Psychological Reports, 1992, 70, 775-785.
O Psychological Reports 1992
INVESTIGATING T H E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN T H E MILLON ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY INVENTORY AND T H E PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR CHILDREN WITH A SAMPLE O F LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS ' HOWARD M. KNOFFAND DORIS PAEZ University of South Florida Summary.-The present study involved a preliminary evaluation of the correlations between subscales on the Personality Inventory for Children and the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory with 25 learning disabled adolescents. Analysis yielded a number of significant correlations between these two scales, using the Personality Inventory for Children as the anchor scale, and showed that these adolescents as a group scored within clinically acceptable ranges on both diagnostic scales. Both scales need further psychometric and clinical investigation, and as such, the limitations of the study and the research needed-are addressed, including the need for more multitrait, multimethod studies.
The social-emotional functioning of learning disabled students has attracted considerable attention in recent years. However, most of this literature has focused on elementary school-aged learning disabled students and not on adolescents (Knoff,. 1983; Mercer, 1983). Personality assessment research with learning disabled adolescents has focused on self-concepts, peer perceptions, social cognitions, and social behaviors (Bryan, 1986; Mercer, 1983). Recent studies indicate that such adolescents consistently view themselves more negatively than their nondisabled classmates (Beare, 1975; Bruininks, 1978; Cook, 1979; Gregory, Shanahan, & Walberg, 1986). They also tend to overestimate their popularity within their peer group (Garett & Crump, 1980) and are sometimes rated as less popular by same-aged peers (Bryan & Bryan, 1986; Deshler, 1979; Knoff, 1983; Mercer, 1983), except when they are physically attractive or excel in an area other than academics (Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, & Garstecki, 1983; Sipperstein, Bopp, & Bak, 1978). Several studies indicate that learning disabled students miss or misinterpret many basic social interaction cues, gestures, and verbal messages, and have difficulty when required to understand another person's perspective or feelings (e.g., Bryan, 1978; Cook, 1979). Finally, such adolescents often have significantly fewer problem-solving skills, choose less socially acceptable behavioral responses, and participate less often in school activities than their typical peers (see Schumaker & Hazel, 1984a, 1984b, for a review). While these .studies can be contrasted with others that suggest that
'Address correspondence to H. M. Knoff, Department of Psychological and Social Foundations, College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-7750.
776
H. M.KNOFF
&
D.PAEZ
learning disabled adolescents' knowledge of social norms and expectations are similar to those of typical students (Bryan, 1986) and that their inappropriate behavior is more likely due to peer pressure than anything else (Bryan, Werner, & Pearl, 1982), the lack of research on the underlying personality characteristics and functioning of these adolescents is striking. Part of this problem exists because there are relatively few objective and empirically based personality assessment instruments available specifically for adolescent populations. Two scales, the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory (MilIon, Green, & Meagher, 1982) and the Personality Inventory for Children (Wirt, Seat, & Broen, 1977), may address this problem and facilitate more in-depth studies of the correlates of learning disabled adolescents' social-emotional and academic behavior. The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory is a self-report inventory for adolescents ages 13 through 18 years, designed specifically "for the purpose of identifying, predicting, and understanding a wide range of psychology attributes characteristic of adolescents" (Millon, et al., 1982, p. 2). Developed and validated using known clinical populations, the technical manual (Millon, et al., 1982) contains some promising validity and reliability data; however, no other psychometric studies involving the inventory were found in the current research literature. Relative to learning disabled adolescents, again, no studies were found in either the test's technical manual or the research literature. The Personality Inventory for Children is an objective personality instrument used to evaluate the behaviors, emotional issues, and abilities of children ages 3 through 16 years. The inventory, completed by an adult informant (typically the mother), was developed through an extensive, empirically based and clinical case study process. A number of studies have assessed the psychometric properties (see below). More recent studies have used the inventory to analyze and differentiate successfully among the characteristics of specific clinical groups (e.g., DeKrey & Ehly, 1985; Kline, Lachar, & Boersma, 1987; Kline, Lachar, & Gdowski, 1987; Lachar, Gdowski, & Snyder, 1984; Pipp, 1979; Wirt, Lachar, Klinedinst, & Seat, 1984). Three published studies with this inventory have specifically involved learning disabled students. One such study with adolescents (Clark, 1982) reported that the Hyperactivity Scale obtained the greatest number of significant correlations with the other subscales for the 141 special education students. A second study (Goh, Cody, & Dollinger, 1984) differentially compared the profiles of learning disabled and behaviorally disordered children. Here, the former students scored one standard deviation above the mean (i.e., in a clinically significant direction) on the subscales, Adjustment, Achievement, Intellectual Screening, and Development. These subscales showed the learning disabled group needed psychological evaluation and were
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
777
experiencing significant academic and other school-based problems related to their cognitive and behavioral functioning. A discriminant analysis indicated that the PIC Somatic Concerns, Intellectual Screening, Development, Delinquency, Anxiety, Withdrawal, and F scales discriminated the two groups of students, with the learning disabled students scoring above the behavior-disordered on the first three listed scales and the latter group scoring higher on the last four scales. In the last study, Clark, Kehle, Bullock, and Jenson (1987) correlated the scores on this inventory from learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and intellectually handicapped students with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Significant correlations between the WISC-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs and the Achievement, Intellectual Screening, Development, and Psychosis scales were found. The WISC-R and inventory scores used together identified 83% of the learning disabled students correctly. The present study investigated the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory (Millon, et a / . , 1982) and the Personality Inventory for Children (Wirt, et al., 1977) by using them to analyze the personality characteristics of a group of learning disabled adolescents to obtain a broader perspective on their functioning. At the same time, correlations between the various subscales of the two inventories were calculated, thereby providing an initial evaluation of the Millon's concurrent validity against the Personality Inventory for Children. It is hoped that the results will be encouraging of other research and result in better understanding of the relationships between learning disabled adolescents' personality functioning and their behavior and achievement in school and other settings.
