Research on Efficacy of Special Education for the Mentally Retarded

Research on Efficacy of Special Education for the Mentally Retarded MELVIN E. KAUFMAN AND PAUL A. ALBERT0 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

.................................................. ............................................... ........................ ........................ .. ................................................ .................... ............................ .................. ....................... ....................................................

I. Introduction 11. ResearchReview A. Studies of the Educable Mentally Retarded B. Studies of the Trainable Mentally Retarded 111. An Analysis of the Experimental Control of Variables in Efficacy Research A. Randomness B. Control of Classroom and Instructional Variables C. Appropriateness of Measuring Devices IV. The Future of Efficacy Research in Special Education How Can Future Efficacy Studies Be Improved? References

225 226 226 241 243 243 245 249 251

251

253

1. INTRODUCTION

A review of the studies of special educational intervention for the educable

(EMR) and trainable (TMR) mentally retarded children is presented in this

chapter. A fundamental problem in this area is that the reviewer must evaluate complex field-based studies where often several independent variables have not been adequately controlled, and the dependent variables have not always been clearly defined. Yet it remains extremely important to review and assess past attempts to study efficacy, because of the necessity to determine how much credence we can place on specific research efforts and what directions appear to be constructive in increasing the meaningfulness of future research and educational planning in this area. Included herein are published studies and Government project reports as well 225

226

Melvin E. Kaujhaan and Paul A. Albert0

as selected unpublished doctoral dissertations. The chapter is organized fust to present descriptions, general results, and conclusions of the studies. Since reviewers such as Cegelka and Tyler (1970) have analyzed efficacy studies in terms of academic and social development, it is necessary to view the studies from a chronological perspective in order to assess methodological changes that have occurred over the past 40 years. Included are studies that span the period from 1936 to the present time. Second, there is a section dealing with some of the key experimental variables which need to be considered in attempting to assess the methodological soundness of the studies. Finally, there is an attempt to suggest some future directions of research on efficacy. II. RESEARCH REVIEW

A. Studies of the Educable Mentally R m r d d Pertsch (1936) attempted to investigate the educational achievement and personal adjustment of educable mentally retarded (EMR)children within regular and special classes in the New York City School System. There were 278 subjects matched for CAYMA, IQ, sex, and race. Subjects were tested for educational achievement, mechanical aptitudes, and personal adjustment. On all but mechanid aptitudes, children in the regular classes were superior. The groups were retested after an additional &month period. Once again the children in the regular classes were found to be superior in educational achievement (reading comprehension, arithmetic computation, and arithmetic reasoning), and in personal adjustment. Cowen (1938) reviewed Pertsch’s (1936) study and found substantial methodological errors in that work. Among the many problems was poor matching of segregated and integrated groups. At the onset of the study, the groups integrated with regular classes were substantially ahead of the groups segregated in special classes on a majority of the independent variables which included the tests of both academic and social variables. Further, Cowen presented data which compared mean percentage gains in test scores during the period of placement of the two groups. When calculated in terms of mean percentage gains, the Pertsch results provided evidence directly contradictory to his conclusions, i.e., rather than showing superiority for the group integrated in regular classes, the results suggested the greatest percentage gains in academics were made by the children segregated into special classes. Johnson (1950) investigated the social position of mentally handicapped (MH) students in regular classes and compared such children with “typical non-retarded subjects” in the same classes. The study was conducted in two communities in which there were no special classes for the mentally retarded. A total of 25 classes, each with one or more MH children, were selected. There were

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

227

five classes at each grade level (Grades 1-5). The experimental group members were selected on the basis of teacher’s recommendations, low academic ability as determined by the Progressive Achievement Tests, low scores on a group test of intelligence, and an IQ of 69 or below on the Stanford-Binet. A comparative description of the mentally handicapped yV = 39) and typical group (N= 621) included the following: (1) there was a proportionately larger number of MH boys in the classes; (2) the MH group was significantly older; (3) the mean IQ on the California Test of Mental Maturity (short form) for the MH group was significantly lower than the mean of the typical group; (4) the mean combined reading and arithmetic age of the MH group was significantly lower. However, differences at the different grade levels of social ages were not significantly lower. Sociometric questionnaires were developed and administered to every child in the study. Responses to the questionnaires indicated that the MH children were less accepted and more rejected than the typical children. The acceptance scores increased as mean IQs of established subgroups (low MH, high MH, borderline, etc.) increased. An important exception to this general trend was that the highest percentage of rejectees was found for the upper MH group. It should be noted parenthetically that Johnson’s N for the upper MH group was 32 which represented the majority of the experimental group, with the lower MH group consisting of only 7 subjects. The majority of reasons given for rejection of the MH group by peers were unacceptable behaviors such as bullying, fighting, misbehaving, showing off, swearing, lying, and cheating, and an apparent inability or desire to conform to group standards of behavior. Lapp (1957) conducted a study to investigate the comparative social adjustment of an EMR population in two class settings. Specifically, she set out to evaluate social acceptance and rejection among peers in special classes and in regular classes, and whether special class placement made a difference in the social position of EMR children. The study made use of the one EMR class and nine regular classes ranging from third to sixth grades in a single elementary school in suburban Cleveland. The special class had 16 children (CA 7-14 years), all of whom had been referred by a local guidance council. Twelve of the children spent some time each day in regular classes (physical education, music, art, social studies, and/or science). An effort was made to place the special class students in regular classes with children of equivalent CA and physical development, and with teachers who “could understand their adjustment needs.” In order to determine social position, Lapp administered the sociometric questionnaire developed by Johnson (1950). The interviews were conducted in the spring of two consecutive years. The author concludes that: (1) acceptance scores of the children kept within the special class were significantly lower than those who were integrated into the regular classes, whereas rejection scores did

228

Melvin E. Kau.fman and Paul A. Albert0

not differ between groups; (2)the integrated children were not sought out individually as were the other children in the regular class; (3) the low scores of the integrated children, as compared to the nonretarded children, may indicate they were more passive than active in the regular class setting; (4) the integrated EMRs were not overtly rejected; ( 5 ) the EMRs in the special class appeared to be more accepted and more rejected than their peers who were integrated into the regular classes. Elenbogen (1957) sought to compare the academic and social adjustment of two groups of EMR children in the Chicago public schools. One group spent the last 2 years of their education program in special classes; the other remained in regular classes. The groups were matched on CA (mean of 13.46 years for both groups), sex, IQ, and school district. Academic achievement in reading and arithmetic was measured by the Stanford Achievement Test. School adjustment was evaluated by rating scales and interview questions, The rating scales, completed by the classroom teacher, included classroom work, behavior, adjustment to other children, and social participation. The personal interviews dealt with vocational aspirations, earning responsibilities, leisure time activities, friends, and attitudes toward school. The results on measures of reading and arithmetic indicated significantly higher mean scores for subjects without special education training in paragraph meaning, word meaning, and arithmetic computation. The rating scales indicated significant differences in favor of the special education children who exhibited more realistic vocational aspirations, a greater percentage of after school jobs with higher earnings, a larger number of friends, more participation in after school activities, and positive attitudes toward school. Baldwin’s (1958) study explored the following questions: (1) To what extent were the EMR children in regular grades of the public school accepted socially? (2)What was the social position of the children of different levels of mental retardation, CA, public school grades, and socioeconomic status? (3) What desirable or undesirable characteristics seem to be related to degree of social acceptance of the mentally retarded child? Baldwin’s sample population consisted of 572 normal children and 31 mentally retarded children (IQ range 50-74) in 22 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade classes in ten different elementary schools in a large public school system. The data for the study were collected from the office of the Director of Special Education, principals, classroom teachers, the child’s cumulative folder, and interviews with one group of fifth-grade nonretarded children. Two sociometric tests (The Ohio Social Acceptance Scale and the Ohio Social Recognition Scale) were given by the classroom teacher to each child in her class. The results on the Ohio Social Acceptance Scale indicated that the degree of social acceptance of the EMR children in the regular grade was significantly lower than that of the nonretarded children. The difference between the social acceptance scores of the EMR children in groups based on level of retardation, sex, CA, and grade level

