Kathleen M. Bocian

Comorbidity of Hyperactivity-Impulsivity-Inattention and Conduct Problems: Risk Factors in Social, Affective, and Academic Domains

Children showing a comorbid behavior pattern of hyperactivity-impulsivity-inattention and conduct problems (HIA + CP) were contrasted to children having only an internalizing and externalizing behavior pattern (I + E) and matched controls. Children displaying the HIA + CP behavior pattern were at greater risk on a number of outcome measures in social and academic domains beginning in Grade 3 and continuing into Grade 4. The most marked differences among the three groups were found on peer measures of rejection and friendship and teacher ratings of social skills. On average, almost two-thirds of the HIA + CP group were rejected by their peers compared to one-third of the I + E group and only 12.5% controls. Over 70% of the HIA + CP group had no reciprocated friendships from Grade 3 to Grade 4 compared to less than half of the I + E group and approximately one-fourth of controls. Contrary to much theorizing in the literature, the HIA + CP and I + E groups showed average levels of academic self-concept and did not differ from controls in on measures of social self-concept and academic self-concept and general self-esteem. These findings were interpreted in light of positive illusory biases and the established link between aggressive behavior and egotism. The current article offers partial support for Lynams (1996) notion of the “fledgling psychopath.”

Treatment Integrity: An Essential—But Often Forgotten—Component of School-Based Interventions

In this article, the authors introduce the construct of treatment integrity and illustrate the importance of treatment integrity as it relates to school-based intervention. Specifically, the authors address the following questions: What is treatment integrity? Why is it important to assess treatment integrity? How can treatment integrity be assessed? and What factors influence treatment integrity? Finally, the authors offer school personnel examples of ways to realistically assess treatment integrity at the classroom level.

Discrepancy Between Definitions of Learning Disabilities and School Practices An Empirical Investigation

Students referred by general education teachers to school study teams (SSTs) were evaluated for learning disabilities (LD) eligibility. We classified children as LD on the basis of a WISC-III Full Scale IQ of 82 or higher and a 22-point discrepancy between IQ and any WRAT-R achievement score. Research decisions were then contrasted with actual school-based decisions regarding the child as LD. Over half of the students referred to SSTs were certified by the schools as LD, yet less than half of these school-certified students with LD evidenced the aptitude-achievement discrepancy required by the state. Examination of the cases called LD by the schools revealed that children were classified as LD on the basis of low absolute achievement, regardless of whether or not a discrepancy existed. Moreover, in cases where a discrepancy was found but the school did not classify the child as LD, that child evidenced significantly higher achievement, despite exhibiting the requisite 22-point discrepancy. The school-identified students with LD constituted an extremely heterogeneous group, including students with mental retardation along with a substantial number who failed to qualify for any special education services. Findings are discussed in terms of the discrepancy between criteria specified in state regulations and what the committee members at the school site seemed to use in classifying children with LD.

Learning Disabilities, Low Achievement, and Mild Mental Retardation More Alike Than Different?

Children identified with learning disabilities (LD), low achievement (LA), or mild mental retardation (MMR) were contrasted on 41 measures of ability, academic achievement, social skills, problem behavior, academic engaged time, perceptual-motor skills, and school history. Both multivariate, univariate, and meta-analytic comparisons among the three groups showed relatively large differences on measures of aptitude and achievement, with the LD group scoring higher on measures of cognitive ability than the LA and MMR groups and the LA group showing higher tested academic achievement than the LD and MMR groups. Teacher ratings of academic competence showed similar levels of functioning for the LD and LA groups. No differences among the groups were found on measures of social skills, problem behaviors, or academic engaged time, or on most indices reflecting school history. Results were interpreted in light of studies contrasting LD and LA groups. Comparisons with earlier studies were difficult in light of demographic differences in samples and the lower cognitive and academic functioning of children in the present study. The current study showed that 61% of the LD group could be differentiated from the LA group, with LD—MMR and LA—MMR differentiation levels being 68.51% and 67.5%, respectively.

Social and Academic Profiles of Externalizing and Internalizing Groups: Risk Factors for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders.

Three groups of third-grade students classified as either Externalizers (n = 30), Internalizes (n = 55) or Controls (n = 96) were contrasted on 19 measures in social and academic domains using multivariate analyses. Based on these analyses, a series of descriptive discriminant function analyses were undertaken to determine the best predictors of Externalizing and Internalizing group membership. Of 19 variables, those that best predicted Externalizing status compared to Controls were critical events, social skills, academic competence, peer acceptance, negative narrative comments, math, and reading, in that order. Variables that best predicted Internalizing status compared to Controls were social skills, academic competence, math, critical events, reading, peer acceptance, and negative narrative comments. Variables that best separated students on Externalizing and Internalizing status were critical events, disciplinary referrals, social impact, academic self-concept, school absences, peer acceptance, and academic competence. Cross-validated classification analyses correctly classified 97% of the Externalizing group and 89% of the Internalizing group compared to Controls. A classification analysis contrasting Externalizers and Internalizes resulted in correct classification rates of 63% and 84%, respectively. Contrary to much research in special education, both Externalizing and Internalizing groups appeared to have adequate academic self-concepts and social self-concepts. These findings were interpreted in light of recent work on positive illusory biases and the hypothesized relationship between unrealistically positive self-evaluations and psychological adjustment.

