Dimensions of temperamental activity level and adjustment

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology

Dimensions of temperamental activity level and adjustment Hedwig Teglasi a,⁎, Mila French b, Lauren Lohr a, Karen J. Miller c, Holly Drewer Erwin d, Lee Rothman e, Michelle Denny a a b c d e

University of Maryland, USA Fairfax County Public School System, USA North Rockland Central School District, USA Private Practice, USA Prince Georges County Public School System, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 7 April 2009 Keywords: Activity level Adjustment Emotional disability Self-regulation Temperament

a b s t r a c t The relationship between children's activity level and adjustment has been based on a onedimensional conceptualization of activity level and warrants re-examination. Current questionnaires conflate amount of physical movement with its appropriateness to the context, making it impossible to tell which aspect of activity level accounts for its links with adjustment. This investigation, using a Structured Temperament Interview (STI), separated two activity level dimensions, extent of physical movement (Vigor) and its attunement to the context (Modulation). In two samples, questionnaire measures of activity level correlated positively with Vigor and negatively with Modulation, indicating that high Activity scores reflect a combination of high Vigor and low Modulation. Modulation, but not Vigor, correlated with adjustment as indexed by classification with emotional disability in the school system and by scores on the Behavioral Assessment System for Children. After removal of variance contributed by Modulation, significant correlations were attenuated between adjustment and activity level measured with the Dimensions of Temperament Survey—Revised. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Compelling reasons to understand children's temperament include its role in shaping development Kagan & Snidman (2004) and its documented links to adjustment (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Although the temperament construct emphasizes the normal range of variation in how children engage with their surroundings, relationships between temperament and adjustment problems have been well established. Temperamental dispositions are increasingly included in models of risk or resilience (e.g., Mash & Barkley, 2003) with recognition that a) vulnerability to maladjustment due to temperament is not static because it is modified by the growth of coping resources (Tarter, Mezzich, Hsieh, & Parks, 1995); and b) it is the confluence of risk and protective variables, rather than any single variable, that best predicts developmental outcomes, including psychopathology (Sanson, Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991). On the other hand, a single temperament dimension such as activity level may encompass more than one dimension, each with different implications for adjustment and development. This investigation proposes that two dimension of activity level, Vigor of physical movement/energy and Modulation of movement to suit social expectations differ in their relationships to indices of adjustment. Specific temperamental dispositions that have been identified vary somewhat across theories and research studies but activity level is common across all conceptions (Buss & Plomin, 1984; Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988; Thomas & Chess, 1977), is included in ⁎ Corresponding author. University of Maryland, Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, 3214 Benjamin Building, College Park, Maryland 20742, United States. Fax: +1 301 405 9995. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Teglasi). 0193-3973/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.034

506

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

most temperament questionnaires and emerges in factor analytic studies as a distinct dimension (Martin, Wisenbaker, & Huttenen, 1994). High activity level has been associated with increased risk for externalizing behavior problems (Moss, Blackston, Martin, & Tarter, 1992), and restlessness or irritability, concomitant features of high activity level, may predispose individuals to interpersonal and academic difficulties (Tarter, 1988). However, activity level does not operate independently of other temperamental factors. For instance, the adverse impact of high activity level on academic and social adjustment is more evident when combined with other temperamental attributes such as low attention span (Nelson, Martin, Hodge, Haville, & Kamphaus, 1999). Among nonreferred children, constellations of children's temperamental dispositions that include high activity level are associated with parental concerns (Teglasi & MacMahon, 1990). 1.1. Multiple dimensions within activity level Activity level may be a complex construct with more than one dimension. The problem with a complex construct is that the same score may be associated with different patterns of scores on sub-constructs and the meaning of the score is not the same across individuals (see McGrath, 2005). Temperament questionnaires typically include items describing specific behaviors involving physical movement. However, in some contexts such as the classroom, the child's active behaviors also imply problems with its regulation to the situation and inclusion of such items confounds energetic (Vigor) and regulatory (Modulation) components of activity level. Additionally, different questionnaires may differentially emphasize Vigor and Modulation and are therefore not interchangeable. This investigation addresses two sets of questions. The first set is whether activity level encompasses two dimensions, Vigor and Modulation, and how these dimensions relate to current questionnaire measures. The second set is whether the two dimensions are differentially linked with adjustment and how the relationship between adjustment and activity level as measured by a questionnaire changes after controlling for Modulation. The activity construct as typically measured in questionnaires emphasize expenditure of physical energy, including tempo and Vigor of movement (Buss & Plomin, 1984) and preferences for activities that are low key versus exciting (Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994; Tarter, Moss, & Vanyukov, 1995). Questionnaire measures of activity level give primary emphasis to the amount of physical movement and do not explicitly deal with Modulation of activity level. Nevertheless, problems with Modulation are implicit in items referring to high activity that is not attuned to the context. The identification of two types of activity level as “extraneous movement” and “exploratory movement” (Campbell, Eaton, & McKeen, 2002) is pertinent to the construct of Modulation of activity. Whereas exploratory movement entails the expenditure of energy that is organized by an intention, extraneous movement or non-functional repetitive activity may pose problems when the situation calls for Modulation of activity toward a purpose or to meet situational expectations. 1.2. Measurement issues in linking temperament to behavioral problems Due to overlaps between measures of temperament and behavior problems, the connection between them has been questioned as a possible artifact of similarities of their measures (Sanson et al., 1990). Although the constructs underlying measures of temperament and of behavior problems differ at the item level, they tend to be similar in format (rating of specific behaviors) and some items on temperament scales bear a resemblance in content to those on measures of adjustment. Attempts to deal with the problem of item overlap by eliminating duplicate items from analyses have not washed out meaningful relationships between temperament and behavior problems (e.g., Lengua, West, & Sandler, 1998). Shared constructs may be another source of overlap between measures of temperament and adjustment aside from similarities of content, response format, or informant. To the extent that an item refers to behavior that is not acceptable in the described situation, that item is not only indicative of high activity level but also of maladaptive behavior that conceptually overlaps with measures of behavioral adjustment. Previous research demonstrates a general conceptual distinction between temperament and behavioral problems through findings that subsequent to intervention, there were changes in ratings of problem behaviors but not of temperament (Sheeber, 1995). In the current investigation, different item formats and different informants were used to measure temperament and adjustment, thereby side stepping some of the ambiguities of previous research. The Structured Temperament Interview (STI) entails direct ratings of the constructs rather than of behaviors and differs from the typical formats used in questionnaire temperament measures and problem behavior ratings. Additionally, one of the measures of adjustment, the identification of children with emotional disability (ED), is a complex judgment made by school personnel, bearing no similarity to the questionnaire or STI measure of temperament, either in format or informant. 1.3. The Structured Temperament Interview (STI) The construction of the Structured Temperament Interview (STI) served as a vehicle to grapple with emerging issues in the conceptualization and measurement of temperament (see Teglasi, 1998) but the current investigation focuses on the activity level dimension. The STI included items to assess Vigor and Modulation as two dimensions of activity level. The respondent is presented with a definition of the construct and a five-point response option pegged to those definitions. As a check on their understanding, informants are asked to provide examples to explain their ratings. Despite its advantages in providing a format that does not overlap with questionnaire ratings of temperament or adjustment, the STI poses specific measurement issues. First, it may be argued that definitions of constructs may be less reliably rated than descriptions of behaviors; this contention is put to an empirical test in this investigation. Second, the interview format does not

