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 richtersk@my.uwstout.edu (715) 232-1343 or flomb@uwstout.edu 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 richtersk@my.uwstout.edu Menomonie, WI 5475

(715) 232-2477 or foxwells@uwstout.edu Advisor: Dr. Barbara Flom University of Wisconsin-Stout Associate Professor, School Counseling (715) 232-1343 or flomb@uwstout.edu 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%