- Email: [email protected]
Cognitive impulsivity training: the effects of peer teaching
1. Behav. Ther. & Exp. Psychiat. Vol. 20. No. 4, pp. 303-309. 1989. Printed in Great Britain.
0005--7916/89 $3.00 + 0.00 ~) 1990 Pergamon Press plc.
COGNITIVE IMPULSIVITY TRAINING: THE EFFECTS OF PEER TEACHING W. M. NELSON, III* and J. J. BEHLER Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Summaryu An investigation was conducted into the effects of peer teaching on two 10'/2year-old hospitalized impulsive children. One of these, the subject-teacher, was given cognitive behavioral self-instructional training for four weeks and subsequently prompted to train a peer in the problem-solving skills that he had just learned. Initial treatment effects on the subject-teacher, additive benefits obtained by his teaching a peer, and the treatment effects on the subject-pupil were examined using multiple dependent measures. The procedure was found advantageous to both subject-teacher and subject-pupil. Limitations of single-subject experiments and the need for using multiple measures in assessing treatment gains from self-instructional training to reduce impulsivity are discussed.
The importance of studying impulsivity in children follows from the fact that impulsive behavior and behavior lacking in self-control are among the most common problems in classrooms (e.g. Trites, 1974) and in children referred for mental health services (e.g. Conners, 1980). Cognitive-behavioral selfinstructional training for impulsivity has been found to be a useful intervention procedure in helping school children develop more adaptive behavior. The beneficial effects of such training, which employs an adult therapist who works with a child, has been supported by a growing body of literature (see Kendall & Braswell, 1985, for a more detailed discussion). At the same time, another body of literature within the educational field - - that of peer teaching ~ in reports of positive academic and social effects for the tutor and tutee (e.g. Gartner, Kohler, & Riessman, 1971). Its benefits are reported not only for academic achievement (Cloward, 1967; Frager & Stem, 1970; Johnson & Bailey, 1974) but also for social behavior, attitudes toward school (Yamamoto & Klentschy, 1972), self-esteem (Haggerty, 1971), and social and role-taking skills
(Angyle, 1976). To date, nobody has examined the possible benefits of integrating these two modes of therapy/teaching for impulsive children. The use of single-subject methodology has been advocated as being an appropriate research method when applying principles and notions in new ways and possibly providing a useful heuristic to subsequent, bettercontrolled research (e.g. Kazdin, 1982). Thus, the present study was designed to examine the therapeutic effects on both a child teacher and a child pupil by teaching cognitive skills to one and then having him instruct the other.
Method Subjects From a pool of ten children in a residential treatment facility for emotionally-disturbed children, two were identified as being highly impulsive from their scores on the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF; Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips, 1964; Kagan, 1966).
*Requests for reprints should be sent to W. M. Nelson III, Sycamore House, Department of Psychology, Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH 45207, U.S.A. 303
304
W. M. N E L S O N , III and J. J. B E H L E R
The subject-teacher, Alan, committed 12 errors (one SD above the mean for the normative sample; Salkind, 1978) and had a mean latency of 10.8 s. The subject-pupil, Chad, made 16 errors and had a mean latency of 6.6 s. Alan was a 101/2-year-old boy who developed significant behavioral problems following severe neglect from his natural mother and a failed adoption placement. He had entered the treatment facility 9 months earlier, when the Welfare Department had taken temporary custody of him. Standardized test data indicated that he was functioning in the average range of intelligence (WlSC-R, Full Scale IQ = 100; Verbal IQ = 94; Performance IQ = 108). He was also functioning slightly below the expected grade level and was in an ungraded classroom for those severely behaviorally handicapped. The subject-pupil, Chad, was also 101/2 years old and had been in the residential facility for 10 months. He had been previously placed for one year in a self-contained classroom for severely behaviorally disordered children. He was functioning in the low average range of intelligence (WISC-R Full Scale IQ = 81; Verbal IQ = 91; Performance IQ = 74). Neither child was on any psychiatric medication regimen. This pair was selected not solely on the basis of their impulsive MFF scores but also because they were reported by their teachers to have a positive relationship. Not only did Alan often help Chad with school work but he was about 2 years ahead of Chad academically and Chad seemed to admire him and to welcome his attention. This was viewed as an important circumstance as previous attempts to pair children with significant emotional/behavioral problems had proved unproductive if they did not like each other. Mutual attraction facilitated working together in a cooperative manner (Nelson & Evans, 1983).