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

507

lend itself to the inclusion of as many items to assess activity level as are typical of questionnaires and shorter scales are generally viewed as less reliable. Therefore, in calculating the internal consistencies of the two sub-scales, Vigor and Modulation, corrections are made for scale length. However, given evidence that a shorter, more narrowly focused scale may be a better predictor of a criterion than is the longer, more complex scale from which items were drawn (Burisch, 1997) and that a ceiling for criterion validity is reached after only 3 or 4 items, the shortness of the STI scales is not considered to be an obstacle to documenting correlations with external criteria. Following this line of reasoning, scores on each of the two STI dimensions were expected to correlate meaningfully with questionnaire activity scales and with adjustment despite fewer items. Current measures of children's activity level do not distinguish between physical energy or movement (Vigor) and regulation of that energy (Modulation) as appropriate to the context. As a consequence, research linking activity level and adjustment is also devoid of this distinction. By using the STI, a measure that distinguishes between these two dimensions, this investigation posed two related sets of questions: a) Does temperamental activity level subsume two dimensions, Vigor and Modulation, and are these dimensions conflated in current questionnaires; and b) If Vigor and Modulation are distinct dimensions of activity, do they differ in their links with adjustment? 2. Methods Two samples were included in this investigation. The preschool sample was comprised of parents and teachers of students in a preschool setting, and the sibling sample was comprised of parents of brothers, the younger having been identified with an Emotional Disability (ED). 2.1. Preschool sample Participants were parents and teachers of 31 boys and 32 girls attending a university based pre-school program. The children varied in age from 36 to 78 months (M = 51.6 months) and were from diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds: 60% European-American, 11% Asian-American, 6% African-American, 5% Hispanic-American, 9% “other” with those remaining not providing such information. Ten teachers participated in the study and there were no differences among teachers in mean ratings of children's temperament. 2.1.1. Procedures for preschool sample Letters were sent to all (105) parents of children attending a university preschool and those who returned the informed consent form were contacted by phone to schedule interviews, typically conducted on campus. Questionnaires were mailed and collected prior to the interviews. Parents and teachers were told in advance that they would not have access to each other's confidential responses. The large majority of informants were mothers. Individual interviews, conducted by three doctoral students in psychology, were taped for later transcription. 2.1.2. Measures for preschool sample 2.1.2.1. Temperament Assessment Battery for Children (TABC; Martin, 1988). Appropriate with children ages 3 to 7, and using the conceptual underpinnings of Thomas, Chess and colleagues, this measure has parallel forms for parents and teachers (and clinicians). The parent and teacher forms, using seven-point Likert response formats, include eight items for each of six scales, with responses options for items such as my child would rather run than walk, ranging from “hardly ever” to “almost always”. Although all scales were administered to parents and teachers, only the Activity Scale was used for this study. Internal consistencies for parent and teacher versions of the scales are moderate to high (.65 to .86; Nelson et al., 1999; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Sullivan-Logan, 1998; Martin, 1988) but parent and teacher agreement is low (mother teacher correlations ranged from a high of .50 for persistence to a low of .06 for the emotional intensity scale (Pressley & Martin, 1994). The coefficient alpha for the current sample is .74 and .87 for the parent and teacher forms respectively. Studies using the TABC have shown the relationship between temperament and school adjustment (Nelson et al., 1999), school readiness (Schoen & Nagle, 1994), and school behavior and achievement (Martin, Drew, Gaddis, & Moseley, 1988; Martin & Holbrook, 1985; Orth & Martin, 1994). 2.1.2.2. Colorado Children's Temperament Inventory (CCTI: Rowe & Plomin, 1977). This 30 item measure includes five-point Likert scales with responses options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” on items such as “my child is always on the go. The scale was designed for parents to rate children ages 1 to 6 and is known for its use in the Colorado Adoption Project to study the genetic origins of temperament (Emde et al., 1992). All six scales were completed by parents but only the Activity Scale was used in the current study. The internal consistency for the Activity scale with the current sample was low (α = .30). Agreement between parents and between parent and researcher has been moderate (Field, Vega-Lahr, Scafidi, & Goldstein, 1987). 2.1.2.3. Children's Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001). This scale, designed to be completed by caregivers of children aged 3–7 years, is comprised of 195 items that assess 15 temperament characteristics, all of which were administered: Positive Anticipation, Smiling/Laughter, High Intensity Pleasure, Activity Level, Impulsivity, Shyness, Discomfort, Fear, Anger/Frustration, Sadness, Soothability, Inhibitory Control, Attentional Focusing, Low Intensity Pleasure, and Perceptual Sensitivity. Items, such as my child “moves about actively (runs, climbs, jumps) when playing in the house” are rated on seven-point scales ranging from extremely untrue to extremely true, with the midpoint being, neither true

