1
Author: Richters, Kayla, S. Title: Understanding Child Temperament for Positive Behavioral Support in the
Classroom The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial
completion of the requirements for the
Graduate Degree/ Major: Ed.S. School Psychology
Research Advisor: Barbara Flom, Ph.D.
Submission Year: Fall, 2012
Number of Pages: 55
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website
I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.
My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper. STUDENT:
NAME: Kayla Richters DATE: 11/1/12
ADVISER: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):
NAME: Barbara Flom DATE: 11/14/12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your adviser who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Ann Brand DATE: 11/1/12
2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: Chris Peterson DATE: 11/1/12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.
Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:
2
Richters, Kayla, S. Understanding Child Temperament for Positive Behavioral Support in
the Classroom
Abstract
This study utilized survey methodology to assess the school psychologists’ knowledge and
formal assessment of temperament in Minnesota schools. School psychologists were asked
questions about knowledge of temperament, temperament assessment, goodness-of-fit model,
and assessment of environmental factors. Participants were selected through a random sample of
school districts in Minnesota and produced a total of 76 completed surveys. A majority of
school psychologists reported they do not formally measure child temperament. Of those that do
measure temperament, they do so by means of interview, observations, rating scale and
checklists. Even though most do not formally measure child temperament, a majority of the
school psychologists surveyed were familiar with three temperament styles and temperament
dimensions. Almost half of the school psychologists reported knowledge of the goodness-of-fit
model. A vast majority were considering environmental factors interacting upon the child in
comprehensive evaluations. Although most school psychologists did not formally measure
temperament, most consider the interaction of temperament and environmental factors that
impact the child.
3
The Graduate School University of Wisconsin, Stout
Menomonie, WI
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I warrant a thank you to my husband, Dustin, for supporting my decision to
attend graduate school during our early years of marriage. I appreciate his support, love, and
sacrifices he has made for me over the last several years.
I sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Barb Flom for taking me under her wing and providing
me with advice, guidance and encouragement. I feel writing this thesis was fostered by her
expertise in writing, formatting and editing my first “book”.
I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Chris Peterson and Dr. Ann Brand for
their insight, advice and guidance in research design.
4
Table of Contents
……………………………………………………………………………………… Page
Abstract……………………………………………..…………………….……………… 2
Chapter I: Introduction………..………………………………………………………...…6
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………..…9
Purpose of the Study…….…..……………………………………………….....… 9
Research Questions………...……….…………..…………………...………..…....9
Assumptions of the Study….…….……..……....…….…………………………. 10
Limitations of the Study……….…...……….………………………………...…. 10
Definition of Terms…………………….………………………….…………….. 10
Chapter II: Literature Review………………………….……………………………….. 12
Child Temperament………..……….……………………………………….…….12
School Environments……………….….…………………………………………15
Implications for School Psychologists………………….…...……………………21
Chapter III: Methodology……………………………………………………………… 26
Research Design……………………..….……………………………………….. 26
Participant Selection and Description…………………………………………….26
Data Collection Procedures………..…...…….………………………………….. 26
Instrumentation…………..………..…...…….………………………………….. 27
Data Analysis…………….………..…...…….………………………………….. 27
Limitations………………………………………………………………………..28
Chapter IV: Results…………….………..…...…….………………………………….. 30
Item Analysis…….………....……..…...…….………………………………….. 30
5
Chi-Square Analysis………………..…….………………………….………….. 33
Research Questions…...…………..…..…..…………………………………….. 35
Chapter V: Discussion………….………..…...…….………………………………….. 40
Conclusions……………....………..…...…….………………………………….. 40
Limitations of Study……..………..…...…….………………………………….. 43
Recommendations for Future Research......….………………………………….. 43
Recommendations for Best Practice.…..…….………………………………….. 44
Reference….……………………………………………………………………………. 47
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter……………………………………………………….50
Appendix B: Survey Instrument…………………………………………………………52
Appendix C: Tables……………………………………………………………………...54
6
Chapter I: Introduction
Temperament is an individual’s innate style of responding to the environment in both
behavioral and emotional ways (Griggs, Gagnon, Huelsman, Kidder-Ashley, & Ballard, 2009).
All children have a temperament that will influence their emotions and how they adapt to change
in their environments (Steinberg, 2004). Some theorists have described temperament as a highly
heritable construct with a strong relationship to adult personality (Bird, Reese, & Tripp, 2006).
Temperament styles include, but are not limited to, easy child, slow-to-warm-up child, and
difficult child (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
The easy child is the most common temperament (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996) and
characteristics include: keeping regular routines (feeding, sleeping), usually able to adapt to new
situations or activities quickly, and cheerful, resilient outlook. Slow-to-warm-up children are
referred to as the cautious children. The characteristics of the child are shyness or timidity,
withdrawal from new situations or when around strangers, slowness to adapt especially in social
situations, and close attachment to caregivers. Difficult children are referred to as feisty, fussy,
or hyperactive (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996). Difficult children place special demands and
stress on parents and teachers (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
Thomas and Chess (1977) New York Longitudinal Study found there are nine different
dimensions that make up a child’s temperament: activity level, sensitivity (threshold level),
intensity of reaction, adaptability, distractibility, inhibition (approach/withdrawal), negative
emotionality (quality of mood), persistence, and regularity (rhythmicity) (Thomas & Chess,
1977). Children high or low in these areas are usually described by parents as being difficult or
present challenging behaviors (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
7
The goodness-of-fit model suggests that healthy functioning occurs when there is a
goodness-of-fit or “compatibility” between the characteristics of the child and the demands and
expectations of the environment (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996). If individuals identify and
practice the goodness-of-fit model with a child, the child is most likely to experience positive
development. However, if there is an “incompatibility” or poorness-of-fit between the child and
the environment, psychological functioning is impaired, and therefore, may lead to a risk of
behavior disorder. The goodness-of-fit model should be practiced at home and school settings
(Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
One important factor in regards to child temperament in the classroom is student-teacher
interactions. Grasha (1996) suggested that at least five primary teaching styles are connected to
different outcomes in children’s responsiveness to the school environment. The expert teaching
style presents the information, knowledge and skills that students need. The formal authority
teaching style focuses on a clear and methodical way of delivering class combined with firm
expectations. A personal model teaching style uses personal experiences and encourages
students to observe and imitate the teacher. The facilitator style is focused on the personal
nature of the student–teacher interaction. Finally, the delegator style puts responsibility on the
student as an independent learner (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009). ‘Goodness of fit’ refers
to the degree that teaching style and child characteristics are well matched. Being aware of
individual temperaments can expand teacher’s views of ‘how’ children behave and can lead to
insight beneficial for both student and teacher (Keogh, 2003).
An increasing amount of services are requested for younger children, indicating school
psychologists are taking on more responsibility for early success and interventions in the
preschool and early elementary setting (Mendez, McDermott, & Fantuzzo, 2002). They are
8
increasingly responsible for preschool assessment, intervention and program evaluation. In these
responsibilities, school psychologists may look at within-child traits such as social competence,
adjustment, and classroom behaviors, which may be influenced by child temperament (Mendez,
McDermott, & Fantuzzo, 2002).
The importance of temperament demonstrates a rationale for assessing temperament
based on its relation to school adjustment, classroom behaviors, and social competence.
However, school psychologists and educators rarely take temperament into account in formal,
school-based and early childhood assessment (Griggs et al., 2009). It is important for school
psychologists and educators to be cognizant of these dimensions and distinguish temperament
from maladaptive behavior. School psychologists have a unique opportunity to bridge the
transition from preschool to elementary school by identifying and promoting social competence
and continuing interventions into the elementary school setting (Mendez et al., 2002).
For school psychologists, best practice consists of evaluating a child’s environments to
find areas of intervention and directly link assessment results to intervention. In practice, it is
common to assess within-child traits (e.g., intelligence, social competence); it is less common to
evaluate aspects of the child’s social environment (e.g., student–teacher relationships). This is
common practice amongst school psychologists even given a large body of empirical evidence
that social environments variables are crucial to the development of social skills. Evidence
suggests that ‘goodness-of-fit’ has a more important role in shaping various child outcomes than
either temperament or the environment alone (Griggs et al., 2009). It is much easier to target and
change the environment than within-child constructs and thus, the environment should be the
focus of intervention (Griggs et al., 2009). Research strongly supports the significance of
positive student–teacher relationships in predicting school-related outcomes (Griggs et al., 2009).