Measures A single-subject procedure with multiple dependent measures was utilized to examine the effects of self-instructional training on the
subject-teacher, the subsequent benefits to him as a result of teaching another child, and the effects on the subject-pupil. The multiple dependent measures included: (1) direct behavioral observations of on- and off-task classroom behavior for 15 min twice a week by two trained independent raters using a time sampling procedure; (2) the Self-Control Rating Scale (SCRS; Kendall & Wilcox, 1979) completed by the teacher; (3) hyperactivity items on the Conners Teacher's Rating Scale (TRS; Conners, 1969), also completed by the teacher on a daily basis; (4) the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF; Kagan, et al., 1964), a measure of conceptual tempo where the choice variants were randomly rearranged for each administration to control for carry over effects; (5) Behavior Rating Profile (BRP; Brown & Hamill, 1983), a self-report behavior rating scale; and (6) Piers-Harris Children's SelfConcept Scale (PH; Piers & Harris, 1969), completed by the child.
Procedure The study was conducted in several phases, each containing the administration of the dependent measures during baseline, treatment, and follow-up periods. The first phase consisted of administering the six pre-training measures to Alan, the subject-teacher. The Teacher's Rating Scale (TRS) and direct behavioral observations were applied weekly throughout the entire study to both children. Phase 2 consisted of 4 weeks of traditional selfinstructional impulsivity training being given to Alan. It was followed by post-training assessment using the same measures. The next phase consisted of obtaining two follow-up assessments - - one immediately after Alan trained his peer to assess possible additive effects (Follow-up 1) and one two weeks later to assess maintenance of treatment effects (Follow-up 2). During the fourth week of Alan's training Phase A was implemented, in which the dependent measures were obtained for Chad, the subject-pupil, to assess his pre-
Peer Teaching
305
ChOSen to provide a thorough picture of the changes resulting from the intervention procedures for both subject-teacher and subjectpupil. The behavior rating scales (SCRS and TRS) provide measures of the adult teacher's global perception of the child's behavior. The child's response to the various questions asked of him is another source of information regarding the impact of the program. Specific performance on the tasks of conceptual tempo (MFF) provides a measure of reflectionimpulsivity when there is a high degree of uncertainty. That the teacher's perception of Alan was markedly altered after he underwent selfinstructional training is reflected in the posttreatment SCRS (see Figure 1). She judged him to be notably improved in the cognitive skills necessary to generate alternative skills to inhibit undesirable behavior and to act in a more appropriate fashion. Alan's rated level of self-control (SCRS) leveled off over the period he was teaching Chad, but then continued to improve even more during the 1- and 3-week
treatment status. Phase B consisted of 4 ~ k s of peer teaching, followed by the post-treatment dependent measures for Chad. Phase C consisted of obtaining the dependent measures again after a 2-week follow-up period (Followup la). Self-instructional training which included a response cost component (see Kendall & Braswell, 1985) was given to the subjectteacher by an adult experimenter. Twelve training sessions were employed, each lasting 40 rain, and conducted over a 4-week period. The peer teaching (with the adult experimenter present but taking an inactive, passive role) also involved four weeks of teaching where Alan instructed Chad in the self-instructional procedures that he had learned; 12 sessions, 3 per week, each also lasting 40 rain were employed during this phase.
Results and Discussion The multiple dependent measures were
7 :107
Alan:
2OO
Chad: .--e
190~
\\
1801181
\
170~
.lgl
\\
\ 150
'°t \
130 ¢O 120 ' II0-
~9
100-
4
908070-
0 ~ 0
\
\
\
\Me~ \ ~97
+ 1 sd
101
8S'S"~,,,.e
77
60-
5O
I
I
I
I
Alan: Pre - training Post. training Po~t - teaching Follow - up 1 Follow. up 2 Chad: - -Pre • training Post - teaching Follow - up 1 Follow. up 2
Phases Figure 1. Self-ControlRating Scale (SCRS)scoresfor the subject-teacher, Alan. and the subject-pupil,Chad across the various phases of the single-subject design.
306
W . M . NELSON, III and J. J. BEHLER
follow-up periods. These perceived improvements by the teacher paralleled her ratings of impulsivity using the TRS which additionally reflected Alan's tendency to exhibit less hyperactive behavior in the classroom (pre-training inpulsivity rating 2.25; teaching phase 1.1; and post-training phase .40) (see Figure 2). While there was an apparent increase (1.0) in his impulsive behavior during the 1-3 week follow-up it apparently leveled off again by the third week of follow-up (.64). The results varied more for Chad, although they were in the expected direction - - pre-teaching 1.77; peer teaching phase 1.28; follow-up 1 and 2 1.1 and 1.16 respectively. Such results support the contention that the SCRS is sensitive to the self-instructional interventions (Kendall & Wilcox, 1979; Kendall & Braswell, 1982). While daily ratings were more time consuming, they paralleled the more global SCRS ratings. It should be noted, however, that the teacher was not blind in her ratings. Despite the teacher's perception of positive changes in the subjects, the behavioral assess3.0"
2.8,'-, 2.6-
I p
2.4-
,
5
1.0-
u
0.80.6-
t-,
0.4-
~A ~ X = I . 1
!
