370 E. Scott Huebner

FOSTER, G. G., YSSELDYKE, J . E., CASEY, A., & THUIUOW, M. (1984). The congruence between reason for referral and placement outcome. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 207-217.

FRAME, R., CLARIZIO, H. F., PORTER, A. C., & VINSONHALER, J. (1982). Interclinician agreement and bias in school psychologists’ diagnostic and treatment recommendations for a learning disabled child. Psychologv in the Schools, 19, 319-327.

GIESBRECHT, M. L., & ROUTH, D. K. (1979). The influence of categories of cumulative folder information on teacher referrals of low-achieving children for special educational services. American Educational Research Journal, 16, 181-187.

HUEBNER, E. S., & CUMMINOS, J. A. (1986). Influence of race and test data upon school psychologists’ deci- sions. School Psychology Review, IS, 410-417.

Larry P. v . Riles (N. D. Cal., 1972). 34, 1306. MATUSZEK, P., & OAKLAND, T. (1979). Factors influencing teachers’ and psychologists’ recommendations regard-

ing special class placements. Journal of School Psychology, 17, 116-125. PICKHOLTZ, H. J. (1977). The eflects of a child‘s racial-ethnic label and achievement differences on school

psychologists’ decisions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. SHEPARD, E., & SMITH, M. L. (1981). Evaluation of the identification ofperceptualkommunicative disorders

in Colorado (Final Report). Boulder: Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado. TOBIAS, S., COLE, C., Z m m , M., & BODLAICOVA, V. (1982). Teacher-student ethnicity and recommenda-

tions for special education referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 72-16. TOMLINSON, H. J., ACKER, N., CANTER, A., & LINDBERG, S. (1977). Minority status, sex, and school

psychological services. Psychology in the Schools, 14(4), 456-460. WILL, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Washington, DC:

U. S. Department of Education. YSSELDYKE, J. E., & ALOOZZINE, B. (1982). Critical h e s in specialandremedialeducation. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Psychology in the Schools Volume 26, October 1989

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ MANAGEMENT OF CHILDREN’S PROBLEM BEHAVIORS

BRUCE CUNNINGHAM ALAN SUGAWARA

University of Wisconsin-Stout Oregon State University

The purpose of this study was to assess factors that contribute to preservice teachers’ choice of a helping or a restrictive strategy to manage social immaturity and social defiance behaviors among children. Levels of tolerance, opinions as to the causes of behavior, perceptions of adverse effects or costs of problem behaviors, and choice of strategy were measured in response to hypothetical samples of problem behavior. Regression analyses indicated that the costs of problem behavior significantly predicted the type of strategy that would be chosen. Training preservice teachers to manage these costs was the main implication for teacher training programs.

A common component of teacher training programs is the management of children’s problem behaviors in the classroom. Inexperienced teachers tend to rely on restrictive disciplinary strategies, such as verbal reprimands, denying privileges, and corporal punishment (Moore & Cooper, 1984; Elliott, Witt, Galvin, & Peterson, 1984). Although restrictive strategies may be effective for short-term behavior management, they may also have undesirable effects on children over time (Brophy, 1983).

Requests for reprints should be sent to Bruce Cunningham, School of Home Economics, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI 54751.

Management of Children’s Problem Behaviors 37 1

One implication of these findings is for teacher training programs to adequately prepare teachers to manage problem behaviors with techniques that are less restrictive. An initial step in this direction is to identify factors that lead preservice teachers to choose strategies for the management of problem behaviors. Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981) have investigated several of those factors, which include teacher tolerance, causal at- tributions, and adverse effects or costs of problem behavior. The relationships between these factors, or their relative contributions, have yet to be theoretically or empirically established. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to assess the degree to which these factors contribute to preservice teachers’ choice of a management strategy for problem behaviors. The conceptual framework and design of this study appears in Figure 1.

Condition

I. Problem Behavior (Vignette) A. Social immaturity

11. Problem Behavior (Vignette) A. Social defiance

Predictor Variables ~

I. Teacher Tolerance of Problem Behaviors (Teacher Tolerance Scale) A. Social immaturity B. Social defiance

11. Causal Attributions of Problem Behaviors (Causal Dimensions Scale) A. Locus of causality B. Controllability C. Stability

111. Adverse Effects or Costs of Problem Behaviors (Costs Scale) A. Costs to the teacher B. Costs to the class C. Costs to the student D. Indirect Costs

Criterion Variables

I. Strategies to Manage Problem Behaviors (Strategies Scale) A. Helping B. Restrictive

FIGURE 1. Conceptual framework of a strategies decision-making model and scales used to measure the factors.

