrE ev I

I5 Q -B •—>.L L vu o I1: II cr ¤. I u. VI I

I L Q Q GI WD O \D kh Q •"® Q Q WD ® nh F5 (MI O Q ¢ Q G ll'! Q

*’\$ O •·<

N 7* F7 \0 •-<Q nnL N rb

•·•Q

•·•ce

•h ·-• ·-•Q Q M ·-« N M N N •-•

N IQI

IBSI L* E Q dä Q 8 Ih \¤ F7 Q •-I FS O •-• Q NI •0 ¢\I ßß· """

°‘R S LB

-S

'°’E 2 S S 2 ZZ 2 S § "'

°‘ä .;*9,BIB ¤-<I :·¤- •-• E E ® G U: Ö ßf 0* N O G O |~ eh v-•*35 „-• .-„ .„ ..„ „ ..„ .-„ „„ ' ..„unc

I U1 F7 hh Q \D hh (NI IN (NI lb Q lb Fi |\ rxI : Ix G G Q kh F7 FI Q KD N IN F1 ® N Q tx3Ins r~ Q cs N 0 Q v¤•

v nn N sn•-•

so M m M M 0 anI N rs N Q wp N •~ Q F5 t •-« © H1 GS ¤-• Ol G Q P5 N!I N KV N N IN (N PI GJ N N N FU Q Q Q F7 F') (V N I';I

Ib 0I z S E .*2 2 E 2 2 2 „ 2 .„ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

II L L L L L1 ¢ U 6 U O U 6 U G U6 I > L > L > L > L > Lg I ¤¤ A-•

Ü•J Q •a ee ••‘¤

2 'g I A il GJ E U U g Q GJ g 0 GI g 4)Q13J -¤ N O A N Ö B N G D N ¢ D N Q•-ld) L U U U‘D

GJ 'D U ¢ GJ 'U U‘¤

N 'U U U GJ 'U U Emu :3 > L >« U > L >« U > L >; vv > L >« ¤J > L >« Uck -•- ru en v!-•- RI vl vi ·•- •¤

sh nh ·•• ll! vb v\ ~¤- ru vb In»-«•¤ u 'U D. 3 U U B S •-•'U Q. 3 au B Q 3 •·J

'U Q. Zee Q C I Q : I Q. : I Q. C•

Q : I*5 •-r

*°“ ”E E S S E E *5 S 3 ä *5 G B ä E S

^’S E2: < V7 Z Z ( V7 Z Z ¢ V7 Z Z < V7 Z Z < V7 Z 22.-.:·— I

daß ISE, I_

·-•C¤SEX!

“‘S M ¤• S E

•-run:¤• c·• M so r~ ¤:23"‘

® ( Vi"‘-..£•»

U °.,.:p sn rx Q Nr- !< CU ¢ rxp U H. N Q wb Q.2 QS: ·=2 ==: ~·2 1 9•—·-~¤ „ ·*•MEU „

*6:ä ILg I§"„ ‘

-»I aa cu CD ¤¤ Q xn v -< Mgßö

S cs ·-• »¤ 3 M co S •o 8 cn co I( GU P) •-• Q Q V\ kh F1vl 23 D .€\I

-0 C T 01 E 0ää 3 ... ... ... ... N1>•

UI-=>sc.¤

: N v< QD F7 GJ Q N P') F7 l\I LO Q LD ®'•·

*ä‘, I "‘ 3; " Z S E S

"’22 S ä $2 ‘°

EQG5OE!

ßökI Q hh IB O"! Qe Q F7 Q ¤- th N3 q~

3) F'? Q ••• •·•lu -•

I":ubÄ:O •—• —·

¤ c c cI•-« •-« •—• ¤—• •< •-1 •-1 •— •—•

=I I

I<^I

° M M M m~·: ‘“°'E Z 3 :1 ä Z E 9 5 E

' II

I II en vl nn an vl:6/I Q :v‘

Q :•lI Q. :•h Q :v\ CLGJ·

WQ :2 NQ :3 WQ. :3 Qß. :5 CJ¤ ::U I 05 *-0 •- 42: ··•O ¤•W3 ·••O •- $3 ·•C‘

-U3 ·•·3 ·-

L I IQ .:L 45 3O .:L G XD .:$••¤

IQ :L B IO :L G3 HL uU! •-I es •-ICS •-I •lL eu! u •4L am 6 •-AL ••O •-I‘

;I

ggg -•—Q w¤¥ ·•-

Q Uüä~•·

O 001·- O CU!

·•QI s/'I I Q 3 P- Q I *• E 3 I- E I r- E 1 A-

I‘

¤I III T >,5ILI I ‘·

2* II I •—E .-I T; •¤ •¤ U! :E : L :

~-II Q 9; „- I;I ug — ~·—¤J O : —

IQ Q ag L ·•-6

II-

I c GE) QE 0

II E :•·¤ 0 6 > I

s. | v1 um •¤ „-6Q Q; U 5 0 UI > I ••. wm v E ¢ II Q „-I; uu L •-

I1. »¤ L O w I_ ¤. Z L5 u. rn

132

in assessment procedures in selective training with learning

disabled (F = 3.4618 > P = .05) and mild mentally retarded

students (F = 3.0422 > P = .05). Post Hoc testing through

Scheffe procedures found a significant difference between

individuals who use adaptive behavior instruments and those

who use non—psychometric procedures according to their

selective training in adaptive behavior and secondary school

psychological services. Also, selective training is close

to significant (Prob. = .053) in assessment with emotionally

disturbed students. No other variables came close to signi-

ficance for any of the referred handicaps.

Research Question 4: To what extent do thetraining and experience of school psychologistscontributes to the differences between the reasonsand procedures they utilize in initial evalutionsversus re—evaluations of mild mentally retardedsecondary age students.

Mild mentally retarded secondary age students are the

only objects of assessments used in this analysis because

these students have been shown here to be the only students

to whom adaptive behavior techniques are applied with any

meaningful frequency. Differences between initial and re-

evaluations was selected to be the dependent variable in

this analysis because it is expected that the rationale for

this difference will reveal the basis of decisions made by

school psychologists. The predictors used in this analysis

133

are the five factor scores developed and reported earlier.

They are the most stable, reliable, valid indicators of

training and experience which can be extracted from this

data base. In addition, their method of construction allows

them to remain largely independent of each other, which

makes multiple regression the most powerful means of

answering this research question.

Four variables were entered in the first step of analy-

sis with the fifth variable entered in the second step to

determine its main effect while controlling the contribution

of other variables in the model. This process was repeated

so each variable would be examined to determine separate

main effects. The results of this analysis are reported in

Table 29. No significant main effects were indicated.

Thus, the psychologist and training variables measured in

this study do not explain differences in the reasons school

psychologists report for conducting initial evaluations and

re-evaluations. Analysis of possible interactions were not

pursued because there were no significant main effects.

Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were

conducted to determine if there was a relationship between

differences in reasons reported for conducting evaluations

and the size of school districts employing psychologists.

School district size was examined because of research

134

°

r~

.·•-•

8% §"„

1 0

cocw

L wgN no

c~ Q

{ Oc

cs GQ1L

4.n Q

L

rxN

I4

GILU,#0

m0 .

~

05 LD•

L

0I .:

•°

{ Q{ LI.

[3 netO

•-•

Q#0 m

0 8

gwE Q

C2'

1: «¤c:nQ 8

·•':1:

Q •

L„é’U2

·QLIO {MQU•P'

I¤.I*¤ 1

N N

L¤L‘*·’ °·‘

<r 00 G

„_,Q) IL-

O

. I

¤¤ I euQ G

Q) I 3QLrz{ ¤·„mQ, $2I4-I

L2 gi I

~¤

I

gc

I\

I- ‘*""'°I Ix

#0N

curx

O „

:•—•1„r-

IQ ‘

QQ

‘°‘6I ·”

·zw

{ Z-'Öu. L :°‘é°1 Z

<¤ ¤=

>„g 1

g 1=

geg{

Q}G)q)

mu

‘¤„-

EQ {cc

·: •¤GJ>7g

cn I

E5 3; w5 ·¤¤— „.»

LU

E 3 ¤

pgL

E

V7‘¤

3 U.,en

EE-

q)4-I E_,_,

Q, Lan

Lcu-

fu U)

V)

LQ

Q,4¤¢¤EQ;L

HEgi-

ua(U 5,-I-I

m

{C

MQU7an

¤·,Q_r¤gus

1 LLJ<¤··'2E

'°¤,mc '··’.,.

1**

4¤.I+*¤_=

C vr >.„-mßw

V,yjfß

O GJev-Q,

mum

_,_,.,.¢¤<¤'·^ ¤_¢¤

'__

gqßwm

G)QJE

LQ I/7

·3-Um ..4-•·•",-

1¤ 'S "wgw°·äg ‘° 3·—*·’EEE “"°

L { _ggwgg SEP

E gg cam „“

‘°'°

‘¤ä^

‘¤1:

0-4

1

CO F, <\J

Q)w an U-

___.,-

va·

1 u_ I-*-

PC*0GJUU7

**7 Q LnSD·-·.C G G G *-*7CCJ G7 CY GQ) • • • •

I/7

CJUW 5 O1 GC (*7 C ' U G7Ö G7 N N.: N •—• M OU CD O O O

L1.

MLG) RD •-I

LO Nrum no •—• rx Q¤«: O O O OUNI Q O O Ocn.: O O O Ogg • • • •1

ML ID 5 LD 5*0 SD 5 5 5: O O O OU O O *3 Oan O O O O• • • •1

1

aa c¤ no LD nor—· kb 5 Q' 5C. „ I-(7 5 5 5

·¤·· N N N N4-> Q O O Op- • • • •3E

M Q)G7 U D7 UC C C C·•- M ·r- Q)C 'U C 'U„-

C .,- C*0 >5 M *0 M >5

P L P U P L U P'U C P ·•- M C P M ·¤·-M G) L *0 G) *0 Ls. E +> : E «•-> :cu vw :E«•-> •— vr :E·- «•->P M Q)*0*0 *0 In 0*0*0 *0A : M ELE C M EL: E

E Ln.! In MU! O In MUIOM M MOP ·r- M MO·•- r-3 tn *0 GJL*0 P *0 MLP *0C M U7M¤.C *0 U7M¤.*0 C

·•·· r-· MCM Q U M MCM U OP .¤ M >·•—*0M·••3 ·¤•·

>••·*0QJ3 ·r···C *0 ••- -•-C 4-7*/7 'U I/'I·•-C PC U7

Q -1- Ih -I—¥·•·••-*0I/7 ••Q) «I-!·r··•-*0QJ •-V7U

Q_nggeßrggq) Q «— ••U*0¢03 QM~/ *0 1- Q.GJLE‘U*&- MM *0 Q.G)LE'U¢U M9-

> *0 G)•—•PL*0Q Pr- C G„)PPL*0P- POGi C PM OLL *-0*0 *0 PM OS-*0 MLN *0 I/II/7 LLCDG- M!/7 LI-(DZ D.

'U C 'UC) 'U P C P P C;—Q- mas PAP QA g (AA CAC OA

C ••- LPI ¢\|(*7¢ UP'! 3 Lv-I N(*7§' U•"'**5 .: ·•- M O ·•· Mb- r- u. </> u. u. vw

136

4-*C*5GJUG)-•-C

**3 ¢*4-*5 Q Ln‘••-_¢ Q1 1-I

I :Q cn co55 • •

¤'¤u_

IV)

II GJI U) •—4 cxI I: ¤· ncI *¤ cs <r‘

.C ¤-I LD

I Q Q QI LA.

IQ)LG) Lt') N*5U* · <f U')sc O O

I U'*5 C GIV)..C O CDI C.) • •

II

I

I GJI L Ln MI *5 <· M

3 G GU' G OV) G G

I O l

II

II Qt

GJ <‘ *9•·· N MQ

‘v-I M

·r· N N

O I

3Z

II GJI UI C .I GJI 'U

CI|

4-* U4-*I 'U C Mw-I CJ CJ (ULI L E 4-* :I GJ V) C•—·0J E‘

4-* M QJ*5*5 *5^ I : aa E:E L'U I LLJ M MO U)GJ I U) Mw-·•—

Q3 I M *5 QJ4-**5 LC I GJ ¤'IM*5C Q·•·

I I- QJCMUO4-* I .Q M >·•-*53·¤- GJC I YU

-•-••-Q 'QV) JJ

O I ••· M4-*·r-r-GJM

••*5Q I L -•o¢¤•·¤ cu Q.:-- I *5 •- QQJLEGJQ- GJ'¤

I > *5 GJ-·4·-*L¤-O 4-**5Q I C 4-*0) Q*5L MLN I cu mm u.£¤. tb

I UGJ

‘..C 4-* C

1- I4) (/j»•s Qfälä QM

B I *4- Lv-I N**)¢ Uv-I*5 I -•- -1- Q)I- · LI- La. V)

137

indicating that psych1ogists' role and function may vary

according to the number of students in the district (Hughes

and Clark, 1981). Results do not indicate a significant

relationship between size of district and the differences

for conducting initial evaluations and re-evaluations (r =

.0136; p = .430).

A oneway analysis of variance was conducted to examine

if differences in reasons for conducting evaluations related

to regions of the country. Region was examined because

litigation regarding assessment procedures have centered in

the Western region of the country (Diana v. state of

California, 1920; Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary District,

1972; and Larry P. v. Riles, 1974, 1979). Results are

reported in Table 30. No significant relationship was indi-

cated. Thus, differences in reasons for conducting initial

evaluations and re-evaluations cannot be explained by the

regional variables included in this study.

The second phase of analysis with this research question

involves the sum of squared differences between the per-

ceived importance of various components used in the initial

evaluations and re—evaluation of secondary age students by

school psychologists. No analytical procedures were used

because of the extreme negative skew of the frequency

distribution. These results indicate that the school

I- c 0 N LnL N F"! U']o Q ro :-1L L11

•-•QL• • • • •u.I

I•—• pa N N N

IC

UO •-4 Q N N Qs·- cx <r N Q Qcu M N Q Q N*:•¤cr ·-« O N Q

:-1- • • • • •

«¤> N Q <r M O&-JG} v-I

•-•r-4

•-|r-¢IL/7@ I‘ I

I LD U1 Q N Q. ¤—•

Q •—•N N

C G7 Q Q N Qvu •·-•N N N O

N Q N •·-a QN •-I N N •—•

LQ VN •·* N N NR- I Z Q Q Q N N*· ICOWM •—¢uA ru •-XL L ld

H H H H LCC CL vr vl C u·-3 3 vu ru U CO O LA-I Lu Q.) WWL} L L)Lv <3 .: g .:UN u u 4-r u

4-•C.C L 3 L Ill WWü O O O W Ws z vv z 3 zWR-••-O

Q re-Q ·•-C

QD •4) ·•··

I.; Ch¤- LU! •-•C cd! • QM U-Z G7 QI- ·•- •

<¤ V1>CQM

C>s··· .41mu I.; QIM GWW3 •C-QM

>R-LuQ

LnA vr :-1L W Q*5 CL

•-•

E 2** ·Z dä3 tv ML/1 vr •—•

Q IBW Q Q

R-W Q QO!. N NIQ • •

E: Lo kh37 LD QI/IW It) N

Q

IN

LL Q Q Q•N NQ •-1 •-•

U)CW Q

W WQ. C3, U U3

~•·¤ •—L Io gs ns

I 3 HL A-DUS H* O Um ·- 6

V7 Q 3 I-

139

psychologists in this sample tend to rank the importance of

various evaluation components similarly for initial eva-

luations and re-evaluations.

Analysis of Survey Responses toSupplemental Questions

Analytical procedures were used with three additional

questions extracted from the questionnaire. These questions

involve the degree school psychologists feel prepared to

address the assessment needs of secondary age students,

areas in which school psychologists entering the field need

additional assessment training and the degree in which school

psychologists agree with what they feel are their colleagues'

opinions regarding the quality of adaptive behavior instru-

ments and the range of relevance in the definition of

adaptive behavior.!

Supplemental Question 1: To what extent do schoolpsychologists' characteristics, training, andworksetting relate to the degree in which theyfeel prepared to provide assessment services tosecondary age students?

Multiple regression analysis was used in examining the

relationship of the five variables created through factor

analysis and the degree in which school psychologists feel

prepared to provide assessment services to secondary age

students. The same procedures were used as indicated in

140

research question 4. Four variables were entered in the

first step of analysis with the fifth variable entered in

the second step to determine its main effect while control-

ling the contribution of other variables in the model. The

results of this analysis are reported in Table 31. With all

variables, 27% of the variance was accounted for. Three

significant main effects were indicated in the oneway analy-

sis of covariance. Selective assessment training accounted

for 15% of the variance when controlling other variables.

This contribution to the overall variance was significant

beyond the .0001 level. Formal assessment training accounted

for 2.76% of the variance and was significant at the .0109

level. Finally, professional maturity accounted for 1.73%

of the variance and was significant at the .0432 level.

Interactions were examined through similar regression

analysis procedures. Size of school district was examined

with each significant main effect to determine if there are

any significant interactions. As mentioned earlier, research

suggests that the range of psychologists role and function

may vary according to size of the school district. Also,

each variable significantly contributing to a main effect

was examined in multiple combinations to determine if the

variables interacted. Table 32 illustrates how none of the

interactions were significant.