vii\
1.61.41.2-
•~
I
I
I
I
2.0,~ -~ ~
J
I
2.2~. 1.8-
ment of on- and off-task classroom performance did not seem to change markedly. (Interater reliability had been checked twice over the course of the study to protect against rater drift,with 98% and 92% agreement.) As can be seen in Figure 3, there was no discernable change in the subject-teacher's behavior despite the tendency for mean on-task performance changes across phases (86.5% during the pre-training; 95.6% while he was being taught by the experimenter; 94.1% while he taught Chad; but a decline to 78% and 83% during the follow-ups). Neither were there any clear changes in trends or levels for the subjectpupil's on- and off-task performance over the course of the study. The fact that there was already a high rate of on-task behavior in both subjects (baseline of 86.5% for Alan and 91.2% for Chad) may have had a ceiling effect. This highlights the recent examination of the reliability and validity of direct behavior observation procedures. While direct assessment of overt behavior has been considered the ultimate data by behaviorists, the validity ob-
ill
I
I
X=O~
~
A,,
I J
X=0.54
X = .0
I
~
o.64
I
Ill i I I
W
0.2-
................. i.... j. . . . . . . . . . . .
0 Pre - training
lmpulsivity training Post training
~ ....
Peer - teaching
i
i
i
Follow
up 1
I 1 i ;
- Follow up 2
Days Figure 2. Teaching Rating Scale (TRS) scores for the subject-teacher, Alan, across the various phases of the singlesubject design.
Peer Teaching
307
On task e~e
Off task
o---o Other
kXv ,
/
41]
Week off
Week offI/
I
I I
I
j
!
I
I
I
50-
°=
V, 10-
_ I
,, I
I
0
. . . . .
Pre-training
lmpulsivity training
Post training
Peer training
,
t . . . .
Follow up 1
Follow up 2
Figure 3. On- and off-task direct classroom observations for the subject-teacher, Alan, across the various phases of the single-subject design.
tained through direct observations also needs to be placed in perspective. Currently there is no agreement about adequate validity criteria of behavioral data. One view is the criteria should be data collected on a continuous time basis for similar sessions in which time sampling is utilized (e.g. Powell & Rockinson, 1978). Another view is that behavioral data are actually samples of an actual larger domain of class behaviors and, therefore, direct strategies need to be examined for their content validity (the extent to which a procedure measures a domain of the behaviors it was designed to sample) (Linehan, 1980). Still another view questions whether traditional notions of reliability and validity are even appropriate means of evaluating the quality of behavior assessment (Hayes, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1986). A notable discrepancy was found between the teacher's perceived improvements and performance-based data. This is likely, in part, due to the fact that the teacher's ratings are
tapping into a broader range of behaviors than are specifically assessed by the direct observation procedures. Analysis of the task performance procedure, the MFF, indicates a clear reduction of the number of errors committed by both Alan and Chad (at pre-training, Alan had 12 errors, one SD above the mean for the normative sample; Salkind, 1978). After receiving the self-instructional procedures by the experimenter, there was a slight decline to 10 errors; after he instructed Chad, it decreased to 9 errors, and then to 5 and i errors in the two follow-ups. No concomitant increase of latencies, however, were noted (M of 10.8, 9.4, 7.6, 13.9, 14.4 seconds during the assessment phases). MFF errors by the subject-pupil also appeared to decline as a result of being taught by a peer (15 errors at pre-teaching, 6 errors at postteaching, and 8 and 4 at the two follow-ups). Similar to Alan, there were no notable changes in trend for Chad's response latencies.