Comparison of Students Nominated for Prereferral Interventions by Ethnicity and Gender

In the present investigation, 150 children in Grades 2 through 4 who had been recommended for prereferral interventions were compared on a number of cognitive/achievement and behavioral scales in order to test whether those children referred differed as a function of ethnicity and/or gender. Of interest was the hypothesis that the behaviors that prompt referral may differ by domain or by degree for children of different ethnicity or gender. Severe achievement deficiencies characterized children of all three ethnic groups. Differences that did emerge indicated that on average, referred White children evidenced significantly higher Verbal IQs and reading achievement scores. On measures of problem behaviors, our data suggest that referred Black children were more likely to have a higher incidence of behavior problems than were Hispanic children. Gender differences for this referred sample were most apparent in the problem behaviors more typically exhibited by males; however, differences did not emerge on cognitive and achievement measures. Nevertheless, teachers rated females higher on overall academic competence. Findings were interpreted as failing to support the notions that the systematic referral of children for academic and/or behavior problems was somehow discriminatory against male or ethnic minority children.

Responsiveness of Students With Language Difficulties to Early Intervention in Reading

For children with language challenges, little is known about effective early reading interventions, because most studies have used language scores as exclusionary criteria. We randomly assigned 78 kindergartners with poor language skills to small group reading interventions that included phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and oral language. The groups began in September or mid-February. Nearly half the students were English learners. MANOVA between these groups found that earlier intervention led to significantly better outcomes than the same interventions begun later in kindergarten. We found similar rates of growth between students who were English only or English learners. Twice as many students in the immediate as in the delayed treatment scored in the average range at the end of the year. Pretests did not predict who would be a good or poor responder to the treatments; however, January scores in letter knowledge and phonemic awareness were reliably different for good and poor responders.

Students with or at Risk for Problem Behavior: Betwixt and between Teacher and Parent Expectations.

This study examined differences between teacher and parent ratings of social skills in a sample of adolescent students (n = 33) previously identified in the elementary grades as at risk for academic or behavioral concerns, or both. Findings suggest a core of 4 classroom behavioral expectations for social competence consistent across elementary and secondary school teachers. Furthermore, parents and teachers of adolescents with behavior problems reported different behavioral expectations. Teachers value behaviors almost entirely in the cooperation domain, rating skills that display assertion and self-control as less important for success in the classroom. Conversely, parents of children with behavior problems at school value behaviors at home in the self-control, responsibility, and assertion domains rather than cooperation skills. Although this may be situation specific, the fact that teachers and parents differentially judged adolescents with behavior problems from their peers suggests several potential targets for early prevention or intervention in collaboration with parents. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Access to a Responsiveness to Intervention Model: Does Beginning Intervention in Kindergarten Matter?

In this study, we tested the outcomes of access to a response to intervention (RtI) model in kindergarten or in first grade on end-of-Grade-2 reading achievement and placement in special education. Across five schools, 214 students who began having access to Tier 2 intervention in kindergarten or first grade were compared in Grades 1 and 2 with 208 cohort peers who were average readers and 102 historical control condition second grade poor readers who did not receive Tier 2 intervention. Results demonstrated significant effects on reading achievement for access to RtI in kindergarten at the end of first grade (effects averaged 0.48), but not in second grade, except for students who were English language learners (ELLs), who showed an advantage through the end of second grade. Students with access to RtI overall had significantly higher outcomes at the end of Grade 2 than students in the historical control, with no differences resulting from ELL status. No significant difference in the proportion of students placed in special education was noted; however, a greater proportion of the students found eligible as with learning disabilities had poor reading scores if they were placed after participating in RtI.

Generative Strategies, Working Memory, and Word Problem Solving Accuracy in Children at Risk for Math Disabilities:

This study investigated the role of generative strategies and working memory capacity on word problem solving accuracy in children with math difficulties (MD). Within classrooms, children in Grade 3 with MD (n = 69) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions: paraphrase question propositions (Restate), paraphrase relevant propositions (Relevant), and paraphrase all propositions (Complete), or to an untreated control. An additional control group included children without MD (n = 22). Mixed regression modeling showed that generative strategies significantly improved posttest scores for children with MD compared with the control condition, but outcomes were related to the type of dependent measures. The Relevant and Complete treatment conditions improved problem-solving accuracy, the Complete condition improved problem component identification, and the Restate and Relevant conditions improved operation span performance when compared with the control conditions. Only the Relevant and Complete generative learning treatments allowed children with MD to catch up to children without MD, but the results were moderated by working memory capacity.