Journal of A bnorrnal Child Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1977
The Preschool Behavioral Classification Project: A Follow-Up Report Robert P. Baker Ochsner Medical Institutions
Ralph Mason Dreger Louisiana State University
The Behavioral Classification Project (BCP), which was begun by and has been under the guidance of Dreger (1964, 1968, 1970; Dreger & Dreger, 1962; Dreger, Lewis, Rich, Miller, Reid, Overlade, Taffel, & Flemming, 1964), has involved the empirical development of instruments to measure the numerous dimensions of behavior exhibited by children with emotional difficulties. A major goal has been to develop a diagnostic and nosological system more viable and meaningful than the system employed by the American Psychiatric Association; but the more limited aim is that of assessing problem and nonproblem behavior of children. (See the report by Dreger on the Children's Behavioral Classification Project, CBCP, in this issue of the Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology Dreger, 1977.) The Preschool Behavioral Classification Project (PBCP) is an extension downward to children 4 to 6 years of age. It is recognized that children in this age range constitute a very small percentage of patients or clients in mental health clinics, yet it is evident from the research of Macfarlane, Allen, and Honzik (1962) and Bayley (1968) that preschool youngsters do have numerous problems even if they are not referred for evaluation or treatment. It seems that some children, perhaps a majority of those with serious problems, are not referred until after these problems have existed for extended periods of time and it is evident that they are not going to outgrow them, as pediatricians often encourage parents to think. Preschool children referred to clinics have posed problems for diagnosticians because of the relative lack of instruments for assessing temperament and measuring behavior in this age group. This lack is especially evident for the child who has a speech problem or who is nonverbal, over- or hyperactive, or distrac241 T h i s j o u r n a l is copyrighted by P l e n u m . Each a r t i c l e is available f o r $ 7 . 5 0 f r o m P l e n u m Publishing C o r p o r a t i o n , 227 West 1 7 t h S t r e e t , N e w "York, N . Y . 1 0 0 1 1 .
242
Baker and Dreget
tible otherwise. The PBCP instrument was developed to assess the child's behavior across several dimensions, inasmuch as it is behavior itself, as observ~ by parents or parent-surrogates, which results in the youngster's being brought for psychological help. Parents are used as respondents for the PBCP, because presumably they are more familiar with the child than anyone else, including the diagnostician who does not have daily contact with the child. (The junior author has been working on a parallel instrument to obtain the child's point of view called the Preschool Personality Questionnaire, Cattell & Dreger, 1974.)
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PBCP The Initial Form
The development of the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project instrument and a description of the factors derived from it are provided by Baker and Dreger (1973). A brief account of the early research on the PBCP is presented here to give the reader an overall view of the project and also to show how later studies have modified the original fmdings. As a base for extending the project to younger children, the CBCP instrument was used, since all items had been devised and screened by an interdisciplinary team expert in childhood problems. It was determined empirically that of the 277 items of the CBCP (274 behavior variables and 3 demographic items) 70 were inapplicable to preschoolers and 21 would have to be reworded or combined. After the changes were made, 186 original items remained for inclusion in the PBCP. A large pool of new items reflecting both problem and nonproblem behaviors of 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds was then collected from the following sources: (a) variables previously considered for the CBCP but not used therein; (b) presenting problems of children as expressed by their parents to clinic personnel (important in terms of nonprofessional wording); (c) tests and scales that measure children's behavior as seen by others or themselves, for example, GeseU's Developmental Schedules, Vineland Social Maturity Scale, and the Preschool Personality Questionnaire; (d) the literature, including case histories and research material such as Bali's (Stott & Ball, 1965) factor analyses of Gesell's Schedules (see Bali's report in this issue), Moriarty's (1961) study of coping behavior of normal preschoolers, and Peterson's (1961) and Quay's (see Quay's report in this issue) factor analyses of behavior problems of children; and (e) an interdisciplinary committee. By far, most of the new items were generated by the interdisciplinary committee representing school teachers, pediatricians, psychologists, nurses, neurologists, speech therapists, and psychiatrists. All new items were carefully screened by the authors for expression in behavioral terms and then added to
Preschool Behavioral Classification
243
the 186 CBCP items to make a new total of 271 for the PBCP, including age, sex, "~ clinic-nonclinic status. Two additional demographic variables, race (white or nonwhite) and socioeconomic level (a 7-point scale for each of status parent education, occupation, and source of income, devised by McGuire and White, 1955, from the Index of Status Characteristics). The PBCP thus devised was administered to over 1,300 parents of preschool children; 668 useable forms were returned. Baker and Dreger (1973) describe the target population in terms of the five demographic variables and geographical location. For major analysis, all data from the 668 Ss were pooled and analyzed by the modified VANDFACT program available at the System Network Computer Center at Louisiana State University. Analysis of the structures revealed that orthogonal rotation produced a better fit for the data than did the oblique. A preliminary Scree test on the latent roots of the correlation matrix indicated that 22 of the 30 factors, the maximum number produced by the program, were significant; and from a logical standpoint 22 factors made sense. It was decided at first, however, that 5 additional factors, including a singlet, be retained because their items denoted important areas of behavior, even though the factors were not well det'med. This is a problem faced all through CBCP and PBCP research, for some items in themselves are pathognomonic but because endorsement of them is rare their exceedingly skewed distributions attenuate correlations with other items, thus reducing the chance of their coming out with more than one or two other items on a factor. Subsequent factor-analytic studies on the data from each age group from the 668 forms and on data collected for the standardization (see below) indicated that the 22 major factors should be retained. But the singlet was dropped along with another factor that was practically a singlet (lettered S and AD in Baker and Dreger, 1973); three other minor factors (O, X, and Y) were kept. Finally, an additional factor, Incapacitory Organicity, was added when it became clear that this dimension showed up repeatedly in the various analyses. Thus, the total number of factors is 26, as seen below.