308
W. M. NELSON, III and J. J. BEHLER
Such results were encouraging, especially in light of concerns about the necessity of requiring both latency and error measures in predictions of achievements as the error rate may be more important (Block, Block, & Harrington, 1974; Egeland, Bielke, & Kendall, 1980). Finally, two self-report measures (PH and BRP) were included to examine possible iatrogenic effects. Alan's level of self-esteem was at the 46th percentile prior to receiving selfinstructional training and at the 71st percentile immediately after training. It dropped (37th percentile) after he taught his peer, possibly reflecting some frustration in trying to teach another child who had significant behavioral problems the skills he had recently learned himself. There was a marked rebound effect, however during the follow-ups as Alan's selfesteem rose to the 95th and 97th percentiles. Kendall and Braswell (1982) have also noted improvements in self-concepts after cognitivebehavioral treatments. Chad seemed to have a need to appear extremely self-confident or lacked the capacity for critical self-evaluation as he rated his level of self-esteem extremely high across the entire study (above the 90th percentile). The BRP yielded scores in two areas - attitude toward school and toward peers. At pretraining, Alan rated himself in the 16th percentile regarding his attitude toward school indicating he felt poorly about school. His perception remained fairly constant after he was given self-instructional training and after he taught Chad (both at the 9th percentile). Such an attitude, however, improved at the two follow-ups (25th and 50th percentiles). His overall attitude toward peers remained average throughout the training and teaching phases, but it decreased to 37th and 25th percentiles during the follow-ups. Chad, on the other hand, rated his attitude toward peers at the 37th percentile at pre-teaching, but at the 75th percentile after being helped by Alan. This, however, tended to decline in the followups (61st and 49th percentiles). Perhaps this reflects the increase of positive attention and
assistance he was being extended by a respected peer, although his overall improved attitude tended to return to pre-teaching levels after 3 weeks. His attitude toward school clearly improved and was maintained after receiving instructions from a peer (Pre - - 37th, Post - - 61st, Follow-up 1 - - 61st, Follow-up 2 - - 75th). Such results indicate the need to expand assessment to include attitudes and beliefs that seem important in understanding the effects of such treatment interventions (see Finch & Rogers, 1984; Kendall & Braswell, 1985). While the results of this study seem promising, it is important to remember that from a single case the conclusions must be limited. Future research needs to include not only specific target overt and cognitive behaviors that are problematic for impulsive children (specifying level) but also how others may perceive the changes made by them as a result of therapeutic intervention (general-impact level) (Kendall & Braswell, 1985). In this way we can not only gain a more thorough understanding of how to employ our limited resources in working with highly impulsive children but also understanding the child's specific deficits and concomitant changes in related cognitions and behavior not directly targeted in the selfinstructional interventions.
References Angyle, M. (1976). Social skills theory. In V. Alien (Ed.), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York: Academic Press. Block, J., Block, J. H., & Harrington, D. M. (1975). Comment on the Kagan-Messer reply. Developmental Psychology, 11, 249-252. Brown, L., & Hamlli, D. D. (1983). Behavior Rating Prop/e, Pro-Ed: Austin, Texas. Cloward, R. D. (1976). Teenagers as tutors of lowachieving children: Impact on tutors and tutees. In V. Allen (Ed~), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York: Academic Press. Conners, C. K. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 884-888. Conners, C. K. (1980). Food additives and hyperactive children. New York: Plenum.
Peer Teaching Egeland, B., Bielke, P., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). A'chi~vement and adjustment correlates of the Matching Familiar Figures test. Journal of School Psychology, 18, 361372. Finch, A. J., Jr., & Rogers, T. R. (1984). Self-report instruments. In T. H. Oilendick & M. Hersen (Eds.) Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures. New York: Pergamon Press. Frager, S., & Stem, C. (1970). Learning by teaching. The Reading Teacher, 23, 403-417. Gartner, A., Kohler, M. C., & Riessman, R. (1971). Children teach children: Learning by teaching. New York: Harper & Row. Haggerty, M. (1971). The effects of being a tutor and being a counselor in a group on self concept and achievement of underachieving adolescent males. DIS-
sertation Abstracts International, 31, 4460. Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1986). Evaluating the quality behavioral assessment. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.) Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford Press. Johnson, M., & Bailey, J. S. (1974). Cross-age tutoring: Fifth graders as arithmetic tutors for kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 223-
232. Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24. Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information-processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78 (No. I. Whole #578). Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press.
309
Keflchllli P. C,, & Braswell, L. (1982). Cognitivebehavioral self-control therapy for children: A components analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 672--689. Kendall, P. C., & BrasweU, L. (1985). Cognitivebehavioral therapy for impulsive children. New York: Guilford Press. Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 1020-1029. Linehan, M. (1980). Content validity: Its relevance to behavioral asse~ment Behavioral Assessment, 2, 147-159. Nelson, W. M., III,& Evans, H. L. (1983). Peer teaching in inpatient impulsive children. Unpublished manuscript, Xavier University. Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1964). Age and other correlates of self concept in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 91-95. Powell, J., & Rockinson, R. (1978). On the inability of interval time sampling to reflect frequency of occurrence data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analyses, 1l, 531532. Salkind, N. J. (1978). Development of norms for the
MMF. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 61. Trites, R. L. (1979). Prevalence of hyperactivity in Ottawa, Canada. In R. L. Trites (Ed.), Hyperactivity in
children: Etiology, measurement, and treatment implications. Baltimore: University Press. Yamamoto, J. Y., & Klentschy, M. (1972). An examina-
tion of intergrade tutoring experience on attitudinal development of inner city children. Paper presented at annual meeting of the California Educational Research Association, San Jose.