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

229

was not significant. The presence of other EMR children within the same classroom did not appear to be related to the social acceptance scores. The results on the Ohio Social Recognition Scale indicated that the number of desirable characteristic scores given to the EMR students was significantly less than the number given to the nonretarded students. In addition, the difference in undesirable characteristics attributed to the EM% was significantly greater. During the interviews with all of the teachers and pupils, the investigator reported being impressed by the fact that the antisocial activity of the EMR children seemed to be the behavior that both groups resented. Porter and Milazzo (1958) conducted a follow-up study on retarded adults who had attended special and regular classes. They investigated social competence and economic efficiency. The 24 subjects were a minimum of 18 years old (mean CA 21.5 years) and matched IQ (mean of 63) and years in class. The 12 special class subjects had attended the Laboratory School of Indiana State Teachers College. The 12 regular placement subjects were selected from case histories of outpatients at the Special Education Clinic of Indiana State Teachers College and had attended classes in the Terre Haute City Schools. Data were collected by interviews with the subjects and their parents, friends, neighbors, and employers. Social competence was defined as frequency of change of residence, home conditions, conformity to laws of society, church attendance, and marital status. The regular education group were found to have a greater tendency to move, and to move to less desirable living conditions. Home conditions were rated slightly higher for the special class group. Also, whereas there were no arrests among the special class group, 33% of the regular class group had been arrested. The special class group attended church with somewhat greater frequency and the number of marriages was about equal. Economic efficiency was defined in terms of employment variables. Of former special class students, 9 had full-time employment, 2 parttime, and 1 was unemployed. Of former regular class students, 2 had full-time employment, 2 parttime, and 8 were unemployed. All the jobs held by those employed were unskilled or semiskilled. Porter and Milazzo reported that the employers said “schools should be concerned with the development of social skills,” as the employers could do the job training. The employers regarded the students’ major working strengths to be their ability to persist on the job, dependability, honesty, and getting along with their fellow workers. In their conclusion, Porter and Milazzo indicated the special class group tended to conform more to social standards than nonretarded subjects and showed greater frequency of employment. Blatt (1958) was interested in differences in physical development, personality characteristics, and academic status between EMR children in segregated special classes and those in regular classes. He selected 125 EMR students from

230

Melvin E. Kaufian and Paul A. Albert0

two Pennsylvania counties, chosen because of their equivalent socioeconomic characteristics and sample availability. Ofthe 125 sample population, 75 were in special classes. These 75 subjects were selected on three bases: (1) completing at least 2 years in the elementary special class; (2) CA range of 8-6 to 16-0 years; (3) diagnosis of EMR by a certified psychometrician using an individual intelligence test, The 50 remaining subjects were matched for CA , IQ, MA, and sex and were selected on the following bases: (1) regular class placement; (2) never having been in a segregated special class; (3) living in a community that had no special classes; (4)diagnosis of EMR by a certified psychometrician on an individual intelligence test. In terms of physical status, no significant difference was found in number of days absent, power (measured by vertical jump), grip strength, motor ability, dental defects, height, and weight. However, when compared to age norms of average children, 25.33% of the special class group were more than 10% underweight, whereas only 10% of the regular group were more than 10% underweight. The special class children were found to have significantly more uncorrected or permanent physical defects. In terms of personality status, the students in the special class were viewed as more socially mature and emotionally stable as measured by the New York City Scales of Social Maturity and Emotional Stability. A significantly greater percent of this group held parttime jobs, and a significantly smaller percent had ever been classified as truant. Blatt found no significant differences between groups on these items: (1)delinquency and behavior records, (2)number of times having been brought before law enforcement agencies, (3) frequency of stealing in school, (4) number of exclusions from school because of behavior, (5) time in a detention home, and (6) percentage regularly attending Sunday school. Also, there were no significant differences between the groups on measures of personal and social adjustment on the California Test of Personality (CTP). However, when compared to the norms for average children, both MR groups had a greater number of problems in personal and social adjustment. Examination of academic status indicated no differences between the groups in reading, arithmetic, and language achievement on the California Achievement Test (CAT). When compared to norms for average children of equal MA, both retarded groups had greater total achievement in these three areas. In reading, the special class children improved more from one year to the next than those in the regular classes. Thurstone (1959) compared the intellectual, academic, social; and gross motor development of EMR children in regular and self-contained special classes. There were 1273 subjects with an IQ range of 50-79 and a CA range of 9-4 to 14-11 years. Evaluative instruments used were the Stanford-Binet Test of Intelligence, Stanford Achievement Test. Primary Mental Abilities Test, and a

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

23 1

battery of gross motor and sociometric tests. No testing was done by class teachers. The Stanford Achievement Test was administered again after 1 year and the regular class children were significantly superior in all areas except arithmetic. The third administration, after 2 years, showed no significant differences between the gain scores. When divided into high IQ (60-79) and low IQ (50-59) groups, the low IQ group in special classes had significantly higher achievement gain scores than the low IQ group in regular classes. One exception to this general finding was that the low IQ regular students exceeded low IQ special students in arithmetic. In terms of social development it was found that in regular classes the EMRs (high as well as low IQ) were very likely to be social isolates. They did not receive as favorable ratings on personality traits as did normal students by either peers or teachers. In special classes, students seemed to be better adjusted in school and to have more friends than those in regular classes. In gross motor skills the EMRs were consistently inferior in accomplishments to normals of equal CA. Mullen and Itkin (1961) conducted a 2-year study using a sample EMR population from the Chicago public school system. A total of 140 pairs of students in special and regular classes were matched for age (CA range 7-13 years), IQ (range 50-74), sex, socioeconomic status, reading achievement, and foreign language spoken at home. Measures of educational achievement and personal adjustment were taken at the beginning of the period of study and after the fmt and second years. After the first year the regular class children had significantly greater gains in arithmetic, but on no other educational or adjustment measure. At the end of 2 years there were no significant differences between the groups on any educational measures. Personal adjustment was measured by teacher ratings and behavior checklists. Over the 2-year period the regular class group made significantly higher ratings in overall classroom adjustment. The special class group showed a significant decrease in hostility in the school environment. Johnson (1961) reported the results of a comparison of retardates in regular classes and self-contained classes. The basic hypothesis was that the personal and social adjustment and social acceptance of EMR children in self-contained classes would be superior to that of EMR children in regular classes. The experimental group was selected from school districts where all children diagnosed as being mentally handicapped were enrolled in special classes. The control group was selected from school districts where no special classes existed. “Subjective evaluation” was made to assure comparability of socioeconomic level, school facilities, and type of instruction. Concerning the educational experience, Johnson states, “The initial selection of the school system had insured that one could reasonably assume all the mentally handicapped children were enrolled in special

232

Melvin E. Kauman and Paul A. Alberto

classes since sufficient facilities were available and adequate survey methods were in use” [p. 171. Each group consisted of 16 matched pairs of subjects, half boys and half girls. The principal evaluative instrument used by Johnson was the Syracuse Scales of Social Relations (adapted from the CTP). The author reported that social acceptance of children in self-contained classes was significantly superior to EMRs in regular classes. No differences were found between experimental and control groups with respect to results of the CTP. Warren’s (1962) study was designed primarily to evaluate the effectiveness of EMR classes as measured by changes in achievement, intelligence, tests, and integrative ability test scores during the first year of such placement. The experimental group consisted of 24 children who had been placed in an EMR class for the first time during the 1959-60 school year. The 24 control children were eligible for EMR placement, but were retained in a regular class during the entire school year. The children were matched on sex, IQ, CA, and number of years in school. The sample was selected from six schools with EMR classes and seven schools without such classes. There was some attempt to match on socioeconomic factors using an estimate based on the occupation of the subject’s father and/or mother. A battery of tests consisting of the Stanford-Binet, Draw-A-Person, Bender Gestalt, Hunter-Pascal Concept Formation, and the CAT were administered at the beginning and end of the school year. Change scores were analyzed using nonparametric statistics. No discussion of educational programming was included. Warren concluded that there were no significant differences between the groups regarding achievement or IQ change. There were many indications that early EMR placement is superior to placement at a later date “after the child has begun to recognize his tendency to be a failure.” Evidence of early success was the only predictive feature obtained in the study. Kern and Pfaeffle (1962) evaluated the social adjustment of three groups of children each consisting of 31 EMR children placed in (1) a segregated public school for retarded, (2)segregated EMR classes in a public school, and (3)regular public school classes. The authors used the CTP to measure social adjustment of the children in the three educational settings. Noteworthy was that the regular class EMR group was on a “waiting list” to be placed in a segregated EMR class and therefore were considered matched to the segregated class group in all respects, save class placement. Yet, there may have been some differences in these two groups, since the authors point out that the EMR children in the regular classes tended to be younger and had higher IQ scores. Results indicated that the special-school children demonstrated the highest overall adjustment scores and the retardates in regular classes had the lowest overall scores on the CTP. The authors conclude that EMR children placed in