Later Research Additional subjects numbering 710 were obtained to add to the original 668 for standardization purposes. The bulk of the population for the second sample resided in Montgomery and Auburn, Alabama, although other small towns and rural families from eastern Alabama and western Georgia were included. As was the case earlier, the sample was obtained through institutions or agencies such as kindergartens, child care centers, nursery schools, and Head Start centers. Because of a response bias in one agency all 180 forms had to be discarded.
244
Baker and Dreger
Prior to standardization, also, all forms in which a respondent failed to answer 10 or more items were eliminated, thus leaving a total o f 1,168 records. Each form was computer-scored across the 26 dimensions. The factor score matrix was derived by premultiplying the raw score matrix against a reduced structure coefficient matrix; this latter matrix allows only one weight for each item for each factor, rather than using all weights for all items for all factors. Standard scores were derived from the cumulative distributions o f factor scores. Currently, standard scores ranging from 1 to 5 are being set.
The FacWrs Since the original report (Baker & Dreger, 1973) the names o f some o f the factors have been changed; nonetheless, the description o f 25 o f the factors and the items composing each dimension found in that report still holds. The remaining factor, N, which is named Incapacitory Organicity, includes items which suggest that the youngster scoring high on this factor has difficulty walking and grasping objects; the image that emerges is that o f a severely retarded child as well. One representative PBCP factor is presented in Table I to acquaint the reader with the item content and factor weights; the majority of the factors are detailed in this manner in the Baker and Dreger (1973) report. The present names of factors, their internal consistency reliability coefficients, and their raw score ranges are presented in Table II.
Reliabilities and Validities Throughout the development o f the PBCP, attempts have been made to establish the reliabilities and validities o f the instrument. As can be seen from Table I. Factor D (Poor Versus Good Eating Habits), Rotated Factor Loadings, and Item Content Item number
Factor loadings
146
.74
181 46
.64 .S8
41
.45
26 263 76
.33 -.25 -.66
Item content Eats only some foods, or is a "picky eater," or shows finicky likes or dislikes for foods. Leaves food without taking a bite, or refuses food. Does not try new foods he has not eaten before; turns down food because of something he says he does not like about it (for example, string beans because he says they are "stringy" or liver because he says it is "gritty"). Eats better when away from parents, or refuses or resists eating when parents are present. Is very slow in such things as dressing, bathing, eating. Eats faster and eats more than others his age. Eats most food given to him or asks for food.