0005--7916/89 $3.00 + 0.00 ~) 1990 Pergamon Press plc.
COGNITIVE IMPULSIVITY TRAINING: THE EFFECTS OF PEER TEACHING W. M. NELSON, III* and J. J. BEHLER Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio
Summaryu An investigation was conducted into the effects of peer teaching on two 10'/2year-old hospitalized impulsive children. One of these, the subject-teacher, was given cognitive behavioral self-instructional training for four weeks and subsequently prompted to train a peer in the problem-solving skills that he had just learned. Initial treatment effects on the subject-teacher, additive benefits obtained by his teaching a peer, and the treatment effects on the subject-pupil were examined using multiple dependent measures. The procedure was found advantageous to both subject-teacher and subject-pupil. Limitations of single-subject experiments and the need for using multiple measures in assessing treatment gains from self-instructional training to reduce impulsivity are discussed.
The importance of studying impulsivity in children follows from the fact that impulsive behavior and behavior lacking in self-control are among the most common problems in classrooms (e.g. Trites, 1974) and in children referred for mental health services (e.g. Conners, 1980). Cognitive-behavioral selfinstructional training for impulsivity has been found to be a useful intervention procedure in helping school children develop more adaptive behavior. The beneficial effects of such training, which employs an adult therapist who works with a child, has been supported by a growing body of literature (see Kendall & Braswell, 1985, for a more detailed discussion). At the same time, another body of literature within the educational field - - that of peer teaching ~ in reports of positive academic and social effects for the tutor and tutee (e.g. Gartner, Kohler, & Riessman, 1971). Its benefits are reported not only for academic achievement (Cloward, 1967; Frager & Stem, 1970; Johnson & Bailey, 1974) but also for social behavior, attitudes toward school (Yamamoto & Klentschy, 1972), self-esteem (Haggerty, 1971), and social and role-taking skills
(Angyle, 1976). To date, nobody has examined the possible benefits of integrating these two modes of therapy/teaching for impulsive children. The use of single-subject methodology has been advocated as being an appropriate research method when applying principles and notions in new ways and possibly providing a useful heuristic to subsequent, bettercontrolled research (e.g. Kazdin, 1982). Thus, the present study was designed to examine the therapeutic effects on both a child teacher and a child pupil by teaching cognitive skills to one and then having him instruct the other.
Method Subjects From a pool of ten children in a residential treatment facility for emotionally-disturbed children, two were identified as being highly impulsive from their scores on the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF; Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips, 1964; Kagan, 1966).
*Requests for reprints should be sent to W. M. Nelson III, Sycamore House, Department of Psychology, Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH 45207, U.S.A. 303
304
W. M. N E L S O N , III and J. J. B E H L E R
The subject-teacher, Alan, committed 12 errors (one SD above the mean for the normative sample; Salkind, 1978) and had a mean latency of 10.8 s. The subject-pupil, Chad, made 16 errors and had a mean latency of 6.6 s. Alan was a 101/2-year-old boy who developed significant behavioral problems following severe neglect from his natural mother and a failed adoption placement. He had entered the treatment facility 9 months earlier, when the Welfare Department had taken temporary custody of him. Standardized test data indicated that he was functioning in the average range of intelligence (WlSC-R, Full Scale IQ = 100; Verbal IQ = 94; Performance IQ = 108). He was also functioning slightly below the expected grade level and was in an ungraded classroom for those severely behaviorally handicapped. The subject-pupil, Chad, was also 101/2 years old and had been in the residential facility for 10 months. He had been previously placed for one year in a self-contained classroom for severely behaviorally disordered children. He was functioning in the low average range of intelligence (WISC-R Full Scale IQ = 81; Verbal IQ = 91; Performance IQ = 74). Neither child was on any psychiatric medication regimen. This pair was selected not solely on the basis of their impulsive MFF scores but also because they were reported by their teachers to have a positive relationship. Not only did Alan often help Chad with school work but he was about 2 years ahead of Chad academically and Chad seemed to admire him and to welcome his attention. This was viewed as an important circumstance as previous attempts to pair children with significant emotional/behavioral problems had proved unproductive if they did not like each other. Mutual attraction facilitated working together in a cooperative manner (Nelson & Evans, 1983).