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

233

segregated classes or in special schools show much better school adjustment than EMR children in regular classes. In a study by Meyerowitz (1962), the author reported testing two hypotheses: (1) that EMRs are more self-derogatory than nonretarded children; and (2) retarded children in regular grades are more self-derogatory than retardates in special classes. A sample of 120 EMRs and 60 normals were included in the study. Placement in regular or self-contained classes for the retarded was based upon random selection. The measuring instrument was the Illinois Index of Self-Derogation (IISD). In this test, the child is presented with 30 items, each consisting of two sentences. One of the two sentences describes “a socially undesirable ascription,” the other a “socially desirable” or “neutral ascription.” The child is asked to select the sentence which he feels is most like himself. The results support the first hypothesis, that EMRs have a significantly higher self-derogation score than nonretarded peers. The second hypothesis was not confirmed; Meyerowitz found that EMR children in regular classes obtained significantly lower self-derogation scores than those children in special classes. Stanton and Cassidy (1964) conducted two complementary investigations of the efficacy of special education. The subjects (IQ 50-75, CA 12-14 years) were selected from samplings of various school systems in Ohio to test differences in achievement and adjustment. The first study was a comparison of regular and special class children. Regular class children performed better academically (Stanford Achievement Test Scores of 2.7 for the special class and 3.1 regular class). Neither group approached the norm for average 13-year-old children (7.0),nor did they reach the expected achievement level for their MA. The authors then evaluated an additional group of residential EMRs and found the following relative performance of the three groups: The special class children performed better than the regular class children but were surpassed by the residential children on the CIT, Goldstein-Scheerer Stick Test, Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices, and the WISC block design. No statistical data were included in this report. Regular class children surpassed special class children on the Stanford Achievement Test and WISC coding subtest. Residential children scored lowest, special class children were highest, and regular class EMRs maintained a middle position on the Ammons Picture Vocabulary Test, Goodenough Draw-A-Man test, and the Kent E-GY. Data collected from teacher scored checklists reflected the view that regular class EMR children were functioning within their ability to learn; residential class children were functioning below their ability. Stanton and Cassidy state residential subjects “were both more keenly interested in school and more afraid to fail.” Stanton and Cassidy drew several inferences from the data collected: (1) there are differential performances within the EMR range (i.e., IQ 50-59, 70-75); (2) current practices seem to be of more overall benefit to the low (IQ

234

Melvin E. Kaufian and Paul A. Albert0

5+59) end of the EMR population; (3) least responsive to “adjusted educational environments” are those within the 70-75 IQ range; (4)competition within the regular class raised the performance of the low IQ children but may have frustrated the high IQ children; ( 5 ) chances for greater academic performance by the higher IQ children lies in the segregated class; and (6) the accepting environment of the segregated class encourages social adjustment. Bacher (1964) selected an experimental group and a control group of 30 pupils each from among the slow learners in grades 6 through 8 attending the Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, elementary schools. A slow learner was defined as having a measured IQ of 75-95 and scoring one or more years below that expected for his CA in reading. The experimental group consisted of 15 students from each of the two slow learning groups who met the criteria for the slow learner classes but who had not been placed because of unavailable space. Test analyses were computed to measure the differences in self-concept, social adjustment, and reading growth of the two groups over 1 year. Selfconcept was measured with the student’s self-concept score on the Columbia Classroom Social Distance Scale and the student’s “I Think Score” on the Davidson-Lang Checklist of Trait Names. Differences between the two groups were not significant for either of the two measures employed. There was also no significant difference between the self-concept of either the experimental, control, or “grand” group for either of the two measures employed. The “grand” group consisted of the total number of students in Grades 6-8 whose classes contained the subjects of the controls, exclusive of the control subjects (N=

225).

Social adjustment was measured by the Columbia Classroom Social Distance Scale. Difference between the two groups were highly significant for both measures and demonstrated the more positive social adjustment of the experimental group. A comparison of the experimental and control group with the “grand” group further clarified the more positive social adjustment of the experimental group. The students of the experimental group accepted their peers and were accepted by their peers more than the students in the “grand” group. There was no significant difference found in acceptance of peers between the control group and other students in a regular class. However, scores evidenced that the control group students were less accepted by their regular class peers. Reading growth, as measured by average reading scores obtained on the Intermediate Partial or Advanced Partial Batteries of the Stanford Achievement Tests over the period of 1 academic year, was not significantly different between the experimental and control groups. No significant differences were observed between the groups at different grade levels. Significant correlations in pre- and posttests suggested little growth in reading ability for either the experimental group or the control group. Goldstein, Moss, and Jordan (1965) attempted to compare the rate of progress of MR children assigned to special classes and those remaining in the

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

235

regular grades on measures of mental, social, and academic achievement. The study was designed to compensate for methodological inadequacies of previous investigations. Special classes were established in three Illinois counties which previously had no provisions for primary age EM&. A total of 129 children scoring within a W e t IQ range of 56-85 were randomly assigned to two groups, special classes, and regular fust grade. A series of intellectual, academic, and personal adjustment measures were administered annually. The special class teachers had all received bachelors’ degrees in the education of the mentally retarded. The Illinois Curriculum Guide formed the basis for the educational program during the 4 years the special classes were in operation. The authors maintained that, in spite of attrition to about three-fourths the original sample, an analysis of the characteristics of the children who left the program indicated that the results of the study were not significantly affected by t h i s attrition. Both the groups increased significantly on intelligence test scores. The gains in IQ occurred primarily during the first year of school experience. There was no significant difference in IQ gains between the groups. Among the children with IQ 80 or below, the experimental group tended to exceed the control group. Personal adjustment both inside and outside school was considered. Mothers of experimental group members tended to view their children in a less derogatory manner. On neighborhood sociometric studies it was found that (1) control children tended to interact to a slightly greater degree with other children and (2)neither group was overtly rejected. The experimental group exceeded the control group in (1)greater originality, flexibility, and fluency in productive thinking on verbal tasks, but not on nonverbal tasks; and (2)freedom of interaction as determined by risk taking in answering difficult questions. There were no differences in anxiety levels in reading situations as measured by skin conductance tests. Hoeltke (1966) investigated the effectiveness of special class placement of EMR children by evaluating the areas of attitudes toward the teacher, selfconcept as a learner, academic achievement, social maturity, and behavior development. Two standardized tests, the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) and Vineland Social Maturity Scale, were used to measure academic achievement and social maturity. Additional scales were developed to measure behavior development. The total sample population was composed of 122 children. The mean IQ of the special class sample (N = 72) was 65.34 and the mean CA was 138.39 months. The mean IQ of the regular class sample (N=50) was 66.40 and the mean CA was 139.16 months. The special class students had been enrolled in a special class for 3 or more years. The regular class students had never been enrolled in a special class. The special class sample scored significantly higher on Self-concept as a Learner, Desirable Group Activity, Peer Group Relations, Cooperation, and Leadership. The last four variables were derived from the Behavior Rating Scale

236

Melvin E. Kauf?nan and Paul A. Albert0

filled out by the teacher. A comparison of paired individuals resulted in the Special Class Group scoring significantly higher only on the Self-concept as a Learner scale. The regular class sample scored significantly higher on reading, spelling, and arithmetic achievement. Paired students from the regular class scored significantly higher on the same achievement tests. Additionally, sex of the enrollee was not a primary determinant of academic, social, or emotional outcomes in either the regular or special class. On the Vineland Social Maturity Scale the difference between the two samples was not significant. No correlation was found on the Attitude Toward the Teacher scale or the Self Concept as a Learner scale and scores on the other variables considered. Hoeltke’s concluding observation was that on the standardized tests, the regular class children tended to score higher than special class children. When teachers rated pupils, the special class children tended to be rated higher. A somewhat different approach to the problem of the effects of special class placements is described by Mayer (1966). This author investigated the effects of early and late placement in special classes on “emerging self-concept.” The basic hypothesis tested was that early placement of EMRs resulted in more positive self-concepts than later placement. The subjects were 100 junior high school students enrolled in EMR classes. The CA range was 12-17 years with an IQ range of 50-75 and absence of observable physical, sensory, or emotional disability. The group was divided into early (0-3 years), middle (4-6 years), and late special class placement (7-9 years). Two tests of self-concept were used, Upsitt’s “The Children’s Self Concept Scale,” and a test developed by Mayer, Piers, and Harris called “The Way I Feel About Myself.” The results obtained were not significant with respect to the age of special class placement and the two measures of self-concept used in this study. Group differences between boys’ and girls’ self-concept were also nonsignificant. Smith and Kennedy (1967) attempted to evaluate the effects of a “comprehensive” classroom approach to special education. A total of 96 subjects with an IQ range of 50-80 were divided into three treatment groups: (1) 45 minutes per day of instruction and attention in small special classes; (2) 45 minutes per day in small group activity; (3)attendance in regular classrooms all day without special instruction or attention. The children were pretested first in September, 1961, and posttested in April, 1963, using the CAT, WISC, Vineland, and Johnson’s (1950) sociometric scale. No significant differences were found on the four dependent variables. The authors felt that certain limitations in the study may have led to the absence of significance. These concerned the short period of time covered, the number of grade levels studied simultaneously, and the “uncertain ability of the measures to detect small changes in behavior.” The authors concluded that “not only did retarded children fail to show a significant gain in performance as a result of participation in special classes, but retarded children who missed approximately 12.5% of their regular classroom activities failed to show a decrement in performance.”