Preschool Behavioral C!,,~iti~tion
245
Table 11. PBCP Factors, Consistency Coefficients, and Score Ranges Factor
rtt
Score range
A. Direct aggression B. Intellectual and cultural development C. Hearing and associated problems D. Poor vs. good eating habits E. Projected aggression F. Sexual curiosity G. Verbal and motor hyperactivity H. Disobedience I. Incontinence vs. continence J. Speech problem K. Separation and somatic anxiety L. Cursing M. Positive social orientation N. Incapacitory organicity O. Identity problem P. Disturbed sleeping habits Q. Oral and cutaneous sexuality R. Lying and blame-avoidance T. Unilateral incoordination U. Fearful and isolative organicity V. Dereistic organicity W. Seizures X. Oral-nasal anxiety behavior Y. Spasms Z. Unsuccessful inconstancy vs. perseverance AB. Asociableness vs. sociableness
.92 .90 .90 .89 .91 .86 .90 .83 .87 .90 .84 .88 .83 .74 .73 .87 .87 .85 .83 .84 .84 .70 .71 .71 .89 .85
-.34 - 6.73 -.95 - 4.07 .00 - 5.62 -.91 - 2.74 .00 - 6.47 .00 - 3.38 .00 - 4.86 -.45 - 2.50 -1.36 - 1,84 -.60 - 4.10 .00 - 3.17 -.61 - 1.94 -.27 - 2.79 .00 - 1.67 -.27 - 1.46 -.28 - 3.67 -.41 - 3.81 .00 - 3.59 .00 - 3.08 .00 - 2.95 -.31 - 3.06 .00 - 1.66 .00 - 1.36 .00 - 1.35 -1.92 - 2.54 -.86 - 2.29
Table II, the internal consistency coefficients for all factors range f r o m .70 to .92. While these coefficients are not high w h e n compared with those derived f r o m intellectual measures, t h e y are satisfactory for nonintellectual assessm e n t . F o r the entire PBCP internal consistency was determined by the proportion f o r m o f the alpha coefficient (Nunnally, 1967) and was found to be .92. F o r the individual factors Dreger's (1973) adaptation o f the K - R 20 formula was used,
rtt = krij/[1 + (k-1)rij] Here rij is the mean o f the absolute values o f i n t e r i t e m correlations and k is the n u m b e r o f i t e m s entering into the scoring. F o r external consistency Suthefland (1974) investigated the interperson reliability between parents and teachers on 22 factors o f the PBCP. F o r m s were administered to m o t h e r s , fathers, and teachers o f 36 children, ages 4 to 6. Pearson rs were c o m p u t e d to determine the relation among responses o f m o t h e r s , fathers, and teachers. At the preset level o f significance o f .01, there was significant agreement between parents' responses on 13 factors (factors A, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, R, T, Z, and AB). Additionally, the overall degree o f agreement between fathers and m o t h e r s (r = .44), obtained by averaging m o t h e r - f a t h e r coefficients, was at the .01 level. However, overall agreement b e t w e e n m o t h e r s and
246
Baker and Dre~,r
teachers and between fathers and teachers was not significant. In fact, there was significant agreement between mothers and teachers on only two factors (I and R); for fathers and teachers there was significant agreement on three factors (E, R, and T). These results, comparable to those of Gilkey (1972) and Costelloe (1973) with the CBCP, suggest that fathers and mothers may be used interchangeably as raters with the PBCP, whereas parents and teachers may not be used interchangeably. To determine agreement on all 26 factors, McCormick (1976) administered the PBCP to parents of 40 4-year-olds. He used an analysis of variance because in this case the Pearson r proved to be unsatisfactory. A two-way mixed design was computed on each factor where the main effects were sex of child and sex of parent. McCormick found agreement between the parents on 23 factors for the boys and on 19 factors for the girls. The following differences were noted: For factors A (Direct Aggression) and X (Oral-Nasal Anxiety Behavior), mothers rate both sexes higher than did fathers. On factors C (Hearing and Associated Problems, G (Verbal and Motor Overactivity), O (Identity Problem), and T (Unilateral Incoordination), girls were rated significantly higher than boys by mothers. On factor Q (Oral and Cutaneous Sexuality), girls scored signficanfly higher than boys; and for factor Z (Unsuccessful Inconstancy versus Perseverance), fathers scored both sexes higher than did mothers. To date there have been relatively few studies of the validities of the PBCP, although it has been found by the second author that comparable factors on the Preschool Personality Questionnaire (PSPQ), obtained from the child himself/herself, and the PBCP, obtained from parents, show considerable agreement, with several correlation coefficients reaching above .90. The correspondence between the PBCP and the CBCP, for which several validity studies have been made, is recorded in the article by Baker and Dreger (1973). One direct validity study on the PBCP was conducted by Confer (1974), who examined two factors, J, Speech Problem, and B, Intellectual and Cultural Development. Confer initially distributed 95 PBCP forms to parents of 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children in and around Auburn, Alabama; 51 useable forms were returned. Factor scores were tabulated for factor B and the 10 highest and 10 lowest were retained These 20 children were then administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). The Standard Deviation IQs were computed for the PPVT and the Ss were ranked according to performance. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rho) between rankings on the PPVT and PBCP factor B yielded a value of .76, significant by a one-tailed test (Kendali's t procedure) at the .01 level. Although the PPVT has some inadequacies of standardization (Mills & Bryan, 1976), Confer's conclusion appears reasonable, to the effect that Factor B scores have some ability to discriminate degrees of intelligence, but the most practical and valid use is to differentiate average to superior children from those with below-average intelligence.