141

+9SfüG)UQ·•·C Q Gt N OVu-ru 0 Q O O1·•··.C O •··f O OSC.) C C C CQ) • • • •

U')

1

w 1~ N M QQ C Q N *~D1 S LD Q N N‘M Q -1 N -1.S •-0 kb Q Qgg • • • •

(/9 Q 5D LO LQ4-* L1. •·-4 Q")*^ 1*0**¤> 1Or·OQ4-* G).S LG) U') C RD Q_ um 1 Mm rx LD GO <!·1 >sw :1: 0.1 1~ ao M1 mu 1 UM <r N -1 LOQ.·•·•

1</7.C N C •—·• -4> 1 Q • . . „

0-L 11OG) 1OV') 1S 1L)-{-9l/Ö 1(/‘)S4-* 1

G)S “ G)wEw 1 5- un nn no LDwmv 1

•¤v~ M M MLWB 1 3 C\| C \D C¤'sw+-> U' er ux -1 rx•—• GJVIU') V) N N 1-I NU') QM • • • •

<{G) 1G) G) Q 1IQ .SGJ<( 1

.Q 4-*U 1M ·•·>• 1I··· S>L

‘-1-oa: 1 cz

LU 1mn.: 1 w Q Ln LO nn4-* O 1

•— N CN Q GSUOU 1 Q N Q •-1 QG)+9G) 1 ·•·· · Q 11-O Q v-4*4- L/) 44 Q |-0 Of) Lt')Q-Ü 1-- • • • •LUG) 1 Z3

5·- 1 ESfü 1·r·Q 1MG.) 1XL 1

0- 1 G)4-**4- 1 U Q SQO1- 1 C C wcG) G) ·•· Ew->•w 1 v C mr:

LL1. 1 C ·¤· vI·•-fü 1 >5GJ fü >7G)fü

E 1 www L ums. +»1 U ••···U)S 4-* -1- U14-* S3 1 G) LfüG) Lfü GJen . s. : E 4-» : 4-• E1 w E-1a•-m : E4-M-: m

44 füfüfül/I G) füfüfüd.) U)1 : s„E:w E LECE w1 LU Q OU) U) Q OU) U11 Q1-~•-UI U) Q1-·•-tn U)1 cn Lfü44fü G) Lfü4-*0) fü1 GJ QSfü Q U) QCfüv‘| Q

1- OUG)S U) vl OUU) G)S1 .¤ vlG)·•· 3 >·•·

M -1- G)·•·· 3 M >·•-1 M -•- 4-*1h'¤-v-C vr44¢A‘¤ ·•·C

Y1 ••-M füth ¢I.)4-*•!- ••r-· füü) G)1·- ••4-*•r··

1 L MSG) Ufü Qfü 1-· HSG) fü QUfüfü •-· QUH-G)G)L G)E fü QU‘+-GJE G)G)L> fü G)füO1-•r—-4-J 4-*L S G)füO1-L 4·9r—4·-*

1 C 4-*LLfüG) {AQ fU 4-*LLfüO WG)1 fü !h¢D¤.ZV) L1. WCDG-EU. V)1 U U U

1 4-* 44 S S 4-* S1 Qzs Q Mrszsrsrx Qzs1 L LQNVÜQ U1-| U LMNFÜQ U1-|1 -1-

·•-C) GJ

°•' G). 1,1,, LL en ch Lg V1

44Cfü0)UU7••·C

O kb O <\1*+—fü O Q O 0*7·•·.C Q N O QCL) O Q O DQ) -• • • •

‘ V7

GJ cw N v~ <rC7 Lh LI7 N v-IC KD Gi Lß Nfü ~ Q N G Q.: O fb cw -·-•(J • • • •

RD Q QL1. v-O ¤-4

0)L0) N N *O G7¢¤c» rx so O NBC N N 0*7 Nca: nc Q U7 •-•V7.: N O N Ogg • • • •

0)L N LD RD LOfü N f"7 TD C"): rx O M CJU' kb N LD NV7 N N N N1

Q1

0) N N LD LO¤·· Q G7 O ChQ N Q7 0*7 G7•r-- 1-O v-4 v-I44 LO LD LO LDFC I I I I

3E

0) 0)U! U UU7C C CC

·•· 0)0)·•·C U UC·•- C C·•·>s•¤ ev was >»44L4-* U UL44 44

E•I•4-*=

V7V7-$•*C

•r-0) L 0) fü fü 0) LL :4-JE +-JE :GJ E-•—J:m

-- E«—::m «.>44 füfü0)t/7 fü füfü0)V7 fü^ : LEEGJ : S-:EGJ E‘¤ LU cs man O ¤7omenQ) Qu-VIU7 ••-

Q-!-V7U7 •-3 V7 Lfü0)fü 44 L440)fü füC 0) QCV7 C7 fü Qfük/7 U7 C·•- v- OV70)C U V7 UV70)C O4-* .Q V7 <|)·•·fü>·r· 3 ·¤- 0)3fü>·•· ·•·C fü •¤- 4-•V7 ••-C U V7

44‘¤ ·•-C V!Q ••- V1 füVIr-44•¤- ••0) fU0)•—44•r- ••fl7U L ••30)füUfü Q r- ••3füUfü Q.0)~•¢ fü v- QU*4-EGJL 0.*0) fü QUO)E0)L 0)*+-fü 0)füOL•—4-* 4-*•— C 0)für-Ln-44

4-*O•—•

C 44S-LO0) Vifü fü 44LfüO0) U7LM eu en<5cLu.v7 Z <nwZu.v7 ¤.U „C U0) U +-* C 4-* 4-* C•—

L QN L ujrsasezs QNQ 'f' Uv-Ifü S ·¤· G) O ·•·· GJJ- r- LL V7 u. LL V7

143

V4-*V C

V V50)UU7

V·v—C

O LnVH-¢¤ Q O•«-.C O cxCL) O «—•Q)(/7

V

V cu un NU') LD NV C - (*7 (OV Ü I-( CX]

.C N Ng) • •

LO v-ILL •-I

VVVVV

G)V LC)LI7V

¤¤¤'>«—•

NV =C (*7 INV ¤'•‘¤ (D O,</5.: N OV L) • •·C

V GJV L LD LI)V Ü F'! V7V 3(ÜV

U' (D N

V(/7 (\I (\I

VVVV

V ZV GJ lbV •·- G G

V Q. . C\l OiV

••·P4 P4

V 4-* U7 LOr- • •

V SVV

VGJ

V UUÜV CCV <D·•·•

V 'UCV C·v•

V >•¤J¢¤

V 4-¥UL+-*VV

U LÜ GJV L :

-•-•EV cu 6-rr-cm E

4-* ÜÜGJW Ü^ V c E:E¤J LU Lu Omen GQ) V P-••-Lh(/I O: V cn RS4->QJ¢¤ LC V Q, CÜU) C) C-·•—· V v- OL*m¤JC4-* V .¤ vl ·•-3f¤>·v·· Q)C V Ü ••- (/'|‘C

"'C -0JO V ·•· an vid):-4-*-P ••¢¤U V L ••GJ ÜUÜ Q.5-¢ V Ü r- CU-UEUL GVO

V > f¤ QJO•—L•—-•-* 4-*¢¤Pt V C 4-*L•‘¤OG) (ALM V Vu m¤.£u.zn cb

V UC) V .C -O-* C•—V .5.) u)P~»·s»~»s Q/s

.¤ V M- L—•NM¢UV-•

gg V .,- .,- QF- V LL LL U')

144

Em kb <‘f¤¤'*

«-•cx;3C <' kh${2 S Sg_) • •

1

Q.GJ4-*€Dk/)L Q Q

M 00 QU3¤··* N

CU kb kbOV'! N Ngg • •U1

k/7Lb I"‘ I‘^

IC I Q.OC I QJQJ••-Q 43L LD LO43·•- k/)fü N •·-IU-H 3 N NMM 4-*U LD LQLL mk/3 N N ·0Jfü L • •4-*Q. *1Ck!) Ls.•—•L

Q.N 4-*ff) C'4-

MCGJ U 1r- ••-r-

Q Q.Q Q-GJ GJ •-• •-•fü ••-> r- N N•—

:GJ Q. O OU'?.] ••-•LO LI7

q- .g.| • •cn‘¤v-

IG) 3C> Z

‘Ow-ZQJ

U‘·•—L

OG)Q.

>s I‘—IM I >q

E I "’I

>, C"->.I3I 43 4-3 4-VL 4343 43

k/) I '¤ ·•-U U3 U·¤- U

I OJ L Uiw- w-43 U! ••-L ••-I L 3 CL LM C L3 LO!

GJ4-* w-4-* 4-*E

w-4-*4-* 4-*CI 43 MU*Cu‘* kh CU*v*M mw-

I C EC'!-·P •r-r-••—:•r-E •r-C

I LU ·•-•ü'U 'Ufü fü'-U 'Uw-I

¤—CL C_ LC •— füI kh füw-43C CO 43w-Cfü CLI

GJ Cfü w- ••-•r- fU•r-Q •r--L!r- OLG) kh kh US- O

I .¤ kh w-43>kh L/Ich w- >4-*U*·•- wr-I ld -•- kh ·•-4-* 43GJ kh ••- 43kh 43füI ·•- kh wr-4-*C ••C*4·-

4-*•-·Ck/7 ·•CE

I L ••<U¢¤UGJ Q.¤JO r- ••UMGJGJ Q.GJLI M I- Q.'·•—E¤J‘¤ <U‘¤L M Q.GJE'¤‘4- 0'UOI > M 0OLr-3 4-*5Q. C QJr—·L3Q 4-*3*4-I C ·•-*LO<D4·-* 4/*+-* M 4-*QJO4-*L

k/*4-*I M khQ.LL¢/7k/7 kh mk/>LLt/IQ. V')

I 'O 'U 'U4-* 4-* C C

4-* CI gn gn-xfsrsas QzsQI

L Lu-•Nf*‘>Q'U•—-•

U L•—INf*':<rU•-•

I ·•···•- GJ 0) ·•- Q)

u. u. an kh LI. an

145

ULU Q (*7(GUI (*7 (*7IC •-(

LQ0'¢¤ C QV7.C C G

(_) • •

1

QU4-*UV7L ¢s Ln

*6 Q •—-•Ü: ® CCU' (17 SD0V7 <\| <\|U

• •UüfV7

QUU4-*L LO GIL/>•¤ «—•

Q3

|’\(*7

'4-*0' LD LI7(AU') <\I <\1g • •

LL

ZG G

U *| ®r- V\ (*7Q G C·r·• LI7 LO+9 • ••-DZ

07 07C C•,- \.,.

X \: X X:4-*4-*

4-J·* 4-* 4-*••-U U-- U¢¤ ·•- ·-ruU U7

·•-L ·-L UI L LLL C L3

L4-* C 3 34-*U ·* 4-*4-* 4-* ·•·· 4-* 4-*4-* CU7V7!U VIÜ CU7•U (UÜ

rs Q ••-Qu-E -r-Q) -r-ZE EQ)Ü LJJ (U-'Ü Ü4-* (Uv-

4-*U LC •- U LC-- •··U3 L/7 4-*·*C(U CU4-*-r-(U

(BUC U ¢¤·-··C

·•·L (UC :L·r- r- UL O ·* V7 UL0 0**4-* .¤ an >-•-*v'I·•- (AÜ ·•·· >4-*·r·· ·r··ÜC IG •r-•

·•-• 4-*V7 4-*I V7 ••- (/7 V7!0 •¤- th 4-*r-CU7

-•C‘4·- 4-Ju-V7 --%/7*4-U L ••Uf¤UU QU•—

r- •-U¢¤U Q.Ur··-# I5 •— QUEÜH- UÜU (5 Q.UE*4- U‘4-U

> (U Ur-L30 4-*3Ih C Ur-LO 4-*0V7Q1 C 4-*U04-*L (/74-* (U 4-*UOL UIL(*7 NI I/7V7L|.V7Q. V7 U7(/7LL¤- Q.

Ü .C ÜU Ü 4-* C 4-* 4-* C

0-* Q-$_.Q

·•-· L-*<\J(*7Q U-( 3 L-(CUP) U•—((U .C

••·U O ·-· U

I- I- LL V7 LL LL (/7

146

GJS-GJ o~ coMU! $9 QBC •·-I U')UM •-4

Qen.: O OQ) • •

ICZ

Q.GJ+9GJE/)L ¤—4

QM LD rx'US LO I\CU LD LDOV) N <\IQ • •

GJCZ

I lf)IIIII Q.I GJGJ

+9L N Nt/IM Q Q3 FO (Ü

4-¥U' LO Lt')‘UIU) <\| N

I g • •

I°"’“ILI-

III ¤:I O OI GJQI

P Q QI C. O OI ••- LF) LDI gg • •I PI 3I E

I G7I CI X ·•··

>¤ >s >> :I +9 49 49 ·•-I -¤

I,. „,- „- pgI GJ U'! L L UI L LI L C S DU! C Z +9I GJ ·¤· +9 ·I·9C w- 4-I \I +9 CUÜM Mw- CU7M UVCP I C •-CE EC ·¤-CE CGJ

'O I LLJ M·•·• w- Mw-·•--I-JGJ I LC- PM LCP CQ

D I UI +9·•-M ML J-Vw-M w-GJC GJ MC C4-7 MC ML-1- I P QJLO O GIÜLO Lw-4-J I

_QU) >+-fw-· ••-P

tn >+->w·· +9'¤C I M w- w- UI UIM ••- w- UI IQ I w- UI +9Pt/I ••§/IE VI 4-IPI/I •~r—·Q-U I L ••UMGJ Q.GJL ••UMGJ Q.MPU I M e- ¤.GJE*·•- GJ*·•—¤ •— ¤.GJE'+- GJEGJ

I > M GIJPLO 4-ION- M GJ:-LO 4-ILUIN I C 4-JGJOL VIL C +9G)OL I/IGF) I M IAC/)L|.Q. Q. < (AC/')L|.,Q. LL.

I“U

'UGJ I C 4-* C .C 4-I Cp—

I +3 y1PPP OP gg q)PPP QPC

‘*4- LPNÜ7 0** X L1-·|<\](Ö Uv—I

M I ••· ·•· GJ ·•··•-· GJ

I"' I LI- LI- VI V7 LL, V7

147

Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were

conducted to determine if there was a relationship between

the degree in which school psychologists feel prepared to

provide assessment services to secondary age students and

the size of school districts employing psychologists.

Results do not indicate a significant relationship between

size of district and perceived preparedness (r = .0248;

p = .372).

A oneway analysis of variance was conducted to examine

if differences in perceived preparedness related to the

region of the country in which school psychologists are

employed. Findings are reported in Table 33. A significant

relationship was not indicated. Thus, perceived prepared-

ness cannot be explained by the regional variables included

in this study.3

Supplemental Question 2: To what extent do schoolpsychologists' age, years in the profession, anddistrict size relate to the areas in which theyfeel new school psychologists entering the fieldneed greater skills for providing assessmentservices to secondary age students?

Age and years in the profession were examined to see if

opinions vary in relation to the time school psychologists

were initially exposed to issues regarding adaptive behavior,

nonbiased assessment and vocational school psychology. Non-

parametric correlation coefficients were obtained through

148

Spearman Rho procedures. Findings are presented in Table 34.

One small but significant relationship was found. That is,

there appears to be some tendency for the perceived need for

personality test training to increase with age. Caution

should be made when interpreting this fairly weak relation-

ship. Years in the profession has a near significant

relationship with a greater need in vocational assessment

training. Here, a greater need for vocational training is

reported as the years of experience decrease. Again, caution

must be made not to over interpret this relatively weak

relationship. No other statistically significant relation-

ships were indicated.

Supplemental Question 3: To what extent do schoolpsychologists' characteristics relate to theiropinions regarding colleagues' attitudes about thedefinition of adaptive behavior and the quality ofadaptive behavior scales?

Chi-square procedures were used to examine possible

relationships between school psychologists' age, sex, and

years of experience with their opinions regarding colleagues'

attitudes about the definition of adaptive behavior and the

quality of adaptive behavior scales. No significant rela-

tionships were found regarding school psychologists' opinions

and their sex (X2= .17001; df = 1; sig. = .68); age (X2

=

.55295; df = 4; sig = .9681); and professional experience(X2

= 3.20263; dif = 4; sig = .52). Thus, the above

L G G fü G VQ hh O !\ V füI L N Q <1· •—~ QL •—• -—• •-•

N -1I I..I . . „ • .I

igL-- -• N Q 2 LhG8 Q V Lh C‘¤*¤

G N Q Q r~·:~•- co 0 0 0 0 IA-J4) v-QII/IQI

Q Q an In •-1c Q Q Q rxG V G Q th{I °* 9 9 9 9

fü V M fü fü

I

Q•-•

fü •-4 QZ th V V N N

u E‘

UU ¤-L L GG A-! A-! A-! LQ. Q til Ih AJU 3 GGL

Q I-LI Lu Q

¤J>g A-! A-I A-! A-I A-!