Subjects Twenty-five adolescent boys, aged 13 to 16 years (M = 13.9 yr.), and their mothers were participants. These ages were specified before the study began to take advantage of the overlap in the age ranges between the two inventories. The students attended a private, self-contained day-treatment program for learning disabled students in Florida. All received a comprehensive psychoeducational battery of tests prior to their entrance into the program, and all had IQs in the low average to above average ranges (WISC-R Full Scale IQ M = 99.1, SD = 14.2), with primary learning disabilities in the areas of reading, mathematics, or written communication skills. The socioeconomic status of these students' families ranged from middle to upper class; participation was voluntary. Procedure Data collection was completed over a four-month period. Initially the Personality Inventory for Children was sent to each learning disabled stu-
778
H. M. KNOFF
& D. PAEZ
dent's mother with instructions to complete the inventory as soon as possible. One follow-up mailing and a follow-up phone call took place as needed to encourage participation. The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory was administered to the adolescents in groups of two to three students each at the private school.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Initially, two composite personality profiles for the adolescent sample on the two inventories were derived from the data. The Millon scale baserate means ranged from 34.68 (Introversion Scale) to 71.68 (Family Rapport Scale), while the standard deviations ranged from 17.96 to 26.89 (see Table 1). No scale scores were above a base rate of 75, the range of clinical significance set by the test authors (Millon, et al., 1982). TABLE 1 P E R S O N A L I ~INVENTORY FORCHILDREN: MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ?SCORES FOR25 LEARNING DISABLED BOYS
Personality Inventory For Children: Scales Undisciplined/Poor Self-control Social Incompetence Internalization/Sornatic Concerns Cognitive Development Lie Defensiveness Frequency Adjustment Academic Achievement Intellecmal Screening Developmental Somatic Concern Depression Family Relations Delinquency Withdrawal Anxiety Psychosis Hyperactivity Social Skills *Actuarially significant as by Lachar and Gdowski (1979a).
M
SD
68.24 68.80 57.72 60.08 41.76 58.96 50.36 66.96" 59.28 60.96 54.52 53.48 64.12 61.0St 65.24 59.36 59.04 59.80 57.80 64.96
17.32 16.97 15.88 13.81 8.59 17.46 16.59 20.89 13.20 18.30 12.07 16.33 12.68 15.01 19.21 13.33 15.81 15.85 23.42 15.37
The Person&ty Inventory for Children T-score means by subscales ranged from 41.76 (Lie Scale) to 68.80 (Social Incompetence Scale), while the standard deviations ranged from 8.59 to 23.42 (see Table 2). None of the means reached statistical significance (i.e., two standard deviations from the mean, r 7 0 T ) . . To estimate the relationship between the two instruments, the 20 Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory subscales were correlated with the 20
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
~
O
TABLE 2 ADOLESCENT N PERSONALITY INVENTORY: MEANSA N D STANDARD DEV~A~O OFN S BASERATESCORESFOR25 LEARNING DISABLEDBOYS Millon Scales
.
779
M
SD
Introversive Inhibited Cooperative Sociable Confident Forceful Respectful Sensitive Self-concept Personal Esteem Body Comfort Sexual Acceptance Peer Security Social Tolerance Family Rapport Academic Confidence Impulse Control Societal Conformity Scholastic Achievement Attendance Consistency
Personality Inventory for Children subscales using the Spearman rho: This procedure was used as a conservative approach to data analysis because the Millon's base rate scores, given their cli&cal development and emphasis, were. not constructed to conform to a normal distribution and it was uncertain whether they varied even along an interval scale. Fifty significant Spearman correlations (p 5 . 0 5 ) between the subscales of the two inventories were obtained-39 at p = .05 and 11 at p = .01. Given the preliminary exploration of this study, it was decided to use a less conservative alpha level so all possible significant correlations could be identified for later replication. These significant values involved 17 Millon and 10 Persondty Inventory for Children scales (see Table 3), but they represented only 12 5 % of the possible correlations in the 20 x 20 correlation matrix. In all, 39 of the significant correlations were positive and 11 were negative. The present study investigated use of the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory and the Personality Inventory for Children in analyzing the personality characteristics of a group of learning disabled adolescents to evaluate these inventories' comparability and to estimate the former inventory's concurrent validity against the latter. The composite personality profile on the Millon suggests that these adolescents do not exhibit the atypical personality styles, expressed concerns, or behavioral correlates that would make them comparable to the clinical samples tested in constructing and norming the
780
H. M. KNOFF
&
D. PAEZ
TABLE 3 SPEARMAN CORRELATIONS BETWEENSCALESCORESON P E R S O N ~ INVENTORY Y FORCHILDREN AND WON ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR25 L E ~ R N I NDISABLED G ADOLESCENTS Personalitv Inventorv for Children: Scales Undisciplined/Poor Self-control
Millon Scales
Introversion Cooperative Forceful Respec t h l Family Rapport Academic Confidence Impulse Control Societal Conformance Scholastic Achievement Lie Academic Confidence Adjustment Introversion Cooperative Forceful Sensitive Self-concept Personal Esteem Social Tolerance Family Rapport Impulse Control Societal Conformance Attendance Consistency Academic Confidence Academic Confidence Academic Achievement Family Relations Forceful Family Rapport Impulse Control Societal Conformance Scholastic Achievement Respecthl Delinquency Sensitive Self-concept Personal Esteem Family Rapport Academic Confidence Societal Conformance Scholastic Achievement Withdrawal Personal Esteem Sexual Acceptance Attendance Consistency Psychosis Cooperative Hyperactivity Sociable Forceful Body Comfort Sexual Acceptance (continued on next page) * p = .01. All other correlations significant at p = .05.
r
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY TABLE 3 (CONT'D) SPEARMAN CORRELATIONS BETWEENSCALESCORESON PERSONALITY INVENTORY FORCHILDREN AND MILLON ADOLESCENTPERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR25 LEARNINGDISABLED ADOLESCENTS -
Penonalirv Inventory for Children: Scales
Millon Scales Peer Security Family Rapport Academic Confidence Societal Conformance
Social Tolerance Social Skills Academic Confidence Social Tolerance * p = .01. All other correlations significant at p = .05.