508

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

nor untrue. This scale was completed by parents. Factor analyses of CBQ scales using 262 children reliably recovered a three-factor solution indicating 3 broad dimensions of temperament: Extraversion/Surgency, Negative Affectivity, and Effortful Control. The three-factor solution also appears to be reliably recovered in ratings of children in other cultures. Parental agreement on CBQ ratings is substantial and the scales demonstrate adequate internal consistency, and may be used in studies requiring a highly differentiated yet integrated measure of temperament for children in this age range. Although all items were administered, scales relevant to this study were analyzed: Activity Level, Inhibitory Control, Impulsivity, Attention, and High Intensity Pleasure. Internal consistency of the Activity Scale reported by parents in the present sample was acceptable (.77). 2.1.2.4. Structured Temperament Interview (STI; Teglasi, may be requested from the author, [email protected]). Although other temperament dimensions were also included in the STI administration, only the Activity Scale was used in the current study, with two items assessing Vigor and two assessing Modulation. The STI was completed by parents and teachers. With correction for item length, the internal consistencies for parents were .86 and .84 for Vigor and Modulation, respectively and internal consistencies for teachers were .95 and .93, for Vigor and Modulation, respectively. Explanations of the construct assessed were provided along with five-point response options pegged to the definitions. Vigor was defined as amount of general movement or energy exhibited where an extremely active individual would be characterized in the behavioral domain by pervasive movement and energy expenditure such as frequency and tempo of movement. Modulation was defined as adjustment of the amount of movement to suit the situation. The first item assessing Vigor was “How active is this child in terms of the amount of physical movement and energy” (1 = extremely active, pervasive movement; 5 = extremely low in activity level, lethargic) and the second item was “If given the choice of quiet or active situations, games, or tasks, what would this child select” (1 = will almost always choose to be active; 5 = will almost always choose quiet activity)? The two Modulation items were “How modulated is the activity to situational demand” (1 = activity level almost always varies appropriately with situational demand; 5 = activity level almost never modulated to situation) and “To what extent does the child control amount or energy of movement to meet situational expectations when it is important to him/her” (1 = almost always; 5 = almost never)? After rating each item, the respondent provided specific examples and explanations. Given that items refer to narrowly specified rather than complex constructs, criterion validity was expected to be adequate (Burisch, 1997; Paunonen, 1998). Data from the present study showed that the STI components of Vigor and Modulation correlated as well or better with questionnaire scores than did questionnaire scores with each other and item loadings were robust and replicated across three raters with acceptable internal consistencies when corrected for the number of items (see Results section). Thus, the psychometric properties of the STI were sufficient for using it as a tool to examine the constructs of Vigor and Modulation within the activity level dimension. Indeed, as detailed in the results section, STI Modulation, correlated with adjustment indicators as well as or better than did questionnaire measures of activity. 2.2. Sibling sample Participants were parents of 30 boys identified with an emotional disability (ED) and their older, biologically related brothers not so identified (N = 60). The boys with ED were receiving special educational services for at least half their school day in selfcontained, grade level classes in one of six elementary school centers located in a large suburban school system. Given the sex breakdown at the centers of approximately ten boys to one girl, the sample was restricted to boys and their older brothers. The choice of older brother was made to minimize the possibility that the sibling would subsequently be identified with ED. The sample was somewhat diverse, including 23 (77%) Caucasian-American children, four (13%) African-American children, and two (6%) biracial children. Educational levels of both parents ranged from less than high school (7% of mothers and 14% of fathers) to advanced degrees (14% of mothers and 40% of fathers). The average age of the children with ED was 10.0 years (range = 5.12 to 13.3 years) and grade placement ranged from kindergarten to sixth grade. The mean intellectual level recorded in school records was “average” (range = “borderline” to “superior”), with a normal distribution of scores. The average age of siblings not identified with ED was 12.85 (range = 9.0 to 17.0) years and grade placement ranged from the third to the 11th grade. The mean intellectual or achievement level of non-ED children was average (school records). 2.2.1. Procedures for sibling sample Thirty-five families with a child identified with ED and an older non-ED brother were contacted by phone. Four declined participation, and one did not schedule the interview. Thirty families interested in participating were mailed a letter further describing the study along with the consent forms, the Dimensions of Temperament Survey—Revised (DOTS-R), and the Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC) to complete on their two sons as well as an addressed, stamped envelope for the return of the forms. Approximately two weeks later, parents were called to schedule the STI administration. Of the 30 families, three fathers and 27 mothers served as the interview and rating scale informants. Taped and subsequently transcribed interviews were conducted at the school attended by the child with ED, in the family home, or parent workplace. Although the entire STI was administered, only the Activity Scale was used in this study. 2.2.2. Measures for sibling sample The STI Activity Scale was completed by parents with acceptable internal consistencies for Vigor (.87) and Modulation (.80) when corrected for number of items. In addition to the STI, the following two measures were administered to the sibling sample.