A-!2* 3 3 3 *3 3cs: z vl z 3 3U3GG

fü Qfü L

O4! •U B-.: LL hh·-

AJ füG <

• M·¤

>••-G cs

I- QO •

äßO

>s·•·GG34: In

2* I.. 39 9IA-

° I>~„ IL IN!E I xs „„ Q: I:L N kh*" 32

°‘*"re .„„I . =·:

cnI

fü U7OL |\ V N

G I~ Q VE; • • •

36 V LDII/IV! Q B3

I-1 •-n

II.; wr w N•

r~ QQ •—• •-•

W:In Q

U UG. 23U U3 ·•·O -I s. xo .:L ns3

A-•Lum A-•

Q UG ••- ß_ L/1 Q 3 l-

150

Table 34

Non-parametric Correlations Between ProfessionalMaturity, District Size, and Areas in which

Greater Skills are Needed

CorrelationVariables coefficient Significance

Age with intelligence testing -.0363 .318

Years with intelligence testing -.0924 .115

Size with intelligence testing .0209 .395

Age with adaptive behavior .0013 .493

Years with adaptive behavior -.0562 .232

Size with adaptive behavior -.0485 .266

Age with personality development -.1423 .030

Years with personality development -.0734 .169

Size with personality development .0803 .150

Age with vocational testing .0626 .206

Years with vocational testing .1234 .053

Size with vocational testing -.0353 .325

Age with academic testing .0093 .452

Years with academic testing -.0662 .195

Size with academic testing -.0453 .281

151

mentioned characteristics do not appear to relate to ·psycholgists opinions of colleagues' attitudes regarding

adaptive behavior.

Summary

The 187 school psychologists in this study were prac-

titioners randomly selected from the NASP Directory (1983).

It was found that the majority of practicing school psycho-

logists receive formal assessment training such as intelli-

gence testing, personality assessment, behavioral

observations, and educational testing. However, a minority

of practicing school psychologists have formal graduate

training in less traditional areas such as multicultural

assessment and vocational testing. Vocational testing and

multicultural assessments are the areas in which the greatest

emphasis in training are placed on adaptive behavior and

secondary age assessment. Many school psychologists receive

little, if any, experiential training with secondary age

students.

The measurement of adaptive behavior with secondary age

students is generally required only for mentally retarded

students. Also, school psychologists are typically the

individuals required to collect adaptive behavior informa-

tion. This information is collected to different degrees

with behavioral/emotionally disturbed, learning disabled,

152

and mentally retarded students. However, adaptive behavior

linstruments are used most frequently with all levels of men-

tal retardation. The Vineland Social Maturity Scale is the

only instrument used with any degree of regularity. No

instruments developed since the passage of Public Law 94-142

are used on a regular basis with this population. The com-

bination of experiential training and continuing education

with secondary age students and adaptive behavior measurement

techniques is an important factor in the approach school

psychologists use in addressing the adaptive behavior of

secondary age students.

Practicing school psychologists tend to perceive iden-

tical reasons for conducting initial evaluations and re-

evaluations with secondary age mild mentally retarded

students. Eligibility for special education services is

considered the most important reason for evaluation.

Practicing school psychologists tend to perceive the impor-

tance of different components in the initial evaluation and

re—evaluation of mild mental retardation as almost iden-

tical. The most important component is believed to be indi-

vidual intelligence scales.

The majority of school psychologists feel less than

fully prepared to provide assessment services to secondary

age students. The most important factor regarding their

153

perceived preparedness again involves the combination of

experience during training and continuing education with

secondary age students and adaptive behavior measurement.

Few school psychologists receive any continuing education in

adaptive behavior assessment or secondary school psychologi-

cal services. Practicing school psychologists feel that

colleagues entering the field need the greatest training in‘

vocational assessment procedures, followed closely by adap-

tive behavior procedures to better serve secondary age stu-

dents. This feeling appears to be most prevalent among

school psychologists who are fairly new in the field.

There tends to be overwhelmingly strong agreement that

adaptive behavior instruments are of poor quality, especially

when addressing the needs of secondary age students. Also,

school psychologists tend to have wide ranges of opinions

regarding the current definition of adaptive behavior.

CHAPTER V

» Summary, Discussion, Conclusions,and Recommendations

In this chapter, a summarization of the study is pre-

sented including its purpose and design. The survey find-

ings drawn from the data analysis are then sumarized and

discussed. Following sections include study conclusions,

implications, and recommendations for further action.

Review of the Problem andResearch Methods

An analysis of how adaptive behavior information is

obtained and used by school psychologists with secondary age

students was the focus of this investigation. School

psychologists are often considered to be important sources

of information regarding the initial identification and

programming of students placed in special education classes.

Because the adaptive behavior instruments developed for

public school use have emphasized the initial placement/

identification of elementary age students, it is unknown how

school psychologists approach the adaptive behavior issue

with secondary age students. This question is critical in

light of research indicating the poor post secondary tran-

sition of many handicapped students and the limited training

of school psychologists in providing services for secondary

154

155

age students. Specifically, the study sought answers to the

following questions:

1. To what extent do school psychologists' age, sex,training, experience, and worksetting relate to the type ofadaptive behavior information gathered in the psychologicalassessment of secondary age students?

2. To what extent do school psychologists utilizeadaptive behavior measurement techniques differently fordifferent types of handicapped secondary age students oninitial evaluations and re-evaluations?

3. To what extent do school psychologists who differin training and other demographic characteristics alsodiffer in the way they assess adaptive behavior with varioustypes of secondary age handicapped students referred forinitial evaluations and re-evaluations?

4. To what extent do the training and experience ofschool psychologists contribute to the differences betweenthe reasons and procedures they utilize in initial evalua-tions versus re-evaluations of mild mentally retardedsecondary age students?

Supplemental questions were added during the course of

the study. These questions involve the following:

1. To what extent do school psychologists' character-

istics, training, and worksetting relate to the degree in

which they feel prepared to provide assessment services to

secondary age students?

2. To what extent do school psychologists' age, years

in the profession, and district size relate to the areas in

which they feel new school psychologists' entering the field

need greater skills for providing assessment services to

secondary age students?

156

3. To what extent do school psychologists' charac-

teristics relate to their opinions regarding colleague's

attitudes about the definition of adaptive behavior and the

quality of adaptive behavior scales?

To gather the data needed for the study, a questionnaire

was mailed to a representative sample of the membership of

the National Association of School Psychologists residing in

the United States. The forty-five questions that comprise

the questionnaire were divided into sections involving

characteristics of school psychologists, characteristics of

their worksites, assessment procedures used with referred

secondary age students, beliefs about the purpose and

necessary components in psychological evaluations of secon-

dary age students, and the orientation of school psycholo-

gists regarding the measurement of adaptive behavior. One

hundred eighty-seven school psychologists practicing pri-

marily in the schools provided data used in the study.

The specific computational techniques employed in the

data analysis included:

l. Condescriptives, frequency distributions, Pearson

Product-Moment Coefficients, Partial Correlations, Factor

Analysis, and Chi Square procedures were used in preliminary

analysis of data obtained from respondents. These procedures

were used to examine bias in sample selection, quality of

157

distributions, item response rates, multicolinearity, inter-

action effects, and unique features of variables.

2. Chi square procedures were used to examine selec-

tivity in employment of particular types of school psycholo-

gists in different kinds of worksettings.

3. Frequency distributions were used in examining

dependent variables in research questions which lack

sufficient variance for further analysis.

4. Multiple Regression Analysis, Chi Square Analysis,

· Oneway Analysis of Variance, Pearson Product-Moment Coeffi-

cients, and Spearman Rho Coefficients were used to examine

the relationship of independent variables with dependent

variables in the analysis of research and supplemental

questions.

Summary of Findings

A total of 81.4% of mailed questionnaires were returned.

Statistical procedures involving Chi square analysis found

no statistically significant differences in school psycholo-

gists regarding selection, participation, or response to

prompts. Demographie variables involving school psycholo-

gists‘ age, sex, experience, and degree closely resembled

previously reported distributions (NASP Directory, 1983,

Shepard, 1982). The majority of school psychologists in the

study had formal coursework during their graduate training

158

in intelligence testing, personality assessment, behavioral

observations, and educational testing. A minority of school

psychologists had formal graduate training in multicultural

and vocational testing. In most cases, less than 30% of

school psychologists' formal assessment training involved

adaptive behavior and secondary age assessment. In terms of

experiential training, nearly two-thirds of the respondents

had no more than 20% of their practica experiences devoted

to secondary age populations. Subjects appeared to have a

little more experience with secondary age students during

their internships. Also, few school psychologists partici-

pated in any continuing education activities regarding adap-

tive behavior measurement or secondary school psychological

services. IIn the majority of worksettings, the measurement of

adaptive behavior is required of secondary age students at

all levels of mental retardation. It is not required for

other handicapping conditions in most worksettings. School

psychologists are by far the most likely individuals to be

responsible for collecting adaptive behavior information for

secondary age students in most worksettings.

There did not appear to be any selectivity of par-

ticular types of school psychologists according to size of

student population. However, a significant relationship

159

beyond the .05 level was indicated between region of the

country and age of respondents. This relationship appeared

to be centered in the North Central region where it was

suggested that a larger percentage of older school psychol-

ogists were employed than in the other regions.

The only adaptive behavior instrument reported to be

used with any degree of frequency with secondary age

students was the Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS).

According to Coulter and Morrow (1978c) the VSMS has been

used primarily to measure adaptive behavior in the nonbiased

assessment process for special education placement. Tech-

niques developed specifically for secondary and post secon-

dary populations (e.g., Adaptive Behavior Scale-School

Edition, San Francisco Vocational Competency Scale, Social

and Prevocational Information Battery, and the Vocational

Adaptation Rating Scale) were rarely used. Non-standardized

techniques (e.g., interviews, observations, etc.) were

reported to be used more frequently in the psychological

assessment of secondary age students than formal adaptive

behavior scales.

No differences were found in approaches to initial

evaluations and re-evaluations with emotionally disturbed,

learning disabled, and mild mentally retarded students.

Also, no differences were indicated in assessment techniques

160

used with mild mentally retarded, moderate mentally

retarded, and severe/profoundly retarded secondary age

students. Significant differences beyond the .001 level

were found in the techniques used and the type of handicap.

That is, adaptive behavior was measured most frequently with

mentally retarded students and adaptive behavior instruments

were used most frequently with this population. However,

non-standardized techniques were used most frequently with

emotionally disturbed and learning disabled students when

adaptive behavior was addressed. In general, there appeared

to be a wide variety of approaches to collecting adaptive

behavior regardless of type of referral.

Significant relationships were found in assessment

procedures used with learning disabled and mild mentally

retarded students by the amount of self-directed training in

adaptive behavior and secondary school psychological

services. Differences were also found between school

psychologists who use adaptive behavior instrumentation and

those who use non-standardized procedures with learning

disabled students according to their self-directed training.

Those who used adaptive behavior instruments had a higher

mean score on self-directed training than those who used

non-standardized procedures (adaptive behavior instrumen-

tation x = 3.4608, SD = .9673; non-standardized x = 2.6407,

161

SD'=.7704). Also, self-directed training was close to

significant in assessment procedures used with emotionally

disturbed secondary age students. No other training or

psychologist variable had a significant relationship to the

type of assessment procedure used with this population of

students.

Respondents indicated that determining eligibility for

special education placements is the most important reason

for conducting both initial evaluations and re-evaluations

with mild mentally retarded secondary age students. There

was total agreement in the rank order of each reason for

referral with both types of evaluations. The next three

rankings involved instructional needs related to academic,

vocational, and social competency issues. Determining

appropriate vocational placements ranked last in relative

importance by respondents. No significant relationships

were found between psychologists' characteristics and train-

ing with differences in the reasons school psychologists

conduct initial evaluations and re-evaluations. Also, there

was no relationship between size of student population and

region of the country with differences in reasons for con-

ducting both types of evaluations. Thus, differences in

reasons for conducting initial evaluations and re-evaluations

cannot be explained by psychologist training or worksetting

variables included in this study.

162

Intelligence scales were reported to be the most impor-

tant component in both initial evaluations and re-evaluations

of mild mentally retarded students. Adaptive behavior and

academic achievement were ranked second and third respec-

tively on both scales. There were some differences in the

last two rankings as personality development was ranked

fourth for initial evaluations while vocational interests

and aptitudes were ranked fourth for re-evaluations. No

analytical procedures were conducted to determine relation-

ships between psychologist, training, and worksetting vari-

ables with differences in important components between both

types of evaluations of secondary age mild mentally retarded

students.

Only 5% of the respondents reported that they were not

prepared to provide assessment services to this population.

At the opposite extreme, 31% felt that they were fully pre-

pared. Overall, more than two-thirds of all subjects felt

less than fully prepared to provide assessment services to

secondary age students. Multiple regression procedures were

used to examine the relationship of psychologist and train-

ing variables with the degree in which respondents felt

prepared to provide assessment services to secondary age

students. Graduate program, professional maturity, male

ascendance, formal training, and self—directed training

163’

accounted for 27% of the variance in the level of prepared-

ness felt by respondents. Self-directed training was by far

the largest single contributor to the total variance (R2=

.15349). Formal training accounted for 2.7% of the total

variance and professional maturity accounted for 1.7% of the

total variance. Although significant, the positive contri-

bution of these last two variables was rather small from a

practical stand point. No other significant relationships

were found. Also, there were no significant interactions

indicated for the following: school population x pro-

fessional maturity, school population x formal training,

school population x self-directed training, professional

maturity x formal training, professional maturity x self-

directed training, and formal training x self-directed

training. There was no relationship between school popula-

tion and region of the country. Thus, self-directed

training was the most important factor regarding the degree

respondents felt prepared to provide assessment services to

secondary age students. This training involved practical

experience through supervised practica and internships with

secondary age students. It also included conferences, work-

shops, post graduate courses, and selected readings regard-

ing adaptive behavior and secondary school psychological

services.

164

, Respondents indicated that the most important area in

which school psychologists hired for entry level positions

during the past five years should gain greater assessment

skills for secondary age students involved vocational apti-

tudes and interests. This area was followed closely by

adaptive behavior assessment. Personality assessment was

ranked third, followed by more traditional skills involving

intellectual and academic testing. Spearman Rho correla-

tions indicated a small but significant relationship

involving a tendency for the perceived need for personality

test training to increase with age of respondent. Years in

the profession had a near significant relationship with a

greater need for vocational assessment training. Here, a

greater need for vocational training was reported with a

decrease in years of experience. Caution must be emphasized

not to over interpret this relatively weak relationship.

It was generally felt by respondents that their

colleagues would rank adaptive behavior instruments as being

of poor quality, especially when addressing the needs of

secondary age students. There were wide ranges of opinions

regarding colleagues' perceived impressions of the current

definition of adaptive behavior which emphasized out of

school behaviors. Wide ranges of opinions were also

165

indicated regarding colleagues' perceived impressions of the

relevance of adaptive behavior in the measurement of per-

sonality development in addressing the needs of students

referred for reasons other than limited mental abilities. _

No relationship between respondent characteristics and their

rating of colleagues opinions was indicated.

Conclusions

1. The majority of practicing school psychologists

received formal assessment training in traditional areas such

as intelligence testing, personality assessment, behavioral

observations, and educational testing. However, a minority

of practicing school psychologists had formal graduate

training in less traditional areas such as multicultural

assessment and vocational testing.

2. Practicing school psychologists' formal assessment

training tended to involve some degree of adaptive behavior

and secondary age assessment. However, many areas of psycho-

logical assessment training received by practicing school

psychologists did not include adaptive behavior or secondary

age assessment. Adaptive behavior assessment was stressed

most frequently in multicultural assessment training. Secon-

dary age assessment training was stressed most frequently in

vocational assessment. An important finding was that a

minority of practicing school psychologists received

166

training in these areas. A relatively small amount of their

experiential training was with secondary age students. This

fact was especially true in their practica experiences, as

over two—thirds of the study respondents had less than 20%

of their training with secondary age students. Also, school

psychologists received little, if any, continuing education

training in adaptive behavior measurement or secondary

school psychological services.

3. The measurement of adaptive behavior was typically

required for all levels of mental retardation with secondary

age students. Adaptive behavior information was generally

not required with other handicaps at the secondary level.

Also, school psychologists were by far the most likely

individuals in a school district to be responsible for col-

lecting adaptive behavior information regarding secondary

age students.

4. Practicing school psychologists in the North Central

region of the United States tended to be older than in the

other regions of the country.

5. The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) was the

only adaptive behavior instrument used with any degree of

relative frequency with secondary age students. Practicing

school psychologists did not increase their repertoire of

adaptive behavior instruments since the measurement of

167

adaptive behavior was mandated in the identification of

mental retardation (Coulter, 1980).

6. Practicing school psychologists collected adaptive

behavior information with behaviorally/emotionally disturbed,

learning disabled, and all levels of mentally retarded

students. However, adaptive behavior instruments were used

most frequently with all levels of mental retardation. Non-

standardized approaches alone were most common with

behaviorally/emotionally disturbed and learning disabled

students. In general, a wide variety of approaches were

used in the measurement of adaptive behavior.

7. Self-directed training was an important factor in

the approach school psychologists use in addressing the

adaptive behavior of mild mentally retarded and learning

disabled secondary age students. Also, it could possibly be

an important factor in the approach used with behaviorally/

emotionally disturbed secondary age students. In most

cases, the more self—directed training the greater likeli-

hood that adaptive behavior scales would be used. These

generalizations were less applicable with mild mentally

retarded students as practicing school psychologists with

greater self—directed training often did not collect adaptive

behavior information.

