- Email: [email protected]
Classroom behavior inventory: Factor verification
JOVRK.lL
OF RESEARCH
Classroom
IN
Behavior
TIMOTHY University
8, 291-293
PERSOS.iLITY
J.
(1974)
Inventory:
MIRANTE
of Waskingtorr,
AND
Factor DAVID
Seattle,
B.
Verification’ RYCKMAN
Washington
9S195
Sixty-nine second grade suburban children were rated by three teachers using a classroom behavior inventory. Factor analysis was performed to test the a priori structure of the instrument. The 18-item inventory was analyzed on three factors: Task-Oriented vs Distractibility, Extroversion vs Introversion, and Considerateness vs Hostility. The three factors loaded perfectly according to the a priori design. The need for further investigations concerning the reliability and a comparison of the rating scale with objective observations is indicated.
Schaefer (1971) briefly reported on the development of the Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI) as yet unpublished (Schaefer & Aaronson, 1965; Schaefer, Aaronson, & Burgoon, 1965). The instrument was designed to assess three major dimensions of child behavior and is a part of Schaefer’s work (1971) on the development of hierarchical and configural models for parent. behavior and child behavior. A unipolar and a bipolar version of the CBI were developed to measure three dimensions: (I) Task-Oriented Behavior vs Distractibility, (II) Hostility vs Considerateness, and (III) Ext.roversion vs Introversion. For both versions children are rated by their classroom teachers. The unipolar version presents the rater with 15 items that are all stated in positive terms. A seven-point rating scale is employed. The &item bipolar version presents t.he rater with both positive and negative statements which arc rated on a four-point scale of ‘(very much like” to “not at all like.” The study reported herein was designed to verify the factor structure report,ed by Schaefer (1973). The three second-grade self-contained classrooms in a suburban school were typical in appearance, structure, and content. The age range of the 69 pupils was 90-112 mo (x(4.2) = 97.7). The three teachers were given release time to complete the CBI on each child in their classroom. Individual items were submitted to a principal axis factor analysis with unity used in the diagonals. Five factors emerged with eigenvalues ‘Requests 101 Miller Copyright All rights
for reprints Hall D&-12,
should be sent to Timothy University of Washington,
@ 1974 by Academic Press, of reproduction in any form
291 Inc. reserved.
J. Mirante. Special Seatt,le. Washingt,on
Education, 98195.
292
MIRANTE
AND
RYCHMAK
greater than one, accounting for 77% of the variance. However, because the conceptual model of the CBI has three bipolar dimensions, only three factors were rotated. The three factors rotated to varimax criterion account for 64% of the total variance. Table 1 shows the content and factor loadings for the bipolar CBI. Each of the items designed to assess a particular dimension loaded appropriately on the designated factor. Factor I reflects the TaskOriented vs Distractibility dimension defined by Schaefer (1971). All six items designed to define this dimension loaded as predicted. Factor II depicts the Extroversion vs Introversion dimension and all six items loaded appropriately. Factor III a.ppears as a Considerateness vs Hostility dimension with the six defining items loading as predicted. The analysis supports the a priori design of the instrument. It should be noted that. the bipolar nature of the design was realized. Within TABLE 1 CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR INVENTORY: CONCEPTS, CONTENT ITEM NUMBERS, FACTOR LOADINGS, AND COMMUNALITIES
Concept Extraversion
Content
Item number
Factor loadingsa I
II
h2
13 -23 -27
79 78 57
20 -03 -14
57 71 70
23 26 36
66 71 64
Spontaneity Expressive Seeks others
8 12
07 09 -20
Introversion
Verbal uncertainty Sad/serious Withdrawn
3 7 17
03 -02 -14
Task-Oriented Behavior
Works earnestly Attentive Persevering
2 10 18
77 79 71
Distractibility
Quickly distracted Inconsistent attention Daydreams
4 9 14
-81 -66 -80
-03 -02 -00
-06 -19 01
66 48 64
Hostility
Gets even Angers quickly Ridicules others
5 11 16
-29 -21 -26
-14 03 09
-78 -85 -82
71 76 74
Considerateness
Awaits turn Doesn’t hurt others Lets others talk
6 13 15
28 -12 26
-11 -03 -23
Percentage of total variance ,JDecimals eliminated.