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

509

Table 1 Mean (SD) parent/teacher scores assigned to male (n = 31) and female (n = 32) preschool children on all study variables. Variable

Boys

Girls

CBQ activityp CBQ inhibitory Controlp TABC activityp TABC activityt CCTI activityp STI Vigorp STI Modulationp STI Vigort STI Modulationt

5.30 (.67) 4.44 (.72)

4.80 (.83) 4.88 (.78)

F(1,60) 6.56 5.21

P .01 .03

3.70 (.80) 4.62 (1.43) 3.87 (.48) 3.83 (.70) 4.17 (.62) 3.90 (.88) 3.51 (.86)

3.24 (.90) 3.47 (1.20) 3.80 (.63) 3.53 (.78) 4.36 (.46) 3.05 (.69) 4.20 (.56)

4.46 12.02 .27 2.56 1.94 18.72 14.21

.04 .001 ns ns ns .001 .001

Note. tSignifies the respondent was teacher; psignifies the respondent was parent; SD, standard deviation; CBQ, child behavior questionnaire; TABC, temperament assessment battery for children; CCTI, Colorado children's temperament inventory; STI, structured temperament interview.

2.2.2.1. Dimensions of Temperament Survey Revised (DOTS-R; Windle & Lerner, 1986). This 54-item questionnaire is a revision of the DOTS, derived through factor analysis and designed to be age continuous. The entire questionnaire was administered but the General Activity scale was the focus of this investigation The DOTS-R was developed to address many of the technical and conceptual weaknesses of existing temperament scales, including the measurement within a narrow age range and inclusion of dimensions that are not factorially distinct. Internal consistency and test retest reliabilities are acceptable (Windle & Lerner, 1986). Concurrent and predictive validity of the DOTS-R with perceived competence, intellectual functioning and psychosocial competence have also been reported (Windle, Iwawaki, & Lerner, 1988; Windle & Lerner, 1986). In the current sample, internal consistency was .75. 2.2.2.2. Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). This measure, commercially available and widely used to assess emotional–behavioral disorders of children and adolescents ages 4 to 18 years, includes forms for parents and teachers. The BASC is seen as synthesizing current knowledge in developmental psychopathology and personality development (Sandoval & Enchandia, 1994). While the entire BASC provides an integrated and comprehensive assessment, the individual scales are designed for independent use. Standard scores were used in the analyses of the following BASC Scales: Externalizing Composite, Internalizing Composite, Atypicality, Adaptive Composite, and Social Skills. 3. Results 3.1. Preschool sample Mean (SD) scores for all variables and findings regarding sex differences are presented in Table 1 for the preschool sample. Sex differences, where evident, were consistent with findings reported in the literature. As Table 1 shows, teachers, but not parents, rated boys as more physically active than girls, F(1, 60) = 18.72, p b .01; η2 = .24. Teachers also rated girls as higher than boys in the Modulation component of the STI, F(1, 60) = 14.21, p b .01; η2 = .19. Sex differences indicating higher activity level ratings were found for three of the four questionnaire measures: CBQ, F(1, 62) = 6.56, p b .01; TABC parent ratings, F(1, 62) = 4.46, p b .05, and TABC teacher ratings, F(1, 62) = 12.02, p b .01. No sex differences were found with parent rated CCTI or parent rated STI components. Principal components analyses were conducted on the STI activity level scores separately for parent and teacher informants with 63 in each sample. Varimax rotations were used with criteria of .40 as minimum loadings and an eigenvalue of 1 or greater.

Table 2 Factor composition for preschool STI activity level scores (parents; N = 63).