8. Practicing school psychologists tended to perceive

identical reasons for conducting initial evaluations and

168

re-evaluations with secondary age mild mentally retarded

students. Eligibility for special education services was

considered the most important reason. This reason was

followed by determining academic performance, vocational

training, instructional needs, social competency needs, and

vocational placement needs.

9. Within this sample, there were no significant rela-

tionships involving practicing school psychologists' charac-

teristics, training, and worksettings with perceived reasons

for conducting initial evaluations and re—evaluations with

secondary age mild mentally retarded students.

10. Practicing school psychologists tended to perceive

the importance of different components in the initial eval-

uation and re—evaluation of mild mentally retarded secondary

age students as almost identical. The most important com-

ponent is believed to be individual intelligence scales.

This component was followed in importance by adaptive

behavior scales, academic achievement tests, vocational

tests, and personality tests.

ll. Practicing school psychologists tended to feel pre-

pared to some degree to provide psychological assessment

services to secondary age students. However, the majority

felt less than fully prepared to provide assessment services

to this population.

169

12. Self-directed assessment training, formal assessment

training, and professional maturity are significantly related

to the degree in which practicing school psychologists felt

prepared to provide psychological assessment services to

secondary age students. Among these factors, self—directed

training involved the most relevant relationship from a

practical standpoint with degree of preparedness.

13. Within this sample, there were no significant

relationships involving worksetting with degree school

psychologists felt prepared to provide assessment services

to secondary age students.

14. Practicing school psychologists believed that

colleagues hired for entry level positions during the pastl

five years need greater skills in vocational assessment with

secondary age students. This need was followed closely by

adaptive behavior assessment. Personality assessment was

third, followed by intellectual and academic testing.

15. There was a small but significant relationship

between the age of practicing school psychologists and the

perceived need for greater skills in personality assessment

with secondary age students. That is, the perceived need

for greater personality assessment skills increases with age.

16. Practicing school psychologists' years in the

profession could have related to the perceived need for

170

greater training in vocational assessment by colleagues

entering the field in the last five years. That is, the

fewer years in the profession, the greater the perceived

need for vocational assessment training.

17. Practicing school psychologists tended to feel

that adaptive behavior instruments were of poor quality,

especially when addressing the needs of secondary age

students.

18. Practicing school psychologists had wide ranges

of opinions regarding the current definition of adaptive

behavior.

19. Within this sample, practicing school psycholo-

gists' sex, age, and professional experience did not relate

~to their opinions of colleagues' attitudes regarding adaptive

behavior.

Discussion

The focus of this study centered on the way school

psychologists address adaptive behavior issues in psycholo-

gical assessments of secondary age students. The results of

this study provide information regarding current practices

in collecting adaptive behavior information and opinions

regarding secondary age/adaptive behavior assessment. Some

significant relationships were found involving school

171

psycho1ogists' characteristics and training with current

practices and opinions regarding secondary age adaptive

behavior issues.

The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) is the only

standardized adaptive behavior instrument used with any

degree of frequency with secondary age students. Coulter

(1980) reported the results of two surveys that ranked the IAAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale-Public School Version (ABS-PS)

and the Vineland Social Maturity Scale as the two most

commonly used adaptive behavior instruments. It seems logi-

cal that the ABS-PSV would not be used with any degree of

frequency in this study since its norms do not address

secondary age populations. Also, the ABS-PSV was developed

specifically for elementary age mentally retarded students.

Thus, its utility with the secondary age population, in

general, may have influenced its limited use in this study.

Several adaptive behavior instruments have been

developed since the surveys reported by Coulter. The most

widely publicized and scientifically examined of these

recent instruments have focused on non-biased assessment

issues with secondary age students (Reschly, 1982; Sattler,

1982). The one exception to this rule involves the AAMD

Adaptive Behavior Scale-School Edition (ABS—SE). Here,

revisions were made to the ABS-PS which increased the

172

standardization sample to include secondary school students

sixteen years of age and provide directions for use in non-

biased assessment as well as for instructional planning

(Lambert, Windmiller, Tharinger, and Cole, 1981). Ironically,

this instrument was reported in this study to be used less

frequently than the ABS—PS. Also, techniques developed

specifically for secondary and post secondary populations

were rarely used by school psychologists. These findings

suggest that school psychologists generally have not adapted

newer and possibly better approaches to the measurement of

adaptive behavior.” One can only speculate that low opinions

reported in this study regarding the quality of adaptive

behavior instruments may be a factor in the limited adoption

of newer adaptive behavior instruments. The predominate use

of the VSMS and findings indicating the importance of special

education placement decisions in the evaluation process with

secondary age students suggests that adaptive behavior infor-

mation may be used to a large degree to address non-biased

assessment issues with this population.

Among secondary age students, adaptive behavior instru-

ments are used most frequently in evaluations involving

students at all levels of mental retardation. These instru-

ments are also used to some extent with behavioral/

emotionally disturbed students. These results are consistent

173

with the frequency adaptive behavior instruments that are.

used for handicapped students of all ages (Galvin and

Elliott, 1985). The study did not address why adaptive

behavior instruments are used primarily with mentally

retarded students. It seems logical to hypothesize that

non-biased assessment issues and restricted norms involving

mentally retarded students have influenced this orientation

to adaptive behavior instruments.

These findings reflect the techniques used most fre-

quently, and the type of secondary age student addressed

most often with adaptive behavior instruments. However, it

does not reflect the regularity in which adaptive behavior

instruments were used. Two studies involving small but

diverse samples indicated limited use of adaptive behavior

instruments in the psychological assessment of mild mentally

retarded students (Furlong and LeDrew, 1985; Prout and

Sheldon, 1984). Thus, some question could be raised regard-

ing the regularity in which adaptive behavior instruments

are used with secondary age mild mentally retarded students

by respondents in this study.

Self-directed training was an important factor regard-

ing how adaptive behavior was addressed in psychological

evaluations. This aspect was distinctly true with learning

disabled and mild mentally retarded students. The

174

significance of self—directed training's impact was unclear

with behavioral/emotionally disturbed students. A visual

analysis of the data implies that school psychologists with

more self—directed training tend to use adaptive behavior

instruments with learning disabled and behavioral/

emotionally disturbed populations. However, it is difficult

to make this generalization with mild mentally retarded

students. School psychologists with more self—directed

training often do not address adaptive behavior issues at

all. No clear explanation for these results was available

from the data. Negative opinions regarding the quality of

adaptive behavior instruments, wide ranges of opinions

regarding the definition of adaptive behavior, limited

skills in secondary age assessment, and emphasis on special

education placements in psychological assessments may be

areas worth exploring in explaining these results. Also,

personality characteristics of those who seek more self-

directed training in secondary age/adaptive behavior could

be studied in addressing these findings.

No differences were found in the reasons school

psychologists report for conducting initial evaluations and

re-evaluations with secondary age students. Also, no

differences were indicated in what school psychologists

perceive as important assessment components in initial

175

evaluations and re—evaluations. The consistency of initial

evaluation and re—evaluation practices have been found with

the general population of handicapped students (Galvin and

Elliott, 1985). Galvin and Elliott (1985) reported, in a

national study of school psychologists and administrators,

that few changes in special education placements were made

following re-evaluations. Thus, reforms in current re-

evaluation practices could possibly optimize the changing

needs of school age students (Hortshorne and Hoyt, 1985).

Appropriate reforms in re-evaluations for secondary age

students would involve the assessment of skills required for

post secondary success (Hohenshil, Levinson, and Heer,

1985). The results of this study do not indicate that such

reforms are in wide practice by school psychologists.

The perceived need for greater skills in vocational

assessment, and to a lesser degree, adaptive behavior skills

may be an indication that many practicing school psycholo-

gists perceive the need for additional skills that will

address the post secondary needs of secondary age handi-

capped students. The need for additional skills in voca-

tional assessments appear especially prevalent among newer

school psychologists. It is possible that newer school

psychologists have been exposed during their graduate train-

ing to recent trends in special education, vocational

176

_ education, and school psychology regarding the handicapped

student's transition from school to work.

School psycholgists tend to feel relatively prepared

for providing assessment services to secondary age students.

However, the majority feel less than fully prepared. As

previously mentioned, school psychologists perceived the need

for greater training in vocational and adaptive behavior

assessment with secondary age students. Self-directed

training is the best indicator of the degree in which prac-

ticing school psychologists feel prepared to provide assess-

ment services to secondary age students. The exact meaning

of this variable is not clear. One possible explanation is

that school psychologists become more confident with addi-

tional training. An alternative explanation may suggest

that individual characteristics of school psychologists who

are self-directed to gain additional skills may be related

to their level of confidence regardless of amount of train-

ing. It is also possible that there may be some combination

of the above explanations. Other factors that relate to

level of preparation to a somewhat lesser degree involve

formal training and professional maturity. It is important

to recognize that perceived level of preparation does not

necessarily reflect quality of skills. This idea is espe-

cially important with professional maturity, as experience

177

could reflect complacency with mediocracy as easily as

knowledge and growth over time.

Implications of the Study

There appear to be six general implications which canU

be drawn from the results of this study.

1. Practicing school psychologists have not adapted

newer techniques designed for the measurement of adaptive

behavior with secondary age students. If school psycholo-

gists are to adequately address the post secondary needs of

secondary age students, they will need to become familiar

with newer adaptive behavior instruments which address

issues beyond the non—biased assessment of mild mentally

retarded students.

2. Reforms are needed regarding the utility of re-

evaluations with secondary age students. It is questionable

if the current practice of validating special education

placements is an efficient and effective use of school

psychologists' time. Also, it is questionable if current

assessment practices help in facilitating the post secondary

transition of secondary age students.

3. The amount of self-directed training practicing

school psychologists receive in adaptive behavior assessment

and secondary school psychological services relate to how

they approach the measurement of adaptive behavior with

178

secondary age students. Further study is needed to better

understand the relationship of self-directed training to the

measurement of adaptive behavior.

4. _Additional training in vocational and adaptive

behavior assessment is needed to help school psychologists

improve their skills in the psychological evaluation of

secondary age students.

5. Further study is needed regarding the selectivity

of older school psychologists in the North Central region.

The orientation and practice of school psychologists in this

region could be different than in the rest of the United

States.

6. Test publishers need to support the development and

marketing of adaptive behavior instruments which can better

address the needs of secondary age students across a variety

of handicaps.

Recommendations for Further Research

On the basis of the results of this study, the

following recommendations for further research are offered:

l. Research the quality of recently developed adaptive

behavior instruments in addressing the post secondary tran-

sition of secondary age students.

l79

2. Research the impact of preservice and inservice

training on the use of newer adaptive behavior instruments

with secondary age students.

3. Research the frequency in which adaptive behavior

is measured with secondary age students with different

handicaps and what would influence changes in current

practices.A

4. Research the relationship of self—directed training

to personality characteristics and the use of adaptive

behavior instruments.

5. Research to determine if current approaches to re-

evaluations are a reflection of preference or mandates in the

psychological assessment of secondary age students.

6. Replication of the study in individual states to

determine if state policies have a relationship to the use

of adaptive behavior instruments with secondary age

students.

7. Research vocational and special educators regarding

information that is most relevant in psychological evaluations

of secondary age students.

8. Replication of this study in four to five years

time and compare results with the findings of this study.

9. Survey a nationwide sample of school psychologists'

trainers regarding competencies to provide formal and

180

experiential training in secondary age assessment. This

study should especially focus on skills regarding the voca-

tional and adaptive behavior assessment of secondary age

students.

Recommendations for the Profession

On the basis of the results of this study, the

following recommendations to the profession are offered:

l. Formal training in adaptive behavior and vocational

assessment of secondary age students should be core skills

taught in school psychology training programs. ·

2. Experiential training with secondary age students

should be offered to all school psychology graduate students

prior to completing their programs.

3. Continuing education should be available to school

psychologists to upgrade their assessment skills with secon-

dary age students. NASP, state associations, and school

psychology training programs should encourage and initiate

participation in such training.

4. School psychology training programs should attempt

to recruit new faculty with expertise in secondary age

assessment practices. Specific skills should include

vocational and adaptive behavior assessment.

5. School psychologists should support and conduct

field-based research regarding the applicability of new

l8l

adaptive behavior instruments with secondary age students.

6. School psychologists should initiate and maintain a

close liaison with other school personnel involved in the

assessment of secondary age students. Roles and respon-

sibilities in addressing adaptive behavior and vocational

issues could be established in facilitating the development

of skills necessary in post secondary transitions.

Summary

The results of this study indicate the need for school

psychologists to become familiar with adaptive behavior

instruments which address issues beyond the non—biased

assessment of mild mentally retarded students. Reforms in

current re-evaluation practices are needed to facilitate the

post secondary transition of secondary age students. Also,

training programs need to place greater emphasis in skill

development with secondary age students. Finally, addi-

tional research and test development are indicated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, W. T. (1975). Assessment roles of vocational

school psychologists. The Journal for Vocational

Special Needs Education, 4 (3), 14-17.

Anderson, W. T.; Hohenshil, T. H.; & Brown, D. T. (1984).

Job satisfaction among practicing school psychologists.

School Psychology Review, 13, 225-230.

Anastasi, A. (1976). Psychological testing (Fourth Edition).

New York: McMil1an Publishing Co. Inc.

Baca, L. & Cervantes, H. (1978). The assessment of minority

students: Are adaptive behavior scales the answer.

Psychology in the Schools, 15, 366-370.

Bailey, B. S. & Richmond, B. O. (1979). Adaptive behavior

of retarded, slow learner, and average intelligence

children. Journal of School Psychology, 11, 260-263.

Barclay, J. R. (1971). Descriptive theoretical, and beha-

vioral characteristics of subdoctoral school psycholo-

gists. American Psychologist, gg, 257-280.

Bardon, J. I. & Bennett, V. C. (1974). School psychology.

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Batche, C. (1981). Vocational education of handicapped

youth: State of the art. In T. H. Hohenshil and W. T.

Anderson (Eds.), School Psychological Services in

182

183

Berman, H., Gottlieb, S. & Hornick, K. M. (1979). A 15—year

follow-up study of graduates of a master's degree

program in school psychology. Professional Psychology,

lg, 347-356. _Boehm, A. E. & Sandberg, B. R. (1982). Assessment of the

preschool child. In C. R. Reynolds and T. B. Gutkin

(Eds.), The handbook of school psychology. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.

Boyd, L. A., Slay, T. S., & Shiver, D. E. (1981). The

three-stage assessment process: Issues and implica-

tions. Psychology in the Schools, lg, 316-322.

Brolin, D., Durand, R., Kramer, K., & Muller, P. (1975).

Post-school adjustment of educable retarded students.

Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, lg,

144-149.I

Brolin, D. E. & Gysbers, N. G. (1979). Career education for

persons with handicaps. The Personnel and Guidance

Journal, gg, 258-262.

Brown, D. T. & Cobb, H. (1982). The school psychologist‘s

role in vocational assessment of the mentally retarded.

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, g

(3), 18-20, 37.

Brown, D. T. & Lindstrom, J. P. (1978). The training of

school psychologists in the United States: An

overview. Psychology in the Schools, lg, 37-45.

184

Browning, P. & Irvin, L. K. (1981). Vocational evaluation,

training, and placement of mentally retarded persons.

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, gg, 374-408.

Carroll, J., Bretzing, B., & Harris, J. (1981).

Psychologists in secondary schools' training and pre-

sent patterns of service. Journal of School

Psychology, lg, 267-273.

Carver, R. P. (1974). Two dimensions of tests:

Psychometric versus edumetric. American Psychologist,

gg, 512-518.

Cegelka, P. T. & Phillips, M. W. (1978). Individual educa-

tion programming at the secondary level. Teaching

Exceptional Children, lg, 84-87.

Chaffin, J., Davison, R., Regen, C., & Spellman, C. (1971).

The fo1low—up studies of former mentally retarded stu-

dents from the Kansas work study project. Exceptional

Children, gl, 733-738.

Coleman, J. C. (1972). Abnormal psychology and modern life

(4th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Coulter, W. A. (1980). Adaptive behavior and professional

disfavor: Controversies and trends for school psycho-

logists. School Psychology Review, g, 67-73.

Coulter, W. A., & Morrow, H. (1978). One year after imple-

mentation: Practitioners' view of adaptive behavior.

185

In W. A. Coulter & H. W. Morrow (Eds.). Adaptive beha-

vior: Concepts and measurement. New York: Grune and

Stratton.

Coulter, W. A. & Morrow, H. A. (1978b). A contemporary con-

ception of adaptive behavior within the scope of

psychological assessment. In W. A. Coulter & H. W.

Morrow (Eds.). Adaptive behavior: Concepts and

measurements. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Coulter, W. A. & Morrow, H. A. (1978c). A collection of

adaptive behavior measures. In W. A. Coulter & H. W.

Morrow (Eds.). Adaptive behavior: Concepts and

measurements. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Crites, J. O. & Semler, I. J. (1967). Adjustment, educa-

tional achievement, and vocational maturity as dimen-

sions of development in adolescence. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 14, 489-496.

Diana v. State Board of Education, Civil Action No. C-70-37

(N. D. Cal., 1970).

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The

total design method. New York: John Wiley and Son.

Doll, E. (1962). A historical survey of research and mana-

gement of mental retardation in the United States. In

E. P. Trapp and P. Himelstein (Eds.), Readings on the

Exceptional Child. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

186

Doll, E. (Ed.) (1967). Historical review of mental retar-

dation, 1800-1965: A symposium. American Journal of

Mental Deficiency, 11, 165-189.