r
-.47 .44 .46
.52 .50 .41 .40
test. Only the Family Rapport Scale approached clinical significance; this scale measures the adolescent's comfort within his f a d y system. Over-all, these results indicate that these adolescents generally are functioning quite typically and adaptively as measured by the Millon. The large standard deviations, however, clearly indicate that an analysis of individual profiles would yield clinically significant profiles for some of the adolescents and that the sample may be more heterogeneous than homogeneous in their personality functioning. The lack of any significant Millon subscales does not invalidate any of the research cited earlier indicating that learning disabled adolescents view themselves more negatively than their nondisabled classmates and that they sometimes are rated as less popular by same-aged peers. These results may indicate (a) that the present adolescents have adapted or are functioning quite well in the social-emotional and interpersonal areas, (b) that they have been relieved of some of these concerns due to their placement in a private, self-contained day-treatment program for learning disabled students, where they d o not have to interact with the educational or peer group mainstream, (c) that the M d o n was not sensitive enough with this sample to identify their more specific or discrete social-emotional and interpersonal issues and concerns, or (d) that these students misrepresented themselves on the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory, a possibhty that cannot be assessed because the Millon inventory lacks a measure of respondents' validity (i.e., Lie) scale. ALI of these hypotheses must be addressed in subsequent research, ideally using a multitrait, multimethod assessment approach so more definitive conclusions can be reached (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). As with the Millon, no scores on Personality Inventory for Children subscales reached statistical significance for this adolescent sample. However, two of the personality subscales, Adjustment and Family Relations, did reach actuarial significance based on the computer-generated decision rules used by the test authors to identify presence of adolescents' "clinical" problems. These decision rules were established through normative research with an in-
782
H. M. KNOFF & D.PAEZ
patient and outpatient sample of over 230 adolescents receiving services in a large Midwestern psychological clinic (Lachar, 1982; Lachar & Gdowski, 1979). The composite Personality Inventory for Children clinical picture of this study's sample suggests that these boys, as a group, generally have no major psychological problems of note. Some of these boys, however, may (a) have sufficient psychological and adjustment problems to warrant psychological evaluation (Adjustment Scale) and (b) have home environments that might be characterized as unstable and inconsistent, with some significant parent-child conflict. While not an explicit goal of the present study, the clinically significant Adjustment Scale supports the discriminant validity of the Personality Inventory for Children in that the entire sample had been previously identified, evaluated, and placed in a special education setting typically reserved for those with educational and other adjustment problems. The existence of specific stressors in the learning disabled adolescents' home and farmly environments similarly supports previous research (see Klein, Altman, Driezan, Friedman, & Powers, 1981a, 1981b) despite the fact that the causal relationship between the stressors and the adolescents' behavior and personality development must be evaluated on a case by case basis. The lack of any statistically significant Personality Inventory for Children scale scores, however, is somewhat discrepant from previous research (Clark, 1982; Clark, et al., 1987; Goh, et al., 1984) which suggested that numerous subscales (e.g., Hyperactivity, Intellectual Screening, Development) were critical to understand fully learning disabled adolescents' personality characteristics and styles. Reasons for the absence of any significant subscales with this sample are similar to those cited above for the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory: (a) the fact that these adolescents are functioning quite well in the social-emotional domain, (b) that their special education placement and program has relieved some of their social-emotional and interpersonal stresses and concerns, (c) that this group, being more homogeneous and from a middle to upper class background, have significantly fewer social-emotional problems than like students in previous research, or (d) that the learning disabled students' parents are anticipating appropriate social-emotional functioning as a result of paying for a private school with individualized programming. Once again, a multitrait, multimethod approach to assessment can further vahdate the Personality Inventory for Children profile and its implications, and additional research is clearly necessary to determine the generalizability of the present results. To evaluate the comparability of the two inventories, scores on each instrument's subscales were correlated using the Spearman rho. The 50 significant correlations give further insight into both the social-emotional functioning of these adolescents and the underlying structures and correlates of
,
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
783
the two inventories. Looking only at those scales correlated at the .01 confidence level, the results appear very logical. Specifically, given both the scales and their respective individual items, one would expect a relationship between (a) undisciplined, poor self-control itemslratings and itemslratings indicating an adolescent's low respect toward others, and problems in family rapport, impulse control, and social conformity; (b) itemslratings of psychological adjustment and self-concept; (c) itemslratings of academic achevement and academic confidence; (d) itemslratings of family relations and family rapport and social conformity; (e) delinquency items/ratings and those indicating problems with scholastic achievement and academic confidence; and (f) itemslratings of hyperactivity and those reflecting behavioral "forcefulness." Only the correlation between the Personality Inventory for Children's Lie Scale and the Millon Academic Confidence Scde cannot be explained; perhaps this might be a statistical artifact. Based on these correlations and using the Persondty Inventory for Children as the anchor scale, there does appear to be some concurrent validity between the two inventories on some select personality dimensions but not so much that the two scales could ever be considered equivalent or interchangeable. The Personality Inventory for Children is an appropriate anchor scale because it is the more psychometrically and clinically validated scale and because its assessment approach is more diagnostic than descriptive (like that of the M d o n Adolescent Personality Inventory). Over-all, the breadth and construction of both inventories' assessments of personality preclude a great deal of overlap, and the wide range of items used to measure each personality dimension makes predictions for concurrent validity extremely difficult. This will be the case with all multidimensional personality assessment scales, and this suggests the clear need to evaluate more than concurrent validity with these tools. Beyond the small sample size and its geographic restrictiveness, there are other limitations within the present study and considerable research is required before a comprehensive understanding of learning disabled adolescents' personality characteristics w d exist. One limitation not yet addressed is the fact that the Millon is completed by the adolescent and the Personality Inventory for Children is completed by an adult informant. Within a multitrait, multimethod context (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), this difference may explain some of the above results. For example, despite the validity scales, the Personality Inventory for Children may be assessing the informant's perception of the learning disabled adolescent, while the Millon is assessing the adolescent's self-perception. In addition, both scales may assess the adolescent's typical performance, maximum performance, or a combination of the two. Combined with the content differences of the two scales, it is clear how complex is the process of personality assessment and interpretation.