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

237

Carroll (1967) studied two school programs, “segregated” and “partially integrated” and the effect that each program had on self-concept and academic achievement during a l-year period. The study consisted of 39 students selected from five suburban districts in the Denver area. A total of 19 students were included in the partly integrated classes (half-day placement in regular elementary classes and half-day in self-contained EMR classes) and 20 students were involved full time in self-contained classes, All children fell within an IQ range of 60-80 on the Binet or WISC. Both groups were tested with the WRAT and an advanced form of the IISD 1 month into the study and following the completion of the school year. The results indicate a significantly greater reduction of self-derogations in the partially integrated group than in the segregated group (a mean change of 1.42 self-derogations for the integrated children versus 1.10 for the segregated). A significant change favoring the partially integrated group was recorded in the pre- and posttesting of the reading section of the WRAT. However, the spelling and arithmetic changes were not significant (actually the segregated group was slightly more proficient in the arithmetic test). The author concluded that partial integration results in a “better self-concept,” as indicated by a lower self-derogation score. More caution is suggested with respect to the achievement results, with Carroll indicating a need for further study of the academic results. In 1967, Meyerowitz tested the hypothesis that the “Educable Mentally Handicapped child (EMH) in the special classroom is more acceptable to his peers (whether classmates or not) than the EMH child in the regular classroom.” The base population consisted of 60 students, 30 of whom were randomly assigned to a self-contained class for the retarded (experimental group); the remaining 30 children stayed in regular classes (control group). In addition to the two groups of retarded children, there was a criterion group of 30 nonretarded children who were in the same classes as the controls. The latter group was matched on socioeconomic status with the two retarded groups. Of the total group of 90 children, 33 were found to meet requirements of sufficient peer interaction to be included in the study (10 experimental, 12 control, and 11 criterion). A sociometric interview was conducted with each child and measures of interaction were derived from the results of this interview. The findings tended to indicate that both experimental and control groups were more isolated from their classroom peers residing in the same neighborhood than were the intellectually normal criterion group members. Additional specific results viewed as negative by the author included the findings that (1) placement in a special class discourages the child in initiating contacts with peers and (2)regular class placement makes the child more reactive to his normal peers; however the latter group does not reciprocate. Towne, Joiner, and Schurr (1967) studied the effects of special class placement on self-concept. A total of 62 EMRs, CA range 6-15 years, who were on waiting lists for placement in segregated classes were selected for the study. An

238

Melvin E. Kaujhaan and Paul A. Albert0

8-item test was administered prior to knowledge of placement and readminis tered four times during the first year of special class participation. The test items asked children how well they thought they were doing in school. The children showed significant improvement in self-concept of ability following placement. Scores increased until the end of the first year, when they began to decrease. The same authors reported some additional findings concerning a small subgroup of seven children who had returned to regular classes and were no longer labeled as EMR (Schurr, Towne, & Joiner, 1972). The self-concept score was found to be significantly lower 1 year following the reintegration into a regular class, In the report of Monroe and Howe (1971) two questions that relate to the social acceptance of EMR adolescents in an integrated junior high school were investigated: (1) Does the social acceptance of the retarded adolescent increase the longer he is in an integrated program? (2) Is the retarded adolescent’s social acceptance positively related to his social class? Five junior high schools in eastern Iowa were selected where retarded students were in classes with nonretarded students. However, in each school the number of hours the retarded were integrated and the types of classes involved varied. A total of 70 boys with CAs from 13-16 years (median = 14) and (Qs from 54-92 (median = 73) were selected. Nineteen physical education classes were selected (based on Rucker’s findings that acceptance was the same for academic and nonacademic classes). The length of time the EMR students had participated in these classes vaned from 1 to 3 years. No significant differences were found on the Ohio Social Acceptance Scale (SAS) among the mean scores for students in their first (N= 33), second (N = 28), or third year (N= 9) in an integrated program, although all scores were low relative to nonretarded students. Four groups were formed on the basis of Socioeconomic Index for Occupations. Two of the four groups consisted of EMR students divided into high (N= 30) and low (N = 40) social class. The other two groups were nonretarded, with IQ scores below 90, and likewise were divided into high (N = 30) and low (N= 40) social class. A significant difference was found between the mean SAS scores for special and nonspecial students. A significant difference was also found between the mean SAS scores for the high and low socioeconomic groups. The nonspecial high socioeconomic group had the highest SAS mean, while the special class low socioeconomic group had the lowest SAS mean. Lewis (1973) conducted a comparative investigation of four school environments for young EMR students (CA 6 to 10-9 years) on self-concept, academic achievement, attitude toward school, and social adaptive behavior. The students were drawn from lists of students in four school settings from 26 school districts. Group I children had been declared eligible for special education but had not been placed. These students (N= 16) were attending regular classes and

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

239

“had not for all intensive purposes been labeled retarded.” Group I1 nonintegrated students (N = 20) had been placed in a self-contained class. Group I11 integrated students (N = 20), had been placed in special classes with a high degree of integration. Group lV resource room students (iV = 10) had been assigned to resource rooms or learning centers while maintaining membership in a regular class. All students had met the same eligibility requirements. School attendance ranged from always having been in special classes to never having been assigned to a special class. No significant differences were found among the four groups on self-concept as measured on The Way I Feel About Myself concept scale. However, females in Group I (Waiting List) and Group lV (Resource Room) scored significantly lower than the males in the groups. The analysis of the criterion variables, Sounds, Reading, and Numbers as measured by the Metropolitan Test, revealed no significant differences among the groups. Further analysis indicated that females in Groups I, II, and I11 scored significantly higher than males in reading. Group IV reported mean scores of males and females as almost equal. No significant differences among the groups regarding attitude toward school were found, An Adaptive Behavior Scale was completed by the teacher most familiar with each student, Analysis revealed significant differences for physical development and indicated that Group I1 (nonintegrated) were significantly lower than the other three groups on Adaptive Behavior. Teachers of students in Group I1 also perceived their students as having significantly less self-direction than did teachers of students in Group IV. Teachers reported students in Group I1 as significantly lower on socialization than the other groups. The study by Bradfield, Brown, Kaplan, Rickert, and Stannard (1973) was an attempt to demonstrate that, with modifications in regular classes, the special child can gain as much or more than these children gain in traditional selfcontained classes. Three children each of EMR and Educationally Handicapped (EH) classification were placed in modified third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade classes. Control children remained in self-contained special classes. The modified regular classes emphasized individualized instruction through the use of learning centers. After the first year, emphasis was placed on precision teaching with the development of a special cirriculum. The children were pre- and posttested for academic achievement, self-concept, and changes in behavior ratings. On academic development in third-grade children, the authors found no significant differences between the two EMR groups in reading, spelling, or arithmetic, using the CAT. A gain of .5 year was reported in the regular third class over the special class in arithmetic for EH children. No difference between groups was found in reading and spelling. In the fourth grade, the regular class group gained significantly more than special class children in reading and arithmetic as measured on the WRAT.There was no si&icant difference in any achievement area for EH children.