Doll, E. A. (1965). Vineland social maturity scale. Circle

Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

Duckworth, P. A. (1978, July). Construction of

guestionnaires. U. S. Civil Service Commission,

Personnel Research and Development Center.

Epstein, M. H. (1982). Special education programs for the

handicapped adolescent. School Psychology Review, 11,

384-390.

Erdos, P. L. (1970). Professional mail surveys. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Erickson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New

York: Norton.

Estabrook, G. E. & Cummings, J. A. (1983). A matrix

sampling study of the children's adaptive behavior

scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1,

101-lll.

Fagan, T. K. (1985). Best practices in the training of

school psychologists: Considerations for trainers,

prcspective entry-level and advanced students. In A.

Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school

psychology. Kent, OH: The National Association of

School Psychologists, 125-141.

187

Fagan, T. (1981). Role expansion in the eighties:

Counseling and vocational school psychology..

Communigue, Q (6), 1-2.

Fagan, T. K. (1981). Special education services and the

school psychologist. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

gg, 383-384.

Fine, M. J. & Tyler, M. M. (1971). Concerns and directions

in teacher consultation. Journal of School Psychology,

g, 436-444.

Fisher, A. (1978, August). Four approaches to classification

of mental retardation. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Psychological Association,

Toronto.

French, J. L. & McC1oskey, G. (1979). Characteristic of

school psychology program directors and program produc-

tion. American Psychologist, gg, 710-714.

Furlong, M. J. & LeDrew, L. (1985). IQ = 69 = Mildly

retarded?: Factors influencing multidisciplinary team

recommendations on children with FSIQS between 63 and

75. Psychology in the Schools, gg, 5-9.

Gallessich, J. (1974). Training the school psychologist for

consultation. Journal of School Psychology, gg,

138-149.

188

Galvin, G. A. & Elliott, S. N. (1985). Psychological re-

evaluation of handicapped children: A survey of prac-

titioners and policymakers. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, lg, 64-75.

Ginzberg, E.; Ginzberg, S. W.; Axelrad, S., & Herma, J. R.

(1951). Occupational choice. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Givens, T. & Ward, L. C. (1982). Stability of the AAMD

adaptive behavior scale, public school version.

Psychology in the Schools, lg, 166-169.

Gribbons, W. D. & Lohnes, P. R. (1968). Emerging careers.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Grossman, H. (Ed.) (1973). Manual on terminology and

classification in mental retardation (Special Publica-

tion No. 2). Washington, D.C.: American Association

on Mental Deficiency.

Grossman, H. (Ed.) (1977). Manual on terminology and

classification in mental retardation (Rev. ed.).

Washington, D.C.: American Association on Mental

Deficiency.

Guarnaccia, V. J. (1976). Factor structure and correlates

of adaptive behavior in noninstitutionalized retarded

adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, gg,

543-547.

189

Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School District. (1982,

January). 71-435, Disrict Court for Arizona.

Guidubaldi, J.; Kehle, T. J., & Murray, J. N. (1979).

Assessment strategies for the handicapped. ggg

Personnel and Guidance Journal, gg, 245-251.

Halpern, A.; Irvin, L.; & Landman, J. (1979). Alternative

to the measurement of adaptive behavior. American

Journal of Mental Deficiency, gg, 304-310.

Halpern, A.; Raffeld, P., Irvin, L.; & Link, R. (1975). ggg

social and prevocational information battery.

Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Heber, R. A. (1959). A manual on terminology and classifi-

cation in mental retardation (Monograph Supplement).

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, gg.

Heber, R. A. (1961a). Modification in the manual on ter-

minology and classification in mental retardation.

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, gg, 499-501.

Heber, R. A. (1961b). A manual on terminology and classifi-

cation in mental retardation (Monograph Supplement).

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, gg.

Heber, R. (1962). Mental retardation: Concepts and classi-

fication. In E. Trapp & P. Himelstein (Eds.).

Readings on the exceptional child. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

190

Herron, W. G. (1966). Training school psychologists to do

psychotherapy. Psychology in the Schools, 3, 48-51.

Hewett, F. & Forness, S. (1974). Education of exceptional

learners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hobson v. Hansen. (1967). 2.69F. Supp. 401.

Hohenshil, T. H. (1982). School psychology + vocational

counseling = vocational school psychology. ggg

Personnel and Guidance Journal, gl, 11-13.

Hohenshil, T. H. (1982). Secondary school psychological

services: Vocational assessment procedures for handi-

capped students. In T. H. Hohenshil & W. T. Anderson

(Eds.), Secondary school psychological services: Focus

on vocational assessment procedures for handicapped

students. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech.

Hohenshil, T. H. (1974). The vocational school psycholo-

gist: A specialty in quest of a training program.

Psychology in the Schools, ll, 16-18.

Hohenshil, T. H.; Levinson, E. M.; and Heer, K. B. (1985).

Best practices in vocational assessment for handicapped

students. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), gppg

practices in school psychology. Kent, OH: The

National Association of School Psychologists, 215-228.

Hohenshil, T. H.; Ryan, C.; and Warden, P. (1978). Enter

the school psychologist: Needed member of the

191

vocational education team. American vocational Journal,

gg, 48-50.

Hohenshil, T. H.; Shepard, J. W.; and Capps, C. F. (1982).

Vocational school psychology: Serving special needs

students. The Journal of Special Needs vocational

Education, Q (3), 5-8.

Hortshorne, T. S. & Hoyt, E. B. (1985). Best practices in

conducting re-evaluations. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes

(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology. Kent, OH:

The National Association of School Psychologists,

207-214.

Houff, J. K. (1982). Occupational social competence/skills:

A necessary component of vocational assessment for

school psychologists. In T. H. Hohenshil & W. T.

Anderson (Eds.), Secondary school psychological

services: Focus on vocational assessment procedures

for handicapped students. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia

Tech.

Hughes, J. & Clark, R. (1981). Differences between urban

and rural school psychology: Training implications.

Psychology in the Schools, lg, 191-196.

Irvin, L.; Halpern, A.; and Reynolds, W. (1977). Assessing

social and prevocational awareness in mildly and

192

moderately retarded individuals. American Journal of

Mental Deficiency, gg, 266-272.

Kamin, L. J. (1974). The Science and politics of I.Q. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.

Karayanni, M. (1981). Career maturity of emotionally mal-

adjusted high school students. The Vocational Guidance

Quarterly, gg, 213-220.

Kendall, W. S. (1981). Affective and career education for

the learning disabled adolescent. Learning Disability

Quarterly, g, 69-75.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Kirk, S. A. (1972). Educating excegtional children.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Kolstoe, O. P. (1961). An examination of some charac-

teristics which discriminate between employed and non-

employed mentally retarded males. American Journal of

Mental Deficiency, gg, 472-482.

Kratochwill, T. R. (1977). N=1: An alternative research

strategy for school psychologists. Journal of School

Psychology, gg, 239-248.

Krejcie, R. B., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample

size for research activities. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, gg, 607-610.

193

Kronick, D. (1978). An examination of psychological aspects

of learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability

Quarterly, 1, 86-93.

Krumboltz, J. D., & Rude, S. (1981). Behavioral approaches

to career counseling. Behavioral Counseling Quarterly,

1, 108-120.

Lacayo, N.; Sherwood, G.; & Morris, J. (1981). Daily

activities of school psychologists: A national survey.

Psychology in the Schools, 18, 184-190.

Lambert, N. M. (1974). A school-based consultation model.

Professional Psychology, 5, 267-276.

Lambert, N. (1979). Contributions of school classification,

sex, and ethnic status to adaptive behavior assessment.

Journal of School Psychology, 11, 3-16.

Lambert, N. (1981). Diagnostic and technical manual: AAMD

adaptive behavior sca1e—schoo1 edition. Monterey:

CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Lambert, N. M. (1978). The adaptive behavior scale—public

school version: An overview. In W. A. Coulter & H. W.

Morrow (Eds.), Adaptive behavior: Concepts and

measurements. New York: Grune and Stratton.

Lambert, N. (1973). The school psychologist as a source of

power and influence. Journal of School Psychology, 11,

245-250.

194

Lambert, N. M. & Nicoll, R. C. (1976). Dimensions of adap-

tive behavior of retarded and nonretarded public school

children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81,

135-146. ULambert, N. M.; Wilcox, M. R.; & Gleason, W. P. (1974). ggg

educationally retarded child. New York: Grune and

Stratton.

Lambert, N. M.; Windmiller, M.; Cole, L. J.; & Figuerou, R.‘

A. (1975). Manual: AAMD adaptive behavior scale-

public school version. Washington, D.C.: American

Association on Mental Deficiency.

Lambert, N.; Windmiller, M.; Tharinger, D.; & Cole, L.

(1981). Administration and instructional planning

manual: AAMD adaptive behavior scale-school edition.

Monterey, CA:. CTB/McGraw—Hill.

Laosa, L. M. (1977). Historical antecedents and current

issues in nondiscriminatory assessment of children's

abilities. School Psychology Digest, 6, 48-55.

Larry P. v. Riles, (1974, 1979). Civil Action No. 71-2270

(N.D. Cal. 1971)

Lombana, J. H. (1980). Facilitating career guidance for

deaf students: Challenge and opportunities for coun-

selors. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, gl, 350-358.

195

Livingston, R., McAlees, D. C., & Korn, T. (1982)

Alternative strategies in vocational rehabilitation.

In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook

of school psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Mahoney, M. P. & Ward, M. P. (1976). Psychological

assessment: A conceptual approach. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Malgady, R. G. & Barcher, P. R. (1980). Vocational

adaptation rating scale, Los Angeles: Western

Psychological Services.

Malgady, R.; Barcher, P.; Davis, J.; & Towner, G. (1980).

Validity of the vocational adaptation rating scale:

Prediction of mentally retarded workers' placement in

sheltered workshops. American Journal of Mental

Deficiency, Qg, 633-640.

Malgady, R.; Barcher, P.; Towner, G.; & Davis J. (1979).

Language factors in vocational evaluation of mentally

retarded workers.' American Journal of Mental

Deficiency, QQ, 432-438.

Meacham, M. L. & Peckham, P. D. (1978). School psycholo-

gists at three-quarters century: Congruence between

training, practice, preferred role and competence.

Journal of School Psychology, lg, 195-206.

196

Mercer, J. R. (1979). In defense of racially and culturally

nondiscriminatory assessment. School Psychology

Digest, 8, 89-115.

Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded:

clinical and system perspectives on mental retardation.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mercer, J. R. (1975). Sociocultural factors in educational

labeling. In M. J. Begab and S. A. Richardson (Eds.),

The mentally retarded and society: A social science

perspective. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Mercer, J. R. (1970). Sociological perspectives on mild

mental retardation. In H. Haywood (Ed.), Social-

cultural aspects of mental retardation. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mercer, J. R. (1977). System of multicultural pluralistic

assessment: Technical manual. New York: The

Psychological Corporation.

Mercer, J. R. (1978). Theoretical constructs of adaptive

behavior: Movement from a medical to a social-

ecological perspective. In W. A. Coulter & H. W.

Morrow (Eds.), Adaptive behavior: Concepts and

measurements. New York: Grune and Stratton.

197

Mercer, J. R. & Lewis, J. F. (1978). System of

multicultural pluralistic assessment. New York:

Psychological Corporation.

Meyers, J. (1973). A consultation model for school psycho-

logical services. Journal of School Psychology, ll,

5-15.

Miller, C. D.; Witt, J. C., & Finley, J. L. (1981). School

psychologists' perceptions of their work:

Satisfactions and dissatisfaction in the United States.

School Psychology International, 2, 1-3.

Morrow, H. W. & Coulter, W. A. (1978). A survey of state

policies regarding adaptive behavior measurement. In

W. A. Coulter and H. W. Morrow (Eds.), Adaptive

behavior: Concepts and measurements. New York: Grune

and Stratton.-

Mullins, D. & Hays, R. (1980). Personality characteristics

and employability of mentally retarded adults.

Psychological Reports, gl, 1063-1067.

Nihira, K..(1976). Dimensions of adaptive behavior in

institutionalized mentally retarded children and

adults: Developmental perspective. American Journal

of Mental Deficiency, 81, 215-226.

198

Nihira, K. (1969a). Factorial dimensions of adaptive

behavior in adult retardates. American Journal of

Mental Deficiency, 18, 868-878.

Nihira, K. (1969b). Factorial dimensions of adaptive beha-

vior in mentally retarded children and adolescents.

American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 18, 130-141.

Nihira, K.; Foster, R.; Shellhaas, M.; & Leland, H. (1974).

AAMD adaptive behavior scale (rev. ed.), Washington,

D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency.

Oakland, T. (1979a). Research on the ABIC and ELP: A revi-

sit to an old topic. School Psychology Digest, 8,

209-213.

Oakland, T. (1979b). Research on the adaptive behavior

inventory for children and the estimated learning

potential. School Psychology Digest, 8, 63-70.

Oakland, T. (Ed.) (1976). With bias toward none: Non-

biased assessment of minority group children.

Lexington, KY: Coordinating Office for Regional

Resource Centers.

Oakland, T. & Goldwater, D. L. (1979). Assessment and

interventions for mildly retarded and learning disabled

children. In G. D. Phye & D. J. Reschly (Eds.), School

psychology: Perspectives and issues. New York:

Academic Press. ·

199

Pfeiffer, S. I. & Mormo, P. (1981). The status of training

in school psychology and trends toward the future.

Journal of School Psychology, lg, 211-216.

Poplin, P. (1981). The development and execution of the

vocational IEP: Who does what, when to whom. In T. H.

Hohenshil & W. T. Anderson (Eds.), School psychological

services in secondary vocational education: Roles in

programs for handicapped students, Blacksburg, VA:

Virginia Tech, 1981.

Prout, H. T. & Sheldon, K. L. (1984). Classifying mental

retardation in vocational rehabilitation: A study of

diagnostic practices and their adherence to accepted

guidelines. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 28,

125-128.

Prout, H. T.; Toler, H. C.; & Eklund, S. J. (1976). Textbook

preference among trainers of school psychologists.

Journal of School Psychology, 14, 346-354.

Ramage, J. C. (1981). Litigation and legislation effects on

the school psychologists' role. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, li, 380-382.

Ramage, J. C. (1979). National survey of school psycholo-

gists: Update. School Psychology Digest, lg, 153-162.

Reschly, D. J. (1982). Addressing mild mental retardation:

The influence of adaptive behavior, sociocultural status,

200

and prospects for nonbiased assessment. In C. R.

Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school

psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Reschly, D. J. (1979). Nonbiased assessment. In G. D. Phye

& D. J. Reschly (Eds.), School psychology:A

Perspectives and issues. New York: Adademic Press.

Richmond, B. & Horn, W. (1980). Children's adaptive beha-

vior scale: A new measure of adaptive functioning.

Psychology in the Schools, ll, 159-162.

Richmond, B. O., & Kicklighter, R. L. (1979). Children's

Adaptive behavior scale. Atlanta: Humanistic Limited.

Rodhouse, L. (1979). Work—related behavior as perceived by

employers, workshop personnel, and existing rating

scales. vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment

Bulletin, lg, 8-14.

Rosenberg, H. & Tesolowski, D. G. (1982). Assessment of

critical vocational behaviors. Career Development for

Exceptional Individuals, 5, 25-37.

Sabatino, D. A.; Goh, D. S.; & Jenson, G. (1982). Psycho-

logical assessment of handicapped adolescents. School

Psychology Review, il, 377-383.

Sali, J. & Amir, M. (1971). Personal factors influencing

the retarded person's success at work: A report from

Israel. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Z6,

42-47.

201

Sattler, J. M. (1974). Assessment of chi1dren's

intelligence. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.

Sattler, J. M. (1982). Assessment of chi1dren's

intelligence and special abilities (2nd ed.). Boston:

Allyn and Bacon. 1

Schloss, P. & Sedlak, R. (1982). Behavioral features of the

mentally retarded adolescent: Implications for

mainstream education. Psychology in CDG Schools, lg,

98-105.

Scott, L. S.; Mastonbroox, J. L.; Fisher, A. T.; & Gridley,

G. C. (1982). Adaptive behavior inventory for

children: The need for local norms. Journal of School

Psychology, gg, 39-44.

Senft, L. B. & Snider, B. (1980). Elementary school prin-

cipals assess·services of school psychologists nation-

wide. Journal of School Psychology, 18, 276-282.

Sheldon, K. L. & Prout, H. T. (1982). Comprehensive voca-

tional rehabilitation and the school psychologist. ggg

Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 4 (3),

21-22, 36-37.

Sheperd, J. W. (1982). Career development functions of

school psychologists (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University.)

202

Sinick, D. (1979). Career counseling with handicapped per-

sons. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 55, 252-257.

Stevenson-Hicks, R. (1980). Public Law 94-142: Practicing

school psychologists' perceptions of how this law

affects them. Psychology in the Schools, 11, 491-495.

Stodden, R.; Casale, J.; & Schwartz, S. (1977). Work eval-

uation and the mentally retarded: Review and recom-

mendations. Mental Retardation, 15 (4), 25-27.

Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to

career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

15, 282-298.

Super, D. E. (1953). A theory of vocational development.

American Psychologist, 5, 185-190.

Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York:

Harper and Row.