Problem Behaviors Two types of behaviors that are relevant to the classroom setting were identified

by Algozzine (1977) as being disturbing to teachers. Social immaturity included behaviors such as being shy, withdrawn, and anxious. Social defiance consisted of destructive, aggressive, and disobedient behaviors. Strategies to Manage Problem Behaviors

The strategies to manage problem behaviors were conceptualized as being either helping or restrictive. These designations were chosen due to the tendency of inexperi- enced teachers to rely on harsher, more emotional methods. Helping strategies are characterized by methods that rely on active and empathetic involvement. These methods include understanding the child through active listening, providing nurturance and sup- port, seeking out new methods from resource people or journals, and modifying the usual guidance or teaching methods. Restrictive strategies are characterized by their punitive and restrictive nature. These methods include the use of verbal reprimands,

372 Bruce Cunningham and Alan Sugawara

such as lectures and threats, or possibly corporal punishment, and denial of participa- tion in pleasurable activities. Teacher Tolerance of Problem Behaviors

Teacher tolerance of problem behaviors was defined as the degree to which a behavior was found to be disturbing. Hutton (1984) found that aggressive behaviors disturbed teachers the most and peer avoidance concerned teachers the least. Brophy and Evertson (1981) reported that teachers tended to reject children with disturbing behaviors. These children were called on less often in class, had briefer interactions with teachers, and received more verbal reprimands. Children who conformed to general school expectations but were low achievers had longer interactions with teachers, were given more second chances to answer questions in class, and received more encourage- ment. From these studies, high tolerance of problem behaviors appears to lead to more choices of helping strategies, whereas low teacher tolerance tends to lead to more choices of restrictive strategies. Causal Attributions of Problem Behaviors

The opinions or impressions that teachers form about the causes of children’s behaviors also influence the choice of management strategy. This was investigated using three dimensions proposed by Weiner (1979). The first dimension is locus of causality. Internal attributions along this dimension indicate that the cause of behavior is believed to lie within a person. External attributions indicate that the cause of behavior is due to some aspect of the situation. The second dimension is controllability. Some behaviors, such as a child’s typical effort, are attributed to causes that are within the child’s con- trol. Other aspects, such as a child’s ability, are generally attributed to causes that are uncontrollable or beyond the control of the child. The third dimension is stability. Behavior attributed to stable causes is believed to be permanent and unchanging. Behavior attributed to unstable causes is believed to be temporary or variable over time. Theoreti- cally, attributions that are external, uncontrollable, and unstable lead one person to help another.

Brophy and Rohrkemper (198 1) used this attributional construct and found that teachers attributed the causes of aggressive and defiant problem behaviors to internal, controllable, and stable sources. Consequently, teachers indicated that they would re- spond to these behaviors with restrictive types of strategies, such as punishment and threats. Teachers’ attributions for social withdrawal and anxiety behaviors were less clearly internal or external, and less clearly controllable, yet they were stable. As a result, these teachers indicated that they would respond with strategies that included a mix of helping and restrictive techniques, such as rewards and punishments. The pattern of causal attributions appears to have an effect on the type of response that teachers make to children with problem behaviors. Adverse Effects or Costs of Problem Behaviors

A teacher’s choice of a management strategy may also be influenced by the adverse effects or costs of problem behavior in the classroom. Investigations by Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981) and Safran and Safran (1985) identified several of these costs, in- cluding time, energy, emotional involvement, and undermined feelings of competence and personal control. Other costs may include peer, administrative, and parental pressures to manage problem behaviors effectively. The child who exhibits the problem behaviors may also be subject to adverse effects of his or her own behavior. For example, the child’s

Management of Children’s Problem Behaviors 373

own learning or social and emotional development may be disrupted by problem behavior.

When costs from problem behaviors are perceived as high, a teacher may choose a restrictive strategy. When costs from problem behaviors are seen as low, a teacher may choose a helping strategy.

In summary, this study investigated preservice teachers’ hypothetical responses to social defiance and social immaturity behaviors. We assessed the contributions of teacher tolerance, attributions as to the causes of the behavior, and adverse effects or costs of the behavior to the choice of a helping or restrictive strategy.