240

Melvin E. Kaufian and Paul A. Albert0

Behavior ratings were reported using the Quay-Peterson Behavior Problem Checklist. EMR children in the third-grade regular class showed a significantly greater decline in disruptive behavior than was found among the special class students. The EH children showed improvement in social behavior to be equal in both regular and special classes. Both EMR and EH children in fourth-grade regular classes showed considerable improvement in interpersonal behavior compared to special class children. Walker (1974) also studied the effects of resource versus self-contained classes for the retarded. The hypothesis tested was that at the end of a 2-year period, EMR children taught in a regular class with resource room exposure (experimental group) would be less self-derogatory, better socially adjusted, and make greater academic gains than a control group assigned to self-contained classes. There were 29 experimental and 41 control children who were matched on CA, individual IQ test, and reading level. The children were pretested on the Bristol Social Adjustment Guides (an adaptation of the IISD),and the word reading, vocabulary, and arithmetic subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test. The results are somewhat difficult to interpret in the form in which they were presented in the article. Walker indicated that there were no differences found between the groups on the self-concept variable. Yet she then discussed “residual gains’’ (not defined) of the two groups and reported that there was no significant difference between the residual gains made over the 2-year period in the areas of self-concept, social adjustment, and arithmetic. Experimental children made “significantly better” residual gains in word reading and vocabulary than selfcontained children. The conclusion stated by the author was as follows: “The findings indicate that the academic and social-emotional needs of the mentally retarded child can be met as well, if not better, in the resource room program as in the special class.” Bruininks, Rynders, and Gross (1974) assessed the social acceptance of retarded children enrolled in regular classes who were receiving supportive assistance in resource learning centers within either suburban or innercity schools. Subjects were 65 elementary-school age mildly retarded, and 1234 nonretarded pupils enrolled in regular classrooms in adjoining urban and suburban school districts. The children in urban and suburban districts averaged between 10 and 11 years of age and had mean IQs of 75 and 69, respectively. Nonretarded pupils were selected from regular classrooms in the same schools attended by the retarded pupils. All retarded pupils received approximately 2 hours per day of “supplemental instruction” which varied to meet their individual needs. This instruction was given in a resource learning center by a certified special education teacher. The Peer Acceptance Scale used was a modified version of the Ohio Social Acceptance Scale. A peer acceptance score for each group member was obtained by totaling the rating received from each respondent and computing a mean. A

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

24 1

sample of eight peers represented 2 5 4 0 % of a total class and was considered an adequate sample size. Correlations of .70 or above were obtained between this sample size and total class in an earlier study to validate this procedure. The principal findings were that mildly retarded children attending urban schools were significantly higher than nonretarded children in social acceptance among same-sex peers, while retarded children in suburban school settings were found to achieve significantly lower ratings than nonretarded children of the same sex. When peer ratings were combined (boys and girls, N = 4 of each), however, there were no differences between social acceptance of retarded and nonretarded in either school setting. 6. Studies of the Trainable Mentally Retarded

There have been few major studies of the efficacy of TMR education conducted to date. Unlike the EMR studies where integrated and segregated classes are compared, the TMR studies compare formal education versus no educational programming and/or public school versus institutional classes. “The New York Study” (Johnson & Capobianco, 1957) involved a 2-year investigation of the effectives of classes in public schools and institutions. Seven public school classes (N = 47) and two institutions (N = 96) were selected. With the Vineland Scale of Social Maturity no significant change in social quotient (SQ) was measured after the training period. The children with IQs less than 30 tended to decrease in SQ; children with IQs greater than 30 tended to increase slightly. To measure certain behavioral and academic changes, a behavior checklist was devised which included dressing, hygiene, table manners, following instructions, personal information, responsibility, and tool academics. Children with low IQs showed no gains; children with middle range IQs had gains that were lost in the second year; children with high IQs showed final slight gains. The Fels Behavior Rating Scale indicated some positive changes: (1) The public school children increased in tenacity and friendliness, and there was a reduction in competition; (2) the institutionalized children showed an increase in conformity and a decrease in gregariousness. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) was used as a language measure. A matched control group was established which was tested and retested at the same intervals. No significant difference in retest scores was found, nor were there significant differences on a test of articulation. Hottel’s (1958) 1-year “Tennessee Study” sought to determine if special classes produced greater development than training from parents in the home. There were 21 children matched on sex, clinical type, CA (8.6 years), and IQ (40.5) in two groups. One group was in public day classes; the second group was living at home without a special education program. Hottel used the StanfordBinet, Vineland Scale of Social Maturity, Fels’ Parent Behavior Rating Scale, and

242

Melvin E. Kauman and Paul A. Albert0

a Child Behavior Rating Scale he devised. The findings indicated no significant difference in score changes of either group in MA, IQ, Social Age (SA), SQ, behavior rating, or on the Fels. When the children were divided into low (30-40) and high (40-50) IQ groups, the high IQ special class children gained significantly in IQ, but not in SA or SQ. The 2-year “Texas Study” of Peck (1960) compared four groups of children: public school, private agency, and institutional classes, and children living at home receiving no training. Of a total of 30 children, there were 9 in the public school class, 6 in the private agency class, and 8 in the institution class. The remaining 7 children lived at home with no special education program. The CA range was 6-12 years; IQ range was 25-50. The study employed a single curriculum for all classes. Teachers were observed and supervised in the areas of provision for individual differences, social organization and classroom psychological climate, efficiency and orderliness of classroom activities, and ordermaintaining techniques. Peck used the Stanford-Binet, the Vineland Scale of Social Maturity, and a teacher rating scale which included the areas of social adjustment, self-care, language development, physical development, arts and crafts, economic usefulness, and music. The three classroom groups were rated six times per year. The nonschool group was rated three times per year. The findings showed more progress in learning as measured by the rating scale for the three classroom groups. No significant change in IQ or SQ was found in any of the four group. Cain and Levine (1963) in a 2-year study sought to assess the effects of special classes in institutional and community settings on the development of social competency. There were 182 subjects (IQ = 37.1, CA = 9.4 years, MA = 3.2 years) in four groups: (1) Community Experimental Group in which the children attended one of 31 public school classes and lived at home; (2) Community Control Group in which children received no schooling and lived at home; (3)Institutional Experimental Group in which children attended classes at the institution and lived there; (4) Institution Control Group in which children received no schooling and lived in the institution. Measurement was taken at the beginning and end of the 2-year period on an instrument devised by the investigators-The Cain-Levine Social Competence Scale. The scale consists of 72 items divided into four subtests: self-help, social skills, communication and initiative, and responsibility. Cain and Levine found that both the school and nonschool community groups made significant improvement in social competency. However, the difference between the two groups was not significant. Both school and nonschool institution groups significantly decreased in social competency. No significant differences were found between institutional experimental and institutional control groups. Both community groups made significantly greater gains than either institutional group.

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

243

111. AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL OF VARIABLES IN EFFICACY RESEARCH

A. Randomness

Random selection of children is a cardinal feature of valid experimental comparisons. As Kerlinger (1973) indicates, it is a prime consideration for the investigator to establish that experimental and control groups are approximately equated on variables which possibly may be related to the dependent variables. An inspection of the efficacy studies strongly suggests that, in most cases, randomness is not achieved. In surveying the efficacy studies, several types of subject selection procedures are observed. The procedures included either the use of preexisting groups or, in the minority of studies, random assignment to newly established groups. Each of these methods of selecting subjects will be examined in terms of how such selection might confound the interpretation of the research findings. The first approach to the use of existing groups is to select a school system that already has an established special education program and to study the relative efficacy of self-contained and integrated programs within that particular school system. Representative of this approach are the studies of Bacher (1964), Baldwin (1958), Kern and Pfaeffle (1962), and Walker (1974). The major problem in using existing groups from within the same school system is that even though the children in the varying treatment groups may be matched on a number of variables such as CA, MA, and IQ, there is still the distinct possibility that systematic bias enters into determining placement into preexisting programs. Such.a view has been suggested by Cegelka and Tyler (1970), Spicker and Bartel(1968), and Stanton and Cassidy (1964), among others. The main objection to using already existing groups is that such groups are not placed into alternate forms of educational treatments on a random basis. Rather, many school systems will transfer the most “educationally problematic” children into the segregated classes while retaining other less problematic children in regular classes. The term “educationally problematic” has no precise operational defmition, but is meant to cover a wide variety of school adjustment problems, motivational difficulties, and academic achievement failures on the part of the child. It also may include teacher and administrative unhappiness with the presence of such children within a regular class setting. Given limits to the number of children who may be placed in segregated classes, those most disturbing to the regular class teacher may be disproportionately represented in segregated EMR classes. It is a reasonable hypothesis that the school and adjustment histories of children in segregated classes may not be similar to those who are allowed to remain in integrated education. Thus it may be that any

244

Melvin E. Kaujhan and Paul A. Albert0

differences between groups may be due to antecedent conditions and not due to treatment effects. The notion that integrated and segregated EMR groups differ on some potentially important variables is suggested by the findings of Blatt (1958). As has already been reported, Blatt found that there were physical differences between self-contained and integrated EMRs, with the former group being significantly more underweight and having significantly more uncorrected or permanent physical defects than the latter group. The second approach to the use of existing groups is to select two or more school systems which differ in terms of whether or not they provide special educational services. The selection of segregated children would come from the system offering special educational services, and the integrated children would come from the system not providing any special education. Johnson (1961) is representative of the latter approach. This investigator selected experimental children who were enrolled in self-contained EMR classes. Johnson “assumed” that all retarded children in the experimental school systems were enrolled in segregated classes because of their availability, and that he had used adequate survey methods. The control group was selected from school systems with no defined programs for the MR. Control children were then identified by a series of screening procedures beginning with teacher identification of children they considered to be significantly below their peers intellectually. This group was subsequently administered a series of tests, including the Binet, which resulted in a control group of children whose IQs were found to be within the 50-75 IQ range. Johnson maintained that his subject selection procedures avoided earlier criticisms of sample bias which included an absence of assurance that (1) all EMRs in large schools had been identified and (2) that there were selective factors regarding which EMRs were placed in special education and which were retained in regular classes. Yet there remains the basic criticism that school systems may vary not only in terms of whether or not they provide special educational services, but also in matters concerning overall equivalence. For example, the period from 1955 to the present has been characterized by a rapid development of special education services in the schools. School systems that have not provided such special services have been generally smaller, poorer, educationally more conservative, and have provided a much narrower range of educational services than those systems which have developed special pupil programs. It is difficult for the authors to accept the case for equivalence of the school systems used to select experimental and control groups on a prima facie basis. While most efficacy studies compared existing groups, there have been a few that have used random placement to the various experimental conditions. The