Preschool Behavioral Oassifieation
247
For factor J, Speech Problem, Confer studied 5 children receiving therapy at a local speech clinic and 10 children from the above pool o f 5. Jth no apparent speech difficulties. Both groups were administered the Templin-Darley Screening Test o f Articulation. A Spearman rho o f .49 was obtained between the PBCP and the Templin-Darley, significant at the .01 level. After analyzing the data, Confer concluded that low scorers on factor J do not have speech problems, whereas high scorers'may or may not have, and that the older the child the more probable it is that a high score indicates a speech problem. Lower correlation may have resulted from the fact that 4-year-olds may have difficulty articulating, which may be normal from a developmental perspective and thus not a problem at all. Even though only two factors were studied, Confer's results are encouraging. Obviously each dimension cannot measure a certain behavior symptom with extreme precision, but then that is not the function of the PBCP. The instrument is intended to serve as the foundation for a nosology which does not require that the finest nuances of any symptoms be spelled out in detail. For clinical purposes the instrument can pinpoint problem areas, which can then be studied in more depth with the use of other tests, intensive interviews, or observation. The PBCP has been used by the authors in clinical practice where it appears to have face and concurrent validity. The instrument usually corroborates and allows for quantification of the behaviors reported by parents about their children in a clinical interview. Often where there is disagreement between parents about the child, the PBCP results reflect this difference o f parental perceptions and opinions and allow the clinician to determine exactly those areas where there is most disagreement.
REFERENCES Baker, R. P., & Dreger, R. M. The Preschool Behavioral Classification Project: An initial report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1973, 1, 88-120. Bayley, N. Behavioral correlates of mental growth: Birth to 36 years. American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 1-17. Cattell, R. B., & Dreger, R. M. Personality structures as revealed in questionnaire responses at a preschool level. Child Development, 1974, 45, 4%54. Confer, W. N. Validity studies for Factor B and Factor E of the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project. Unpublished master's thesis, Auburn University, 1974. Costelloe, C. A study of behavioral attributes of visually handicapped children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1973. Dreger, R. M. A report on a factor analytic approach to classification in child psychiatry. Psychiatric Research Report 1964, 18, 22-74. Dreger, R. M. Aristotle, Linnaeus, and Lewin, or the place of classification in the evaluative-therapeutic process. Journal of General Psychology, 1968, 78, 41-59. Dreger, R. M. The establishment of diagnostic categories for the evaluation of specific therapies for children's emotional disorders. Alabama Journal of Medicine, 1970, 7, 55-60.
248
Baker and Dreger
Dreger, R. M. Use of absolute values in estimating reliability from the inter-item corre9 lations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1973, 33, 3-5. Dreger, R. M. The children's behavioral classification project: An interim report. Journal of A bnormal Child Psychology, 1977, 5, 289-297. Dreger, R. M., & Dreger, G. E. Behavioral Classification Project. Report No. 1. Proceedings o f the Technical Assistance Project held at Jacksonville University, August, 16-17, 1962. Jacksonville, Florida: Behavioral Classification Proiect, 1962. Dreger, R. M., Lewis, P. M., Rich, T. A., Miller, K. S., Reid, M. P., Overlade, D. C., Taffel, C., & Flemming, E. L. Behavioral Classification Project. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 1-13. Gilkey, W. A., Jr. An investigation o f inter-rater reliability of the Behavioral Classification Project - a comparison of the responses o f parents, teachers, and children to the BCP. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1972. Macfarlane, J. W., Allen, L., & Honzik, M. P. A developmental study o f the behavior problems of normal children between twenty-one months and fourteen years. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. McCormick, C. Interrater reliability o f the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project us. ing parents as raters. Unpublished master's thesis, University of New Orleans, 1976. MeGuire, C., & White, G. D. The measurement of social status. Research paper in human development No. 3 (rev.). Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas, 1955. Mills, R., & Bryan, M. M. Testing... Grouping: The new segregation in southern schools? Atlanta: Southern Regional Council, 1976. Moriarty, A. Coping patterns of preschool children in response to intelligence test demands. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1961, 64, 3-127. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Peterson, D. R. Behavior problems of middle childhood. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 205-209. Stott, L. H., & Ball, R. S. Infant and preschool mental tests: Review and evaluation. Monograph of the Society for Researeh in Child Development, 1965, 30, 151. Sutherland, G. G. lnterrater reliability between parents and teachers on the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project. Unpublished master's thesis, Auburn University, 1974.