Taylor R.; Warren, S.; & Slocumb, P. (1979). Categorizing

behavior in terms of severity: Considerations for part

two of the adaptive behavior scale. American Journal

of Mental Deficiency, 55, 411-414.

Texas Educational Agency. (1982). Vocational assessment of

students with special needs: An implementation manual.

Austin, TX: Occupational Curriculum Laboratory.

Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Concepts of culture fairness.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 5, 63-70.

203

Tiedeman, D. V., & Miller-Tiedeman, A. (1979). Choice and

decision processes and career revisited. In A. M.

Mitchell, G. B. Jones, & J. D. Krumboltz (Eds.), Social

learning and career decision making. Cranston, RI:

Carroll Press, 1979.

Tiedeman, D. V. & O'Hara, R. P. (1963). Career development:

choice and integration. New York: College Entrance

Examination Board.

Trachtman, G. M. (1979). The clouded crystal ball: Is

there a school psychology in our future? Psychology in

the Schools, lg, 378-387.

Tucker, J. (1977). Operationalizing the diagnostic inter-

vention process. In T. Oakland (Ed.), Psychological

and educational assessment of minority children. New

York: Brunner/Mazel.

Valett, R. E. (1963). The practice of school psychology:

Professional problems. New York: John Wiley and Sons,

Inc.

Walls, R. T. & Werner, T. J. (1977). Vocational behavior

checklists. Mental Retardation, lg, 30-35.

Weintraub, F. J.; Abeson, A.; Ballard, J.; & Lavor, M. L.

(1976). Public policy and the education of exceptional

children. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional

Children.

204

White, M. A., & Harris, M. W. (1961). The School

psychologist. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Wolf, T. H. (1973). Alfred Binet. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Yoshida, R.; MacMillan, D. & Meyers, E. (1976). The decer-

tification of minority group EMR students in

California: Student achievement and adjustment. In R.

Jones (Ed.), Mainstreaming and the minority child.

Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

APPENDIX A

205

206

NATIONAL SURVEY ON ASSESSMENT PRACTICESIN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

l. Your orimary role as a professional. (circle one number)

l. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST-PRACTITIONER IN THE SCHOOLS I I2. SCHOOL PSYCHOLDGIST-PRACTITIONER IN PRIVATE PRACTICE IE you responded p3. SCHOOL PSYCHOLDGZST·TRAINERI to items 2 thru 5 I4. STUDENT ou question

•l, Y5. OTHER (please specify: ) | you may discou-

‘:inue and return'the questionnaire.

2. Your present age: YEARSn

3. Length of time as a school psychologist: YEARS

4. Your sex. (circle number of your answer)

l. MALE '2. FEMALE

5. Which is the highest level of education that you have completed? (circle number)

Degree Year comgleted

l. BACHELOR'S DEGREE2. MASTER'S DEGREE3. 6th YEAR/SPECIALIST DEGREE4. DOCTORATE (please specify major)5. OTHER (please specify)

6. The graduate program from which you received your masters degree was located in:(circle number)

A. COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONl. PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT2. SCHOOL PSYCHOLDGY DEPARTHENT3. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY/COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT4. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY/FOUNDATIONS DEPARTMENT5. COUNSELOR EDUCATION DEPARTMENT6. SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT7. ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

B. COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES8. PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT9. CLINICAL/COUNSELING/SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT

10. OTHER (Please specify )

C. SCHOOL OP HEALTH PROPESSIONSll. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT12. SCHOOL/CLINICAL/COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT12. OTHER (Please specify ) ·14. NOT APPLICABLE (Do not have a masters degree or equivalent.)

7. Please indicate each of the following areas in which you had formal training during yourgraduate studies. (circle all that apply)

l. INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT2. PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT3. EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT4. VOCATIONAL ASSESSMENT (e.g. interests and aptitudes)5. HEHAVIORAL/OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT6. MULTICULTURAL ASSESSMENT

207

2

8. For each item circled on question 47, indicate the approximate percentage of yourtraining in which the measuremant of adaptive behavior was addressed. (NOTE: Referto cover letter for the definition of adaptive behavior.)

(CLICIQ appropriate answer)

1. INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

2. PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

3. EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

4. VOCATIONAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

5. BEHAVIORAL/OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

6. MULTICULTURAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

9. For each item circled on question #7, indicate the approximate percentage of yourtraining time in which services to secondary age students was addressed.

| (Circle appropriate answer) |

1. INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE ASSESSHENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

2. PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

3. EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

4. VOCATIONAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

5. HEHAVIORAL/OBSERVATIONAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

6. MULTICULTURAL ASSESSMENT 0% 1-15% 16-30% 31-45% 46-60%

10. Which of the following best describes the amount of experience you gained with secon-dary age oopulations during your oractica while training to become a school psycholo-gist? (circle number)

1. NEVER TOOK A PRACTICUM COURSB2. NO EXPERIENCE WITH SECONDARY AGE POPULATION53. 1% TO 20% OP PRACTICA4. 21% TO 40% OF PRACTICA5. 41% TO 60% OF PRACTICA6. 61% TO 80% OF PRACTICA7. 81% TO 100% OF PRACTICA

11. Which of the following best describes the amount of experience you qained with secon-dar! age oooulations during your school psychology internshio? (circle number)

1. NBVER HAD A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY INTERNSHIP2. NO EXPERIENCE WITH SECONDARY AGE POPULATIONS3. 1% TO 20% OF INTERNSHIP '4. 21% TO 40% OF INTERNSHIP5. 41% TO 60% OF INTERNSHIP6. 61% TO 80% OP INTERNSHIP7. 81% TO 100% OF INTERNSHIP .

12. Please indicate on the scale below the degree in which you feel oreoared to provideassessment services to secondar] ace students (ages 14 through 21 years). Responsesmay range from

"1”indicating not prepared at all to '5' indicating fully prepared.

(circle number)

1 2 3 4 5Not at all Fully

Prepared

208

3

13. Number of conferences and/or workshops attended in the last five years regarding adap-tive behavior measurement. (circle number)

1. NONEZ. ONE3. TWO4. THREE5. MORE THAN THREE

14. Approximate number of journal articles and/or book cbapters read in the last five yearsregarding adaotive benavior measurement. (circle number)

‘· 1. NONE

Z. ONE TO THREE3. FOUR TO SIX4. SEVEN TO NINES. MORE THAN NINE

15. Nuber of journal articles and/or book chapters authored or co—authored in the lastfive years regarding adaotive behavior measurment. (circle number)

1. NONE2. ONE TO THREE3. FOUR TO SIX4. SEVEN TO NINE5. MORE THAN NINE

·16. Number of formal post graduate and/or contlnuing education courses taken since receiving

your last degree in areas related to the measurement of adagtive behavior (i.e., multi-cultural assessment, behavioral assessment, vocational adjustment assessment, observa-tional assessment, etc.). (circle number)

1. NONE2. ONE3. TWO4. THREE5. MORE THAN THREE '

17. Number cf formal post graduate and/or continuing education courses tauqht since receiv-ing your last degree in areas related to adaptive behavior assessment (i.e., multi-C\llC\.!!&l ASSQSSZIIQRC, ÖQHBVÄQIAJ. ASSQSSBIQHC, vocational &djUSt3I¢l'\B BSSSSSIHQHC, Ob$¢¢‘V&•tional assessment, etc.) (circle number)

1. NONE2. ONE3. TWO4. TSREES. MORE THAN THREE

18. Number of conferences and/or workshops attended during the last five years regardingseccndary school osvchological services. (circle number)

l. NONE2. ONE3. TWO ‘4. THREE5. MORE THAN THREE

19. Approximate number of journal articles and/or book chapters read in the last five yearsregarding secondarv school bsvchological services. (circle number)

1. NONE2. ONE TO THREE3. POUR TO SIX4. SEVEN TO NINE5. MORE THAN NINE

20 9

4

20. Number of journal articles and/or book chapters authored or co-authored during the lastfive years regarding secondary school psychological services. (circle number)

1. NONE2. ONE3. TWO4. THREE5. MORE THAN TSREE

2l. Number of formal post graduate and/or continuing education courses taken since receivingyour last degree in areas related to secondary school osvcnological services (i.e.,adolescent psychology, secondary schoo curriculum, secondary special educationNQCHOÖS, vocational rehabilitation, career development, vocational education, etc.)(circle number)

l. NONE2. ONE3. TWO4. THREE5. MORE THAN THREE

22. Number of formal post qraduate and/or continuing education classes taken since receivingyour last degree in secondary school osvchological services. (circle number)

1. NONE2. ONE3. Two4. THREE5. MORE THAN TBREE

23. Number of formal graduate and/or continuing education classes taught during the lastfive years in secondary school psychological services. (circle number) ·

1. NONE2. ONE3. TWO4. THREE -5. MORE THAN THREE

24. Number of formal post graduate and/or continuing education courses taught since receiv-ing your last degree in areas related to secondary school osvchological services (i.e.,adolescent psychology, secondary school curriculum, secondary special educationmethods, vocational rehabilitation, career development, vocational education, etc.)

1. NONE2. ONE3. TWO4. THREE5. MORE THAN THREE

{The next section cf the questionnaire will focus on your worksite.l

25. In what state are you primarily employed or self·employed as a school psychologist?STATE

26. The geographie area in which you work is mostly (circle number):

1. LARGE METROPOLITAN: CONTAINS CITY OF $00,000 OR MORE, MANY SUBURBS, VERY LITTLEOPEN COUNTRY.

2. MDIUM METROPOLITAN: CONTAINS CITY OP 150,000 TO 499,999, SEVERAL SUBURBS, SOMEOPEN COUNTRY.

2 l 0

5

3. SMALL METROPOLITAN: CONTAINS CITY OP 50,000 TO 149,999, FEW SUBURBS, CONSIDERABLEOPEN COUNTRY.

4. SEMI-URBAN: CITY OF 10,000 TO 49,999, FEW SMALLER TOWNS AND CONTAINS MUCH OPENCOUNTRY.

5. SEMI-RURAL: CONTAINS CITY OF 2,500 TO 9,999, ONE OR TWO SMALLER TOWNS, MOSTLY OPENCOUNTRY.

6. RURAL: CONTAINS TOWN OF LESS THAN 2,500, SURROUNDED ENTIRELY BY OPEN COUNTRY.

27. What percentage of your time was spent providing services in secondary and/or voca-tional schools (serving grades 9 through 12) during the 1982-83 school year?

;......* .

28. What is the approximate total number of students served by your school district (K-L2)?(circle number)

1. LESS THAN 1,0002. 1,000 to 1,9993. 2,000 to 2,9994. 3,000 to 4,9995. 5,000 to 7,9996. 8,000 to 11,9997. 12,000 tc 19,9998. 20,000 to 29,9999. 30,000 to 39,999

10. 40,000 to 49,99911. OVER 50,000

29. Please estimate the percentage of the total student population in your districtenrolled in secondary education programs (grades 9 through 12).

__________%

30. How many full-time equlvalent school psycholcgists are employed by your schooldistrict?

PSYCHOLOGISTS1

31. For the secondary schools in your district, indicate the handicapping conditions inwhich local policy requires the measurement of adaptive behavior. (circle all thatapply)_

1. MILD MENTAL RETARDATION2. MODERATE MENTAL RETARDATION3. SEVERE/PROFOUND MENTAL RETARDATION4. LEARNING DISABILITIES5. EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE6. HEARING IMPAIRE07. SPEECH IMPAIRED8. VISUALLY IMPAIRED9. MULTIHANDICAPPED

10. OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY )11. NONE

32. What individual(s) in your school district ls(are) responsible for collecting adaptivebehavior information with secondary age students? (check all that apply)

1. NOT SPECIFIED2. CLASSROOM TEACHER3. EDUCATIONAL DIAGNOSTICIAN4. GUIDANCE COUNSELOR5. SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST6. SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER (OR EQUIVALENT)7. SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER8. VOCATIONAL EVALUATOR9 . VOCAT IONAL TEAC!-IER

10. OTHER (Please specify )

2ll

6

Question 33 focuses on secondary age students (14 to 2l years of age) referred to youfor psychological evaluation.

33. This question involves techniques you use to measure the adaptive behavior of secon-dary age students referred for a psychological evaluation. As you may be aware, anumber o formal techniques can be used in the measurement of adaptive behavior.Please indicate on the following scales the approximate frequency you use data fromeach of the various adaptive behavior techniques. Your responses may range from "l'indicating that the technique is never used to 'S" indicating use on every evaluation.(circle appropriate number)

Please check here if you did not complete any psychological evaluations with secondaryage students during the l982—83 school year. If sc, please skip to question #34.

A. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR INVENTORY FOR CHILDREN (ABIC) _

1 2 2 es 4 snever used always use

B. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE—PUBLIC SCHOOL VERSION (ABS-PSV)

l 2 3 4 Snever used always use

C. ADAPTIVE BBHAVIOR SCALE·SCHOOL EDITION (ABS—SE)

l 2 3 4 SHBVQI llßéd always USG

D. ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE—CLINICAL VERSION (ABS·CV)

l 2 3 4 5ZIQVQI L\8Bd ülßlßyß USS

E. CAIN-LEVINE SOCIAL COMFETENCY SCALE

l 2 - 3 4 5never used always use

F. CAMELOT BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST

l 2 3 4 Snever used always use

G. CHILDREN'S ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR SCALE (CAB)

l 2 3 4 5never used always use

H. CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS

l Z 3 4 5never used always use

I. INFORMATION FROM CLASSROOM TEACHERS

l 2 3 4 S ‘never used always use

J. INFORMATION FROM SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER

l 2 3 4 Snever used always use

K. INFORMATION FROM VOCATIONAL EVALUATOR °

l 2 3 4 5HBVQI used AIWAYS USG

212

7

L. LOCAL OR STATE DEVELOPED SCALES

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

M. NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

1 2 3 4 5 ·never used always use

N. SAN FRANCISC0 VOCATIONAL CDMPETENCY SCALE

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

O. SCCIAL AND PREVOCATIONAL INFORMATION SATTERY

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

P. SOCIOMETRIC TECHNIQUE5

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

Q. STRUCTURED OBSERVATION

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

R. VINELAND SCCIAL MATURITY SCALE (1965 EDITION)

1 2 3 4 Snever used always use

S. VCCATIONAL ADAPTATION RATING SCALE

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

T. OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY_ )

1 2 3 4 5never used always use

34. Please indicate which ot the following reasons secondary age students were referred toyou for a psychological evaluation during the 1982-83 school year. Por each reason forreferra1„ please indicate the technique (if any) you used most treguently to measurethe adaptive behavior of secondary age students. (check and complete all that apply)

Referred

BEHAVIORAL/EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS — INITIAL REFERRAL

TECHNIQUE NONE

HEHAVIORAL/EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS · RE-EVALUATION

TECHNIOUE NONE

POSSIBLE LEARNING DISABILITY • INITIAL REFERRAL

TECHNIQUE NONE

LEARNING DISABILITY - RE·EVALUATION

TECHNIQUE NONE

LIMITED MENTAL ABILITY - INITIAL REFERRAL

TECHNIQUE NONE

213

3

MILO MENTAL RETARDATION - RE-EVALUATION

TECHNIQUE NONE

MODERATE MENTAL RETARDATION

TECHNIQUE NONE

SEVERE/PROFOUND MENTAL RETARDATION ‘

· TECHNIQUE NONE

OTHER REFERRALS (please specify }

TECHNIQUE NONE

This next section involves your beliefs about the purpose and necessary components inIthe psychological evaluation of secondary age students (14 tb 2l years of age!.I

35. The following are generally agreed to be important reasons for conducting a psychologi-cal assessment. Please rank these reasons indicating what you feel is the relativeimportance of each for the general population of secondary age students initiallyreferred because of limited ability in school (i.e., possible mild mental retardationß.Responses should be ranked so that

'l”indicates the most important reason,

'2‘the

next most important, and so on. (please fill in numbers by rank)

DETERMINE APPROPRIATENESS OF A SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENT.

DETERMINE APPROPRIATENESS OF A VOCATIONAL PLACSHENT.

DETERMINE INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS FOR ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE.

DETERMINE INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

DETERMINE INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS FOR SOCIAL COMPETENCE.

36. The following are generally agreed to be important components in psychological assess-ments conducted by school psychologists. Please rank these components indicating whatyou feel is the relative importance of each for the general population of secondary agestudents initially referred because of limited abilityin school (i.e., possible mildmental retardation). Responses should be ranked so that

'l”indicates the most import-

tant component, '2' the next most important, and so on. (please fill in numbers by rank)

INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING.

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR.

PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT.

VOCATIONAL APTITUDES AND INTERESTS.

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

37. Please rank the reasons for conducting a psychological assessment indicating what youfeel is the relative importance of each for the general population of secondary agemild mentally retarded students referred for a three·year re-evaluation. Responses ·should be ranked so that 'l' indicates the most important purpose, '2' next most impor-tant, and so on. (fill in numbers by rank)

DETERMINE APPROPRIATENESS OF A SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENT.

DETERMINE APPROPRIATENESS OF A VOCATIONAL PLACEMENT.

DETERMINE INSTRUCTIONAL NEED5 FOR ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE.

DBTERMINE INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING.

DETBRMINE INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS FOR SOCIAL COMPETENCE.