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

245

study of Goldstein et al. (1965) represents the most sophisticated approach to the problem of establishing experimentally equated groups and then randomly assigning them to experimental and control conditions. Goldstein et aL screened all 1807 first graders in three Illinois counties using the Primary Mental Abilities 5-7 Test. A total of 280 children scored 85 or less on this test, and were subsequently administered the Stanford-Binet, Form L. Identified were 120 children having Binet IQs of 60-85. Half of the children were assigned to four segregated special classes and half remained in regular first-grade classes. The Goldstein et al. method of randomization provided the opportunity for all entering first graders to be considered for placement in all experimental conditions. Antecedent educational experience was controlled by using only first graders and there was an equal opportunity for every child to be placed into experimental or control groups. As will be observed, there are many variables to be controlled, but Goldstein et aL have minimized one source of variance that is relatively uncontrolled in a majority of the efficacy studies in special education. Another frequently encountered but significant deviation from appropriate sampling procedure involves using unrepresentative sex distributions of EMR subjects. While many studies merely fail to report sex distributions, most studies used a 50-50 male-female ratio. However, virtually all prevalence studies of school-aged EMRs report a substantially higher proportion of boys than girls. Mumpower (1970), for example, found that in a school population surveyed over a 10-year period, 65.3% of the EMR children (N= 730) were boys and only 34.7% were girls. Yet many of the efficacy studies have simply ignored the sex variable in their sampling procedures. There are several studies that take cognizance of the sex distribution of the retarded, as evidenced by their selection procedures. Blatt (1958), studying a variety of characteristics of EMR children, included 29.3% girls in his study. Likewise, Stanton and Cassidy (1964) reported using a ratio of 1.86 males to 1 female in their study of EMRs. Employing a 50-50 male-female ratio appears warranted in TMR studies. In the same report described above, Mumpower (1970) found that of 195 Th4R children, 49.2% were boys and 50.8% were girls.

B. Control of Classroom and Instructional Variables The basic question being asked in efficacy is whether a program is doing what it purports to be doing. This goal is presumably incorporated into the curriculum that is being used. The achievement of the specifics is the responsibility of the teacher; the measurement of these specifics should be accomplished by using instruments sensitive to precise aspects of these goals or instructional objectives. Therefore,

246

Melvin E. Kaufian and Paul A. Albert0

curriculum, teacher competency, and appropriate measurement constitute three essential classroom variables which should be considered in the conduct of efficacy research. The basic tenet in the creation of special classes is that the children to be served are of such a qualitative difference that the content and/or rate of presentation of the curriculum within the regular classes are inappropriate for them. To compensate, a specialized curriculim is established. Therefore, with the model of efficacy studies to date we are forced into a proposition of comparing special children on the basis of two sets of curricular content and objectives. As it is conceded that we are dealing with two diffdrent sets of materials and rates of presentation, it should be seen that we have not been measuring equal entities in terms of significant progress markers, yet we draw conclusions about program effectiveness as if we are. Most studies make no note of curriculum content. If the curriculum is not specified in the study, one does not know against which set of criteria achievement is being measured, nor is it possible to make an informed appraisal of achievement. In addition, since the curriculum is conceded to be different, the plausible points of comparability between the curriculum of the regular and special classes should be aligned in order that they may be meaningfully compared. If differences in rate of presentation and acquisition are conceded, growth should be seen from that point of view. That is, instead of comparing the scores on various instruments, one should be comparing gain scores. If curriculum content is different or presented at a reduced rate, then it is not appropriate to expect equal achievement on material. The criterion should be a percentage of achievement gain that is examined. The one study that attempted to deal with the curriculum dilemma was Bradfield et al. (1973). Within both the regular and special classes an attempt at curriculum control was made through “the precise defintion and structuring of curriculum” for use within both the regular and special classes. Specific details are not provided. Another alternative employed has been to control the curriculum of only the special classes, thereby establishing essentially the same testable content in each of these classes. In the studies by Peck (1960) and Goldstein et aL (1965) this type of control was maintained through use of the Illinois Curriculum Guides. Peck used the Illinois Curriculum Guide for Teachers of Trainable Mentally Handicapped Children. This guide includes the content areas of social adjustment, self-care, language development, physical development, music, arts and crafts, and economic usefulness. Even greater control of the curriculum was afforded by using a 4month preplanning period. Prior to the beginning of the teaching, the investigators and teachers met on two afternoons per week for 4 months, experimenting with tasks and activities and also coordinating plans and methods. Such meetings continued after teaching began. The lesson plans developed included: (1) activities within each curriculum area, (2)the methods of

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

247

teaching each activity “SO that each teacher could use essentially the same method of teaching,” (3) the mutually agreed upon materials for each activity. Lesson plans were projected for the month and then further developed for each week. If deviations were made, the rationale and substitution had to be recorded. However, substitutions of activities were required to deal with the same content as the activity for which the substitution was made. Goldstein et aL (1 965) used the Illinois Curriculum Guide for Teachers of the Educable Mentally Handicapped. This guide includes the areas of arithmetic, frne arts, language arts, physical education, practical arts, science, and social relationships. Similar control of the curriculum of the regular classes is not mentioned. With the establishment of a program’s content, the next question to be raised is the effectiveness with which it is being implemented. If we are to compare accurately development and achievement of subjects, we must be certain that all the teachers of the program have approximately equal ability to match content, child, and appropriate methodology and materials; all teachers need to demonstrate a minimum standard of methodological skill; and all teachers must be performing an equally effective job. As part of their observations Cain and Levine (1963) made an analysis of the percent of quality instruction taking place in their research classrooms. In the community schools they judged 44% of the class day to be instructional in nature; 29% of this was of “high adequacy.” In the institutional schools they judged 35% of the class day to be instructional in nature; 1.7% of t h i s was of “high adequacy.” The criteria for this analysis were quantity and accessibility of material for instruction, teacher supervision of activities, number of children engaged in a learning activity, individualization of instruction, opportunity provided for the children to assume responsibilities, teacher evaluation during class, and the amount of teacher attention concerned with deviant behavior. When looking at the dates of the preponderance of efficacy studies, one notes that the number of adequately trained and certified special education teachers was limited during that period. Wide differences existed in the amount and nature of course and practicum experiences required at various training institutions. For many years, obtaining “intensive summer preparation” or “add-on certification” was a very frequent practice in special education. It is doubtful that such hasty preparation provides for adequate and/or effective training of a competent teacher. Further, it brings into question the problem of the comparative competence of both special education and regular education teachers within well-controlled studies. Three attempts have been made at reducing teacher related variance: Peck (1960) with TMR teachers, Goldstein et al. (1965) with special education teachers, and Bradfield et al. (1973) with the special and regular education teachers. Peck and his associates observed the procedures of each teacher to assure the