Measures A single-subject procedure with multiple dependent measures was utilized to examine the effects of self-instructional training on the
subject-teacher, the subsequent benefits to him as a result of teaching another child, and the effects on the subject-pupil. The multiple dependent measures included: (1) direct behavioral observations of on- and off-task classroom behavior for 15 min twice a week by two trained independent raters using a time sampling procedure; (2) the Self-Control Rating Scale (SCRS; Kendall & Wilcox, 1979) completed by the teacher; (3) hyperactivity items on the Conners Teacher's Rating Scale (TRS; Conners, 1969), also completed by the teacher on a daily basis; (4) the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFF; Kagan, et al., 1964), a measure of conceptual tempo where the choice variants were randomly rearranged for each administration to control for carry over effects; (5) Behavior Rating Profile (BRP; Brown & Hamill, 1983), a self-report behavior rating scale; and (6) Piers-Harris Children's SelfConcept Scale (PH; Piers & Harris, 1969), completed by the child.
Procedure The study was conducted in several phases, each containing the administration of the dependent measures during baseline, treatment, and follow-up periods. The first phase consisted of administering the six pre-training measures to Alan, the subject-teacher. The Teacher's Rating Scale (TRS) and direct behavioral observations were applied weekly throughout the entire study to both children. Phase 2 consisted of 4 weeks of traditional selfinstructional impulsivity training being given to Alan. It was followed by post-training assessment using the same measures. The next phase consisted of obtaining two follow-up assessments - - one immediately after Alan trained his peer to assess possible additive effects (Follow-up 1) and one two weeks later to assess maintenance of treatment effects (Follow-up 2). During the fourth week of Alan's training Phase A was implemented, in which the dependent measures were obtained for Chad, the subject-pupil, to assess his pre-
Peer Teaching
305
ChOSen to provide a thorough picture of the changes resulting from the intervention procedures for both subject-teacher and subjectpupil. The behavior rating scales (SCRS and TRS) provide measures of the adult teacher's global perception of the child's behavior. The child's response to the various questions asked of him is another source of information regarding the impact of the program. Specific performance on the tasks of conceptual tempo (MFF) provides a measure of reflectionimpulsivity when there is a high degree of uncertainty. That the teacher's perception of Alan was markedly altered after he underwent selfinstructional training is reflected in the posttreatment SCRS (see Figure 1). She judged him to be notably improved in the cognitive skills necessary to generate alternative skills to inhibit undesirable behavior and to act in a more appropriate fashion. Alan's rated level of self-control (SCRS) leveled off over the period he was teaching Chad, but then continued to improve even more during the 1- and 3-week
treatment status. Phase B consisted of 4 ~ k s of peer teaching, followed by the post-treatment dependent measures for Chad. Phase C consisted of obtaining the dependent measures again after a 2-week follow-up period (Followup la). Self-instructional training which included a response cost component (see Kendall & Braswell, 1985) was given to the subjectteacher by an adult experimenter. Twelve training sessions were employed, each lasting 40 rain, and conducted over a 4-week period. The peer teaching (with the adult experimenter present but taking an inactive, passive role) also involved four weeks of teaching where Alan instructed Chad in the self-instructional procedures that he had learned; 12 sessions, 3 per week, each also lasting 40 rain were employed during this phase.
Results and Discussion The multiple dependent measures were
7 :107
Alan:
2OO
Chad: .--e
190~
\\
1801181
\
170~
.lgl
\\
\ 150
'°t \
130 ¢O 120 ' II0-
~9
100-
4
908070-
0 ~ 0
\
\
\
\Me~ \ ~97
+ 1 sd
101
8S'S"~,,,.e
77
60-
5O
I
I
I
I
Alan: Pre - training Post. training Po~t - teaching Follow - up 1 Follow. up 2 Chad: - -Pre • training Post - teaching Follow - up 1 Follow. up 2
Phases Figure 1. Self-ControlRating Scale (SCRS)scoresfor the subject-teacher, Alan. and the subject-pupil,Chad across the various phases of the single-subject design.
306
W . M . NELSON, III and J. J. BEHLER
follow-up periods. These perceived improvements by the teacher paralleled her ratings of impulsivity using the TRS which additionally reflected Alan's tendency to exhibit less hyperactive behavior in the classroom (pre-training inpulsivity rating 2.25; teaching phase 1.1; and post-training phase .40) (see Figure 2). While there was an apparent increase (1.0) in his impulsive behavior during the 1-3 week follow-up it apparently leveled off again by the third week of follow-up (.64). The results varied more for Chad, although they were in the expected direction - - pre-teaching 1.77; peer teaching phase 1.28; follow-up 1 and 2 1.1 and 1.16 respectively. Such results support the contention that the SCRS is sensitive to the self-instructional interventions (Kendall & Wilcox, 1979; Kendall & Braswell, 1982). While daily ratings were more time consuming, they paralleled the more global SCRS ratings. It should be noted, however, that the teacher was not blind in her ratings. Despite the teacher's perception of positive changes in the subjects, the behavioral assess3.0"
2.8,'-, 2.6-
I p
2.4-
,
5
1.0-
u
0.80.6-
t-,
0.4-
~A ~ X = I . 1
!