1
31
88 85 68
III
-73 -84 -81 04 12 -08
22
68 49 71 11
56 25 63
CBI :
FACTOR
VERIFICATIOiK
293
each factor, the loadings reflect the bipolar design with approximately equal loadings in each direction. Each of the items was essentially factor pure, i.e., loaded significantly only on the appropriate factor. As a check on the adequacy of the three-factor solution, a second factor analysis was performed using the standard eigenvalue greater than one criteria. Basically, two of the five factors that emerged closely resembled factors II and III from the three-factor solution. The TaskOriented vs Distractibility factor reported above split into two unipolar dimensions. The fifth factor was basically item 13 which produced the lowest, factor loading of any item in the three-factor solution. It would appear that the use of the a priori rotation criteria is the most parsimonious. Apparent,ly, the CBI is very stable in terms of factor structure. Even though different age groupings and geographical areas were sampled, the factors reported in this study closely approximate the results obtained by Schaefer and Aaronson (1965). Additional research is needed to assess the utilitarian value of the CBI. Studies on inter- and intrarater reliability are needed. In addition, studies comparing teacher ratings of children with objective observations of those children will be helpful in assessing the uses for this instrument. The results of this study suggest, that Schaefer’s (1971) plea for additional instrumentation designed on an a priori basis is justified. Instruments with a known factor st,ructure based on theoretical considerat.ions can be very helpful in flIrthering theory. REFERENCES
E. S. Developmentof hierarchical,configurationalmodelsfor parent hehavior and child behavior. ITLJ. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota Symposin on Chilrl
SCHAEFER,
Psychology, Vol. V. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. 1971. pp. 130-161. SCHAEFER, E. S. Personal communication. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1973. SCHAEFER, E. S., & AARONSON, M. R. Classroom behavior inventory, preschoolto primary. Unpublished form, 1965. SCHAEFER, E. S., AARONSON, M. R., & BURCKI~N, B. R. Classroom behavior inventory. Unpublished form, 1965.
OF RESEARCH
Classroom
IN
Behavior
TIMOTHY University
8, 291-293
PERSOS.iLITY
J.
(1974)
Inventory:
MIRANTE
of Waskingtorr,
AND
Factor DAVID
Seattle,
B.
Verification’ RYCKMAN
Washington
9S195
Sixty-nine second grade suburban children were rated by three teachers using a classroom behavior inventory. Factor analysis was performed to test the a priori structure of the instrument. The 18-item inventory was analyzed on three factors: Task-Oriented vs Distractibility, Extroversion vs Introversion, and Considerateness vs Hostility. The three factors loaded perfectly according to the a priori design. The need for further investigations concerning the reliability and a comparison of the rating scale with objective observations is indicated.
Schaefer (1971) briefly reported on the development of the Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI) as yet unpublished (Schaefer & Aaronson, 1965; Schaefer, Aaronson, & Burgoon, 1965). The instrument was designed to assess three major dimensions of child behavior and is a part of Schaefer’s work (1971) on the development of hierarchical and configural models for parent. behavior and child behavior. A unipolar and a bipolar version of the CBI were developed to measure three dimensions: (I) Task-Oriented Behavior vs Distractibility, (II) Hostility vs Considerateness, and (III) Ext.roversion vs Introversion. For both versions children are rated by their classroom teachers. The unipolar version presents the rater with 15 items that are all stated in positive terms. A seven-point rating scale is employed. The &item bipolar version presents t.he rater with both positive and negative statements which arc rated on a four-point scale of ‘(very much like” to “not at all like.” The study reported herein was designed to verify the factor structure report,ed by Schaefer (1973). The three second-grade self-contained classrooms in a suburban school were typical in appearance, structure, and content. The age range of the 69 pupils was 90-112 mo (x(4.2) = 97.7). The three teachers were given release time to complete the CBI on each child in their classroom. Individual items were submitted to a principal axis factor analysis with unity used in the diagonals. Five factors emerged with eigenvalues ‘Requests 101 Miller Copyright All rights
for reprints Hall D&-12,
should be sent to Timothy University of Washington,
@ 1974 by Academic Press, of reproduction in any form
291 Inc. reserved.
J. Mirante. Special Seatt,le. Washingt,on
Education, 98195.