The Preschool Behavioral Classification Project: A Follow-Up Report Robert P. Baker Ochsner Medical Institutions
Ralph Mason Dreger Louisiana State University
The Behavioral Classification Project (BCP), which was begun by and has been under the guidance of Dreger (1964, 1968, 1970; Dreger & Dreger, 1962; Dreger, Lewis, Rich, Miller, Reid, Overlade, Taffel, & Flemming, 1964), has involved the empirical development of instruments to measure the numerous dimensions of behavior exhibited by children with emotional difficulties. A major goal has been to develop a diagnostic and nosological system more viable and meaningful than the system employed by the American Psychiatric Association; but the more limited aim is that of assessing problem and nonproblem behavior of children. (See the report by Dreger on the Children's Behavioral Classification Project, CBCP, in this issue of the Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology Dreger, 1977.) The Preschool Behavioral Classification Project (PBCP) is an extension downward to children 4 to 6 years of age. It is recognized that children in this age range constitute a very small percentage of patients or clients in mental health clinics, yet it is evident from the research of Macfarlane, Allen, and Honzik (1962) and Bayley (1968) that preschool youngsters do have numerous problems even if they are not referred for evaluation or treatment. It seems that some children, perhaps a majority of those with serious problems, are not referred until after these problems have existed for extended periods of time and it is evident that they are not going to outgrow them, as pediatricians often encourage parents to think. Preschool children referred to clinics have posed problems for diagnosticians because of the relative lack of instruments for assessing temperament and measuring behavior in this age group. This lack is especially evident for the child who has a speech problem or who is nonverbal, over- or hyperactive, or distrac241 T h i s j o u r n a l is copyrighted by P l e n u m . Each a r t i c l e is available f o r $ 7 . 5 0 f r o m P l e n u m Publishing C o r p o r a t i o n , 227 West 1 7 t h S t r e e t , N e w "York, N . Y . 1 0 0 1 1 .
242
Baker and Dreget
tible otherwise. The PBCP instrument was developed to assess the child's behavior across several dimensions, inasmuch as it is behavior itself, as observ~ by parents or parent-surrogates, which results in the youngster's being brought for psychological help. Parents are used as respondents for the PBCP, because presumably they are more familiar with the child than anyone else, including the diagnostician who does not have daily contact with the child. (The junior author has been working on a parallel instrument to obtain the child's point of view called the Preschool Personality Questionnaire, Cattell & Dreger, 1974.)
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PBCP The Initial Form
The development of the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project instrument and a description of the factors derived from it are provided by Baker and Dreger (1973). A brief account of the early research on the PBCP is presented here to give the reader an overall view of the project and also to show how later studies have modified the original fmdings. As a base for extending the project to younger children, the CBCP instrument was used, since all items had been devised and screened by an interdisciplinary team expert in childhood problems. It was determined empirically that of the 277 items of the CBCP (274 behavior variables and 3 demographic items) 70 were inapplicable to preschoolers and 21 would have to be reworded or combined. After the changes were made, 186 original items remained for inclusion in the PBCP. A large pool of new items reflecting both problem and nonproblem behaviors of 4-, 5-, and 6-year-olds was then collected from the following sources: (a) variables previously considered for the CBCP but not used therein; (b) presenting problems of children as expressed by their parents to clinic personnel (important in terms of nonprofessional wording); (c) tests and scales that measure children's behavior as seen by others or themselves, for example, GeseU's Developmental Schedules, Vineland Social Maturity Scale, and the Preschool Personality Questionnaire; (d) the literature, including case histories and research material such as Bali's (Stott & Ball, 1965) factor analyses of Gesell's Schedules (see Bali's report in this issue), Moriarty's (1961) study of coping behavior of normal preschoolers, and Peterson's (1961) and Quay's (see Quay's report in this issue) factor analyses of behavior problems of children; and (e) an interdisciplinary committee. By far, most of the new items were generated by the interdisciplinary committee representing school teachers, pediatricians, psychologists, nurses, neurologists, speech therapists, and psychiatrists. All new items were carefully screened by the authors for expression in behavioral terms and then added to
Preschool Behavioral Classification
243
the 186 CBCP items to make a new total of 271 for the PBCP, including age, sex, "~ clinic-nonclinic status. Two additional demographic variables, race (white or nonwhite) and socioeconomic level (a 7-point scale for each of status parent education, occupation, and source of income, devised by McGuire and White, 1955, from the Index of Status Characteristics). The PBCP thus devised was administered to over 1,300 parents of preschool children; 668 useable forms were returned. Baker and Dreger (1973) describe the target population in terms of the five demographic variables and geographical location. For major analysis, all data from the 668 Ss were pooled and analyzed by the modified VANDFACT program available at the System Network Computer Center at Louisiana State University. Analysis of the structures revealed that orthogonal rotation produced a better fit for the data than did the oblique. A preliminary Scree test on the latent roots of the correlation matrix indicated that 22 of the 30 factors, the maximum number produced by the program, were significant; and from a logical standpoint 22 factors made sense. It was decided at first, however, that 5 additional factors, including a singlet, be retained because their items denoted important areas of behavior, even though the factors were not well det'med. This is a problem faced all through CBCP and PBCP research, for some items in themselves are pathognomonic but because endorsement of them is rare their exceedingly skewed distributions attenuate correlations with other items, thus reducing the chance of their coming out with more than one or two other items on a factor. Subsequent factor-analytic studies on the data from each age group from the 668 forms and on data collected for the standardization (see below) indicated that the 22 major factors should be retained. But the singlet was dropped along with another factor that was practically a singlet (lettered S and AD in Baker and Dreger, 1973); three other minor factors (O, X, and Y) were kept. Finally, an additional factor, Incapacitory Organicity, was added when it became clear that this dimension showed up repeatedly in the various analyses. Thus, the total number of factors is 26, as seen below.