784
H. M. KNOFF
&
D. PAEZ
These limitations and research directions aside, the present study provides a beginning point for further work. The need for more multitrait, multimethod studies is apparent, as is the need for more differential assessment across learning disabled groups, settings, ages, and backgrounds. U1timately, a research base is needed that reflects these adolescents' social-emotional functioning and allows judgment of how their functioning is expressed cognitively, academically, and adaptively at school, at home, and in the workplace. REFERENCES BEARE,D. (1975) Self-concept and the adolescent learning disabled student. k c h e r and Parent Guidance Association Journal, 4, 29-32. BRLJINNKS, V. L. (1978) Peer status and personality characteristics of learning and non-learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7 , 98-112. BRYAN,T. (1978) Social relationships and verbal interactions of learning disabled children in the dassroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 107-115. BRYAN,T. (1986) Research on social factors in learning disabilities. Paper presented to the Learning Disabilities Symposium, State Department of Education, Columbia, SC. T., & BRYAN, J. (1986) Understanding learning disabilities. Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred. BRYAN, T., WERNER,M. A., & PEARL,R. (1982) Learning disabled students' conformity reBRYAN, sponses to prosocial and antisocial situations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 344-352. CAMPBELL,D. T., & FISKE, D. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multiuait-multimethod matrix. PsychologicalBulletin, 56, 81-105. CLARK,E. (1982) Construct validity and dia nostic potential of the Personality Inventory for Children with emotionally handicappet learning disabled, and educable mentally handica ped children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State Univer.) Dissertation ~&stractsInternational, 43(5A), 1473-1474. CLARK,E., KEHLE,T. J., BULLOCK, D., & JENSON,W. R. (1987) Convergent and discriminant validity of the Personality Inventory for Children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 99-106. COOK,L. D. (1979) The adolescent with a learning disability: a developmental perspective. Adolescence, 14, 697-707. DEKREY,S. J., & EHLY, S. W. (1981) Factor/cluster classification of profiles from Personality Inventory for Children in a school setting. Psychological Reports, 48, 843-846. D E S H ~D., (1979) Teaching the learning disabled adolescent. Denver, CO: Love. GAKE'IT,M. K., & CRUMP, W. D. (1980) Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-appraisal of social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disabili~Quarterly, 3. 42-48. GOH, D. S., CODY,J. J., & DOLLINGER, S. J. (1984) PIC profiles for learning-disabled and behavior-disordered children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 837-841. GREGORY, J. F., SHANAHAN, T., & WALBERG, H. J. (1986) A profile of learning disabled twelfth graders in regular classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 33-42. KLEM, R. S., ALTMAN,S. D., DRIEZAN,K., FRIEDMAN,R., & POWERS,L. (1981a) Restructuring dysfunctional parental attitudes toward children's learnin! and khavior in school: family-oriented psychoeducational therapy: Part 1. Journal o Learnzng Dzsabzlthes, 14, 15-19. KLEM, R. S., ALTMAN,S. D., DRIEZAN,K., FRIEDMAN,R., & POWERS,L. (1981b) Restructuring dysfunctional parental attitudes toward children's learnin and behavior in school: family-oriented psychoeducational therapy: Part 2 . Journal o j Lenrning Dixabilities, 14, 99-101. KLINE,R. B., LACHAR,D., & BOERSMA,D. C. (1987) A Personality Inventory for Children (PIC) typology of children and adolescents: 111. Relationship to cognitive functioning and classroom placement. Journal of Psychoeducationol Assessment, 4, 327-339. KLINE, R. B., LACHAR,D., & GDOWSKI,C. L. (1987) A Personality Inventory for Children
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
785
(PIC) typology of children and adolescents: 11. Classification rules and specific behavior correlates. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 225-234. KNOFF,H. M. (1983) Learning disabilities in the junior high school: creating the six-hour emotionally disturbed adolescent? Adobcence, 18, 541-550. LACHAR,D. (1982) Personality Inventory for Children: Revised format, manual supplement. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. LACHAR, D., & GDOWSKI,C. L. (1979) Actuarial assessment of child and adolescent personality: an interpretative guide for h e Personality Inventory for Children profile. Los Angeles, CA: Western PsychoIogical Services. LACHAR,D , GDOWSKI,C. L., & SNYDER,D. K. (1982) Broadband dimensions of psychopathology factor scales for the Personality Inventory for Children. Journal of Consulting and Clm~calPsychology, 50, 634-642. MERCER,C. D. (1983) Students with learning disabilities. Columbus, OH: Merrill. . MIUON, T., GREEN, K., & MEAGHER,D. (1982) The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory: manual. Minneapolis, MN: Interpretative Scoring Systems. D., & GARSTECKI, D. (1983) Sociometric status and PERLMUTTER,B., CROCKER,., CORDRAY, related personality aracteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabili~Quarterly, 6, 20-30. PIPP, F. D. (1979) Actuarial anal sis of adolescent personality: self-report correlates for the . masters' thesis, Wayne State Univer. Personality Inventory for ~ K h e n Unpublished SCHUMAKER, B., & HAZEL,S. (1984a) Social skills assessment and training for the learning disabLd: who's on first and whati on second? Part I Journal o j homing Disabilities, 17, 422-431. SCHUMAKER,. B., & HAZEL,S. (1984b) Social skills assessment and training for the learning disab ed: who's on first and what's on second? Part 11. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 492-499. SIPPERSTEIN,G . N., BOPP, M. A., & BAK,J. L. (1978) Social status of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, l l , 98-102. WIRT, R. D., LACHAR,D., KLINEDINST, J. K., & SWT, I? D. (1984) Multidimensional description of child personality: a manual for h e Personality Inventory for Children. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. WIRT, R. D.,SWT, I? D.,& BROEN,W. E., JR. (1977) Personality Inventory for Children. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
,1!
/
Accepted March 1 7, 1972.