248

Melvin E. Kaufman and Paul A. Albert0

implementation of the methods and materials decisions made during their planning sessions, and to assure equalization of teaching and curriculum between the groups. They also studied and discussed with each teacher the progress and behavior of her students. Attempts at control of the effectiveness and equality of the teaching was done through the use of Sanders’ Descriptive Schedules. Each teaching situation was described by three different observers using the following schedules: provision for individual differences; social organization and classroom psychological climate; efficiency and orderliness of classroom activities; order maintaining techniques. In that each class will vary as a function of the teacher, it would be desirable to rotate the teachers among the classes to assure equalization of the teacher competency variable. However, this is a practical problem, especially in studies with an in situ sample. Coldstein et al. (1965) made such an attempt by having no individual teacher teach the same class for more than 2 years. As further controls, each of their special education teachers had MR certification, teacher conferences were held, and close supervision maintained. During the academic year the teachers met at approximately 6-week intervals to discuss classroom experiences and plans. During the summer, evaluation of the past year and preparation for materials for the next were accomplished. Bradfield et al. (1973) attempted to control the teacher variable in both special and regular classes through the use of a single instructional philosophy, namely, “individualization of instruction.” During the first year the learning center approach coupled with the use of behavior modification techniques was used. The orientation was changed during the second year to precision teaching; specifically, “the precise definition and structuring of curriculum and consequences for appropriate performance.” Teachers underwent an inservice training program in techniques of individualization of instruction. New teachers had additional workshops and spent 1 week in a model classroom. One variable which has not been sufficiently considered in efficacy research is that of differing expectancy levels for academic achievement and social behaviors of EMR students that are held by regular and special class teachers. Although conflicting evidence exists as to the specific effects of teacher expectancy upon student behavior, the possible effects of this variable should be considered in an investigation. Teacher expectancy should be of particular concern when an investigator is using teacher completed checklists of social or adjustment behaviors such as in the studies by Blatt (1958), Elenbogen (1957), and Mullen and Itkin (1961). When such checklists lack an objective standard, the findings may be used on what Gardner (1966) refers to as “differences in frame of reference.” Identical behaviors exhibited by EMR students in the special and regular class may be judged qualitatively different, based on the teachers expectancy of her students. Bradfield et al. (1973) attempted to get at this source of discrepancy by use of “precision charts” to measure within-class

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

249

progress. Precise criteria for the presence or absence of behavior are reported to have been established for progress. The charts included an arithmetic problemscorrect rate chart, arithmetic problems-incorrect rate chart, reading correct and incorrect rate charts, and a social behavior rate chart. This procedure involving the use of precisely defined behavioral criteria has the effect of neutralizing the influence of teacher expectancy. C. Appropriateness of Measuring Devices

Measurements of achievement and social behaviors are as much a result of the instrument used as they are of the instruction that takes place within the classroom. There have been essentially four achievement instruments used within the research that has been reviewed. These include the Stanford Achievement Test (Bacher, 1964; Stanton & Cassidy, 1964; Thurstone, 1959; Walker, 1974), the CAT (Blatt, 1958; Bradfield et aL, 1973; Smith 8c Kennedy, 1967), the WRAT (Carroll, 1967; Hoeltke, 1966), and the Metropolitan Achievement Test (Lewis, 1973). A first question of importance concerning these instruments is that of the validity. For instance, the authors of the Stanford Achievement Test (Kelley, Madden, Gardner, & Rudman, 1968) completely neglect empirical validity data. They present the statement that they “sought to insure content validity by examining appropriate courses of study and textbooks as a basis for determining the skills, knowledge, understandings, etc., to be measured.” Not only is content validity not sufficiently present, but concurrent validity with comparable achievement batteries was neglected. Similarly, this lack of content validity is found for the other tests as well. In his review of the WRAT, Thorndike (1972) states that “the content validity of the test is not considered by the authors at any point. This review does not believe that it would be judged to be high.” The absence of such information leads to extreme difficulty in interpretation of the results of efficacy studies, for it first raises the question as to whether the tests are in fact measuring appropriate achievement for the regular classrooms. Furthermore, if there is question of their use with regular students, how can they be a valid measure for achievement in the special class where it must be conceded that the curriculum is, to say the least, modified? Another question is that of sensitivity of the instruments. Consider the apparent discrepancies between the findings of Smith and Kennedy (1967) who, in their study, used the rather specific results of the CAT, and Carroll (1967) and Hoeltke (1966) who used in their study the less sensitive and more limited findings which can be obtained from the WRAT. Smith and Kennedy reported the results of the CAT, with its numerous set of academic skills and subskills and found no significant difference between groups; these authors suggested that one problem of interpreting the findings was “the uncertain abilities of the measures

250

Melvin E. Kaujhan and Paul A. Albert0

[CAT] to detect small changes in behavior.” However, by using an even less sensitive instrument in their studies, i.e., the WRAT,Hoeltke and Carroll both found significant improvement. The question remains as to how such discrepant results can be reconciled. Another general but related problem is that variations in the sensitivity of measuring instruments used in the various efficacy studies highlights the difficulty in generalizing from research employing widely diverse tests. The validity and reliability of the measures of social behavior used in various efficacy reports must also be questioned. Blatt (1958) stated in his study that validity testing had not been performed on the New York City Scales of Social Maturity and Emotional Stability, which was used in his study on EMR characteristics. Similarly, questions of validity are raised by Hoepfner, Stem, and Nummedal(l971) on other frequently used measures of social behavior. These authors, after scrutinizing the available statistical research, rated the validity of the Bristol Social Adjustment Scale (a later adaptation of the IISD) and the CTP as “fair,” and their reliability as “poor.” The use of the CTP as a dependent measure has been reported in a number of efficacy studies (Blatt, 1958;Cassidy & Stanton, 1959;Johnson, 1961;Kern & Pfaeffle, 1962). Kern and Pfaeffle and Cassidy and Stanton found significant differences between groups; Blatt and Johnson found no such differences using major category scales. In his discussion of the use of the CTP, Gardner (1966) raises serious questions regarding the use of subtest scores instead of major category scores. Further, as to the CTPs appropriate use, Gardner (1966)states that since the retarded subjects got mean raw scores below the fifth percentile, “One could assume that, to the extent the CTP actually reflects significant and meaningful aspects of personal and social adjustment, the mentally retarded are inferior to the group represented by the test norms.” A possible interpretation of this fact is “that the test is not an appropriate instrument for use with the mentally retarded.” Where curricular areas were not included on available standardized instruments, many investigators chose to devise checklists as measurement instruments. However, validity and reliability must be brought into question. Without the establishment of criterion references to compensate, such checklists are open to the subjectivity of the rater. Also, there needs to be the established outside norms against which a sample population may be compared. In this way, one can then measure whether regular or special education programs most effectively and efficiently instruct the child. Measuring against standardized norms is a questionable procedure. If we accept that the norms of most standardized measures are inappropriate for the special education child, does this necessitate the establishment of deviation norms against which to measure to the achievement of this population? The seeming popularity of the use of sociometric techniques (Baldwin, 1958; Bruininks et aZ., 1974; Johnson, 1961; Monroe & Howe, 1971) as a valid

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

25 1

measure of social development has been questioned by Quay (1963). She points out two weaknesses inherent in their use with special education subjects. First she states, “it is reasonable to expect them [special class students] to name the children who are present at the time they take the test. Second, on the basis of their experiences, special class teachers are likely to have lower internal norms for personal traits in children than are regular class teachers” [p. 6721.

IV. THE FUTURE OF EFFICACY RESEARCH IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

On the basis of the review of efficacy research and the analysis of experimental variables to be considered in such research as just presented, it should be clear that generating clear-cut studies in this area is an exceedingly difficult task. At a minimum, we need to sensitize researchers in this field to attempt to reduce error factors associated with lack of random sampling, poor matching of subjects, inappropriate or invalid test instruments, unclear curricula, as well as poorly stated objectives of the intervention procedures. It was indicated earlier that since most of the efficacy studies were performed in the 1950s and early 19609, a major source of uncontrolled variance was related to the high probability that a significant number of special education teachers had received minimal formal and specialized training in dealing with retarded children. In the late 1960s and early 1970s we have witnessed the emergence of a significantly greater number of organized training programs, and it is proposed that teachers trained in the last decade may have a firmer basis for providing more effective educational services. Of course, such a proposition needs to be evaluated empirically. In the same vein, the past decade has produced the emergence and refinement of a larger number of teaching strategies characterized by greater specificity of educational objectives, e.g., precision teaching, applied behavioral analysis, task analysis, and similar approaches. There is mounting evidence that such approaches have produced specific and circumscribed gains in educational and social performance. However, there are no comprehensive studies involving the efficacy of these “behavioristic” approaches which span relatively prolonged educational periods and involve a variety of academic subjects and/or social variables. How Can Future Efficacy Studies be Improved?