METHOD Subjects

The subjects were 152 students enrolled in education courses at a large northwestern university. Seventy-four percent were females and 26% were males. The mean age of the subjects was 22.57 years. A breakdown of class standing showed that 15% were freshman, 38% sophomores, 26% juniors, 15% seniors, and 6% described themselves by marking the category labeled “other.” Instruments

Teacher Tolerance Scale. An instrument to measure teacher tolerance was devised using behavioral items of the social immaturity and social defiance constructs developed by Algozzine (1977). The 20 immaturity items included repetitive speech, easily flustered, incoherent speech, preoccupation, doesn’t know how to have fun, feelings of inferiori- ty, social withdrawal, lack of self-confidence, nervousness and jitteriness, drowsiness, aloofness, fixed expression, tension and inability to relax, depression and chronic sadness, clumsiness, passivity and sluggishness, shyness and bashfulness, hypersensitivity, physical complaints, and anxiety. The 15 social defiance items included destructiveness, distrac- tibility, negativism, irritability, impertinence, inattentiveness, fighting, disobedience, boisterousness and rowdiness, uncooperativeness, attention seeking, irresponsibility, disruptiveness, temper tantrums, and laziness in school. In the actual instrument, these items were ordered using a random numbers table.

These behavioral items were preceded by a statement noting that teachers find some child behaviors more disturbing or less tolerable than other child behaviors. Subjects were then asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale how tolerable they would find the following behaviors. Anchors for the scale were the descriptors not at all tolerable and tolerable.

A tolerance score for social immaturity behaviors was obtained by adding the ratings of the social immaturity items and then dividing this sum by the number of items in the social immaturity section of the scale. This same process was used to obtain a tolerance score for social defiance behaviors. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .92 for the social immaturity subscale and .91 for the social defiance subscale.

Vignettes. Short-storylike descriptions were written to reflect the behavioral items of social immaturity and social defiance. These vignettes neither gave clues to the causes of the behavior nor used the actual items in the Teacher Tolerance Scale. Independent raters were used to assure that each vignette was described by the behavioral items of only one type of problem behavior, and the severity of the descriptions was controlled by including the same number of incidents or behavioral descriptors in each vignette.

3 74 Bruce Cunningham and Alan Sugawara

The vignettes were preceded by instructions asking the subjects to imagine that they were teachers of a regular school classroom. Furthermore, they have just met their class for the first week of a new school year, and some of the children in their class exhibit behaviors that they, as teachers, find disturbing. The subjects were then instructed to read the vignette, referring back to it if necessary, and to respond to the questions that followed regarding causal attributions, costs, and strategies to manage problem behavior.

Causal Dimensions Scale. The causal attributions of locus of causality, controlla- bility, and stability were assessed with the Causal Dimensions Scale (Russell, 1982). This instrument consists of nine bipolar items, with each dimension being represented by a three question subscale. A 7-point Likert scale recorded responses. Ratings for the items in each subscale were summed to obtain a score for that subscale, and each of the three dimensions was considered as a separate variable.

Russell (1982) validated this scale on a sample of undergraduate psychology students. Internal consistency analyses for the subscales indicated alpha coefficients ranging from .73 to .87. The items on each subscale differentiated only between the sample descrip- tions that reflected that dimension, not between descriptions that reflected the other dimensions. The directions and wording of the items were slightly modified to suit the purpose of the present study. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the locus of causality, controllability, and stability subscales were .55, .22, and .81, respectively.

Costs Scale. Four types of costs of problem behavior were gleaned from Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981), Safran and Safran (1984), and colleagues. Costs to the teacher included the likelihood that the problem behavior would take a lot of the teacher’s energy to deal with, make the teacher feel less in control of the classroom, and be emotionally draining to manage. Costs to the class consisted of the likelihood that the problem behavior would hurt other children, keep other children from learning, and be imitated by other children in the class. Costs to the student included the likelihood that the prob- lem behavior would interfere with the child’s physical, social, and academic develop- ment. Finally, indirect costs consisted of the likelihood that the problem behavior would cause parents to question the teacher’s ability to teach, lead other teachers to have less respect for the teacher, and make the principal give the teacher a poor evaluation.

These costs were written as statements and arranged in a rotating order so that the maximum distance was obtained between items of any one type. Subjects were asked to respond in terms of how likely they felt each statement was regarding the child depicted in the previous vignette. A 5-point Likert scale was used, and the anchors ccnsisted of the descriptors very likely and not at all likely. The scores for the three items in each subscale were summed to obtain a costs score for that subscale.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the costs to the teacher, costs to the class, costs to the student, and indirect costs subscales were .66, .84, .23, and .73, respectively.