9
Statement of the Problem A considerable body of research exists on child temperament. However, less research
has been conducted on how child temperament and school environments relate to problem
behaviors. Currently, minimal amounts of research illustrate how the school psychologist can
apply temperament, teaching styles and externalizing and internalizing behavior data into
positive behavior support interventions. This study is aimed at exploring the school
psychologists’ awareness, knowledge and practice related to child temperament.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the school psychologists’ awareness,
knowledge and practice related to child temperament. The study will investigate whether school
psychologists use temperament as an assessment tool when evaluating child behavior and
consideration of the child’s environmental variables when conducting a comprehensive
assessment. The data were collected through a survey in the Spring of 2012.
The literature suggests that child behavior can be influenced by many factors. It looks at
how teaching style interacts with temperament to influence emotional and behavioral outcomes.
This study focuses on school psychologists’ perceptions of teachers as one influential factor of a
child’s development and behavior. It examines aspects of child temperament and development
that school psychologists may consider when promoting positive behavior in the school setting.
Research Questions
The following are questions are to be answered throughout the research process:
1. Do school psychologists formally measure temperament?
2. Are school psychologists aware of various factors related to child temperament?
10
3. Do school psychologists understand the goodness-of-fit model?
4. Are school psychologist considering and/or assessing environmental factors as part of
evaluations?
5. What demographic factors influence the school psychologists’ awareness and use of
temperament information?
Assumptions of the Study Assumptions of the study were that invited participants employed in randomly selected
school districts in the state of Minnesota resemble school psychologists employed in the state. It
was also assumed that the research participants answered questions honestly true to their practice
and beliefs.
Limitations of the Study Participants were volunteers from a population of school psychologists in districts
randomly selected from all school districts in the state of Minnesota. As volunteers, the
subgroup from the random selection and invitation process cannot be assumed to represent the
population of all Minnesota school psychologists without bias. Participants were slightly fewer
than half of the potential pool; they may have been more aware of the topic and thus more
willing to respond. Also, no effort was made to match participants demographically to all
practicing school psychologists in Minnesota.
Participants were drawn from only one state; thus results are not generalizable to all
regions of populations of school psychologist in the United States.
Definition of the Terms
To understand the content area of this study, certain terms need clarification. The
following are defined vocabulary words used in the study.
11
Externalizing Behaviors - Behaviors related to external conflict with the environment
including antisocial conduct, delinquency, aggression, and hyperactivity (Yahav, 2006).
Goodness-of-fit- refers to the degree that child characteristics and environment are well-
matched (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009).
Internalizing Behaviors - Behaviors related to internal conflicts such as anxiety,
psychosomatic complaints, shyness, social regression, withdrawal, low self-worth, irritability,
and depression (Yahav, 2006).
Temperament- An individual’s innate style of responding to the environment in
behavioral and emotional ways (Griggs et al., 2009).
12
Chapter II: Literature Review
The chapter will include the following topics: 1) description of child temperament; 2)
review of teaching styles and the goodness-of-fit model in the school system; and 3) implications
for school psychologists. First, the chapter will start by describing what child temperament is
and how it may look different for each child. Next, the chapter will review research on various
teaching styles and its affect on temperament. Finally, the chapter will look at the school
psychologist’s role of providing positive behavior supports and interventions in the classroom
and implications for assessments.
Child Temperament
Every child is born with his or her own unique temperament (McClowry, 2003).
According to Thomas and Chess (1977; Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996) temperament can be
defined as a behavioral style. It refers to the ‘how’ of behavior instead of ‘what’, ‘how well’ or
‘why’ a child is behaving (Keogh, 2003). Temperament is of special interest, as it is a predictor
of child behavior in the future (Ramos, Guerin, Gottfried, Bathurst, & Oliver, 2005).
Temperament is a window through which children see and react to the world. It is most apparent
during times of stress and change in the child’s life. Temperament is not to be confused with
“temper” or “temper tantrum” as children can respond to their environment in both positive and
negative ways (McClowry, 2003).
According to Chess & Thomas’ (1986) study, there are three temperament classifications:
1) easy temperament; 2) difficult temperament; and 3) slow-to-warm-up temperament. The easy
temperament child may be, to no surprise, the easiest one to adjust to the environment. The child
is able to adapt quickly and form secure attachments to other individuals. Such children are
easily transitioned to new experiences and environments. They quickly develop into routine
13
schedules. These children are highly predictable in their actions and behaviors. Easy children
display predominately upbeat moods, with mild to moderate mood intensity levels. When these
children are frustrated, it is at a level that is age-appropriate (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
About 40%-60% of children fit this category (Sclafani, 2004).
The difficult child may have challenging behaviors (Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams,
Hermanns, Peetsma, & Van Den Wittenboer, 2008). Difficult children commonly express
negative moods and display high levels of activity even in inappropriate environments. These
children will not react well to deviations to their daily schedules as they are very sensitive to
change. It is hard to predict what they will do in new situations and may throw tantrums when
frustrated. Empirical evidence has shown that difficult temperaments early in childhood are
concurrently and prospectively correlated to both internalizing characteristics such as anxiety,
sadness, social withdrawal, and fear and externalizing characteristics such as hyperactivity,
noncompliance, aggression and moodiness (Paulussen-Hoogeboom, et al., 2008). About 10%-
15% of children fit into this category (Sclafani, 2004).
The slow-to-warm-up child is a mixture of characteristics of the easy and difficult child.
These children will hesitantly explore new situations at their own pace. For example, when these
children first attend kindergarten, the parent may need to be with them in the beginning and
decrease the amount of time spent in the classroom over several days or even weeks. The slow-
to-warm child is usually described as shy and having a low activity level. Kagan defines the
“inhibited” child in similar ways. He describes the inhibited child as withdrawn from new
situations, unfamiliar objects and people, on-looking or playing alone in social situations (Rimm-
Kaufman & Kagan, 2005). This category makes up about 15%-23% of children (Sclafani, 2004).
Not every child fits into one of these three categories. Some children may display characteristics
14
of any of the three, depending on environment and situations; therefore, not meeting a clear- cut
category (Sclafani, 2004).
According to McClowry, there are five main principles of a child’s temperament: 1) each
child is born with an individual temperament; 2) temperament contributes to how the child acts
in situations and reacts to emotional situations; 3) temperament is most noticeable in times of
stress, change and transition periods; 4) temperament is resistant to change; and 5) the goodness-
of-fit model is the preeminent way to interact with children (McClowry, 2003).
Thomas and Chess’ (1977) New York Longitudinal Study found there are nine different
dimensions that make up a child’s temperament: activity level, sensitivity (threshold level),
intensity of reaction, adaptability, distractibility, inhibition (approach/withdrawal), negative
emotionality (quality of mood), persistence, and regularity (rhythmicity) (Thomas & Chess,
1977; Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996). Children high or low in these areas are usually described
by parents as difficult or exhibiting challenging behaviors (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
Extreme temperament dimensions can create risk factors for children, as specific
temperament dimensions can be seen noted as early warning signs for maladaptive behavior
(Harrington, 2004). Hyperactivity is the extreme for the activity level dimension. Children who
display hyperactivity respond with excessive fine- or gross-motor activity. Children with
sensitivity may have a low sensory threshold possibility indicating sensitivity to a stimulus.
These children may have sensory regulation deficits and complain about clothes feeling tight or
people staring at them, or they may refuse to be touched by others. Children who display high
intensity may yell, scream, or physically attack when feeling threatened. Poor adaptability may
include resisting, shutting down, and becoming passive-aggressive when asked to change
activities. Children easily distracted will pay more attention to their surroundings than to what
15
they should be focusing on. Inhibition is apparent when the child is clingy, shy and unresponsive
to new situations or strangers. Children who display negative emotionality are found to appear
lethargic, sad, and lack the energy to perform tasks. Negative persistence is shown when a child
is stuck in negative thought process. Children demonstrating irregularity may escape stress by
needing to drink, eat, sleep, or use the bathroom at irregular times even when they really do not
have the need (Harrington, 2004).
At times, an exaggeration of a temperamental dimension may look like behavioral
concern or even a psychological disturbance. Kagan found that inhibited children withdraw from
new situations or environments, avoid new people, and spend more time playing alone which
may look like affective disorder or social phobia (Rimm-Kaufman & Kagan, 2005). A slow-to-
warm-up child may be pressured to quickly adapt to a new environment (Chess & Thomas, 1986;
1996). This expectation is unrealistic and stressful for children of this type of temperament, and
may lead to an intensification of the initial response to a more withdrawn response. The child
may not adapt adequately to their environment if they do not explore their world at their own
pace (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996).