The concluding section of this chapter deals with three general classes of variables, with specific recommendations on techniques for reducing uncontrolled sources of variance. The variables to be discussed include teacher selec-

252

Melvin E. Kaujhan and Paul A. Albert0

tion, standardization of curriculum, and use of measuring and evaluation instruments. The first variable, selection of teachers, has been almost consistently neglected. While individual teachers will always vary somewhat in their approach, the following suggestions are offered in terms of helping to reduce the degree of teacher variability: (1) All teachers participating in the study should meet certain basic criteria in terms of their education and prior experience. One method of approaching t h i s problem is to select only teachers who have been systematically evaluated during their formal training in a competency-based college or university special education program. While such an approach is far from foolproof, at least it can be certified that the teacher was exposed to a variety of training experiences and was able to demonstrate a series of teacherrelated skills deemed important by professional special educators. Thus, efficacy researchers who use a population of competency-based trained teachers can be reasonably sure that such teachers possess certain minimum requisite skills at the time they begin teaching. Related to the discussion of prior training is the recognition that university departments of special education impose a variety of methodological and theoretical viewpoints which have a significant bearing on the general approach a teacher adapts in subsequent teaching efforts. Rather than being frustrated by these training program variations, such variations can be incorporated into the design of future efficacy studies. For example, two competency-based training programs vary in their basic theoretical orientation: Department “A” is highly behavioristic, with much emphasis in defining specific behavioral objectives, and Department “B’ is psychoeducational in its approach. Each department has developed a series of exiting competencies which are used to evaluate students. It not becomes possible to evaluate the effectiveness of approach “A” versus approach “B,” although it is recognized that there are additional independent variables to be controlled in such an evaluation procedure. The second variable to be considered is the need to standardize the curriculum used in the study. Training workshops on the application of a teaching strategy to curriculum content are required to increase standardization. The workshops should be of sufficient duration to assure adequate mastery of both the methodological approach and curriculum content. Exiting criteria for teacher proficiency should be clearly indicated and mastered prior to the start of the research. Further, once the study is underway, the researcher should engage in a series of checks on classroom activities to determine whether or not the teacher is continuing to use the specified methods and curriculum, according to the criteria established during the training workshop. Time or event sampling of classroom activities represents one way of evaluating the problem of fidelity of stated educational intervention on the part of the teacher.

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

253

The third variable related to use of appropriate measuring instruments in evaluating educational and behavioral results. Some of the studies reported earlier used instruments that were relatively well standardized. However, it is also necessary to make certain that the standardized test used is applicable to the population being studied in the efficacy research. Gardner (1966) presents one example of the misuse of a standardized test (CTP)and its use on populations of subjects not originally considered in the standardization. A final suggestion concerning measuring instruments involves the use of rating forms. While such instruments will continue to be used, the writers strongly recommend that the language of the rating forms be stated in specific behavioral terms, with subjective judgments being eliminated or kept to an absolute minimum. Further, it is assumed that intermittent reliability tests on all rating and observational instruments will be made throughout the course of the study and not restricted to the initial phase of the research. REFERENCES Bacher, J. The effect of special class placement on the self-concept, social adjustment, and reading growth of slow learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1964. Baldwin, W. K. The educable mentally retarded child in the regular grades. Exceptional

Children, 1958,25,106-108,112.

Blatt, B. The physical, personality, and academic status of children who are mentally retarded attending special classes as compared with children who are mentally retarded attending regular classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1958,62,810-818. Bradfield, R. H.,Brown, J., Kaplan, P., Rickert, E., & Stannard, R. The special child in the regular classroom. Exceptional Children, 1913,39,384-390. Bruininks, R. H.,Rynders, J. E., & Gross, J. C. Social Acceptance of mildly retarded pupils in resource rooms and regular classes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1914,78, 377-38 3. Cain, L. F., & Levine, S. Effects of community and institutional school programs on trainable mentally retarded children. CEC Research Monograph, 1963,No. B-1. Carroll, A. W. The effects of segregated and partially integrated school programs on self concept and academic achievement of educable mentally retardates. Exceprional Chil-

dren, 1967,34,9349.

Cassidy, V., & Stanton, J. An investigation of factors involved in the educational placement of mentally retarded children. USOE Project No. 043, U.S. Office of Education, 1959. Cegelka, W. J., & Tyler, J. L. The efficacy of special class placement for the mentally retarded in proper perspective. Training School Bulletin, 1970,67,33-68. Cowen, P. A. Special class vs. grade groups for subnormal pupils. School and Society, 1938,

48,21-28.

Elenbogen, M. L. A comparative study of some aspects of academic and social adjustment of two groups of mentally retarded children in special classes and in regular grades.

Dissertation Abstracts, 1951,17,2496.

Gardner, W. I. Social and emotional adjustment of mildly retarded children and adolescents: Critical review. Exceptional Children, 1966,33,97-106. Goldstein, H.,Moss, J., & Jordan, L. The efficacy of special class training of the develop

254

Melvin E. K a u j h n and Paul A. Albert0

ment of mentally retarded children. USOE Project No. 619, U.S. Office of Education, 1965. Hoeltke, G. M. Effectiveness of special class placement for educable mentally retarded children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1966. Hoepfner, R., Stern, C., & Nummedal, S . G. (Eds.) CSE-ECRCPreschool/Kindergarden Test Evalucrtions. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation and Early Childhood Research Center, Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, 1971. Hottel, J. An evoluotion o f Tennessee's day chss pmgrom for severely mentally retarded tminoble children. Nashville, Tenn.: State Department of Education, 1958. Johnson, G. 0. A study of the social position of mentally handicapped children in the regular grades. Americm Jountrrl of Mentol Deficiency, 1950,55,60-89. Johnson, G. 0. A comparative study of the personal and social adjustment of mentally handicapped children placed in special classes with mentally handicapped children who remain in regular classes. Unpublished manuscript, Contract M2514, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, 1961. Johnson, G. O., & Capobmco, R. J. Research project on severely retarded children. New York: Interdepartmental Health Resources Board, 1957. Kelley, T., Madden, R.,Gardner, E., & Rudman. H. Stonford Achievement Test. New York: Harcourt, 1968. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations ofbehoviorol research. New York: Holt, 1973. Kern, W. H., & Pfaeffle, H. A. A comparison of social adjustment of mentally retarded children in various educational settings. American Journal o f Mentol Deficiency, 1962, 67,407-413. Lapp, E. R. A study of the social adjustment of slow-learning children who were assigned part-time to regular classes. Americon Jouml of Mentol Deficiency, 1957,62,254-262. Lewis, M. A comparison of selfancept, academic achievement, attitude toward school and adaptive behavior of elementary school children identified as educable mentally retarded in four different school environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1973. Mayer, C. L. The relationship of early special class placement and selfconcepts of mentally handicapped children. Exceptwnol Children, 1966,33,77-81. Meyerowitz, J. H. Selfderogations in young retardates and special class placement. Child Development, 1962,33,443-451. Meyerowitz, J. H. Peer groups and special classes.Mento1Returdation, 1967,5,23-26. Monroe,J. D., & Howe, C. E. The effects of integration and social class on the acceptance of retarded adolescents. Education ond lhiningof the Mentolly Retoded, 1971,6,20-23. Mullen, F. A., & Etkin, W. Achievement ond odjustment o f educable mentolly hmdicapped children fn xpeckrl cloxes m d in regulor closes. Chicago: Chicago Board of Education, 1961. Mumpower, D. L. Sex ratios found in various types of referred exceptional children. Exceptionol Children. 1970,36,621-622. Peck, J. R. A comparative investigation of the learning and social adjustment of trainable children in public school facilities, segregated community centers, and state residential centers. USOE Project No. 6430, U.S. Office of Education, 1960. Pertsch, C. F. A comparative study of the progress of subnormal pupils in the grades and in special classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia UNversity. 1936. Porter, R. B., & Milazzo, T. C. A comparison of mentally retarded adults who attended a

SPECIAL EDUCATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

255

special class with those who attended regular school classes. Exceptional children, 1958, 24,410412,420.

Quay, L. C. Academic skills. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Schurr, K. T.. Towne, R. C., &Joiner, L. M. Trends in selfconcept of ability over two years of special class placement. Journal of Special Education, 1972,6,161-166. Smith, H. W., & Kennedy, W.A. Effects of three educational programs on mentally retarded children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967,24,174. Spicker, H. H., & Bartel, N. R. The mentally retarded. In G. 0. Johnson & H. D. Blank (Eds.), Exceptional children research review. Washington, D.C.: Council for Exceptional Children, 1968. Stanton, J. E., & Cassidy, V. M. Effectiveness of special classes for educable mentally retarded. Mental Retardotion. 1964,2,8-13. Thorndike, R. L. Tests & reviews: Achievement batteries. In 0. K. Buros (Ed.), The seventh mental measurementsyearbook. Vol. 1. Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon Press, 1972. Thurstone. T. G. An evaluation of educating mentally handicapped children in special classes and in regular grades. USOE Project No. 6452, U.S. Office of Education, 1959. Towne, R. C., Joiner, J. M., & Schurr, T.The effects of special classes on the self-concepts of academic ability of the educable mentally retarded. Paper presented at the 45th annual Council for Exceptional Children convention, St. Louis, April 1967. Walker, V. S. The efficacy of the resource room for educating retarded children. Excep tional Children. 1974,44 288-289. Warren, K. An investigation of the effectiveness of educational placement of mentally retarded children in a special class. Dissertation Abstmcts, 1962,23,2211.