Strategies Scale. Twenty techniques and methods reflecting helping and restrictive strategies were gleaned from Brophy and Rohrkemper (1981), Witt and Martens (1983), Algozzine, Ysseldyke, Christenson, and Thurlow (1983), and Moore and Cooper (1984). Three independent raters determined six methods that were clearly helping and six methods that were clearly restrictive. The six helping methods included listening actively and negotiating commitments, instructing the child in coping skills, reading articles about the problem behavior, modifying the teaching style, spending the time and energy to help the child, and providing nurturance and support. The six restrictive methods in- cluded stating the rules and expecting the child to comply, using corporal punishment, recommending drug medications to control the child, using lectures and threats, having

Management of Children 3 Problem Behaviors 375

the child removed to another classroom, and using rewards and punishments to get immediate improvement.

Helping and restrictive methods were written as statements and ordered using a random numbers table. Subjects were asked to respond in terms of how likely it was that they would use each method to manage the child’s behavior described in the previous vignette. A 5-point Likert scale was used, and the anchors consisted of the descriptors very likely and not at all likely. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the helping and restric- tive subscales were .66 and .63, respectively. Procedures

The instruments and the vignettes were combined into a booklet with a cover letter explaining the general purpose of the study. The first scale in the booklets was the Teacher Tolerance Scale. In half of the booklets this was followed by the vignette depicting the social immaturity child. This vignette was then followed by the Causal Dimensions Scale, the Costs Scale, and the Strategies Scale. These were followed by the vignette depicting the social defiance child, which in turn was followed by the Causal Dimensions Scale, the Costs Scale, and the Strategies Scale. In the other half of the booklets, the social defiance vignette appeared before the social immaturity vignette. The booklet concluded with a Demographic Questionnaire, a space for subjects to comment on the project if they cared to do so, and a note thanking them for their participation. The booklets were randomly distributed during a class session and took approximately 20 minutes to complete.

RESULTS A preliminary analysis of the data focused on the subjects’ perceptions of children’s

problem behaviors (Cunningham & Sugawara, 1988). No significant differences in responses to the children’s problem behaviors were found on the basis of the subjects’ personal factors. There were significant differences between the responses to the two types of problem behavior. Therefore, the contribution of each factor to the choice of a behavior management strategy was assessed separately for each type of problem behavior.

A series of stepwise regression analyses were used to explore the data. The predictor variables were teacher tolerance, locus of causality, controllability, stability, costs to the teacher, costs to the class, costs to the child exhibiting the behavior, and indirect costs. These variables were regressed on the choice of a helping strategy and the choice of a restrictive strategy for each of the two types of problem behavior. The rationale for this approach was twofold. First, an examination of the correlation matrices for these variables revealed only mild intercorrelations, and, second, the strategies decision- making model provided no rationale for any one factor to be more important than any other factor.

For social defiance behavior, the choice of helping strategy was predicted significantly by the costs to the teacher factor and the indirect costs factor. Together, these factors accounted for 10.3% of the variance in choice of helping strategy. The costs to the teacher factor was a positive predictor and accounted for 4.3% of the variance in choice of helping strategy. The indirect costs factor was a negative predictor and accounted for an additional 6.0% of variance in the choice of helping strategy. These figures are sum- marized in Table 1.

The choice of a restrictive strategy for social defiance behavior was predicted significantly by the indirect costs factor and the direct costs to the teacher factor.

376 Bruce Cunningham and Alan Sugawara

Together, these factors accounted for 14% of the variance in choice of restrictive strategy. The indirect costs factor was a positive predictor and accounted for 11.3% of the variance in choice of restrictive strategy. The cost to the teacher factor was also a positive predictor and accounted for an additional 2.7% of variance in the choice of restrictive strategy. These figures are also summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Stepwise Regression Summary for Social Defiance Behavior

~~ ~ ~

Choice of a Helping Strategy Cumulative Residual Entering

Step Entering Factor B R2 df F

Costs to Teacher Indirect Costs Costs to Student Costs to Class Stability Tolerance Controllability Locus of Causality Constant

.3179

,2390 .1848

- .4381

- .0913 -.1139 - .0138 - .0106 19.9105

.043

.I03

.126

. 134

.140 , 1 4 0 .I40 .148

150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143

6.72** 9.95*** 3.85 1.42 .97 .03 .02 .02

~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Choice of a Restrictive Strategy Cumulative Residual Entering

Step Entering Factor B R2 df F

1 Indirect Costs .4856 .113 150 19.05*** 2 Costs to Teacher .2535 .140 149 4.74' 3 Locus of Causality .1302 .156 148 2.86 4 Costs to Class - .2116 ,174 147 3.19 5 Tolerance - .7646 .186 146 2.11 6 Stability .7986 ,192 145 1 . 1 1 7 Costs to Student - .1330 .196 144 .66 8 Controllability - .6758 .199 143 .57

Constant 11.7668

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .005.