214

9

38. Please rank the components in a psychological assessment conducted by a school psycho-logist indicating what you feel is the relative importance of each for the generalpopulation of secondary age mild mentally retarded students referred for a three-yearre—evaluation. Responses should be ranked so that *1* indicates the most importantcomponent, *2* next most important, and so on. (fill in numbers by rank)

INTBLLECTUAL PUNCTIONING.

ADAPTIVE

BEHAVIOR.PERSONALITYDEVELOPMBNT.

VOCATIONAL APTITUDES AND INTERESTS.

ACADEMIC ACHISVEMENT.

39. Please rank the areas in whicn school psycholoqists, hired for entry level positions inyour department during the past five years, should gain greater skills for providingassessment services to secondary age populations. Responses should be ranked so that*1* indicates the most important component, *2* next most important, and so on. (fillin numbers by rank)

INTSLLECTUAL FUNCTIONING.

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR.

PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT.

VOCATIONAL APTITUDES AND INTERESTS.

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

This last section involves the orientation of.school psycholoqists regarding the measure-ment of adaptive behavior.

40. Please indicate below the general feeling school psycholoqists in your work settinghave concerning the quality of adaptive behavior measurement instruments for all gradelevels. Responses may range from *1* indicating poor quality to *5* indicatingexcellent quality.

l 2 3 4 5poor quality excellent quality

41. Please indicate below the general feeling school psycholoqists in your ork settinghave concerning the quality of adaptive behavior measurement instruments for secondarya e students. Responses may range from *1* indicating poor quality to *5 indicatingexcellent quality.

l 2 3 4 5poor quality excellent quality

42. Please indicate below the general feeling school psycholoqists in your work settinghave concerning the emphasis on out of school behavior in the current definition ofadaptive behavior. Responses may range from *1* indicating not relevent on schoolrelated issues to *5* indicating extr~~ely relevant to school related issues. '

1 2 3 4 5not relevant extremely relevant

43. Please indicate below the general feeling school psycholoqists in your work settinghave concerning the use of adaptive behavior information as a measurement of person-ality development. Responses may range from *1* indicating not relevant es a measure-ment of personality development to *5* indicating extremely relevant as a measurementof personality development.

l 2 3 4 5not relevant extremely relevant

215

.10

44. Please indicate below the general feeling school psychologists in your work settinghave concerning the relevance of measuring adaptive behavior with students who arereferred for reasons other than limited mental ability. Responses may range from 'l'indicating not relevant to '5' indicating extremely relevant with students referred forreasons other than limited mental ability.

1 2 3 4 5_not relevant extremely relevant

45. To what degree do you agree with the feelings of school psychologists in your work-setting on questions 40 through 44. Response: may range from 'l' indicating totaldisagreement with other school psychologists to '5' ihdicating total agreement withother school psychologists.

l 2 3 4 5total disagreement -

_ total agreement

O

APPENDIX

B216

217

March 7, 1984

Dear Colleague:

We are writing to urge your particiption in a studybeing conducted by Fred Capps, a doctoral candidate in theVirginia Tech/James Madison University cooperative doctoralprogram.

‘

The study is designed to examine psychological evalua-tion practices of school psychologists with secondary agestudents. Particular interest is focused on the use ofadaptive behavior instruments with this population. Fred'sstudy has been endorsed by the NASP National Committee onVocational School Psychology, which will use the results toassist in the development of various types of pre- andinservice education activities for school psychologists.Your individual re-sponses will be kept in strict confidencesince only group data will be used in the analysis.

We hope that you will assist Fred Capps and NASP bytaking 20-25 minutes to complete and return the materialsyou will be receiving in a few days. His study willgenerate valuable data to assist the further development ofthe school psychology profession.

Sincerely,

Thomas H. HohenshilVirginia Tech

Harriet CobbJames Madison University

/es

218

March 10, 1984

Dear Colleague:

As a school psychologist presently working on mydissertation in the Virginia Tech/James Madison Universitycooperative doctoral program, I am asking for your help inthe collection of my data.

Enclosed with this letter is a questionnaire regardingpsychological evaluation practices of school psychologistswith secondary age students. Particular interest is focusedon the use of adaptive behavior instruments with this popu-lation. As you may already know, the American Associationon Mental Deficiency defines adaptive behavior as "theeffectiveness or degree in which the individual meets thestandards of personal independence and social responsibilityexpected of his age." The materials I am asking you tocomplete will require about 20-25 minutes of your time.

As you know, the study is endorsed by the NASP NationalCommittee on Vocational School Psychology. Several leadersin NASP have already expressed their interest and supportfor this study. The results will be used by the NASPNational Committee to assist in the development of varioustypes of pre- and inservice activities for school psycholo-gists. Your individual responses will, of course, be keptin strict confidence since only group data will be used inthe analysis.

Thank you, in advance, for your assistance. I willsend you a summary of the results of the study when it iscompleted.

Sincerely,

C. Frederick CappsSchool PsychologistDoctoral Candidate

CFC:esEnclosures

P.S. Enclosed is a package of Sanka coffee. Help yourselfto a coffee break while you are completing the materials.

219

- SAMPLE OF POSTCARD -

Dear Colleague:

Last week a questionnaire seeking information concerning schoolpsychological assessment practices was mailed to you. You name wasdrawn from a random sample of the NASP membership.

If you have already completed the questionnaire and returned itto me, please accept my sincere appreciation. If not, please do so

·today. It is very important that your questionnaire be included inthe study if the results are to accurately represent the assessmentpractices of our organization's membership.

If for some reason you did not receive a questionnaire, or itgot misplaced, please call me now, collect (804—979—4242) and I willget another one in the mail to you today.

Sincerely,

C. Frederick CappsSchool PsychologistDoctoral Candidate

220

or snucarros9-

·>·

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITYL‘I«n:i:burg, .'°§r;1·:ia ]¢06l

Dxvxsxou Q! .\DMlNISTlA‘l'IV! web EDUCAFIOMAL SEIVICII

* March 3l, l9a4

Dear Cblleague: ·

About four weeks ago 367 school psychologists throughoutthe United States were asked to participate in a study conductedby Fred Can s. The res onse of our fellow school psvcholovists

* . . .- · e .has been tremendous. At tne present time, approximately 70Z haveresponded by completing and returning the survey materials.

According to Fred's records, he has not received your completedmaterials. Since we want the highest possible participation, Iwould appreciate it very much if you will assist Fred with hisstudy. Your responses are vital to his findings. The resultsare intended to show school psychological assessment practiceswith secondary age students. These findings will be used bythe National Association of School Psychologists in its ongoingstudy of secondary/vocational school psychological services.All individual responses will be held in strictest confidence.

Enclosed are duplicate survey forms and a stamped self-addressed envelope. Non': you please take a rew minutes tocomplete and forward them on to Fred?

Sincerely yours

Thomas H. HohenshilProfessorSchool Psychology

APPENDIX C

22l

222

NASP Membership and Survey Sample:

Region of the Country

NASP membership1983 Subjects in study

Region Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

North East 1966 (26.33) 102 (27.8)

South East 1483 (19.86) 81 (21.9)

North Central 1898 (25.42) 86 (23.5)

West Central 899 (12.04) 43 (11.8)

West 1221 (16.35) 55 (15.0)

Total

x2 = 2.1117 (df = 4) not significant

NASP Membership and Survey Sample:

Sex

NASP membership1983 Subjects in study

Sex Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Male 2007 (42) 78 (41.7)

Female 2741 (58) 104 (58.3)

Total 4748 187

x2 = 0.0232 (df = 1) not significant

223

éäGS 1-4

, UY M no1 G 69 • •; -•-I UN Q4 1-4 M $¤I

••-{ sv sa

1 I51

I

4·‘¤

¤* no c, $4 GJ N <•

1 ·»-I $-11

•¤ kl

| E

U) J-s A„ C! <• no

··-4 ~¤• In¤-I dP • •·•-1 v IDI5 <1• Ih

•• FQ •

rn-IJ :¤‘

-1Jm 1 O GJ N c¤1·•-I „ U $J M <rEm zu InOO U)S-11-I 4

1

-¤ 4>·1UGJ>~1>mI-aß-1 Oä ^ ^¤ I: cx 1-IU11-I --1 I~ N

O r p-| { • •

OO „ ···* c cnJJ.: 1 rt!

<•In

GJUJ 4In , JJ •cu-1 rn

¤‘ -1JOO $1 GJ N o :Q1 ; --4 $-1 no cs ruUJ>< · Eu ür-1 OGJGJ _ --1Mm „ 11-1-•-4

C'.U3

cn --14.],) ¢~ es U}

¤'¤ I~ MGJGJ no M JJ

,'¤tn 60 • • O:::5 1~ N :Ow-1 M noQlqj ea sa ••

WHQ) • aa$-•'¤ ¤‘

MI: GI cn M Il:¢¤ $-1 N <• I1-1O Fr-• 'UZ \l

MM

. 6SI~

. 0) •>< -1G) Q) It! IIcn 1-I Erd GJ N

E in ><

224

Q ¤'§ lex us ax as ßs u-s1 G <' Q N B B QQ

-•-IN B B kb kb Q

{ p—{ § • • • • • •

Q ·-I<•

Ox N kb kb QQ ru N •-4 N -1 1-+ ol E Q Q Q Q Q '-{11 '¤ ·1 H U"Q ·•-1 GJ ko M an •-1 «-4 R9Q .G H •—| 1-·| •-I •-·| •-I kb

1 E Gl-«1

l1

G Ln B •-4 Q GN Q·—·I Ln kb kb N Q QQ I-{ { • • • • • •

--4 Q kb M In M Qfü M 1-•

N 1-4 •-•c

E Q Q Q Q Q J-]

|'¤ •

G U"Q G GJ N N r~ ·-1 c N

U L4 N •-I •-I 1-I •—4 B•• Q) ßg

E 0'JO-•>1EJ-1OJJHG

O Q cz GN kb <1• ¤· ¤~ o>«U -•-1 N kb :~ cx: <s• :>Q) Q '-{ $ • • • • • •

>GJ Q -•-• co m cx •-1 <:• <:>$·J.G Q GU N N •-I •-I ¤-I Q

kt-1 JJ •GG Q m

¤‘JJ 1 J-1 GJ M cx o co N N

G Q ·•-4 SJ <!' M M FI N anCDO 1 FT-• Cu •·-I JSmw-I Q .GU Q NOG) Q U3** 1 2:Q) ‘

m »~ es A »•~ »·~ es •••|M JJ co r~ r~ cx ca c c:src M N cs cn M c

¤‘•QQ) { • • • • • • -•¤{rcuz M ¤~ an N c c: cnGG N N N •-I •—I Q

¤«GJ ~· Omi-• • GA (D U'

L-4'O GJ Q r—| Q Q Q B ••

Q IG H 1--I N N J-1 Bca! Cu ^Q O NZ •—I

IIQ *4-I

"U,-Q QGU •—IJJ eu M

Q JJ JJ JJ H •-IQ G U! U1 G JJ kb. G ¢¤ GS CD c'. nnQ ·-• Erl Cd U GJ •

DJ O BQ (D .G „G .-G ¤-4. M JJ JJ JJ JJ JJ G! II

H 'J $-I U) I!} JJO O O GJ GJ O NZ U) Z 3 3 E ><

225

Rank Order of Overall Adaptive Behavior AssessmentStyles with Secondary Age Populations

Rank Style Frequency

1 Adaptive behavior instruments 187

2 Interviews/information from others 83and observations

3 Interviews/information from others 62

4 Interviews/information from others and 61adaptive behavior instruments

5 Interviews/information from others, 57observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

6 Interviews/information from others and 30clinical impressions/student interviews

7 Projective tests 28

8 Behavioral/personality scales 23

9 Observations 20

10 Interview/information from others and 15behavioral/personality scales

11 Behavioral/personality scales, interviews/ 14information from others, and observations

12 Clinical impressions/student interviews 10and observations

13 Clinical impressions/student interviews 9

14.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 8or state scales

14.5 Cognitive or intellectual scales 8

17.5 Interview/information from others, 6observations, and local or state scales

226

Rank Style Frequency

17.5 Local or state scales 6

17.5 Interviews/information from others, obser- 6vations, and clinical impressions/studentinterviews

17.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and 6developmental scales

21 Interviews/information from others and 5projections

21 Learning or cognitive style 5

21 Interview/information from others, adap- 5tive behavior instruments, observations,and clinical impressions/studentinterviews

24 Adaptive behavior instruments and 4achievement tests

24 Interviews/information from others, pro- 4jective tests, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

24 Vocational tests 4

26 Developmental scales 3

29.5 Adaptive behavior instruments, behavioral/ 2personality scales, and local or statescales

29.5 Interviews/information from others, 2clinical impressions/student interviewsand adaptive behavior instruments

29.5 Developmental scales, adaptive behavior 2instruments, observations, and interviews/information from others

227

Rank Style Frequency

29.5 Perceptual motor tests 2

29.5 Intellectual scales and perceptual motor 2tests

29.5 Local or state scales and observations 2

37 Local or state scales, clinical limpressions/student interviews, andinterviews/information from others

37 Adaptive behavior instruments, clinical limpressions/student interviews, andprojective tests

37 Local or state scales and clinical limpressions/student interviews

37 Local or state scales, clinical limpressions/student interviews, andadaptive behavior instruments

37 Behavioral/personality scales, clinical limpressions/student interviews, andinterviews/information from others

37 Money problem checklist l

37 Intellectual scales and learning style l

37 Intellectual and developmental scales l

37 Behavioral/personality scales, local or lstate scales, clinical impressions/student interviews and interviews/information from others

4l Total 690

228

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Behavioral/Emotional Problems-—Initial Referral

Rank Style Frequency

1 Interviews/information from others and 15observations

2 Interviews/information from others 13

3 Adaptive behavior instruments 10

4 Behavioral/personality scales 9

5 Interviews/information from others and 7adaptive behavior instruments

6 Projective tests 6

7 Behavioral/personality scales, interviews 4and observations

10.5 Clinical impressions/student interviews 3

10.5 Observations 3

10.5 Interviews/information from others and 3clinical impressions/student interviews

10.5 Interviews/information from others, 3observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

10.5 Interview/information from others and 3behavioral/personality scales

13 Clinical impressions/students interviews 2and observations

17.5 Local of state scales

17.5 Interviews/information from others, 1observations, and clinical impressions/student interviews

17.5 Local or state scales and observations

229

Rank Style ‘Frequency

17.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 1or state scales

17.5 Interviews/information from others, 1observations, and local or state scales

17.5 Behavioral/personality scales, local or 1state scales, clinical impression/studentinterviews, and interviews/informationfrom others

17.5 Behavioral/personality scales, clinical 1impressions/student interviews, andinterviews/information from others

17.5 Money problem checklist 1

21 Total 89

230

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Behavioral/Emotional Problems--Re—eva1uation

Rank Style Frequency

1 Interviews/information from others and 21observations

2 Interviews/information from others 16

4 Behavioral/personality scales 6

4 Projective tests A · 6

4 Interviews/information from others and 6adaptive behavior instruments

6 Adaptive behavior instruments 5

8 Observations 4

8 Interviews/information from others and 4behavioral/personality scales

8 Behavioral/personality scales, interviews/ 4information from others, and observations

11 Interviews/information from others and 3clinical impressions/student interviews

ll Interviews/information from others, 3observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

11 Interviews/information from others and 3projective tests

14 Clinical impressions/students interviews 2and observations

14 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 2or state scales

14 Adaptive behavior instruments, behavioral/ 2personality scales, and local or statescales

231

Rank Style Frequency

18 Clinical impressions/student interviews 1

18 Interviews/information from others, 1observations, and local or state scales

18 Local or state scales, clinical impressions/ 1student interviews, and interviews/information from others

18 Interviews/information from others, 1adaptive behavior instruments, observations,and clinical impressions/student interviews

18 Adaptive behavior instruments, clinical 1impressions/student interviews, andprojective tests

20 Total 92

232

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Learning Disabilities--Initial Referral

Rank Style Frequency

1 Interviews/information from others 18and observations

2 Interviews/information from others 11

3.5 Adaptive behavior instruments 8

3.5 Interviews/information from others and 8clinical impressions/student interviews

5 Interviews/information from others and 6adaptive behavior instruments

6.5 Projective tests 5

6.5 Observations 5

8 Behavioral/personality scales 4

10 Interviews/information from others, 3observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

10 Interview/information from others and 3behavioral/personality scales

10 Behavioral/personality scales, interviews/ 3information from others, and observations

12.5 Clinical impressions/student interviews 2

12.5 Clinical impressions/students interviews 2and observations

18 Local or state scales 1

18 Interviews/information from others, 1observations, and clinical impressions/student interviews

233

Rank Style Frequency

18 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 1or state scales

18 Local or state scales and clinical limpressions

18 Interviews, projective tests, and adaptive lbehavior instruments

18 Learning or cognitive style 1

18 Perceptual motor tests l

18 Intellectual scales and preceptual motor 1tests

18 Intellectual scales and learning styles 1

22 Total 86

234

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Learning Disabilities--Re—evaluation