vii\
1.61.41.2-
•~
I
I
I
I
2.0,~ -~ ~
J
I
2.2~. 1.8-
ment of on- and off-task classroom performance did not seem to change markedly. (Interater reliability had been checked twice over the course of the study to protect against rater drift,with 98% and 92% agreement.) As can be seen in Figure 3, there was no discernable change in the subject-teacher's behavior despite the tendency for mean on-task performance changes across phases (86.5% during the pre-training; 95.6% while he was being taught by the experimenter; 94.1% while he taught Chad; but a decline to 78% and 83% during the follow-ups). Neither were there any clear changes in trends or levels for the subjectpupil's on- and off-task performance over the course of the study. The fact that there was already a high rate of on-task behavior in both subjects (baseline of 86.5% for Alan and 91.2% for Chad) may have had a ceiling effect. This highlights the recent examination of the reliability and validity of direct behavior observation procedures. While direct assessment of overt behavior has been considered the ultimate data by behaviorists, the validity ob-
ill
I
I
X=O~
~
A,,
I J
X=0.54
X = .0
I
~
o.64
I
Ill i I I
W
0.2-
................. i.... j. . . . . . . . . . . .
0 Pre - training
lmpulsivity training Post training
~ ....
Peer - teaching
i
i
i
Follow
up 1
I 1 i ;
- Follow up 2
Days Figure 2. Teaching Rating Scale (TRS) scores for the subject-teacher, Alan, across the various phases of the singlesubject design.
Peer Teaching
307
On task e~e
Off task
o---o Other
kXv ,
/
41]
Week off
Week offI/
I
I I
I
j
!
I
I
I
50-
°=
V, 10-
_ I
,, I
I
0
. . . . .
Pre-training
lmpulsivity training
Post training
Peer training
,
t . . . .
Follow up 1
Follow up 2
Figure 3. On- and off-task direct classroom observations for the subject-teacher, Alan, across the various phases of the single-subject design.
tained through direct observations also needs to be placed in perspective. Currently there is no agreement about adequate validity criteria of behavioral data. One view is the criteria should be data collected on a continuous time basis for similar sessions in which time sampling is utilized (e.g. Powell & Rockinson, 1978). Another view is that behavioral data are actually samples of an actual larger domain of class behaviors and, therefore, direct strategies need to be examined for their content validity (the extent to which a procedure measures a domain of the behaviors it was designed to sample) (Linehan, 1980). Still another view questions whether traditional notions of reliability and validity are even appropriate means of evaluating the quality of behavior assessment (Hayes, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1986). A notable discrepancy was found between the teacher's perceived improvements and performance-based data. This is likely, in part, due to the fact that the teacher's ratings are
tapping into a broader range of behaviors than are specifically assessed by the direct observation procedures. Analysis of the task performance procedure, the MFF, indicates a clear reduction of the number of errors committed by both Alan and Chad (at pre-training, Alan had 12 errors, one SD above the mean for the normative sample; Salkind, 1978). After receiving the self-instructional procedures by the experimenter, there was a slight decline to 10 errors; after he instructed Chad, it decreased to 9 errors, and then to 5 and i errors in the two follow-ups. No concomitant increase of latencies, however, were noted (M of 10.8, 9.4, 7.6, 13.9, 14.4 seconds during the assessment phases). MFF errors by the subject-pupil also appeared to decline as a result of being taught by a peer (15 errors at pre-teaching, 6 errors at postteaching, and 8 and 4 at the two follow-ups). Similar to Alan, there were no notable changes in trend for Chad's response latencies.