O Psychological Reports 1992
INVESTIGATING T H E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN T H E MILLON ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY INVENTORY AND T H E PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR CHILDREN WITH A SAMPLE O F LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS ' HOWARD M. KNOFFAND DORIS PAEZ University of South Florida Summary.-The present study involved a preliminary evaluation of the correlations between subscales on the Personality Inventory for Children and the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory with 25 learning disabled adolescents. Analysis yielded a number of significant correlations between these two scales, using the Personality Inventory for Children as the anchor scale, and showed that these adolescents as a group scored within clinically acceptable ranges on both diagnostic scales. Both scales need further psychometric and clinical investigation, and as such, the limitations of the study and the research needed-are addressed, including the need for more multitrait, multimethod studies.
The social-emotional functioning of learning disabled students has attracted considerable attention in recent years. However, most of this literature has focused on elementary school-aged learning disabled students and not on adolescents (Knoff,. 1983; Mercer, 1983). Personality assessment research with learning disabled adolescents has focused on self-concepts, peer perceptions, social cognitions, and social behaviors (Bryan, 1986; Mercer, 1983). Recent studies indicate that such adolescents consistently view themselves more negatively than their nondisabled classmates (Beare, 1975; Bruininks, 1978; Cook, 1979; Gregory, Shanahan, & Walberg, 1986). They also tend to overestimate their popularity within their peer group (Garett & Crump, 1980) and are sometimes rated as less popular by same-aged peers (Bryan & Bryan, 1986; Deshler, 1979; Knoff, 1983; Mercer, 1983), except when they are physically attractive or excel in an area other than academics (Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, & Garstecki, 1983; Sipperstein, Bopp, & Bak, 1978). Several studies indicate that learning disabled students miss or misinterpret many basic social interaction cues, gestures, and verbal messages, and have difficulty when required to understand another person's perspective or feelings (e.g., Bryan, 1978; Cook, 1979). Finally, such adolescents often have significantly fewer problem-solving skills, choose less socially acceptable behavioral responses, and participate less often in school activities than their typical peers (see Schumaker & Hazel, 1984a, 1984b, for a review). While these .studies can be contrasted with others that suggest that
'Address correspondence to H. M. Knoff, Department of Psychological and Social Foundations, College of Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-7750.
776
H. M.KNOFF
&
D.PAEZ
learning disabled adolescents' knowledge of social norms and expectations are similar to those of typical students (Bryan, 1986) and that their inappropriate behavior is more likely due to peer pressure than anything else (Bryan, Werner, & Pearl, 1982), the lack of research on the underlying personality characteristics and functioning of these adolescents is striking. Part of this problem exists because there are relatively few objective and empirically based personality assessment instruments available specifically for adolescent populations. Two scales, the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory (MilIon, Green, & Meagher, 1982) and the Personality Inventory for Children (Wirt, Seat, & Broen, 1977), may address this problem and facilitate more in-depth studies of the correlates of learning disabled adolescents' social-emotional and academic behavior. The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory is a self-report inventory for adolescents ages 13 through 18 years, designed specifically "for the purpose of identifying, predicting, and understanding a wide range of psychology attributes characteristic of adolescents" (Millon, et al., 1982, p. 2). Developed and validated using known clinical populations, the technical manual (Millon, et al., 1982) contains some promising validity and reliability data; however, no other psychometric studies involving the inventory were found in the current research literature. Relative to learning disabled adolescents, again, no studies were found in either the test's technical manual or the research literature. The Personality Inventory for Children is an objective personality instrument used to evaluate the behaviors, emotional issues, and abilities of children ages 3 through 16 years. The inventory, completed by an adult informant (typically the mother), was developed through an extensive, empirically based and clinical case study process. A number of studies have assessed the psychometric properties (see below). More recent studies have used the inventory to analyze and differentiate successfully among the characteristics of specific clinical groups (e.g., DeKrey & Ehly, 1985; Kline, Lachar, & Boersma, 1987; Kline, Lachar, & Gdowski, 1987; Lachar, Gdowski, & Snyder, 1984; Pipp, 1979; Wirt, Lachar, Klinedinst, & Seat, 1984). Three published studies with this inventory have specifically involved learning disabled students. One such study with adolescents (Clark, 1982) reported that the Hyperactivity Scale obtained the greatest number of significant correlations with the other subscales for the 141 special education students. A second study (Goh, Cody, & Dollinger, 1984) differentially compared the profiles of learning disabled and behaviorally disordered children. Here, the former students scored one standard deviation above the mean (i.e., in a clinically significant direction) on the subscales, Adjustment, Achievement, Intellectual Screening, and Development. These subscales showed the learning disabled group needed psychological evaluation and were
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
777
experiencing significant academic and other school-based problems related to their cognitive and behavioral functioning. A discriminant analysis indicated that the PIC Somatic Concerns, Intellectual Screening, Development, Delinquency, Anxiety, Withdrawal, and F scales discriminated the two groups of students, with the learning disabled students scoring above the behavior-disordered on the first three listed scales and the latter group scoring higher on the last four scales. In the last study, Clark, Kehle, Bullock, and Jenson (1987) correlated the scores on this inventory from learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and intellectually handicapped students with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R). Significant correlations between the WISC-R Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQs and the Achievement, Intellectual Screening, Development, and Psychosis scales were found. The WISC-R and inventory scores used together identified 83% of the learning disabled students correctly. The present study investigated the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory (Millon, et a / . , 1982) and the Personality Inventory for Children (Wirt, et al., 1977) by using them to analyze the personality characteristics of a group of learning disabled adolescents to obtain a broader perspective on their functioning. At the same time, correlations between the various subscales of the two inventories were calculated, thereby providing an initial evaluation of the Millon's concurrent validity against the Personality Inventory for Children. It is hoped that the results will be encouraging of other research and result in better understanding of the relationships between learning disabled adolescents' personality functioning and their behavior and achievement in school and other settings.