Temperament is a relatively permanent feature that carries on into adolescence and
adulthood. It is important to understand temperament in order to properly predict a reaction from
a child given a specific environment (Sclafani, 2004).
School Environments
In the school setting, emotional development may be influenced by various
environmental factors, including the student-teacher relationship (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin,
2009). Grasha (1996) suggested that there are at least five primary teaching styles that are
connected to different outcomes in children’s responsiveness to the school environment. The
16
expert teaching style presents the information, knowledge and skills that students need; however,
if this style is over-used in the classroom, it may lead to students becoming intimidated by the
teacher’s vast amount of knowledge. The formal authority teaching style focuses on a clear and
methodical way of delivering class combined with firm expectations. However, too much of this
style can lead to rigid, standardized and less flexible way of managing students and behavior. A
personal model teaching style uses personal experiences and encourages students to observe and
imitate the teacher. Teachers tend to feel that the personal model approach is the most effective
as a means for instruction; however, students may feel inadequate if they cannot replicate the
teacher’s model and standards. The facilitator style is focused on the personal nature of the
student–teacher interaction. Teachers who utilize this style are very flexible in their teaching and
prefer a ‘student-centered’ approach, combined with a willingness to explore alternate ways of
completing work. Finally, the delegator style puts responsibility on the student as an
independent learner, but the style can be time consuming and ineffective as students may not be
ready to take on independent work. The delegator style may contribute to student anxiety if the
student is given too much independence before one is ready to take it on. Therefore, impressions
from Grasha’s findings indicate that various teaching styles can either foster or encumber the
learning process and not just one teaching style should be used solely (Grasha, 1996).
In the LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin (2009) study, participants were 21 males and 12
females (mean age 7.5 years) recruited from a small private school in the Northeastern United
States. This study was based on a random sample design. Teachers were asked to complete a
revised version of the Teaching Styles Inventory (TSI). The instrument assesses teaching style
and produces an individual score on five teaching styles (expert, formal authority, personal
model, facilitator, and delegator) (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009). The students were asked
17
to complete the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire – Revised (EATQ-R). The
EATQ-R assesses regulation in children on a number of constructs (behavioral, temperamental,
etc.). To measure anxiety, parents were also asked to fill out the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL) (Achenbach, 1991). The CBCL is a rating tool used to screen for a broad array of
potential problem behavior areas (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009).
LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin (2009) study used multiple regression analysis to predict
anxiety, teaching style and emotional regulation interactive pathways. No significant
interactions between either the personal model or delegator teaching style and emotional
regulation were found in the prediction of parent-reported anxiety. It was found that the
interaction between expert teaching style and emotional regulation significantly predicted
anxiety in children. The facilitator teaching style was not associated with parent-reported
anxiety in children with low or high emotional regulation. Finally, the multiple regression
analysis found a significant interaction between the formal authority teaching style and
emotional regulation to predict parent-reported anxiety. Therefore, one would predict that the
more a teacher uses an expert teaching style, combined with the more the teacher feels they hold
the information, knowledge and skills that students need, the higher the overall anxiety levels in
children. However, it was found that children who are able to regulate their emotions are able to
buffer out the negative effects of the teaching style and those students who are not able to
regulate their emotions may be subject to anxiety and insecurity (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin,
2009).
Hancock et al. (2000) found that highly anxious students learn best with teacher-centered
instruction, as this style does not require significant student interaction, while less anxious
students learn best with student-centered instruction (Hancock, 2000). Further, it was found that
18
teachers who utilize an autocratic and teacher-centered approach to teaching create higher levels
of anxiety in both anxious and less anxious students. The temperament of the child needs to be
considered when evaluating the classroom environment as it is a key aspect to properly adapting
to the expectations of the classroom setting (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009). It might be
beneficial for school psychologists to make recommendations to teachers based upon knowledge
of child temperaments and observations of teaching style.
The goodness-of-fit model suggests that healthy functioning occurs when there is a
goodness-of-fit or “compatibility” between the characteristics of the child and the demands and
expectations of the environment (Chess & Thomas, 1986; 1996). If individuals identify and
practice the goodness-of-fit model with a child, the child is most likely to experience a positive
development. However, if there is an “incompatibility” or poorness-of-fit model between the
child and the environment, psychological functioning is impaired, and therefore, may lead to a
risk of behavior disorder development (Chess & Thomas, 1986, 1996). If individuals follow the
contrary or poorness-of-fit model, the most likely outcome is behavioral conflict (McClowry,
2003).
‘Goodness-of-fit’ refers to the degree that teaching style and child characteristics are well
matched. The LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin (2009) study found that students with high
emotional regulation may still be successful in a classroom with an expert teaching style as they
are able manage the potentially stressful environment yielding to a “good fit” environment. The
multiple regression analysis indicated that the more the teacher utilizes a formal authority or
facilitator style, the lower the anxiety levels for students who are able to manage their emotions.
However, if the student is not able to manage their emotions, the environment may produce high
levels of anxiety (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009). Being aware of individual temperaments
19
can expand teacher’s views of ‘how’ children behave and can lead to insight beneficial for both
student and teacher (Keogh, 2003).
Keogh (1989) and Thomas & Chess (1977) have examined the goodness-of-fit model
with child temperament and student-teacher interactions, specifically when predicting students’
school-related outcomes (Griggs et al., 2009). Keogh (1989; 1994) found a correlation between
child temperament and teachers’ judgments about to how closely the student resembles the
“model” student; their findings support the goodness-of-fit model. Students who are most
“teachable” or most closely match the model student, tend to display characteristics of being
insightful, bright, funny and follow directions. Children who have longer attention spans, lower
activity levels and emotional regulation tend to show more school readiness skills during
preschool (Griggs et al., 2009). Children with difficult temperaments including low persistence,
high distractibility, high activity, low adaptability and high reactivity are more likely to be
viewed as less “teachable” by their teachers (Griggs et al., 2009).
Griggs et al. (2009) built upon Keogh and Thomas and Chess’ findings by conducting
their own research study. The research of Griggs et al. (2009) was part of a larger study of 117
preschool children attending daycare or a preschool center. Forty-four children were included in
the study and ranged in age from 40 to 68 months. Teachers and parents were asked to fill out
the Behavioral Style Questionnaire, a rating scale based on Thomas and Chess (1977) child
temperament styles. Teachers also completed the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale, which
measures the quality of the relationship between teachers and students, and the Penn Interactive
Peer Play Scale, which assesses teachers’ views of children’s play behaviors with peers (Griggs
et al., 2009).
Griggs et al. (2009) supported previous findings that there are associations between
20
student-teacher relationships and socially competent behaviors. Griggs et al. (2009) found that
student-teacher relationships are important especially for children with difficult temperament.
They also found that a positive the student-teacher relationship is correlated with less disruptive
peer play. A very important finding demonstrated that an interaction between temperament and
student-teacher conflict predicted disruptive peer play. In other words, minimal conflict with the
student-teacher relationship tends to reduce the negative behaviors generally associated with
children who have difficult temperaments. This interaction supports the use of the goodness-of-
fit model and is a critical piece to look at when evaluating and developing interventions (Griggs
et al., 2009).
Teachers and school psychologists commonly expect children who display difficult
temperaments to interact poorly with their peers. Griggs et al. (2009) suggested that the
consideration of student-teacher relationship quality is a critical piece. These findings suggested
that the probability of a child with a difficult temperament having negative behavior while
engaging in peer play may be reduced if there is little or no conflict with the student-teacher
relationship, thus creating a goodness-of-fit model (Griggs, et al., 2009). The findings also yield
to an area of intervention for school psychologists (Griggs et al., 2009).
For school psychologists, best practice consists of evaluating a child’s environments to
find areas of intervention and directly link assessment results to intervention. In practice, it is
common to assess within-child traits (e.g., intelligence); it is less common to evaluate aspects of
the child’s social environment (e.g., student–teacher relationships). This is common practice
amongst school psychologists even given a large body of empirical evidence that social
environments variables are crucial to the development of social skills. The ‘goodness-of-fit’ has
a more important role in shaping various child outcomes than either temperament or the
21
environment alone. It is much easier to target and change the environment than within-child
constructs and thus, the environment should be the focus of intervention (Griggs et al., 2009).
Research strongly supports the significance of positive student–teacher relationships in
predicting school-related outcomes (Griggs et al., 2009).