Later Research Additional subjects numbering 710 were obtained to add to the original 668 for standardization purposes. The bulk of the population for the second sample resided in Montgomery and Auburn, Alabama, although other small towns and rural families from eastern Alabama and western Georgia were included. As was the case earlier, the sample was obtained through institutions or agencies such as kindergartens, child care centers, nursery schools, and Head Start centers. Because of a response bias in one agency all 180 forms had to be discarded.
244
Baker and Dreger
Prior to standardization, also, all forms in which a respondent failed to answer 10 or more items were eliminated, thus leaving a total o f 1,168 records. Each form was computer-scored across the 26 dimensions. The factor score matrix was derived by premultiplying the raw score matrix against a reduced structure coefficient matrix; this latter matrix allows only one weight for each item for each factor, rather than using all weights for all items for all factors. Standard scores were derived from the cumulative distributions o f factor scores. Currently, standard scores ranging from 1 to 5 are being set.
The FacWrs Since the original report (Baker & Dreger, 1973) the names o f some o f the factors have been changed; nonetheless, the description o f 25 o f the factors and the items composing each dimension found in that report still holds. The remaining factor, N, which is named Incapacitory Organicity, includes items which suggest that the youngster scoring high on this factor has difficulty walking and grasping objects; the image that emerges is that o f a severely retarded child as well. One representative PBCP factor is presented in Table I to acquaint the reader with the item content and factor weights; the majority of the factors are detailed in this manner in the Baker and Dreger (1973) report. The present names of factors, their internal consistency reliability coefficients, and their raw score ranges are presented in Table II.
Reliabilities and Validities Throughout the development o f the PBCP, attempts have been made to establish the reliabilities and validities o f the instrument. As can be seen from Table I. Factor D (Poor Versus Good Eating Habits), Rotated Factor Loadings, and Item Content Item number
Factor loadings
146
.74
181 46
.64 .S8
41
.45
26 263 76
.33 -.25 -.66
Item content Eats only some foods, or is a "picky eater," or shows finicky likes or dislikes for foods. Leaves food without taking a bite, or refuses food. Does not try new foods he has not eaten before; turns down food because of something he says he does not like about it (for example, string beans because he says they are "stringy" or liver because he says it is "gritty"). Eats better when away from parents, or refuses or resists eating when parents are present. Is very slow in such things as dressing, bathing, eating. Eats faster and eats more than others his age. Eats most food given to him or asks for food.