Item 4: Preference for active or quiet tasks Item 1: General activity level Item 3: Modulation of activity when motivated Item 2: Modulation of activity level Eigenvalue Variance contributed Internal consistency Sex differences

Factor 1

Factor 2

High activity level: Vigor

High activity level: Modulation

0.836 0.832 6.181E− 03 − 5.272E− 02 1.393 34.817 0.56 (0.86) None

1.522E− 02 − 6.251E− 02 0.825 0.823 1.361 34.028 0.52 (0.84) None

Note. Extraction method = principal component analysis; rotation method = Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (rotation converged in 3 iterations). Highest factor loadings are indicated in bold. Underlined words indicate item directionality. Internal consistency estimates (α) in italics were adjusted to a scale length of 10 items using the Spearman–Brown Prophecy Formula; STI, structured temperament interview.

510

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

Table 3 Factor composition for preschool STI activity level scores (Teachers; N = 63).

Item 2: Modulation of activity level Item 3: Modulation of activity when motivated Item 1: General activity level Item 4: Preference for active or quiet tasks Eigenvalue Variance Contributed Internal Consistency Sex Differences

Factor 1

Factor 2

High activity level: Modulation

High activity level: Vigor

0.905 0.861 2.722E− 02 − 0.316 1.662 41.538 0.74 (0.93) MbF

− 4.052E− 02 − 0.193 0.937 0.857 1.651 41.267 0.79 (0.95) MNF

Note. Extraction method = principal component analysis; rotation method = Varimax with Kaiser Normalization (rotation converged in 3 iterations). Highest factor loadings are indicated in bold. Underlined words indicate item directionality. Internal consistency estimates (α) in italics were adjusted to a scale length of 10 items using the Spearman–Brown Prophecy Formula; STI, structured temperament interview.

Both analyses supported the two constructs of Vigor and Modulation (see Table 2 for parent data and Table 3 for teacher data). The absolute magnitude of factor loadings (with .60 or higher) is the most important determinant of the factor's reliability (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). Given that all loadings exceeded .80, these components were deemed reliable. Internal consistencies of the components, calculated using Cronbach's alpha (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) and reported in Tables 2 and 3, were acceptable after correcting for the number of items with the Spearman–Brown Prophecy Formula. Table 4 shows that STI Vigor correlated positively with questionnaire measures of activity and STI Modulation correlated negatively with questionnaire measures of activity. Correlations among the three parent questionnaire activity scores ranged from low to moderately high (.26 to .65). As expected, the respective correlation of parent questionnaire activity level scores with STI Vigor (.35 to .55) and with STI Modulation (− .26 to −.38) reflects the relative emphasis placed on the two sub-constructs. Teacher rated Activity correlated with parent rated STI Vigor (.73) and Modulation (−.58). Table 4 also shows the correlations of STI Vigor and STI Modulation with selected temperament dimensions of the CBQ that are relevant for self-regulation. Modulation but not Vigor correlated significantly with CBQ Inhibitory Control, Attention, and Impulsivity. Vigor but not Modulation correlated significantly with High Intensity Pleasure, suggesting that level of energy is pertinent to this dimension but its Modulation is not. 3.2. Sibling sample Mean (SD) BASC (Behavior Assessment System for Children) scores and findings regarding differences between the ED and nonED groups are presented in Table 5 for the sibling sample. As the results and means show, the non-ED children scored higher than their ED siblings in social skills, adaptability, and STI Modulation, while the reverse pattern was found for externalizing and internalizing behaviors, activity, atypical behaviors, and STI Vigor. As was the case for the preschool sample, principal components analyses of the STI Activity items yielded two distinct components, Vigor and Modulation and, factor loading were similarly high (see Table 6). Additionally, the correlation of Vigor and Modulation with the DOTS-R Activity Scale replicated the patterns reported with the preschool sample. STI Vigor and DOTS-R Activity correlated positively and STI Modulation and DOTS-R Activity correlated negatively. Given the age differences of the two sibling groups, it was necessary to investigate the possibility that relationships between age and measures of Activity level might confound the examination of linkages between temperament and adjustment. However, none of the correlations between age and Activity level approached significance in either the ED or non-ED group and age was dismissed as a confounding variable.

Table 4 Correlations among scores on the preschool temperament scales.

CBQ activity levelp CCTI activityp TABC activityp TABC activityt CBQ inhibitory controlp CBQ attentionp CBQ impulsivityp CBQ high intensity pleasurep

CBQ activity

CCTI activity

TABC activityp

STI Vigor

STI Modulation

–

.549⁎⁎ –

.262⁎ .649⁎⁎ – –

.549⁎⁎ .510⁎⁎ .351⁎⁎ .728⁎⁎ − .074 − .166 .218 .370⁎⁎

− .267⁎ − .260⁎ − .384⁎⁎ − .577 .509⁎⁎ .466⁎⁎ − .467⁎⁎ − .195

Note. tSignifies the respondent was teacher; psignifies the respondent was parent. All correlations are within-informant. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01; CBQ, child behavior questionnaire; CCTI, Colorado children's temperament inventory; TABC, temperament assessment battery for children; STI, structured temperament interview.