School psychologists rarely evaluate temperament as part of comprehensive evaluations,
and it is rarely considered in formal, school-based early childhood assessment batteries (Griggs
et al., 2009). The rationale for including temperament measures in comprehensive evaluations is
based on the association of temperament with a variety of school-related competencies including,
but not limited to, school adjustment, classroom behaviors and social competence. An ecological
approach challenges school psychologists to look beyond the traditional “child as problem”
standpoint and to consider elements of the environment that may interact with child temperament
to predict outcomes. Environmental factors are more easily changed than temperament and
therefore, can be targets for intervention. It appears the student-teacher relationship quality
serves as a buffer for children who display difficult temperament patterns and social competence,
at least in the area of peer play (Griggs et al., 2009).
Implications for School Psychologists
Early social development and learning is an increased area of concern at the national,
state and local levels of education policy interventions (Mendez et al., 2002). As an increasing
amount of services are requested for younger children, school psychologists will take on more
responsibility for early success and interventions in the preschool and early elementary setting.
They will be responsible for preschool assessment, interventions, and program evaluation. In
these responsibilities, school psychologists will be looking at social competence, which may be
influenced by child temperament. Social competence can be described as the social and
22
communicative ability children use to make relationships with adults and peers to succeed in
their environment (Mendez et al., 2002).
Temperament research has been a popular topic throughout the decades and has produced
numerous empirical studies of child development (Griggs et al., 2009). However, school
psychologists and educators rarely take temperament into account in formal, school-based and
early childhood assessment. The research on temperament demonstrates a rationale for assessing
temperament based on its relation to school adjustment, classroom behaviors, and social
withdrawal. For example, Coplan et al., (1999) found young children who display longer
attention spans, lower activity levels, and less negative emotionality show stronger skills of
school readiness and may transition well into kindergarten and early grades (Griggs et al., 2009).
Evidence also showed an association between temperament and the quality of peer play
interactions (Griggs et al., 2009). For example, children who display low levels of adaptability
and high levels of negative mood tended to be more neglected by their peers, as these dimensions
can have negative impacts on peer play. Also, high levels of activity, intensity and distractibility
and low levels of persistence were associated with peer rejection (Griggs et al., 2009). It is
important for school psychologists and educators to be cognizant of these dimensions and
distinguish temperament from maladaptive behavior. School psychologists have a unique
opportunity to bridge the transition from preschool to elementary school by identifying and
promoting social competence and continuing interventions into the elementary school (Mendez
et al., 2002).
Research has also found temperament differences in gender over numerous studies
(Griggs et al., 2009). Boys tend to be more active and distractible and less persistent on tasks.
Girls display more effortful control, task persistence, personal/social adaptability, flexibility and
23
reactivity. In early years of education, teachers commonly report less conflict in peer play
among girls than boys (Griggs et al., 2009). In one Head Start study, boys were found to engage
in daily antisocial aggression three times more than girls at the Head Start (Stormont, 2002).
Griggs et al. (2009) also referenced Thomas and Chess’s goodness-of-fit model when
describing teacher-student relationships. The “child x environment” model is important to
consider when comparing ecological variables. The research on the relation between child
temperament and how others respond to them and the child’s perceived “teachability” supports
the goodness-of-fit model. “Teachable” students tend to be low in activity, distractibility, and
negative emotionality and high in adaptability, task persistence, and flexibility. Children who
display difficult temperament patterns are likely to be perceived as problematic by their teachers
(Griggs et al., 2009). This is important for school psychologists to keep in mind when teachers
are referring students for behaviors in these areas.
A school psychologist must follow guidelines to ensure best practices in the field.
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) guidelines state:
The school psychologist has knowledge of varied psychological and educational
assessment methods violated for the problem area under consideration, including record
review, formal and informal test administration, functional behavioral assessment,
curriculum-based measurement, interviews, observations and/or ecological or
environment assessment (NASP, 2000, p.44).
According to the above NASP guideline, it is important for school psychologists to assess the
child’s ecological and environmental factors that are impacting the child. However, there is a
very limited amount of research on the use of temperament assessments as a tool for assessing
how the child interacts with his or her environment.
24
The consequences of internalizing and externalizing behaviors can have destructive
effects on the child, families, school personnel, students and society as a whole. Children with
these behaviors tend to come from families that are under stress, unstable, and inconsistent with
demands and parenting (Maughan, Christiansen, Jensen, Olympia & Clark, 2005). Early
intervention should commence as soon as behavior is stable in young children. Young children
who are at risk for stable externalizing behaviors should have researched-based interventions as
soon as possible due to their increased risk of maintaining and possibly developing a more severe
problem behavior (Stormont, 2002).
It is critical for a school psychologist to distinguish between a psychological disorder and
a manifestation of behavior from a negative environment. The NASP guideline states:
The school psychologist evaluates the components of the environment that facilitating or
impede learning or behavioral changes for infants and children and identifies how the
environmental factors and children’s characteristics interact to effect learning and social
behavioral outcomes (NASP, 2000, p. 44).
A positive student-teacher relationship matters especially for children with difficult
temperaments. Low levels of student-teacher conflict may reduce the risk of negative behaviors
associated with children with difficult temperaments (Griggs et al., 2009).
In summary, school psychologists are taking on more responsibility for students early in
the preschool and elementary setting (Mendez et al., 2002). Temperament has been a popular
topic of research throughout the decades and has produced many findings in child development
(Griggs et al., 2009). However, very few recent studies have shown that school psychologists
actually take temperament into account in formal, school-based and early childhood assessments.
It is important for school psychologists to be cognizant of extreme temperament dimensions and
25
not to confuse them with maladaptive behaviors (Mendez et al., 2002). The ecological approach
asks that school psychologists look beyond the “child as a problem” and assess elements of the
child’s environment and ecological system that may be affecting the child (Griggs et al., 2009).
All of these findings warrant a need for additional research on a school psychologist use of
temperament assessment in best practices.
26
Chapter III: Methodology
This chapter will include information about the research design and procedures. The
sample selection, a description of the participants, data collection and data analysis procedures
are described. Finally, limitations in the instrumentation and sampling will be discussed.
Research Design
The research design of this study was qualitative using a survey methodology. In
addition, quantitative examination of response differences based on demographic variables was
conducted. The purpose of the survey was to determine if school psychologists have knowledge
of temperament, use temperament assessment in formal evaluations, and assess environmental
factors in evaluations.
Participant Selection and Description
The participants in this study were school psychologists who serve schools in Minnesota
in the 2011-2012 school year. Participants were selected through a random sample of school
districts in Minnesota. A list of all school districts in Minnesota was obtained from the
Minnesota Department of Education. One hundred districts were drawn randomly. Email
addresses of school psychologists were obtained from individual school district websites or by
calling the school.
Data Collection Procedures
Participants were volunteers from among all school psychologists selected through a
random sample of school districts in Minnesota. Surveys were sent to school psychologists of
100 randomly drawn school districts in Minnesota. A total of 166 school psychologists were
invited to take part of the study. All invited school psychologists received an email with the
research survey attached and were given two weeks to complete. A follow-up reminder email
27
was sent after one week to those who have not yet responded. To be included in the study, the
participant had to respond within the two-week data collection time frame. The participants
were provided with the primary investigators name, email address, the purpose of the survey and
the approximate time to complete the survey. The primary investigator made known the
completion of the survey was completely voluntary. University of Wisconsin-Stout’s approval
from the Institutional Review Board was also included. A copy of the survey cover letter can be
found in Appendix A. Participants were provided with any potential risks of the survey and were
asked to follow a link to complete the survey. The primary investigator was blind to personal
identifying information. The primary investigator deleted all survey emails after appropriate
data collection was completed. A total of 76 surveys were completed and used in the research,
for a response rate of 46%.
Instrumentation
Surveys were created using Qualtrics software program in the Spring of 2012. The
survey consisted of 14 items. The first five items on the survey were on demographic
information, questions #6 and #7 were on temperament knowledge, questions #8 and #9 were on
temperament assessment, and questions #10 through #14 were on temperament use. A copy of
the survey can be found in Appendix B.
There are no data on reliability and validity; however, items were constructed based on
face validity. A pilot study was conducted before the survey was sent out to participants to test
questions for readability and content validity.