Subjects Twenty-five adolescent boys, aged 13 to 16 years (M = 13.9 yr.), and their mothers were participants. These ages were specified before the study began to take advantage of the overlap in the age ranges between the two inventories. The students attended a private, self-contained day-treatment program for learning disabled students in Florida. All received a comprehensive psychoeducational battery of tests prior to their entrance into the program, and all had IQs in the low average to above average ranges (WISC-R Full Scale IQ M = 99.1, SD = 14.2), with primary learning disabilities in the areas of reading, mathematics, or written communication skills. The socioeconomic status of these students' families ranged from middle to upper class; participation was voluntary. Procedure Data collection was completed over a four-month period. Initially the Personality Inventory for Children was sent to each learning disabled stu-
778
H. M. KNOFF
& D. PAEZ
dent's mother with instructions to complete the inventory as soon as possible. One follow-up mailing and a follow-up phone call took place as needed to encourage participation. The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory was administered to the adolescents in groups of two to three students each at the private school.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Initially, two composite personality profiles for the adolescent sample on the two inventories were derived from the data. The Millon scale baserate means ranged from 34.68 (Introversion Scale) to 71.68 (Family Rapport Scale), while the standard deviations ranged from 17.96 to 26.89 (see Table 1). No scale scores were above a base rate of 75, the range of clinical significance set by the test authors (Millon, et al., 1982). TABLE 1 P E R S O N A L I ~INVENTORY FORCHILDREN: MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ?SCORES FOR25 LEARNING DISABLED BOYS
Personality Inventory For Children: Scales Undisciplined/Poor Self-control Social Incompetence Internalization/Sornatic Concerns Cognitive Development Lie Defensiveness Frequency Adjustment Academic Achievement Intellecmal Screening Developmental Somatic Concern Depression Family Relations Delinquency Withdrawal Anxiety Psychosis Hyperactivity Social Skills *Actuarially significant as by Lachar and Gdowski (1979a).
M
SD
68.24 68.80 57.72 60.08 41.76 58.96 50.36 66.96" 59.28 60.96 54.52 53.48 64.12 61.0St 65.24 59.36 59.04 59.80 57.80 64.96
17.32 16.97 15.88 13.81 8.59 17.46 16.59 20.89 13.20 18.30 12.07 16.33 12.68 15.01 19.21 13.33 15.81 15.85 23.42 15.37
The Person&ty Inventory for Children T-score means by subscales ranged from 41.76 (Lie Scale) to 68.80 (Social Incompetence Scale), while the standard deviations ranged from 8.59 to 23.42 (see Table 2). None of the means reached statistical significance (i.e., two standard deviations from the mean, r 7 0 T ) . . To estimate the relationship between the two instruments, the 20 Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory subscales were correlated with the 20
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
~
O
TABLE 2 ADOLESCENT N PERSONALITY INVENTORY: MEANSA N D STANDARD DEV~A~O OFN S BASERATESCORESFOR25 LEARNING DISABLEDBOYS Millon Scales
.
779
M
SD
Introversive Inhibited Cooperative Sociable Confident Forceful Respectful Sensitive Self-concept Personal Esteem Body Comfort Sexual Acceptance Peer Security Social Tolerance Family Rapport Academic Confidence Impulse Control Societal Conformity Scholastic Achievement Attendance Consistency
Personality Inventory for Children subscales using the Spearman rho: This procedure was used as a conservative approach to data analysis because the Millon's base rate scores, given their cli&cal development and emphasis, were. not constructed to conform to a normal distribution and it was uncertain whether they varied even along an interval scale. Fifty significant Spearman correlations (p 5 . 0 5 ) between the subscales of the two inventories were obtained-39 at p = .05 and 11 at p = .01. Given the preliminary exploration of this study, it was decided to use a less conservative alpha level so all possible significant correlations could be identified for later replication. These significant values involved 17 Millon and 10 Persondty Inventory for Children scales (see Table 3), but they represented only 12 5 % of the possible correlations in the 20 x 20 correlation matrix. In all, 39 of the significant correlations were positive and 11 were negative. The present study investigated use of the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory and the Personality Inventory for Children in analyzing the personality characteristics of a group of learning disabled adolescents to evaluate these inventories' comparability and to estimate the former inventory's concurrent validity against the latter. The composite personality profile on the Millon suggests that these adolescents do not exhibit the atypical personality styles, expressed concerns, or behavioral correlates that would make them comparable to the clinical samples tested in constructing and norming the
780
H. M. KNOFF
&
D. PAEZ
TABLE 3 SPEARMAN CORRELATIONS BETWEENSCALESCORESON P E R S O N ~ INVENTORY Y FORCHILDREN AND WON ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR25 L E ~ R N I NDISABLED G ADOLESCENTS Personalitv Inventorv for Children: Scales Undisciplined/Poor Self-control
Millon Scales
Introversion Cooperative Forceful Respec t h l Family Rapport Academic Confidence Impulse Control Societal Conformance Scholastic Achievement Lie Academic Confidence Adjustment Introversion Cooperative Forceful Sensitive Self-concept Personal Esteem Social Tolerance Family Rapport Impulse Control Societal Conformance Attendance Consistency Academic Confidence Academic Confidence Academic Achievement Family Relations Forceful Family Rapport Impulse Control Societal Conformance Scholastic Achievement Respecthl Delinquency Sensitive Self-concept Personal Esteem Family Rapport Academic Confidence Societal Conformance Scholastic Achievement Withdrawal Personal Esteem Sexual Acceptance Attendance Consistency Psychosis Cooperative Hyperactivity Sociable Forceful Body Comfort Sexual Acceptance (continued on next page) * p = .01. All other correlations significant at p = .05.
r
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY TABLE 3 (CONT'D) SPEARMAN CORRELATIONS BETWEENSCALESCORESON PERSONALITY INVENTORY FORCHILDREN AND MILLON ADOLESCENTPERSONALITY INVENTORY FOR25 LEARNINGDISABLED ADOLESCENTS -
Penonalirv Inventory for Children: Scales
Millon Scales Peer Security Family Rapport Academic Confidence Societal Conformance
Social Tolerance Social Skills Academic Confidence Social Tolerance * p = .01. All other correlations significant at p = .05.