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

511

Table 5 Mean (and SD) BASC scores and results of univariate comparisons (n = 30). Variable

Social skills Externalizing behaviors Internalizing behaviors Atypical behaviors Adaptability General activity DOTS-R Vigor Modulation

ED group

Non-ED group

M (SD)

M (SD)

38.93 (7.11) 68.73 (15.53) 60.90 (13.34) 65.93 (14.75) 35.03 (5.72) 21.20 (6.29) 3.93 (.93) 2.77 (.98)

49.22 (10.68) 53.77 (11.76) 48.20 (8.49) 46.80 (7.39) 49.07 (10.50) 5.67 (5.86) 3.15 (1.08) 4.18 (.75)

F(1, 28)

P

19.22 18.53 25.39 40.32 41.12 13.37 9.05 39.59

.001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .01 .001

Note. BASC = Behavior Assessment System for Children; DOST-R=Dimensions of Temperament Survey-Revised.

Table 6 Factor composition for sibling sample STI Activity Level Scale (N = 60). Factor 1

Item 2: Modulation of activity level Item 3: Modulation of activity when motivated Item 4: Preference for quiet or active tasks Item 1: General activity level Factor eigenvalue Variance accounted for Internal consistency

Factor 2

High modulation

High activity

0.876 0.874 0.261 − 0.409 1.799 45.0% 0.54 (0.80)

− 0.204 0.180 0.852 0.771 1.362 34.1% 0.65 (0.87)

Note. Bold print indicates highest factor loadings, hence those items which make up that factor. Underlined words indicate directionality. Parentheses denote an adjustment made to equate number of items on all STI factors (greatest 7) with Spearman–Brown Prophesy Formula; STI, structured temperament interview.

Further, as seen in Table 7, Vigor did not correlate significantly with the BASC scales or with ED identification but Modulation did correlate with many of the BASC scales and with ED identification. The DOTS-R Activity score correlated with a number of BASC scales and with ED identification. However, after controlling for STI Modulation, the partial correlation between ED status and DOTS-R Activity was no longer significant, − .24, p N .07. After controlling for self regulatory assets measured with DOTS-R Task Orientation, the relationship between STI Modulation and ED remained robust, with a partial correlation of .52. Additionally, after controlling for Modulation, of the five correlations between DOTS-R and selected BASC scales, only the correlation with the Externalizing scale remained significant (.50). 4. Discussion Findings support the contention that activity level is not a one dimensional construct. Specifically, two components of the temperament dimension of activity level, Vigor and Modulation, were found to be distinct dimensions in three analyses within two samples and with parent and teacher informants. The importance of considering Vigor and Modulation as distinct dimensions of activity level lies in their pattern of correlations with temperament questionnaires and with adjustment. Current questionnaire measures appear to conflate these two dimensions of activity level as seen in the association of high questionnaire activity scores with high STI Vigor and low STI Modulation. Indicators of adjustment were more closely linked with Modulation than with Vigor. Future scale development, based on a multi-dimensional conceptualization, will enable studies to further clarify the associations between activity level and adjustment. In the meantime, those using current questionnaires with children should evaluate high activity scores in terms of the relative contribution of Vigor and Modulation. Table 7 Correlations of BASC Scale scores and ED status with STI and DOTS-R dimensions in the sibling sample (N = 60). BASC

STI: activity —Modulation STI: activity — Vigor DOTS-R: general activity

External comp.

Internal comp.

Atypicality

Adapt. comp

− 51⁎⁎ .21 .60⁎⁎(.50⁎⁎)

− 37⁎⁎ .07 .30⁎(.19)

− 42⁎⁎ .02 30⁎(.16 )

.51⁎⁎ − 19 − 30⁎(− .13)

Social skills .45⁎⁎ − 14 − 29⁎(− .14)

ED status .66⁎⁎ − 19 − 42⁎⁎(− .24)

Note. Correlations with dichotomous ED/Non-ED status (higher scores indicate non-ED) were computed with Spearman rho; all other correlations computed with Pearson's r. Higher scores on the BASC are less adaptive except for the Adaptability and Social Skills Composites. Parentheses include partial correlations with variance due to STI Modulation removed. ⁎p b .05. ⁎⁎p b .01; BASC, behavior assessment system for children; ED, emotional disability; STI, structured temperament interview; DOTS-R, dimensions of temperament survey-revised.