Data Analysis
This study involved the analysis of responses related to five research questions. The first
research question addressed if school psychologists formally assessed child temperament. To
28
answer the first research question, frequencies and percentages for survey question #8 and
thematic analysis of survey question #9 were analyzed. The second research question addressed
if school psychologists are aware of various factors related to child temperament. To answer the
second research question, frequencies and percentages of survey questions #6 and #7 were
analyzed. The third question addressed if school psychologists are aware of the goodness-of-fit
model. To answer the third research question, frequencies and percentages of survey question
#10 were analyzed. The fourth question addressed if school psychologists are considering and/or
assessing environmental factors as part of evaluations. To answer the fourth question,
frequencies and percentages for survey questions #11-14 were analyzed. A final research
question addressed what demographic factors influenced school psychologists’ awareness and
use of temperament information. To answer the final research question, chi-square analysis
cross tabulating items #1 through #5 with times #6 and #7 determined awareness and chi-square
crossing items #1 through #5 with items #11 through #14 to determine use. Statistical
significance was judged using a significance level of p < .05.
Limitations
In this study, there are limitations to the sampling population and instrumentation. First,
the volunteers were not truly a random sample, even though districts were selected randomly.
Volunteers who have interest or knowledge in temperament may have been more likely to
respond than those who are not interested in temperament. Volunteers with smaller student
populations may have had more time to respond within the two-week period. Some volunteers
may have known the researcher and therefore, have been more likely to respond. Most
participants were found on school websites. If the websites were not updated during the 2011-
29
2012 school year, some school psychologists may have been missed or inaccurately been given
the opportunity to participate if they were now employed with a different school district.
Instrumentation limitations include no data on reliability and validity; however, items
were constructed based on face validity. Participants were allowed to choose more than one
answer on multiple questions, so in some cases data analyses could not be completed.
Participants were not allowed to comment or ask questions within the survey, except in item #9,
which was a fill-in-the-blank question.
30
Chapter IV: Results The objective of the study was to determine if school psychologists in Minnesota report
knowledge in child temperament and if so, do they consider child temperament and the child’s
environment as part of a comprehensive evaluation? The purpose was to address a gap in the
research literature on the school psychologist’s use, knowledge and assessment of child
temperament. This chapter will discuss the results of the survey completed by 76 school
psychologists. First, responses to each item will be presented. Then, a chi-square analysis of
significant findings will be discussed. Finally, the research questions will be each addressed by
the findings of the present research study.
Item Analysis
To gain a better understanding of the survey sample, several research questions addressed
demographic information. Item #1 asked what age group does the participant work with (may
select more than one). Of the participants who answered the demographic questions, 15.8%
worked with children ages birth to three, 34.2% served students ages 3-5, 71.1% worked in an
elementary school, 56.6% worked in a middle school, 56.6% worked in a high school, and 11.8%
worked in a post high school setting. Many participants worked with multiple age ranges.
Complete results for each item are presented in Appendix C.
Item #2 asked how many years the participants had been in the field of school
psychology. The largest percentage of the respondents had been working as a school
psychologist for 5 years or less (28.9%). Just over seventeen percent had 5-10 years experience,
10.5% had 10-15 years experience, 17.1% had 15-20 years experience and 26.3% have been
working in the field for over 20 years.
31
Item #3 asked approximately how many students were in the building(s) served by the
participant. Of the respondents, 21.1% served a building(s) of less than 500 students, 25% serve
building(s) of 501-1,000 students, 23.7% serve building(s) of 1,001-1,500, 19.7% serve
building(s) of 1,501-2,000 and 10.5% serve in building(s) of more than 2,000 students.
Item #4 asked participants to characterize the type of school district they served. The
largest group of the respondents worked in a suburban area (44.7%), 36.8% worked in a rural
setting, and 17.1% classified their district to be in an urban setting.
Item #5 asked the school psychologists if formal training in child temperament was part
of their graduate program. A majority of the respondents stated that they did not have formal
training in child temperament in their graduate program (50%), 38.2% stated they did have
formal training and 10.5% were not sure.
Item #6 asked participants to indicate the temperament types they were familiar with
(could select more than one). Eighty percent of school psychologists were familiar with easy and
difficult temperaments. Slightly fewer (77.3%) were familiar with the slow-to-warm
temperament. Twenty percent were not familiar with any of the temperament styles. See
Appendix C for additional findings.
Item #7 asked participants to indicate the temperament dimension they were familiar with
(could select more than one). A majority of respondents (80.3%) were familiar with the activity
level dimension, 59.2% were familiar with sensitivity (threshold level), 62% were familiar with
intensity to reaction, 90.1% were familiar with adaptability, 85.9% were familiar with
distractibility, 73.2% were familiar with inhibition (approach/withdrawal), 70.4% were familiar
with negative emotionality (quality of mood), 69% were familiar with persistence and 33.8%
were familiar with regularity (rhythmicity).
32
Item #8 asked if respondents formally assess child temperament. A majority (89.5%) of
school psychologists stated they do not formally assess, while 10.5% stated they do formally
assess child temperament.
Item #9, a “fill in the blank” option, was only visible to those who answered ‘yes’ to item
#8. Item #9 asked how respondents assess child temperament. Three respondents indicated they
measure by student interview, four respondents do so by parent interview, five respondents
indicated use of teacher interviews, five respondents use observations, seven respondents use
standardized rating scales and one respondent indicated use of checklists to assess child
temperament.
Item #10 asked if respondents are familiar with the goodness-of-fit model as defined by
Thomas and Chess (1977) study. Over half (57.9%) indicated they were not familiar with the
goodness-of –fit model, whereas 42.1% indicated they were familiar with the model.
Item #11 asked if respondents consider environmental factors interacting upon the child
in psycho-educational evaluations. Almost all respondents (98.7%) said they do consider
environmental factors, whereas 1.3% indicated they do not consider environmental factors
interacting upon a child in psycho-educational evaluations.
Item #12 asked if respondents consider teaching style(s) and child temperament conflicts.
A majority (82.9%) indicated they do consider teaching style and child temperament conflicts.
Only 17.1% do not consider teacher style and temperament conflicts.
Item #13 asked if respondents observe the child within his/her environment as part of the
assessment process. A vast majority (93.4%) indicated that they do observe the child. Only
6.6% responded they do not observe the child as part of the assessment process.
33
Item #14 asked if respondents formulate interventions based upon a child’s temperament.
Of the respondents, 65.3% indicated they do formulate interventions based on a child’s
temperament whereas 34.7% indicated they do not formulate interventions. Again, complete
information on demographics may be found in Table 1 in Appendix C.
Chi-Square Analysis
Chi-square analyses were run to determine significant differences and among
demographic subgroups. Statistical significance was judged using a significant level of (p < .05).
To determine the school psychologists’ awareness of child temperament, items #6 and #7 were
crossed with the demographic items #2 through #5. The following produced significant
differences. Item #1 was not included in the analysis because participants could select multiple
answers for that item.
To consider the school psychologists’ awareness of child temperament, chi-square
analyses for survey item #5 produced significant findings when crossed with items #6 and #7.
School psychologists with formal training in child temperament were significantly more likely to
be familiar with the easy and difficult temperament style, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.549, p = .006 than
those without training. School psychologists with formal training in child temperament were
also significantly more likely to be familiar with the slow-to-warm temperament style, 2(1, N =
76) = 6.343, p = .012. School psychologists who did not have formal training in child
temperament were statistically more likely to indicate they were not familiar with the
temperament styles, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.549, p = .006. Not surprisingly, if school psychologists
have formal training in child temperament, it is more likely they will be familiar with the three
temperament styles. No other demographic variables produced significant differences when
cross tabulated with item #6.
34
School psychologists with formal training in child temperament were significantly more
likely to be familiar with several dimensions of temperament than those without training.
Trained respondents were more familiar with the sensitivity (threshold level) dimension than
those who did not have training, 2(1, N = 76) = 4.876, p = .027. Respondents with formal
training in child temperament were significantly more likely to be familiar with the intensity to
reaction dimension than those who did not have training in child temperament, 2(1, N = 76) =
6.285, p = .012. School psychologists with formal training in child temperament were
significantly more likely to be familiar with the adaptability dimension than those who did not
have formal training in child temperament, 2(1, N = 76) = 4.779, p = .029. School
psychologists with formal training in child temperament were significantly more likely to be
familiar with the regularity (rhythmicity) dimension than those without formal training, 2(1, N =
76) = 7.753, p = .005. Again, not surprisingly, school psychologists with training are more
familiar with specific temperament dimensions than those without formal training.
School psychologists living in suburban, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.461, p = .006 and urban, 2(1,
N = 76) = 6.286, p = .012 settings were also significantly more likely to be familiar with the
negative emotionality dimension than those in a rural setting. Further research may be needed
to determine why negative emotionality is more well known in suburban and urban communities
than in rural settings.