Preschool Behavioral C!,,~iti~tion
245
Table 11. PBCP Factors, Consistency Coefficients, and Score Ranges Factor
rtt
Score range
A. Direct aggression B. Intellectual and cultural development C. Hearing and associated problems D. Poor vs. good eating habits E. Projected aggression F. Sexual curiosity G. Verbal and motor hyperactivity H. Disobedience I. Incontinence vs. continence J. Speech problem K. Separation and somatic anxiety L. Cursing M. Positive social orientation N. Incapacitory organicity O. Identity problem P. Disturbed sleeping habits Q. Oral and cutaneous sexuality R. Lying and blame-avoidance T. Unilateral incoordination U. Fearful and isolative organicity V. Dereistic organicity W. Seizures X. Oral-nasal anxiety behavior Y. Spasms Z. Unsuccessful inconstancy vs. perseverance AB. Asociableness vs. sociableness
.92 .90 .90 .89 .91 .86 .90 .83 .87 .90 .84 .88 .83 .74 .73 .87 .87 .85 .83 .84 .84 .70 .71 .71 .89 .85
-.34 - 6.73 -.95 - 4.07 .00 - 5.62 -.91 - 2.74 .00 - 6.47 .00 - 3.38 .00 - 4.86 -.45 - 2.50 -1.36 - 1,84 -.60 - 4.10 .00 - 3.17 -.61 - 1.94 -.27 - 2.79 .00 - 1.67 -.27 - 1.46 -.28 - 3.67 -.41 - 3.81 .00 - 3.59 .00 - 3.08 .00 - 2.95 -.31 - 3.06 .00 - 1.66 .00 - 1.36 .00 - 1.35 -1.92 - 2.54 -.86 - 2.29
Table II, the internal consistency coefficients for all factors range f r o m .70 to .92. While these coefficients are not high w h e n compared with those derived f r o m intellectual measures, t h e y are satisfactory for nonintellectual assessm e n t . F o r the entire PBCP internal consistency was determined by the proportion f o r m o f the alpha coefficient (Nunnally, 1967) and was found to be .92. F o r the individual factors Dreger's (1973) adaptation o f the K - R 20 formula was used,
rtt = krij/[1 + (k-1)rij] Here rij is the mean o f the absolute values o f i n t e r i t e m correlations and k is the n u m b e r o f i t e m s entering into the scoring. F o r external consistency Suthefland (1974) investigated the interperson reliability between parents and teachers on 22 factors o f the PBCP. F o r m s were administered to m o t h e r s , fathers, and teachers o f 36 children, ages 4 to 6. Pearson rs were c o m p u t e d to determine the relation among responses o f m o t h e r s , fathers, and teachers. At the preset level o f significance o f .01, there was significant agreement between parents' responses on 13 factors (factors A, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, R, T, Z, and AB). Additionally, the overall degree o f agreement between fathers and m o t h e r s (r = .44), obtained by averaging m o t h e r - f a t h e r coefficients, was at the .01 level. However, overall agreement b e t w e e n m o t h e r s and
246
Baker and Dre~,r
teachers and between fathers and teachers was not significant. In fact, there was significant agreement between mothers and teachers on only two factors (I and R); for fathers and teachers there was significant agreement on three factors (E, R, and T). These results, comparable to those of Gilkey (1972) and Costelloe (1973) with the CBCP, suggest that fathers and mothers may be used interchangeably as raters with the PBCP, whereas parents and teachers may not be used interchangeably. To determine agreement on all 26 factors, McCormick (1976) administered the PBCP to parents of 40 4-year-olds. He used an analysis of variance because in this case the Pearson r proved to be unsatisfactory. A two-way mixed design was computed on each factor where the main effects were sex of child and sex of parent. McCormick found agreement between the parents on 23 factors for the boys and on 19 factors for the girls. The following differences were noted: For factors A (Direct Aggression) and X (Oral-Nasal Anxiety Behavior), mothers rate both sexes higher than did fathers. On factors C (Hearing and Associated Problems, G (Verbal and Motor Overactivity), O (Identity Problem), and T (Unilateral Incoordination), girls were rated significantly higher than boys by mothers. On factor Q (Oral and Cutaneous Sexuality), girls scored signficanfly higher than boys; and for factor Z (Unsuccessful Inconstancy versus Perseverance), fathers scored both sexes higher than did mothers. To date there have been relatively few studies of the validities of the PBCP, although it has been found by the second author that comparable factors on the Preschool Personality Questionnaire (PSPQ), obtained from the child himself/herself, and the PBCP, obtained from parents, show considerable agreement, with several correlation coefficients reaching above .90. The correspondence between the PBCP and the CBCP, for which several validity studies have been made, is recorded in the article by Baker and Dreger (1973). One direct validity study on the PBCP was conducted by Confer (1974), who examined two factors, J, Speech Problem, and B, Intellectual and Cultural Development. Confer initially distributed 95 PBCP forms to parents of 4-, 5-, and 6-year-old children in and around Auburn, Alabama; 51 useable forms were returned. Factor scores were tabulated for factor B and the 10 highest and 10 lowest were retained These 20 children were then administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). The Standard Deviation IQs were computed for the PPVT and the Ss were ranked according to performance. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rho) between rankings on the PPVT and PBCP factor B yielded a value of .76, significant by a one-tailed test (Kendali's t procedure) at the .01 level. Although the PPVT has some inadequacies of standardization (Mills & Bryan, 1976), Confer's conclusion appears reasonable, to the effect that Factor B scores have some ability to discriminate degrees of intelligence, but the most practical and valid use is to differentiate average to superior children from those with below-average intelligence.