r
-.47 .44 .46
.52 .50 .41 .40
test. Only the Family Rapport Scale approached clinical significance; this scale measures the adolescent's comfort within his f a d y system. Over-all, these results indicate that these adolescents generally are functioning quite typically and adaptively as measured by the Millon. The large standard deviations, however, clearly indicate that an analysis of individual profiles would yield clinically significant profiles for some of the adolescents and that the sample may be more heterogeneous than homogeneous in their personality functioning. The lack of any significant Millon subscales does not invalidate any of the research cited earlier indicating that learning disabled adolescents view themselves more negatively than their nondisabled classmates and that they sometimes are rated as less popular by same-aged peers. These results may indicate (a) that the present adolescents have adapted or are functioning quite well in the social-emotional and interpersonal areas, (b) that they have been relieved of some of these concerns due to their placement in a private, self-contained day-treatment program for learning disabled students, where they d o not have to interact with the educational or peer group mainstream, (c) that the M d o n was not sensitive enough with this sample to identify their more specific or discrete social-emotional and interpersonal issues and concerns, or (d) that these students misrepresented themselves on the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory, a possibhty that cannot be assessed because the Millon inventory lacks a measure of respondents' validity (i.e., Lie) scale. ALI of these hypotheses must be addressed in subsequent research, ideally using a multitrait, multimethod assessment approach so more definitive conclusions can be reached (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). As with the Millon, no scores on Personality Inventory for Children subscales reached statistical significance for this adolescent sample. However, two of the personality subscales, Adjustment and Family Relations, did reach actuarial significance based on the computer-generated decision rules used by the test authors to identify presence of adolescents' "clinical" problems. These decision rules were established through normative research with an in-
782
H. M. KNOFF & D.PAEZ
patient and outpatient sample of over 230 adolescents receiving services in a large Midwestern psychological clinic (Lachar, 1982; Lachar & Gdowski, 1979). The composite Personality Inventory for Children clinical picture of this study's sample suggests that these boys, as a group, generally have no major psychological problems of note. Some of these boys, however, may (a) have sufficient psychological and adjustment problems to warrant psychological evaluation (Adjustment Scale) and (b) have home environments that might be characterized as unstable and inconsistent, with some significant parent-child conflict. While not an explicit goal of the present study, the clinically significant Adjustment Scale supports the discriminant validity of the Personality Inventory for Children in that the entire sample had been previously identified, evaluated, and placed in a special education setting typically reserved for those with educational and other adjustment problems. The existence of specific stressors in the learning disabled adolescents' home and farmly environments similarly supports previous research (see Klein, Altman, Driezan, Friedman, & Powers, 1981a, 1981b) despite the fact that the causal relationship between the stressors and the adolescents' behavior and personality development must be evaluated on a case by case basis. The lack of any statistically significant Personality Inventory for Children scale scores, however, is somewhat discrepant from previous research (Clark, 1982; Clark, et al., 1987; Goh, et al., 1984) which suggested that numerous subscales (e.g., Hyperactivity, Intellectual Screening, Development) were critical to understand fully learning disabled adolescents' personality characteristics and styles. Reasons for the absence of any significant subscales with this sample are similar to those cited above for the Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory: (a) the fact that these adolescents are functioning quite well in the social-emotional domain, (b) that their special education placement and program has relieved some of their social-emotional and interpersonal stresses and concerns, (c) that this group, being more homogeneous and from a middle to upper class background, have significantly fewer social-emotional problems than like students in previous research, or (d) that the learning disabled students' parents are anticipating appropriate social-emotional functioning as a result of paying for a private school with individualized programming. Once again, a multitrait, multimethod approach to assessment can further vahdate the Personality Inventory for Children profile and its implications, and additional research is clearly necessary to determine the generalizability of the present results. To evaluate the comparability of the two inventories, scores on each instrument's subscales were correlated using the Spearman rho. The 50 significant correlations give further insight into both the social-emotional functioning of these adolescents and the underlying structures and correlates of
,
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
783
the two inventories. Looking only at those scales correlated at the .01 confidence level, the results appear very logical. Specifically, given both the scales and their respective individual items, one would expect a relationship between (a) undisciplined, poor self-control itemslratings and itemslratings indicating an adolescent's low respect toward others, and problems in family rapport, impulse control, and social conformity; (b) itemslratings of psychological adjustment and self-concept; (c) itemslratings of academic achevement and academic confidence; (d) itemslratings of family relations and family rapport and social conformity; (e) delinquency items/ratings and those indicating problems with scholastic achievement and academic confidence; and (f) itemslratings of hyperactivity and those reflecting behavioral "forcefulness." Only the correlation between the Personality Inventory for Children's Lie Scale and the Millon Academic Confidence Scde cannot be explained; perhaps this might be a statistical artifact. Based on these correlations and using the Persondty Inventory for Children as the anchor scale, there does appear to be some concurrent validity between the two inventories on some select personality dimensions but not so much that the two scales could ever be considered equivalent or interchangeable. The Personality Inventory for Children is an appropriate anchor scale because it is the more psychometrically and clinically validated scale and because its assessment approach is more diagnostic than descriptive (like that of the M d o n Adolescent Personality Inventory). Over-all, the breadth and construction of both inventories' assessments of personality preclude a great deal of overlap, and the wide range of items used to measure each personality dimension makes predictions for concurrent validity extremely difficult. This will be the case with all multidimensional personality assessment scales, and this suggests the clear need to evaluate more than concurrent validity with these tools. Beyond the small sample size and its geographic restrictiveness, there are other limitations within the present study and considerable research is required before a comprehensive understanding of learning disabled adolescents' personality characteristics w d exist. One limitation not yet addressed is the fact that the Millon is completed by the adolescent and the Personality Inventory for Children is completed by an adult informant. Within a multitrait, multimethod context (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), this difference may explain some of the above results. For example, despite the validity scales, the Personality Inventory for Children may be assessing the informant's perception of the learning disabled adolescent, while the Millon is assessing the adolescent's self-perception. In addition, both scales may assess the adolescent's typical performance, maximum performance, or a combination of the two. Combined with the content differences of the two scales, it is clear how complex is the process of personality assessment and interpretation.