Crosstab tables and chi-square analysis for item #2 (how many years have you been in
the field of school psychology) and items #6 and #7 on school psychologists’ awareness of
temperament did not produce results because there were not enough cases per cell. Also, chi-
square analyses for item #3 (approximately how many students are in the building(s) you serve)
35
and items #6 and #7 on school psychologists’ awareness of temperament did not produce results
because there were not enough cases per cell.
The next series of statistical findings are in reference with the school psychologists’ use
of child temperament information. Crosstabs tabs and chi-square of demographic variables items
#1 through #5 and items #11 through #14 were analyzed to see if school psychologists use
temperament information. No statistical differences were found with the demographic variables.
Therefore, from this survey none of the questions helped predict the use of temperament
information.
Research Questions
The following are the five research questions to be answered in the study.
Research Question 1: Do school psychologists formally measure temperament?
Survey item #8 asked if school psychologists formally measure child temperament. Of the
respondents, 89.5% stated they did not formally measure child temperament. Item #9 was only
visible to those who answered ‘yes’ to item #8. Item #9 asked how do respondents assess child
temperament. Three respondents indicated they measure by student interview, four respondents
do so by parent interview, five respondents indicated use of teacher interviews, five respondents
use observations, seven respondents use standardized rating scales and one respondent indicated
use of checklists to assess child temperament. It can be said that from this study, most school
psychologists reported that they do not formally measure child temperament. However, if they
do formally measure child temperament they do so by various measures.
Research Question 2: Are school psychologists aware of various factors related to
child temperament? Survey items #6 and #7 addressed this question. Item #6 asked
respondents to indicate the temperament types with which they were familiar. Eighty percent of
36
school psychologists were familiar with easy and difficult temperaments. Slightly fewer (77.3%)
were familiar with the slow-to-warm temperament. Twenty percent were not familiar with any
of the temperament types.
Item #7 asked to indicate the temperament dimensions with which respondents were
familiar. Respondents could select more than one. A majority of respondents (80.3%) were
familiar with the activity level dimension, 59.2% were familiar with sensitivity (threshold level),
62% were familiar with intensity to reaction, 90.1% were familiar with adaptability, 85.9% were
familiar with distractibility, 73.2% were familiar with inhibition (approach/withdrawal), 70.4%
were familiar with negative emotionality (quality of mood), 69% were familiar with persistence
and 33.8% were familiar with regularity (rhythmicity).
The survey respondents indicated that most are familiar with child temperament types
and temperament dimensions. As mentioned earlier, school psychologists with formal training in
child temperament were more likely to be familiar with the temperament types and specific
dimensions than those without training.
Research Question 3: Do school psychologists understand the goodness-of-fit model?
Survey item #10 addressed this research question. Item #10 asked if respondents were familiar
with the goodness-of-fit model as defined by Thomas and Chess (1977) study. Over half
(57.9%) indicated they were not familiar with the goodness-of –fit model, whereas 42.1%
indicated they were familiar with the model. The importance of the goodness-of-fit model is the
match of child temperament with the child’s environment.
Research Question 4: Are school psychologists considering and/or assessing
environmental factors as part of an evaluation? Survey questions #11-14 addressed this
research question. Item #11 asked if respondents consider environmental factors interacting
37
upon the child in psycho-educational evaluations? Almost all respondents (98.7%) said they do
consider environmental factors, whereas 1.3% indicated they do not consider environmental
factors interacting upon a child in psycho-educational evaluations.
Item #12 asked if respondents consider teaching style(s) and child temperament
conflicts? A majority (82.9%) indicated they do consider teaching style and child temperament
conflicts. Only 17.1% do not consider teacher style and temperament conflicts.
Item #13 asked if respondents observe the child within his/her environment as part of the
assessment process? A vast majority (93.4%) indicated that they do observe the child. Only
6.6% responded they do not observe the child as part of the assessment process.
Item #14 asked if respondents formulate interventions based upon a child’s temperament?
Of the respondents, 65.3% indicated they do formulate interventions based on a child’s
temperament whereas 34.7% indicated they do not formulate interventions.
For each question a majority of the school psychologist were considering and/or
assessing environmental factors as part of evaluations, but the school psychologists were not
necessarily considering the environmental factors in relation to child temperament.
Research Question 5: What demographic factors influence the school psychologists’
awareness and use of temperament information? School psychologists with formal training
in child temperament were significantly more likely to be familiar with the easy and difficult
temperament style, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.549, p = .006 than those without training. School
psychologists with formal training in child temperament were significantly more likely to be
familiar with the slow-to-warm temperament style, 2(1, N = 76) = 6.343, p = .012. School
psychologists who did not have formal training in child temperament were significantly more
likely to indicate they are not familiar with the temperament styles, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.549, p =
38
.006. If school psychologists had formal training in child temperament, it was more likely they
reported being familiar with the three temperament styles. These results are not surprising.
School psychologists with formal training in child temperament were significantly more
likely to be familiar with the sensitivity (threshold level) dimension than those who did not have
training, 2(1, N = 76) = 4.876, p = .027. Respondents with formal training in child temperament
were significantly more likely to be familiar with the intensity to reaction dimension than those
who did not have training in child temperament, 2(1, N = 76) = 6.285, p = .012. School
psychologists with formal training in child temperament were significantly more likely to be
familiar with the adaptability dimension than those who did not have formal training in child
temperament, 2(1, N = 76) = 4.779, p = .029. School psychologists with formal training in child
temperament were significantly more likely to be familiar with the regularity (rhythmicity)
dimension than those without formal training, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.753, p = .005. Again, not
surprisingly, school psychologists with training were more familiar with specific temperament
dimensions than those without formal training.
In this study, school psychologists living in suburban, 2(1, N = 76) = 7.461 p = .006 and
urban, 2(1, N = 76) = 6.286, p = .012 settings were significantly more likely to be familiar with
the negative emotionality dimension than those in a rural setting. Further research may be
needed to determine why negative emotionality is more well known in suburban and urban
communities than in rural settings.
Chi-square analyses for other demographic items did not yield significant results. Cross-
tabulating item #2 (how many years have you been in the field of school psychology), and items
#6 and #7 (school psychologists’ awareness of temperament) did not produce results because
there were not enough cases per cell. Also, chi-square analysis for item #3 (approximately how
39
many students are in the building(s) you serve) cross tabulated with items #6 and #7 (school
psychologists’ awareness of temperament) did not produce results because there were not enough
cases per cell.
The next series of statistical findings are in reference with the school psychologists’ use
of child temperament information. Crosstabs using chi-square analysis of demographic variables
items #1 through #5 and items #11 through #14 were analyzed to see if school psychologists use
temperament information differently based on demographic background. No statistical
differences were found with the demographic variables. Therefore, from this survey none of the
demographic variables helped predict the use of temperament information.
In summary, most school psychologists do not formally measure child temperament. Of
those who do formally measure child temperament, they do so by various methods. Most school
psychologists in this study were familiar with the three types of temperament: easy, difficult and
slow-to-warm, most also indicated familiarity with the nine temperament dimensions. As
mentioned earlier, school psychologists with formal training in child temperament were
significantly more likely to be familiar with the temperament types and specific dimensions than
those without training. Over half of the participants reported they were not familiar with the
goodness-of-fit model as defined by Thomas and Chess (1977). Almost all respondents said they
do consider environmental factors. A majority of respondents reported they do consider teacher
style and child temperament conflicts. Similarly, most reported they consider the child’s
environment as part of comprehensive assessments. Interestingly, almost two-thirds reported
formulating interventions based upon a child’s temperament, but most do not formally measure
temperament. From this survey none of the demographic variables helped predict the use of
temperament information.
40
Chapter V: Discussion
This chapter will summarize some general findings of the school psychologist survey. It
will also look at trends and significant findings in this research study. It will compare the results
of this research study to that of previous research. Next, limitations of this study will be
discussed. Recommendations for future research will also be explored. Finally,
recommendations for best practice of school psychologists will be discussed.
Conclusions
The rationale for including temperament measures in comprehensive evaluations based
on the association of temperament with a variety of school-related competencies including, but
not limited to, school adjustment, classroom behaviors and social competence (Griggs et. al.,
2009). Also, consideration of environmental factors interacting upon the child and the goodness-
of-fit model should be focused on in evaluations and targets for intervention (Griggs et. al.,
2009). The findings from this research survey determined that half of the school psychologists
did not have formal training of child temperament as part of their graduate school program.