Rank Style Frequency

1 Interviews/information from others 15and observations

2.5 Interviews/information from others 8

2.5 Adaptive behavior instruments 8

4.5 Observations 6

4.5 Interviews/information from others and 6adaptive behavior instruments

6 Interviews/information from others and 5clinical impressions/student interviews

7 Behavioral/personality scales 4

9 Projective tests 3

9 Interviews/information from others, 3observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

9 Interviews/personality scales, interviews/ 3information from others, and observations

ll.5 Interview/information from others and 2behavioral/personality scales

11.5 Learning or cognitive style 2

16 Clinical impressions/student interviews l

16 Clinical impressions/students interviews 1and observations

16 Interviews/information from others, 1observations, and clinical impressions/student interviews

235

Rank Style Frequency

16 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 1or state scales

16 Interviews/information from others, 1observations, and local or state scales

16 Interviews, projective tests, and adaptive 1behavior scales

16 Perceptual motor tests 1

19 Total 72

236

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Limited Mental Ability—-Initial Referral

Rank Style Frequency

1 Adaptive behavior instruments 36

2 Interviews/information from others, 10observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

3 Interviews/information from others and 9adaptive behavior instruments

4 Interviews/information from others 7

5 Interviews/information from others 5and observations

6.5 Projective tests 4

6.5 Interviews/information from others and 4clinical impressions/student interviews

9 Interview/information from others, adap- 2tive behavior instruments, observations,and clinical impressions/student

‘

interviews

9 Adaptive behavior instruments and 2developmental scales

9 Learning or cognitive style 2

16.5 Clinical impressions/student interviews 1

16.5 Local or state scales 1

16.5 Clinical impressions/student interviews 1and observations

16.5 Local or state scales and observations

16.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 1or state scales

237

Rank Style Frequency

16.5 Interview/information from others, 1observations, and local or state scales

16.5 Interviews, projective tests, and adaptivebehavior scales

16.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and 1achievement tests

16.5 Interview/information from others and 1n

behavioral/personality scales

16.5 Intellectual scales and perceptual motortests

16.5 Vocational tests l

16.5 Intellectual and developmental scales

22 Total 93

238

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Mild Mental Retardation Re—eva1uation

Rank Style Frequency

1 Adaptive behavior instruments 48

2 Interviews/information from others, 12observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

3 _ Interviews/information from others and 11adaptive behavior instruments

4 Interviews/information from others 6

5 Interviews/information from others 5and observations

7 Projective tests 3

7 Interviews/information from others and 3clinical impressions/student interviews

7 Cognitive or Intellectual Scales 3

10 Interview/information from others, 2observations, and local or state scales

10 Interview/information from others, adap- 2tive behavior instruments, observations,and clinical impressions/studentinterviews

10 Vocational tests 2

16.5 Clinical impressions/student interviews 1

16.5 Local or state scales 1

16.5 Clinical impressions/student interviews land observations

16.5 Interviews/information from others, obser— 1vations, and clinical impressions/studentinterviews

239

Rank Style Frequency

16.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and local 1or state scales

16.5 Interviews/information from others, pro- 1jective tets, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

16.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and 1developmental scales

16.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and 1achievement tests

16.5 Interviews/information from others, 1clinical impressions/student interviewsand adaptive behavior instruments

16.5 Interview/information from others and 1behavioral/personality scales

21 _ Total 107

240

IRank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:

Moderate Mental Retardation

Rank Style Frequency

1 Adaptive behavior instruments 41

2 Interviews/information from others, 15observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

3 Interviews/information from others and 9adaptive behavior instruments

4 Interviews/information from others 4and observations

5.5 Interviews/information from others 3

5.5 Interviews/information from others and 3clinical impressions/student interviews

7 Cognitive or Intellectual Scales 2

12.5 Local or state scales 1

12.5 Projective Tests

12.5 Interviews/information from others, obser— 1vations, and clinical impressions/studentinterviews

12.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and 1developmental scales

12.5 Adaptive behavior instruments and lachievement tests

12.5 Interviews/information from others, clinical 1impressions/student interviews, and adaptivebehavior instruments

12.5 Local or state scales, clinical impressions/ 1student interviews, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

241

Rank Style Frequency

12.5 Interviews/information from others and 1behavioral/personality scales

12.5 Vocational tests 1

12.5 Developmental scales 1

17 Total 87

242

Rank Order of Adaptive Behavior Assessment Styles:Severe/Profound Mental Retardation

Rank Style Frequency

1 Adaptive behavior instruments 31

2 Interviews/information from others, 8observations, and adaptive behaviorinstruments

3 Interviews/information from others and 7adaptive behavior instruments

4 Interviews/information from others 5and observations

5.5 Interviews/information from others 3

5.5 Cognitive or Intellectual Scales 3

8 Adaptive behavior instruments and 2developmental scales

8 Developmental scales, adaptive behavior 2instruments, observations, and interviews/information from others

8 Developmental scales 2

13 Local or state scales 1

13 Observations 1

13 Interviews/information from others and lclinical impressions/student interviews

13 Clinical impressions/student interviews 1and observations

13 Interviews/information from others, obser— 1vations, and clinical impressions/studentinterviews

243

Rank Style Frequency

13 Adaptive behavior instruments and local lor state scales ·

13 Adaptive behavior instruments and 1achievement tests

16 Total 70

244

JJUI CC fl)OWE·-IC-IJ4JOI-Ifü·•-fm

Cfüfl.IC"O'UOC $-4 $-I $-I

fl) *4-IDM fl) Q) fl)¤-I OUI U)..C fn fD..C U! fn.C fü.Q •—I'4-IO -IJ-IJ Q) -IJ-IJ GJ -IJ-IJ GJfü fü •-I CO 53 CO C CO 5·•-I Or-IO fI)I U' f1)I U' fl)!

U‘

u -·-•f¤„c: EI ~·-f EI···•

EI -·-•fü UICU DU! C DU) C :107 C> OOM $-I-IJ .C $·«I·|·J ..C L4-IJ ..C

¤—I·•-IU1 -IJC U -IJC U 4JC O'U O4-IOI Wfl) <D Inf!) CD UIG) GJfl) .-Cfü CEM-IJ CEM-IJ CEM-IJE UOC -•-IC-I ··-I¤•—·I ··-4¤¤—I

In $-4 MC--I S-ICI-I-I $-IC•·I-I HCH-IGI O !.fI"O $-IJJOO I-I-IJOO $-I-IJOOUI II-I O-•fD<D OU! OU'! OmM ID U ·•·IC'UIIl ·•-fC"OUI ·•-IC"Ofß•-I ¤ .¤.¤¤ >·•-f<DfD >·-4¤J<D >--•aIfDfü fü -IJ-4-If!) •—I fü NO; fü NQ.; fü NQI¢: I-•

-•-1--•--• für·'I .¤*¤··-•>« .¤'¤·•-•>·« .¤·'¤··-•>·••¢ EI 330 $-ffü fI}fD'U-IJ <I)f1)'U-IJ fD<1I"U-IJUI -I-II-• .¤N$-• .¤z~zu .¤z~zs-I

-4 cf: -IJ-IJCAJ ·•-Ieüfv ·•-Ifücv ·-Ifüfvfü OO'!} UIUJGIC <D'O'U0‘) fD'U'U£fI f1I'O"O¢IJU ·•-I·•-4C füfüU<D >$-ICQ) >$-ICQ) >$·4CdJ

·•·ffl) -IJ-4Jfü fDfl) U ··-ffüfü.-C -•-ffüfü.C ·•-ffüfü.-C

-IJ •-·I füfü .C„C„C J-)'ÖJJ«I-J -IJ"U-IJ-IJ -4J"O-IJ-IJU1 füfß UUUI 4J-IJ-IJ-IJ-IJ Q-ICUI CLCUI 04CU}·•-I Er-I ¤¤·IJ $-I¤$-4v)0'I füfüC•-I füfüC•—I füfüC«-I-IJ 0fü °'O"O$·I OOOGIGI@2 F¤J¤JI< ZUIZBZ •<¤VJZ<l <¤üZ<! <0'-1242U}

C·•-4

U1•-I.Qfü~•-I I I$-4 I I I§ 3 3 3M g' g'

•p{ U!

r: -•-I„C .-C CQ U U ..C

0 0 O0) -IJ -IJ IDQ) -IJ•-I r-I •—I.¤ fü fü Mfü C•-I C -IJ--·I·•-I Ofü O ··-ffüs-I E --4x-I --• -—«s-Ifü fü «IJ$-I -IJ ·•-II-I> $-4 OG) OC .-OG}

¤= 5**-f EO •¤¤-««—·I O G) fD·•-I U10fü I-I \$-4 \-IJ ·-II-IC Oe •-I •-Ifü "U-•-I Iü•—I fü¤ I-IUI CI) $-4fü I-n—I Uäfü-•-•

4-I O--I Ofü ¤··-fI-I fü C ·•·'I-IJ ·•·f> ·•-4-IJO 5 O >-•-I ><I> c--1

'¤ ·-I fu: füfv nc>< fü UI ..::--1 ..::I-4 ¤¤·•-•G.) S-a 0) GJ fD fl)U} O IZ Q Q A

245

II

I

I

I J-4 J-4 $-4 $-4 $-4.0) GJ GJ GJ GJ 41)

4-4 W..Q UI W.Q W W.Q W W.Q W W.Q W.¤ JJJJ GJ JJJJ Q) JJJJ 0) JJJJ GJ JJJJ GJ

2 S? S- S? S- S? S- S? S- S? S-:-4 E4 -4-4 EI --4 EI ~·-4 E: -·-4 E: ·-4

,46 DW Q QW Q QW Q 544} Q DW Q-> J-4JJ .Q $-4JJ .Q $JJJ .-Q $-4JJ ..Q $-4JJ ..QI JJQ O JJQ 0 JJQ O JJQ 0 JJQ 0

"CJ WQ) 0 WG) GJ WG) (D WG) GJ WQ) GJGJ QE>·:JJ QE>·:JJ QE>1JJ QE>4JJ QE>·:JJE °**D•—I ·•·*|5•··|

·•-454-I -v-IDv··I ·•-IT]:-IJ-4 $—•Q:4-4 I-ICQ-I I-4Q\4-4 $-4Q4·:-4 J—4Q¤-4

O $-4JJOO J-4-4JOO $-4JJOO J-4JJOO $-4JJOOIH OW OW Om OW OWW ·•-4Q'UW ·•·IQ'UW ·•·•Q"UW ·-4Q"CJW ··-·4Q'OWQ >·-IGJGJ >·•-IGJQJ >·-JQJGJ >·•-IGJGJ >·•-4<IJ¢1J46 46 NQ4 46 NQ4 46 NO- 46 NQ4 46 NQ-$-4 „Q*‘O·-·4>«: -Q"O·-I>~4 JC-"U·•·I>1 4-Q'U··4>·4 .-Q"U·•-I>1E4 ¢IJ4IJ'OJJ ¢D¢D"U·U GJIIJTIJJ GJ<IJ'OJJ 41IOJ'OJJ

I ..¤4~1:-4 .¤¤~z:-4 .¤z~z:-4 .¤z~4:-4 .¤¤:-44 --4460 --*460) --4466) --4460 **4641)· ¢IJ"O"OW 6.J"¤'UW <D"U"Om 0"0'UW <I}'U*‘OInI >J-4QQJ >$-•Q<IJ >$-JQQJ >$-4QGJ >J-4Q<D

·•-44646..Q ·•-44646.-Q ·•-44646.Q ··-44646.Q ·•-44646.QJJ'UJJJJ JJ"OJJJJ JJ'O-JJJJ JJ'UJJJJ JJ"OJJJJQJQW QJQW ¤4QW QJQW ¤4QW

I 4646Q•—I 4646Q4-I 4646Q•-I 4646Q-I 4646Q4-4'UJJO4-I 'UJJO4-I 'UJJO-4 'UJJO-I "UJJO-4

I •<CU)Z¢ ¤lU)Z¢ ¢UlZ•¢ ¢U)Z¢ ¢U)Z¢

I W

I — Q GJ. O 54

""‘Ü

I JJ --4 Q46 Q O

I I 'J „Q ·•·4I I 4-4 4-4 0 JJI W 46 46 GJ 46I GJ -4-4 > JJ *¤I ::1 JJ GJ :-4I UI ~4-4 GJ Q 46

~4-4 Q :-4 O JJQ --4 I ·•-4 GJ

..Q I I JJ $-4. 0 I Q 46

W GJ >~: O 'U 4-IGJ JJ JJ --4 :-4 46

4-4 -4-4 JJ 46 JJ.-O >«: 4-4 46 JJ Q46 JJ ·•-4 'U GJ GJ

-4-4 --4 .¤ :-4 :-4 E$-4 4-I 46 4646 -4-4 JJ 4-I "U> .¤Q r-I GJ 46 Q

460 46 $-4 JJ 54-4 m·4-4 JJ Q Om46 ·-4JJ Q 4-4 GJ :4-4GJ4: 1546 <v4-4 46 E 0:4

-4-4 Q E46 JJ J-40‘UI UM-! $-4 Q GJ O-4·•·4

-4-4 Q46 'O:-4 GJ JJ Q:-4 ··-4> GJGJ E 46 GJ.-QO QQJ JJJJ-4 $-4 $-40

$-4GJ --4GJ 'O GJ GJGJ46:-4 E:-4 4-J ·¤ :>J-J

_ GJ --4 -4-4 O GJI 4-:: -4 E 2 cn

246

HO

--4>M

w .SE GH >« mM .-OO 0-4 r—4H --0 JJ M

G JJ¤'• G> S HU! OO >M G HM ·-0H --0.:*. 5 w

Hmm-uw¤‘

u-0M JJ JJOJ-Q G GH wMSM H HM -0s-•w*¤w •0-•

JJ 'U "OM"OM> Om C: *155 --0 JJ JJ

···* O 0-4SJJ¤'•JJ wUä O OOUJSO0 O GYO w O0 ·-0M E ¢:

m -0 cn .::wOm•'¤ --0G O UwJJwM 'U "U

0-4 .S U1 w G G H.Q O S SwwU¤ w OM M ·•·| S--4JJwS D O

--0 m > --0 mM--4 0H m H m--0 ·¤ m MM G wJJU'•HH G> 0-4 M w JJSOOM .Sww

O E Hw SG:-4*4-ID'! OGGO 0-IM JJMG G'UO G M0-4-4

w .-S GH SGE ’US.SMH OMMG O >¤* SH--tw!-'SJJOJJ HJJJJ

0-4 w GO OMJJSJJwM·•-•wJJ · mmm..¤ -00-« 0 om m-0-•J¢: mM M m 0•0-0--0 ¤0-am--0c:w MJJJJ·-• S LH-•·4OJJ*4-00 BGE SSH w OG O-S MO •·•-0--4Ew *4-JGGM M --0JJ mJJ-0 uomwm OEE> JJM SMSSHS SHG ww

w MS OHG¤«GGOO••-dw wwwu-a w H 0*¤ --0¤'~0O.¤0·-0m5m wwwO -0wM><5M UYOHQJSHJ-!wU‘M mmm

OU'•GG"UH GGG GMGG Mwwmon- Zn-¤¤¤¤c¤ E-«<¤¤:-•-I

H

G wJJ JJM wU --0

UYO

0-4O JJ€

ES-0 >« EO w wO O0 w

.-S GM U 0-4 wH w ·O wO O MU1 •J-I ..SG O U HJJ w OM mm --0U 0JJ u-0 >

-0-Iw O MJJ--4 .Sww¤'¤

¤'• GG--40 S .QHs-0-0 --0 5GO JJ G"UJJ..S JJ >G00 w --00MM w JJOHw M QJHMQ- H MQ.J: O 'UU

247

MGJ•·—4IB u-6O OM

M JJGJLI $-6v-IO IBIB--! 0aOPMIB $-6

..C O$-60: ·•-•0.0 >.,4 M>¢D .CIB> ID.::--4 .¤Q)-IJ

M .004 •-IJJ0 IB OC•-•

0:*¤ O0:.¤ >¢¤ .¤EiIB M ·•-4 00-n-•-• •-IJJ JJ>« 010Ln IBC 0•$-I I6-4IB $-6<D IBIB *4-IC)> s-6:: *¤·‘¤ 0>

IDO IBC IG.)‘·*-IOJ O JJ'U0:E ¤-IO ¤HO •—IG) OM

U IBM JJ$-6 C--IOC *4-UJ-I Oe-I

OO IB--4 MC

MU MM 00CIB JJJJ MM0:3 ·-•-•-• I5:-6M6-! 6·—!¤·-I .C0)IBIB IBIB 0-10a<D> CC

OO

M GJM ID .CHM •—I JJ$-6•—IJJ eu OI5: I.: ::--6JJ0: In --•>C•‘¤ IB@5 $-6 "U.CEu o 0:0:

'U In --• >.¤¢:"¤ >

·-•IB•-UID IB IDG)

·-IO .C O>-6E¢5 0: Le--IM IB .0 IDJJI-6 -•-•.¤>«

¤«¤.O JJJJ$J ID IB¤¤ ·-1--1I5 > 0:*25Q: C3"¤ ·•·I OIBJJ ·•-I C JJ CIB mo ¤« IBIJ-6U OCO IB >O

JJOGJ 'U (D·-am IB «-II:

CJJ UO0I5"¤ IJ-I $J·•-•

--•:¤0: O JJ4.:-VU •6-•-•-•IBIBH M OCJJ>IB JJ --6::0:-IJ -•-I 0:¤6-a0)<!)G) •-4 UND

·•-6:-aß-6 I5 ¤"¤$-J C IBO O! ¤-1