Preschool Behavioral Oassifieation
247
For factor J, Speech Problem, Confer studied 5 children receiving therapy at a local speech clinic and 10 children from the above pool o f 5. Jth no apparent speech difficulties. Both groups were administered the Templin-Darley Screening Test o f Articulation. A Spearman rho o f .49 was obtained between the PBCP and the Templin-Darley, significant at the .01 level. After analyzing the data, Confer concluded that low scorers on factor J do not have speech problems, whereas high scorers'may or may not have, and that the older the child the more probable it is that a high score indicates a speech problem. Lower correlation may have resulted from the fact that 4-year-olds may have difficulty articulating, which may be normal from a developmental perspective and thus not a problem at all. Even though only two factors were studied, Confer's results are encouraging. Obviously each dimension cannot measure a certain behavior symptom with extreme precision, but then that is not the function of the PBCP. The instrument is intended to serve as the foundation for a nosology which does not require that the finest nuances of any symptoms be spelled out in detail. For clinical purposes the instrument can pinpoint problem areas, which can then be studied in more depth with the use of other tests, intensive interviews, or observation. The PBCP has been used by the authors in clinical practice where it appears to have face and concurrent validity. The instrument usually corroborates and allows for quantification of the behaviors reported by parents about their children in a clinical interview. Often where there is disagreement between parents about the child, the PBCP results reflect this difference o f parental perceptions and opinions and allow the clinician to determine exactly those areas where there is most disagreement.
REFERENCES Baker, R. P., & Dreger, R. M. The Preschool Behavioral Classification Project: An initial report. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1973, 1, 88-120. Bayley, N. Behavioral correlates of mental growth: Birth to 36 years. American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 1-17. Cattell, R. B., & Dreger, R. M. Personality structures as revealed in questionnaire responses at a preschool level. Child Development, 1974, 45, 4%54. Confer, W. N. Validity studies for Factor B and Factor E of the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project. Unpublished master's thesis, Auburn University, 1974. Costelloe, C. A study of behavioral attributes of visually handicapped children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1973. Dreger, R. M. A report on a factor analytic approach to classification in child psychiatry. Psychiatric Research Report 1964, 18, 22-74. Dreger, R. M. Aristotle, Linnaeus, and Lewin, or the place of classification in the evaluative-therapeutic process. Journal of General Psychology, 1968, 78, 41-59. Dreger, R. M. The establishment of diagnostic categories for the evaluation of specific therapies for children's emotional disorders. Alabama Journal of Medicine, 1970, 7, 55-60.
248
Baker and Dreger
Dreger, R. M. Use of absolute values in estimating reliability from the inter-item corre9 lations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1973, 33, 3-5. Dreger, R. M. The children's behavioral classification project: An interim report. Journal of A bnormal Child Psychology, 1977, 5, 289-297. Dreger, R. M., & Dreger, G. E. Behavioral Classification Project. Report No. 1. Proceedings o f the Technical Assistance Project held at Jacksonville University, August, 16-17, 1962. Jacksonville, Florida: Behavioral Classification Proiect, 1962. Dreger, R. M., Lewis, P. M., Rich, T. A., Miller, K. S., Reid, M. P., Overlade, D. C., Taffel, C., & Flemming, E. L. Behavioral Classification Project. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1964, 28, 1-13. Gilkey, W. A., Jr. An investigation o f inter-rater reliability of the Behavioral Classification Project - a comparison of the responses o f parents, teachers, and children to the BCP. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1972. Macfarlane, J. W., Allen, L., & Honzik, M. P. A developmental study o f the behavior problems of normal children between twenty-one months and fourteen years. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. McCormick, C. Interrater reliability o f the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project us. ing parents as raters. Unpublished master's thesis, University of New Orleans, 1976. MeGuire, C., & White, G. D. The measurement of social status. Research paper in human development No. 3 (rev.). Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas, 1955. Mills, R., & Bryan, M. M. Testing... Grouping: The new segregation in southern schools? Atlanta: Southern Regional Council, 1976. Moriarty, A. Coping patterns of preschool children in response to intelligence test demands. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1961, 64, 3-127. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Peterson, D. R. Behavior problems of middle childhood. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 205-209. Stott, L. H., & Ball, R. S. Infant and preschool mental tests: Review and evaluation. Monograph of the Society for Researeh in Child Development, 1965, 30, 151. Sutherland, G. G. lnterrater reliability between parents and teachers on the Preschool Behavioral Classification Project. Unpublished master's thesis, Auburn University, 1974.