However, most still considered important factors related to child temperament such as student-
teacher conflicts and formulating interventions based on child temperament. Many of the school
psychologists surveyed were familiar with the three temperament types and nine dimensions of
temperament described in this study.
The study found that most school psychologists do not formally measure child
temperament as part of an evaluation; however, most school psychologists indicated they
formulate interventions based upon a child’s temperament. An ecological approach challenges
school psychologists to look beyond the traditional “child as the problem” standpoint and to
consider elements of the environment that may interact with child temperament to predict
41
outcomes (Griggs et al., 2009). Of those who do measure child temperament, they do so by
means of formal and informal measures, including parent, teacher and student interviews,
observations, rating scales, and checklists.
As previously mentioned, most of the school psychologists surveyed were familiar with
the three temperament types. This study found that school psychologists who completed a
program with child temperament training were significantly more likely to be familiar with the
temperament types. Likewise, of those with formal training more were not familiar with any of
the styles. Relatedly, those practicing in the field for five years or less were more likely to be
familiar with the temperament styles than those who have been in the field longer. This may
indicate that formal child temperament training is becoming more prevalent in graduate
programs in recent years.
Of the temperament dimensions, four had statistical difference in relation to formal
training in child temperament. School psychologists who had formal training were more likely
to be familiar with the threshold, intensity to reaction, adaptability, regularity (rhythmicity)
temperament dimensions than those who did not have formal training in child temperament.
Previous research has found that children with difficult temperaments including low persistence,
high distractibility, high activity, low adaptability and high reactivity are more likely to be
viewed as less “teachable” by teachers (Griggs, et al., 2009).
The goodness-of fit model suggests that healthy functioning occurs when there is
compatibility between characteristics of the child and the demands and expectations of the
environment (Chess & Thomas, 1986). If individuals identify and practice the goodness-of-fit
model with a child, the child is most likely to experience a positive development. The goodness-
of-fit has more of a role in shaping various child outcomes than either temperament or the
42
environment alone (Griggs, el al., 2009). The research survey found that 42.1% of school
psychologists who responded were familiar with the goodness-of-fit model. Given the previous
research on the importance of healthy functioning with the goodness-of-fit model, it would be
best practice for school psychologists to consider characteristics of the child and demands and
expectations of the environment during comprehensive evaluations.
In a school setting, emotional development may be influenced by various environmental
factors including student-teacher relationship (LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin, 2009). Griggs, et
al., (2009), found that student-teacher relationships are important especially for children with
difficult temperaments. Grasha (1996) suggested there are five primary teaching styles that are
connected to different outcomes in children’s responsiveness to the school environment. When
asked if school psychologists are considering and/or assessing environmental factors as part of
an evaluation, most school psychologists in this study indicated they do so. In fact, 98.7%
reported they consider environmental factors as part of an evaluation. Many reported observing
the child within the environment as part of the assessment process. In relation to the previous
study on the importance of considering teaching styles, in this study, 89.2% indicated
consideration of teaching style and student conflicts. LaBilloisa & Lagacé-Séguin (2009) found
that the interaction between what they termed expert teaching styles and emotional regulation
significantly predicted anxiety in children. It may be predicted that the more a teacher uses an
expert teaching style (i.e., the more the teacher feels they hold the information, knowledge and
skills the student needs) the higher the anxiety levels in children. With this information, school
psychologists can help teachers practice a good-fit model to lessen anxiety for some students.
When looking at different demographics of the participants from the survey, there were
few differences in practices related to awareness and use of temperament information. Only
43
school psychologists with formal training in child temperament were more likely to be aware of
temperament. In relation to setting, those who stated they served in urban and suburban
locations were more likely to be familiar with negative emotionality as a dimension of
temperament. No demographic variables predicted use of knowledge about temperament.
Limitations of the Study As with most studies, this study does have limitations and should be considered when
examining the results. Given that only Minnesota school psychologists were invited to partake
in the survey, results cannot be generalized beyond this geographical region. A national sample
would be more beneficial for providing results that could be generalized across geographic
regions.
A second limitation is the survey only considered school psychologist views and
practices. As part of a comprehensive assessment for children, many individuals are involved.
Some of these individuals may take place of child temperament assessment and evaluation
besides the school psychologist and should be included in future research.
A third limitation is that the survey instrument does not have reliability or validity
measures. It only has face validity. It is assumed that the participants answered honestly true to
their beliefs and practice.
Recommendations for Future Research
With increased efforts to look beyond “within” child traits and consideration of
environmental factors interacting upon a child, future efforts should be put into developing
appropriate interventions to do so. It will be important for school psychologists to identify
interactions conflicting with the goodness-of-fit for any particular temperament. In this study, a
majority (82.9%) of school psychologists indicated they do consider teaching style and child
44
temperament conflicts; however, only 65% reported they formulate interventions based upon
child temperament. When research can determine how child temperament and environments
correlate, scientific research-based interventions can be created to use within the school
environments and thus, focus on positive student outcomes.
Future research should also include how the school psychologist can apply temperament
data into positive behavior support interventions. The current study found that many school
psychologists have knowledge of child temperament but are lacking research-based information
on how to apply it into practice. Most school psychologists in the study indicated they do not
formally measure child temperament; however, over half are formulating interventions based
upon temperament. Formal measures of child temperament could be used to establish baseline
data on temperament dimensions. School psychologists would benefit from exposure of
temperament batteries to measure child temperament dimensions. With this information, school
psychologists can assess the child’s environment and compare to formal child temperament
measures.
Further research about temperament in the classroom is needed for a better understanding
of the precursors for child behaviors. With a better understanding, teachers, psychologists,
counselors, and parents will be able to provide the best learning experience for the child based on
optimal settings. An understanding of child temperament will give teachers insight on how the
child is most likely to respond to situations and transitions.
Recommendations for Best Practice
Early social development and learning is an increased area of concern at the national,
state and local levels of education policy intervention (Mendez et al., 2002). As an increasing
number of services are being requested for children, school psychologists will need to take on
45
more responsibility for early success and interventions. In these evaluations, school
psychologists will be looking at social competence, which may be influenced by child
temperament (Mendez et al., 2002).
This study found school psychologists who had formal training in child temperament
were significantly more likely to be familiar with child temperament types and dimensions. It is
recommended that graduate training programs include exposure and instruction of child
temperament as well as assessment tools to measure temperament. With formal training and
knowledge of assessment tools, school psychologists may be able to distinguish between
temperament and maladaptive behavior. The current shift in education is focusing on a tiered
system level of support. Knowledge and understanding in child temperament may help school
psychologists formulate interventions based upon the level of support a child needs.
It may be beneficial for school psychologists to make recommendations to teachers based
upon knowledge of child temperament and observation of teaching styles. It is important for
school psychologists and educators to be cognizant of what is not a good-fit versus what is true
maladaptive behavior. More school psychologists’ roles are going beyond testing and more into
a consultative role. The school psychologists’ knowledge of temperament and student-teacher
relationship outcomes should be shared with those responsible for educating children.
The research on the relation between child temperament, how others respond to children,
and the child’s perceived “teachability” supports the goodness-of-fit model. This is important
for school psychologists to keep in mind when teachers are referring students for problem
behaviors. It is critical for a school psychologist to distinguish between a psychological disorder
and a manifestation of behavior from a negative environment. The NASP guideline states:
46
The school psychologist evaluates the components of the environment that facilitating or
impede learning or behavioral changes for infants and children and identifies how the
environmental factors and children’s characteristics interact to effect learning and social
behavioral outcomes (NASP, 2000, p. 44).
It is the school psychologists’ ethical duty to differentiate between a poor-fit and a psychological
disorder.
Many school psychologists in this study indicated they do not formally measure child
temperament; however, many stated they formulate interventions based upon temperament. It
would be interesting to know how school psychologists determine which temperament styles
need interventions if the dimensions are not being measured in some way. Best practices would
include interventions derived from identified needs based on formal measures.
47
References
Bird, A., Reese, E., & Tripp, G. (2006). Parent-child talk about past emotional events:
Associations with child temperament and goodness-of-fit. Journal of Cognition and
Development, 7, 189-210.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1986). Temperament in Clinical Practices. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Brunner-
Routledge.
Coplan, R. J., arber, A. M., Lagace -Seguin, D. G. (1999). The role of child temperament as
a predictor of early literacy and numeracy skills in preschoolers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 14, 537-553.