292
MIRANTE
AND
RYCHMAK
greater than one, accounting for 77% of the variance. However, because the conceptual model of the CBI has three bipolar dimensions, only three factors were rotated. The three factors rotated to varimax criterion account for 64% of the total variance. Table 1 shows the content and factor loadings for the bipolar CBI. Each of the items designed to assess a particular dimension loaded appropriately on the designated factor. Factor I reflects the TaskOriented vs Distractibility dimension defined by Schaefer (1971). All six items designed to define this dimension loaded as predicted. Factor II depicts the Extroversion vs Introversion dimension and all six items loaded appropriately. Factor III a.ppears as a Considerateness vs Hostility dimension with the six defining items loading as predicted. The analysis supports the a priori design of the instrument. It should be noted that. the bipolar nature of the design was realized. Within TABLE 1 CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR INVENTORY: CONCEPTS, CONTENT ITEM NUMBERS, FACTOR LOADINGS, AND COMMUNALITIES
Concept Extraversion
Content
Item number
Factor loadingsa I
II
h2
13 -23 -27
79 78 57
20 -03 -14
57 71 70
23 26 36
66 71 64
Spontaneity Expressive Seeks others
8 12
07 09 -20
Introversion
Verbal uncertainty Sad/serious Withdrawn
3 7 17
03 -02 -14
Task-Oriented Behavior
Works earnestly Attentive Persevering
2 10 18
77 79 71
Distractibility
Quickly distracted Inconsistent attention Daydreams
4 9 14
-81 -66 -80
-03 -02 -00
-06 -19 01
66 48 64
Hostility
Gets even Angers quickly Ridicules others
5 11 16
-29 -21 -26
-14 03 09
-78 -85 -82
71 76 74
Considerateness
Awaits turn Doesn’t hurt others Lets others talk
6 13 15
28 -12 26
-11 -03 -23
Percentage of total variance ,JDecimals eliminated.
1
31
88 85 68
III
-73 -84 -81 04 12 -08
22
68 49 71 11
56 25 63
CBI :
FACTOR
VERIFICATIOiK
293
each factor, the loadings reflect the bipolar design with approximately equal loadings in each direction. Each of the items was essentially factor pure, i.e., loaded significantly only on the appropriate factor. As a check on the adequacy of the three-factor solution, a second factor analysis was performed using the standard eigenvalue greater than one criteria. Basically, two of the five factors that emerged closely resembled factors II and III from the three-factor solution. The TaskOriented vs Distractibility factor reported above split into two unipolar dimensions. The fifth factor was basically item 13 which produced the lowest, factor loading of any item in the three-factor solution. It would appear that the use of the a priori rotation criteria is the most parsimonious. Apparent,ly, the CBI is very stable in terms of factor structure. Even though different age groupings and geographical areas were sampled, the factors reported in this study closely approximate the results obtained by Schaefer and Aaronson (1965). Additional research is needed to assess the utilitarian value of the CBI. Studies on inter- and intrarater reliability are needed. In addition, studies comparing teacher ratings of children with objective observations of those children will be helpful in assessing the uses for this instrument. The results of this study suggest, that Schaefer’s (1971) plea for additional instrumentation designed on an a priori basis is justified. Instruments with a known factor st,ructure based on theoretical considerat.ions can be very helpful in flIrthering theory. REFERENCES
E. S. Developmentof hierarchical,configurationalmodelsfor parent hehavior and child behavior. ITLJ. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota Symposin on Chilrl
SCHAEFER,
Psychology, Vol. V. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press. 1971. pp. 130-161. SCHAEFER, E. S. Personal communication. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1973. SCHAEFER, E. S., & AARONSON, M. R. Classroom behavior inventory, preschoolto primary. Unpublished form, 1965. SCHAEFER, E. S., AARONSON, M. R., & BURCKI~N, B. R. Classroom behavior inventory. Unpublished form, 1965.