512

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

4.1. Relationship of STI Vigor and Modulation with questionnaire measures Across all questionnaire activity scales, high scores were associated with high STI Vigor and low Modulation, a pattern suggesting that questionnaire activity level scores are products of high energy or physical movement and of difficulty modulating the expression of energy. Despite the relatively small number of items on the STI, the magnitude of correlations across the various questionnaire activity measures administered to the preschool children was comparable to the sizes of the correlations between questionnaires and the STI components. Low correlations between some questionnaire measures of activity level indicate that they are not interchangeable, probably because they differ in their relative emphases on Vigor and Modulation. 4.2. Activity level and adjustment Findings with the preschool sample, which showed that Vigor and Modulation were distinct dimensions of activity level, were replicated and extended in the sibling sample where Vigor and Modulation were used to re-examine the relationships between activity level and indicators of adjustment. In this sample, STI Modulation, but not STI Vigor, was significantly correlated with classification with emotional disability (ED) and with each of the five selected BASC scales. The correlations of the DOTS-R Activity score with ED designation and with BASC scores were as expected on the basis of prior research (Moss et al., 1992; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). However, after controlling for STI Modulation, the correlation between the DOTS-R and identification with ED was no longer significant. Additionally, of the five significant correlations between DOTS-R Activity and BASC scales, only the correlation with the Externalizing Composite remained significant after removing variance associated with STI Modulation. Externalizing behaviors of children may be more intrusive if expressed in ways that are more active and energetic. A logical conclusion might be that, with the exception of the Externalizing composite, the “Modulation” implicit in the DOTS-R Activity score may have contributed to its association with the indicators of adjustment. The idea that Modulation has stronger links with adjustment problems than does Vigor is compatible with prior research showing that among children diagnosed with ADHD, it is the inattention, not the hyperactivity, that relates to impaired academic and social functioning (Chhabildas, Pennington, & Willcutt, 2001). However, in the present study, the relationship between Modulation and identification with ED was only modestly attenuated, changing from .66 to .52, after controlling for self-regulatory assets on the DOTS-R (Task Orientation). Further studies are needed to investigate the possibility that Modulation in the domain of activity may serve as a distinct self regulatory asset, apart from attention regulation. Studies are also needed to investigate the links between Modulation and self-regulation of emotions. 4.3. Sex differences Although the focus of this study was not on sex differences, the finding that teachers rated girls as lower in STI Vigor and higher in Modulation is in line with documentation of sex differences in the literature. During preschool, boys are more physically active than girls (Eaton & Enns, 1986) and higher motor activity is correlated with adjustment difficulty and lower peer acceptance (Eaton, Enns, & Presse, 1987). Sex differences in activity level were also found in three of the four preschool questionnaires used in this study, but these instruments do not tease apart the Vigor and Modulation components. Restriction to males in the sibling sample precludes the investigation of sex effects and limits the generality of these findings. 4.4. Measurement methods The relationship between the Modulation component of activity level and adjustment found in the current study is not attributable to shared methods or overlapping items. The moderately high correlation between STI Modulation and ED status occurred without any similarity in measurement or informant. Although both the BASC scales and STI are parent-report instruments, their items and response formats differ considerably and, their correlations are likely the product of shared constructs and perhaps common informants but not shared methods. Although the DOTS-R and BASC share common methods and common informants, the correlation between the DOTS-R and ED status share neither. Although containing only two items, each of the emerging STI components was robust and showed clear patterns of correlations with questionnaire scales that were replicated across two informants in one sample and again in a second sample. Thus, the small number of items relative to typical questionnaires did not exert undue influences on correlations with external variables. Examination of the correlations among the various measures showed that the number of items per se was not critical. The potential advantages of the STI format for use in applied settings and for research purposes should not be overlooked. The STI encourages informants to understand temperament constructs and to reflect on how their charges express their temperamental individuality. Engaging in this interview procedure may serve an educational function that enables informants to recognize the temperamental roots of behavior and respond accordingly. In addition, open ended explanations clarify the bases of informants' ratings of the constructs and may shed light on a variety of researchable questions including providing an explanation of the poor agreement by different informants and across different measurement approaches (Seifer, Sameroff, Barrett, & Krafchuck, 1994). Finally, this investigation highlights the usefulness of a conceptual approach such as the STI to serve as a research tool to examine existing temperament scales. The separation of Vigor and Modulation components of activity level permits research to isolate which aspects of activity are active ingredients in the prediction of adjustment.