Grasha, A.F. (1996). An integrated model of teaching and learning style. In A.F. Grasha (Ed.),
Teaching with style (pp. 149–206). San Bernadino, CA: Alliance Publishers.
Griggs, M. S., Gagnon, S.G., Huelsman, T. J., Kidder-Ashley, P., & Ballard, M. (2009). Student-
teacher relationships matter: Moderation influences between temperament and preschool
social competence. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 553-566.
Hancock, D.R., Nichols, W.D., & Jones, J. (2000). The impact of teachers’ instructional
strategies and students’ anxiety levels on students’ achievement in eighth grade German
and U.S. classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 232–240.
Harrington, R. G. (2004). Temper Tantrums: Guidelines to Parents. NASP. Retrieved from
www.nasponline.org.
Keogh, B. K. (1989). Applying temperament research to school. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J. E.
Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 437 – 450). New York:
48
John Wiley & Sons.
Keogh, . K. (1994). Temperament and teachers’ views of teachability. In W. . Carey S. C.
McDevitt (Eds.), Prevention and early intervention: Individual differences as risk factors
for the mental health of children: A festschrift for Stella Chess and Alexander Thomas
(pp. 246 – 254). Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Keogh, B. K. (2003). Temperament in the classroom: Understanding individual differences.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
LaBilloisa, J. M., & Lagacé-Séguin, D. G. (2009). Does a good fit matter? Exploring teaching
styles, emotion regulation, and child anxiety in the classroom. Early Childhood
Development and Care, 179, 303-315.
Maughan, D. R., Christainsen, E, Jenson, W. R., Olympia, D. & Clark, E. (2005). Behavioral
parent training as a treatment for externalizing behaviors and disruptive behavior
disorders: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 34, 267-286.
McClowry, S. G. (2003). Your child’s unique temperament: Insights and strategies for
responsive parenting. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Mendez, J.L., McDermott, P. & Fantuzzo, J. (2002). Identifying and promoting social
competence with African American preschool children: Developmental and contextual
considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 111-124.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Principles for professional ethics.
Maryland: NASP.
Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M. C., Stams, G., Hermanns, J., Peetsma, T., & Van Den Wittenboer, G.
(2008). Parenting style as a mediator between children’s negative emotionality and
49
problematic behavior in early childhood. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 169, 209-
226.
Ramos, M. C., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. W., Bathurst, K., & Oliver, P. H. (2005). Family
conflict and children’s behavior problems: The moderating role of child temperament.
Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 278-298.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Kagan, J. (2005). Infant predictors of kindergarten behavior: The
contribution of inhibited and uninhibited temperament types. Behavioral Disorders, 30,
331-347.
Sclafani, J. D., (2004). The educated parent: Recent trends in raising children. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Steinberg, L. (2004). The 10 basic principles of good parenting. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster Paperbacks.
Stormont, M. (2002). Externalizing behavior problems in young children: Contributing factors
and early intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 127-139.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. Oxford England:
Brunner/Mazel.
Yahav, R. (2006). The relationship between children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of
parenting style and internal and external symptoms. University of Haifa. Retrieved from:
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00708.x.
50
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter
Consent to Participate In UW-Stout Approved Research Title: Understanding Child Temperament in the Classroom Investigator: Research Advisor: Kayla Richters Dr. Barbara Flom University of Wisconsin-Stout University of Wisconsin-Stout School Psychology Graduate Student Associate Professor, School Counseling (507) 227-5408 or [email protected] (715) 232-1343 or [email protected] Description: This survey will focus on child temperament and environmental factors. Child temperament has been defined as a child’s innate response to his/her environment. A child can be defined as having an easy, slow-to-warm-up or difficult temperament. Research has focused extensively on child temperament, but little is known about a school psychologists’ use of child temperament assessment and intervention in the classroom. This survey will address school psychologist use of child temperament assessment and assessment of environmental factors. Risks and Benefits: The risks of completing this survey are minimal. If you become uncomfortable with any of the questions, you are free to stop the survey at any time. Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and participants may choose not to participate if they feel the risks outweigh the benefits. The benefit of the research includes gaining a better understanding of child temperament in the classroom and evaluation of a child’s environment. The research will assist school psychologists in making educational decisions for children. Information from this survey will fill gaps in the literature on school psychologists’ knowledge of temperament and consideration of the child’s environment. Time Commitment: This survey is relatively short and should only take about 5-10 minutes to complete. Confidentiality: All survey data will be kept within the boundaries of the UW-Stout Qualtrics program, a secure online survey tool. Individual responses will have no identifiers and will be accessible to only the primary investigator and research advisor. Your name will not be included on any documents. We do not believe that you can be identified from any of this information. All results will be reported in group format only. Right to Withdraw: Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to participate without any adverse consequences to you. You have the right to stop the survey at any time. However, should you choose to participate and later wish to withdraw from the study, there is no way to identify your anonymous response after it has been turned into the investigator. Because you are participating in an anonymous online survey, once you submit your response, the data cannot be linked to you and cannot be withdrawn. IRB Approval: This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the
51
ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions or concerns regarding this study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the IRB Administrator. Investigator: IRB Administrator Kayla Richters Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services University of Wisconsin-Stout 152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg. School Psychology Graduate Student University of Wisconsin-Stout (507) 227-5408 or [email protected] Menomonie, WI 5475
(715) 232-2477 or [email protected] Advisor: Dr. Barbara Flom University of Wisconsin-Stout Associate Professor, School Counseling (715) 232-1343 or [email protected] Statement of Consent: I understand by completing this questionnaire, I am giving my informed consent as a participant in this online survey study entitled, “Understanding Child Temperament in the Classroom”. I understand the basic nature of the study, its risks, and benefits. I realize that I have the right to refuse my participation at any time during this study. Additionally, I understand that the results of this study will be reported on a group basis and no identifying information will link my participation to this study.
52
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
Understanding Child Temperament in the Classroom
"This research has been approved by the UW-Stout IRB as required by the Code of Federal regulations Title 45 Part 46."
1) What age group do you work with (may select more than one)?
Birth-3; Preschool (ages 3-5); Elementary; Middle School; High School; Transition (post high school)
2) How many years have you been in the field of education? 0-5; 5-10; 10-15; 15-20; 20+
3) Approximately how many students are in the building(s) you serve?
1-500; 501-1,000; 1,001-1,500; 1,501-2,000, 2,000+
4) Please characterize the type of school you serve? Rural; Suburban; Urban
5) Did you have formal training in child temperament in your graduate program? 1:Yes; 2:No
6) Please indicate the temperament types you are familiar with (check boxes): a. easy, slow-to-warm, difficult
7) Please indicate the temperament dimensions you are familiar with (check boxes):
-activity level -sensitivity (threshold level) -intensity of reaction -adaptability -distractibility -inhibition (approach/withdrawal) -negative emotionality (quality of mood) -persistence -regularity (rhythmicity)
8) Do you formally assess child temperament? 1:Yes; 2:No
9) If so, how? <fill in blank option>
10) Are you familiar with the goodness-of-fit model as defined by Thomas and Chess (1977) study?
1:Yes; 2: No
53
11) Do you consider environmental factors interacting upon the child in psychoeducational evaluations?
1:Yes; 2: No
12) Do you consider teaching style and child temperament conflicts? 1:Yes; 2: No
13) Do you observe the child within his/her environment as part of the assessment process?
1: Yes; 2: No 14) Do you formulate interventions based upon a child’s temperament?
1: Yes; 2: No
54
Appendix C: Tables
What age group do you work with (may select more than one)?
How many years have you been in the field of school psychology?
Approximately how many students are in the building(s) you serve?
Please characterize the type of school district you serve:
Frequency Percentage Birth to Three 12 15.8% Preschool (ages 3-5) 26 34.2% Elementary 54 71.1% Middle School 43 56.6% High School 43 56.6% Transition (post high school) 9 11.8%
Frequency Percentage 0-5 years 22 28.9 5-10 years 13 17.1 10-15 years 8 10.5 15-20 years 13 17.1 20+ years 20 26.3 Total 76 100.0
Frequency Percentage 1-500 16 21.1% 501-1,000 19 25.0% 1,000-1,500 18 23.7% 1,501-2,000 15 19.7% 2,000+ 8 10.5% Total 76 100.0%
Frequency Percentage Rural 28 36.8% Suburban 34 44.7% Urban 13 17.1% Total 75 98.7%
55
Did you have formal training in child temperament in your graduate program?
Frequency Percentage Yes 29 38.2% No 38 50.0% Not Sure 8 10.5% Total 75 98.6%