784
H. M. KNOFF
&
D. PAEZ
These limitations and research directions aside, the present study provides a beginning point for further work. The need for more multitrait, multimethod studies is apparent, as is the need for more differential assessment across learning disabled groups, settings, ages, and backgrounds. U1timately, a research base is needed that reflects these adolescents' social-emotional functioning and allows judgment of how their functioning is expressed cognitively, academically, and adaptively at school, at home, and in the workplace. REFERENCES BEARE,D. (1975) Self-concept and the adolescent learning disabled student. k c h e r and Parent Guidance Association Journal, 4, 29-32. BRLJINNKS, V. L. (1978) Peer status and personality characteristics of learning and non-learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7 , 98-112. BRYAN,T. (1978) Social relationships and verbal interactions of learning disabled children in the dassroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 107-115. BRYAN,T. (1986) Research on social factors in learning disabilities. Paper presented to the Learning Disabilities Symposium, State Department of Education, Columbia, SC. T., & BRYAN, J. (1986) Understanding learning disabilities. Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred. BRYAN, T., WERNER,M. A., & PEARL,R. (1982) Learning disabled students' conformity reBRYAN, sponses to prosocial and antisocial situations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 344-352. CAMPBELL,D. T., & FISKE, D. (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multiuait-multimethod matrix. PsychologicalBulletin, 56, 81-105. CLARK,E. (1982) Construct validity and dia nostic potential of the Personality Inventory for Children with emotionally handicappet learning disabled, and educable mentally handica ped children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State Univer.) Dissertation ~&stractsInternational, 43(5A), 1473-1474. CLARK,E., KEHLE,T. J., BULLOCK, D., & JENSON,W. R. (1987) Convergent and discriminant validity of the Personality Inventory for Children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 99-106. COOK,L. D. (1979) The adolescent with a learning disability: a developmental perspective. Adolescence, 14, 697-707. DEKREY,S. J., & EHLY, S. W. (1981) Factor/cluster classification of profiles from Personality Inventory for Children in a school setting. Psychological Reports, 48, 843-846. D E S H ~D., (1979) Teaching the learning disabled adolescent. Denver, CO: Love. GAKE'IT,M. K., & CRUMP, W. D. (1980) Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-appraisal of social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disabili~Quarterly, 3. 42-48. GOH, D. S., CODY,J. J., & DOLLINGER, S. J. (1984) PIC profiles for learning-disabled and behavior-disordered children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 837-841. GREGORY, J. F., SHANAHAN, T., & WALBERG, H. J. (1986) A profile of learning disabled twelfth graders in regular classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9, 33-42. KLEM, R. S., ALTMAN,S. D., DRIEZAN,K., FRIEDMAN,R., & POWERS,L. (1981a) Restructuring dysfunctional parental attitudes toward children's learnin! and khavior in school: family-oriented psychoeducational therapy: Part 1. Journal o Learnzng Dzsabzlthes, 14, 15-19. KLEM, R. S., ALTMAN,S. D., DRIEZAN,K., FRIEDMAN,R., & POWERS,L. (1981b) Restructuring dysfunctional parental attitudes toward children's learnin and behavior in school: family-oriented psychoeducational therapy: Part 2 . Journal o j Lenrning Dixabilities, 14, 99-101. KLINE,R. B., LACHAR,D., & BOERSMA,D. C. (1987) A Personality Inventory for Children (PIC) typology of children and adolescents: 111. Relationship to cognitive functioning and classroom placement. Journal of Psychoeducationol Assessment, 4, 327-339. KLINE, R. B., LACHAR,D., & GDOWSKI,C. L. (1987) A Personality Inventory for Children
LEARNING DISABLED ADOLESCENTS: PERSONALITY
785
(PIC) typology of children and adolescents: 11. Classification rules and specific behavior correlates. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 225-234. KNOFF,H. M. (1983) Learning disabilities in the junior high school: creating the six-hour emotionally disturbed adolescent? Adobcence, 18, 541-550. LACHAR,D. (1982) Personality Inventory for Children: Revised format, manual supplement. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. LACHAR, D., & GDOWSKI,C. L. (1979) Actuarial assessment of child and adolescent personality: an interpretative guide for h e Personality Inventory for Children profile. Los Angeles, CA: Western PsychoIogical Services. LACHAR,D , GDOWSKI,C. L., & SNYDER,D. K. (1982) Broadband dimensions of psychopathology factor scales for the Personality Inventory for Children. Journal of Consulting and Clm~calPsychology, 50, 634-642. MERCER,C. D. (1983) Students with learning disabilities. Columbus, OH: Merrill. . MIUON, T., GREEN, K., & MEAGHER,D. (1982) The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory: manual. Minneapolis, MN: Interpretative Scoring Systems. D., & GARSTECKI, D. (1983) Sociometric status and PERLMUTTER,B., CROCKER,., CORDRAY, related personality aracteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disabili~Quarterly, 6, 20-30. PIPP, F. D. (1979) Actuarial anal sis of adolescent personality: self-report correlates for the . masters' thesis, Wayne State Univer. Personality Inventory for ~ K h e n Unpublished SCHUMAKER, B., & HAZEL,S. (1984a) Social skills assessment and training for the learning disabLd: who's on first and whati on second? Part I Journal o j homing Disabilities, 17, 422-431. SCHUMAKER,. B., & HAZEL,S. (1984b) Social skills assessment and training for the learning disab ed: who's on first and what's on second? Part 11. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 492-499. SIPPERSTEIN,G . N., BOPP, M. A., & BAK,J. L. (1978) Social status of learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, l l , 98-102. WIRT, R. D., LACHAR,D., KLINEDINST, J. K., & SWT, I? D. (1984) Multidimensional description of child personality: a manual for h e Personality Inventory for Children. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. WIRT, R. D.,SWT, I? D.,& BROEN,W. E., JR. (1977) Personality Inventory for Children. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
,1!
/
Accepted March 1 7, 1972.