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

513

4.5. Implications for conceptualization and practice The Vigor and Modulation components of activity parallel the more general distinction between reactivity and self-regulation, higher order temperament constructs that are linked to adjustment. Reactivity comprises the ease of arousal of motor, affective, and sensory response systems and self regulation includes the processes that moderate (increase or decrease) reactivity by shifting the focus of attention, exerting inhibitory control and seeking or avoiding certain types of stimuli that call forth reactivity (Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Self-regulation, however, may not fully compensate for high reactivity because effort needed to moderate reactivity appears to consume resources that might otherwise be used to engage in other endeavors including coping with environmental demands or pursuing goals (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997). Activity level, particularly its energetic aspects, falls within the reactivity rubric and its expression is presumably modified by self-regulatory processes of attention or inhibitory control. The full picture about how activity level relates to adjustment and development will emerge from understanding how reactive and regulatory aspects are balanced. Future studies need to address questions about the extent to which the Modulation of activity is specific to this dimension or a function of self-regulatory processes pertaining to other temperament dimensions such as attention or inhibitory control. Although Modulation but not Vigor was linked to serious maladjustment, indicated by classification with ED, children with temperamentally high Vigor may still face greater challenges to regulate activity level. The risk associated with high Vigor is likely to be compounded if the children do not develop resources to modulate activity level to meet situational demands that increase with age. These risk factors may be flagged early and selected for interventions to maximize positive development. In conclusion, a conceptualization of activity level as comprised of more than one dimension has potential for a more nuanced understanding of its links with development and ongoing adjustment. A multi-dimensional conceptualization supported in this investigation calls for cautious interpretation of current temperament questionnaires and points to the need for future scale development. References Burisch, M. (1997). Test length and validity revisited. European Journal of Personality, 11(4), 303−315. Buss, A., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Campbell, D. W., Eaton, W. O., & McKeen, N. A. (2002). Motor activity level and behavioral control in young children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 289−296. Chhabildas, N., Pennington, B. F., & Willcutt, E. G. (2001). A comparison of the neuropsychological profiles of the DSS-IV subtypes of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 529−540. Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 633−652. Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1998). Arousal, affect, and attention as components of temperament. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 958−966. Eaton, W., & Enns, L. (1986). Sex differences in human motor activity level. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 19−28. Eaton, W., Enns, L., & Presse, M. (1987). Scheme for observing activity level: Reliability and convergent validity. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 273−280. Emde, R. N., Plomin, R., Robinson, J., Reznick, J. S., Campos, J., Corley, R., et al. (1992). Temperament, emotion, and cognition at 14 months: The MacArthur Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development, 63, 1437−1455. Field, T., Vega-Lahr, N., Goldstein, S., & Scafidi, F. (1987). Interaction behavior of infants and their dual career parents. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 371−377. Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Sullivan-Logan, G. M. (1998). Temperament, activity, and expectations for later personality development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1266−1277. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265−275. Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (2004). The Long Shadow of Temperament. Cambridge, MA, US: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. Lengua, L. J., West, S. G., & Sandler, I. N. (1998). Temperament as a predictor of symptomatology in children: Addressing contamination of measures. Child Development, 69, 164−181. Martin, R. (1988). The Temperament Assessment Battery for Children. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing. Martin, R., Drew, K. D., Gaddis, L. R., & Moseley, M. (1988). Prediction of elementary school achievement from preschool temperament: Three studies. School Psychology Review, 17, 125−137. Martin, R., & Holbrook, J. (1985). Relationship of temperament characteristics to the academic achievement of first-grade children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 377−386. Martin, R., Wisenbaker, J., & Huttenen, M. (1994). Review of factor analytic studies of temperament measures based on the Thomas–Chess structural model: Implications for the big five. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 157−172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Mash, E. J., & Barkley, R. A. (2003). Child psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. McGrath, R. E. (2005). Conceptual complexity and construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 112−124. Moss, H. B., Blackston, T. C., Martin, C. S., & Tarter, R. E. (1992). Heightened motor activity level in male offspring of substance abusing fathers. Biological Psychiatry, 32, 1135−1147. Nelson, B., Martin, R. P., Hodge, S., Haville, V., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1999). Modeling the prediction of elementary school adjustment from preschool temperament. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 687−700. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Orth, L. C., & Martin, R. P. (1994). Interactive effects of student temperament and instruction method on classroom behavior and achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 149−166. Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538−556. Pressley, R., & Martin, R. (1994). Toward a structure of pre-school temperament: Factor structure of the Temperament Assessment Battery for Children. Journal of Personality, 62, 415−448. Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of Short and Very Short Forms of the Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 102−112. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior Assessment System for Children Manual. City, ST: American Guidance Service, Inc. Rothbart, M., & Ahadi, S. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55−66. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394−1408.

514

H. Teglasi et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30 (2009) 505–514

Rothbart, M., & Bates, J., (1998). Temperament. In Damon, W. (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child development: Volume 3 Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 105–176). New York: Wiley. Rothbart, M., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. Lamb & A. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology: Vol. 1. (pp. 37−86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rowe, D., & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperament in early childhood. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 150−156. Sandoval, J., & Echandia, A. (1994). Review of the behavior assessment system for children. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 419−425. Sanson, A., Oberklaid, F., Pedlow, R., & Prior, M. (1991). Risk indicators: Assessment of infancy predictors of pre-school behavioural maladjustment. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 32, 609−626. Sanson, A., Prior, M., & Kyrios, M. (1990). Contamination of measures in temperament research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 179−192. Schoen, M. J., & Nagle, R. J. (1994). Prediction of school readiness from kindergarten temperament ratings. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 135−147. Seifer, R., Sameroff, A. J., Barrett, L. C., & Krafchuck, E. (1994). Infant temperament measured by multiple observations and mother report. Child Development, 65, 1478−1490. Sheeber, L. B. (1995). Empirical dissociations between temperament and behavior problems: A response to the Sanson, Pryor, and Kyrios study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 554−561. Tarter, R. E. (1988). Are there inherited behavioral traits that predispose to substance abuse? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 189−196. Tarter, R., Mezzich, A., Hsieh, Y-C, & Parks, M. (1995). Cognitive capacities in female adolescent substance abusers: Association with severity of drug abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 39, 15−21. Tarter, R. E., Moss, H. B., & Vanyukov, M. M. (1995). Behavior genetic perspective of alcoholism etiology. In H. Begleiter & B. Kissin (Eds.), Alcohol and alcoholism: Vol. 1. (pp. 294−326). New York: Oxford University Press. Teglasi, H. (1998). Temperament constructs and measures. School Psychology Review, 27(4), 562−583. Teglasi, H., & MacMahon, B. (1990). Temperament and common problem behaviors of children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 331−349. Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Windle, M., Iwawaki, S., & Lerner, R. M. (1988). Cross-cultural comparability of temperament among Japanese and American preschool children. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 547−567. Windle, M., & Lerner, R. M. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions of temperament individuality across the life span: The revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey (DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 213−230.