308
W. M. NELSON, III and J. J. BEHLER
Such results were encouraging, especially in light of concerns about the necessity of requiring both latency and error measures in predictions of achievements as the error rate may be more important (Block, Block, & Harrington, 1974; Egeland, Bielke, & Kendall, 1980). Finally, two self-report measures (PH and BRP) were included to examine possible iatrogenic effects. Alan's level of self-esteem was at the 46th percentile prior to receiving selfinstructional training and at the 71st percentile immediately after training. It dropped (37th percentile) after he taught his peer, possibly reflecting some frustration in trying to teach another child who had significant behavioral problems the skills he had recently learned himself. There was a marked rebound effect, however during the follow-ups as Alan's selfesteem rose to the 95th and 97th percentiles. Kendall and Braswell (1982) have also noted improvements in self-concepts after cognitivebehavioral treatments. Chad seemed to have a need to appear extremely self-confident or lacked the capacity for critical self-evaluation as he rated his level of self-esteem extremely high across the entire study (above the 90th percentile). The BRP yielded scores in two areas - attitude toward school and toward peers. At pretraining, Alan rated himself in the 16th percentile regarding his attitude toward school indicating he felt poorly about school. His perception remained fairly constant after he was given self-instructional training and after he taught Chad (both at the 9th percentile). Such an attitude, however, improved at the two follow-ups (25th and 50th percentiles). His overall attitude toward peers remained average throughout the training and teaching phases, but it decreased to 37th and 25th percentiles during the follow-ups. Chad, on the other hand, rated his attitude toward peers at the 37th percentile at pre-teaching, but at the 75th percentile after being helped by Alan. This, however, tended to decline in the followups (61st and 49th percentiles). Perhaps this reflects the increase of positive attention and
assistance he was being extended by a respected peer, although his overall improved attitude tended to return to pre-teaching levels after 3 weeks. His attitude toward school clearly improved and was maintained after receiving instructions from a peer (Pre - - 37th, Post - - 61st, Follow-up 1 - - 61st, Follow-up 2 - - 75th). Such results indicate the need to expand assessment to include attitudes and beliefs that seem important in understanding the effects of such treatment interventions (see Finch & Rogers, 1984; Kendall & Braswell, 1985). While the results of this study seem promising, it is important to remember that from a single case the conclusions must be limited. Future research needs to include not only specific target overt and cognitive behaviors that are problematic for impulsive children (specifying level) but also how others may perceive the changes made by them as a result of therapeutic intervention (general-impact level) (Kendall & Braswell, 1985). In this way we can not only gain a more thorough understanding of how to employ our limited resources in working with highly impulsive children but also understanding the child's specific deficits and concomitant changes in related cognitions and behavior not directly targeted in the selfinstructional interventions.
References Angyle, M. (1976). Social skills theory. In V. Alien (Ed.), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York: Academic Press. Block, J., Block, J. H., & Harrington, D. M. (1975). Comment on the Kagan-Messer reply. Developmental Psychology, 11, 249-252. Brown, L., & Hamlli, D. D. (1983). Behavior Rating Prop/e, Pro-Ed: Austin, Texas. Cloward, R. D. (1976). Teenagers as tutors of lowachieving children: Impact on tutors and tutees. In V. Allen (Ed~), Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York: Academic Press. Conners, C. K. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 884-888. Conners, C. K. (1980). Food additives and hyperactive children. New York: Plenum.
Peer Teaching Egeland, B., Bielke, P., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). A'chi~vement and adjustment correlates of the Matching Familiar Figures test. Journal of School Psychology, 18, 361372. Finch, A. J., Jr., & Rogers, T. R. (1984). Self-report instruments. In T. H. Oilendick & M. Hersen (Eds.) Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures. New York: Pergamon Press. Frager, S., & Stem, C. (1970). Learning by teaching. The Reading Teacher, 23, 403-417. Gartner, A., Kohler, M. C., & Riessman, R. (1971). Children teach children: Learning by teaching. New York: Harper & Row. Haggerty, M. (1971). The effects of being a tutor and being a counselor in a group on self concept and achievement of underachieving adolescent males. DIS-
sertation Abstracts International, 31, 4460. Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1986). Evaluating the quality behavioral assessment. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.) Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford Press. Johnson, M., & Bailey, J. S. (1974). Cross-age tutoring: Fifth graders as arithmetic tutors for kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 223-
232. Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17-24. Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information-processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78 (No. I. Whole #578). Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press.
309
Keflchllli P. C,, & Braswell, L. (1982). Cognitivebehavioral self-control therapy for children: A components analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 672--689. Kendall, P. C., & BrasweU, L. (1985). Cognitivebehavioral therapy for impulsive children. New York: Guilford Press. Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 1020-1029. Linehan, M. (1980). Content validity: Its relevance to behavioral asse~ment Behavioral Assessment, 2, 147-159. Nelson, W. M., III,& Evans, H. L. (1983). Peer teaching in inpatient impulsive children. Unpublished manuscript, Xavier University. Piers, E. V., & Harris, D. B. (1964). Age and other correlates of self concept in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 91-95. Powell, J., & Rockinson, R. (1978). On the inability of interval time sampling to reflect frequency of occurrence data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analyses, 1l, 531532. Salkind, N. J. (1978). Development of norms for the
MMF. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 61. Trites, R. L. (1979). Prevalence of hyperactivity in Ottawa, Canada. In R. L. Trites (Ed.), Hyperactivity in
children: Etiology, measurement, and treatment implications. Baltimore: University Press. Yamamoto, J. Y., & Klentschy, M. (1972). An examina-
tion of intergrade tutoring experience on attitudinal development of inner city children. Paper presented at annual meeting of the California Educational Research Association, San Jose.