For social immaturity behavior, the choice of a helping strategy was predicted significantly by the costs to the class factor, the costs to the teacher factor, the indirect costs factor, and the locus of causality factor. Together, these factors accounted for 17.4% of the variance in choice of a helping strategy. The costs to the class factor was a negative predictor and accounted for 6.6% of the variance in choice of a helping strategy. The costs to the teacher factor was a positive predictor and accounted for 4.1% of the variance in choice of a helping strategy. The indirect costs factor was a negative predictor and accounted for an additional 4.5% of the variance in choice of helping strategy. Finally, locus of causality was a positive predictor and accounted for an addi- tional 2.2% of the variance. These figures are summarized in Table 2.

The choice of a restrictive strategy for social immaturity behavior was significantly predicted by only the costs to the class factor. This factor was a positive predictor and accounted for 5.4% of the variance in choice of a restrictive strategy.

Management of Children’s Problem Behaviors 377

Table 2 Stepwise Regression Summary for Social Immaturity Behavior

Choice of a Helping Strategy Cumulative Residual Entering

Step Entering Factor B R2 df F

Costs to Class Costs to Teacher Indirect Costs Locus of Causality Tolerance Controllability Stability Costs to Student Constant

- .3880 .3774

- ,2851 .I209 .4599

- .0757 - .0665 - .0797 22.983 6

.066

.lo7

.I52 ,174 .181 .I86 .I91 .I94

150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143

10.53*** 6.40* 8.23** 3.92. 1.17 .83 .88 .75

Choice of a Restrictive Strategy Cumulative Residual Entering

Step Entering Factor B RZ df F

Costs to Class Costs to Teacher Indirect Costs Locus of Causality Costs to Student Tolerance Controllability Stability Constant

.1751

.I495

.lo73 - .0563 - .0646 - .I253 - .0168 - .oo21 9.5059

.054

.076

.083

.087

.091

.091

.092

.092

150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143

8.50*** 3.46 1.13 .71 .55 . I f .06 .oo

*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .W5.

DISCUSSION An examination of the regression analyses indicates that the costs of problem

behavior made a more significant contribution to the subjects’ choices of strategy than did other factors. Specifically, the factors of costs to the teacher, costs to the class, and indirect costs made the significant contributions to choice of strategy.

The costs to the teacher factor contributed significantly to the choice of helping and restrictive strategy for the social defiance type of behavior and the choice of a help- ing strategy for the social immaturity type of behavior. In addition, the costs to the teacher factor was close to making a significant contribution to the choice of a restric- tive strategy for the social immaturity behavior (I?’ = .076, F = 3.46, p = .06). In each of these four analyses, the regression coefficients for the costs to the teacher factor were positive-that is, as cost to the teacher increased, the choice of both helping and restrictive strategies increased. This indicates that the costs to the teacher factor may have played a similar role in the choice of helping and restrictive strategies for each type of behavior. One interpretation is that costs to the teacher serves as a general factor that motivates the teacher to choose some strategy. Which type of strategy is chosen to manage the behavior appears to be best predicted by other costs factors.

For the social defiance type of behavior, the indirect costs to the teacher factor made a significant negative contribution to the choice of a helping strategy and a signi-

378 Bruce Cunningham and Alan Sugawara

ficant positive contribution to the choice of a restrictive strategy. That is, as indirect costs to the teacher increased, the choice of a helping strategy decreased and the choice of a restrictive strategy increased. This indicates that a preservice teacher would help a socially defiant child when the indirect costs to that behavior are low. This finding suggests that a teacher’s concern for his or her own status, in terms of parent, peer, and principal evaluations, overrides concern for a child with social defiance behavior. In other words, restrictive methods are relied upon to suppress the problem behavior, with less thought given to the potential undesirable effects of those methods on children.

For the social immaturity type of behavior, the costs to the class factor made a significant negative contribution to the choice of a helping strategy and a significant positive contribution to the choice of a restrictive strategy. That is, as costs to the class increased, the choice of a helping strategy decreased and the choice of a restrictive strategy increased. This indicates that a preservice teacher would help a socially immature child when the costs to the class of that type of behavior are low. For social immaturity behaviors, then, it appears that a teacher’s concern for the whole class may take precedence over concern for an individual child. In other words, when the class is not being distracted by social immaturity behaviors, then the teacher will pause to help that child.

When one examines the patterns of these costs and their relationships to choice of strategy, two implications for teacher training become apparent: (a) training preser- vice teachers to manage the costs to the class of problem behavior, and (b) training preser- vice teachers to manage the indirect costs of problem behavior. If these costs can be kept low, then it appears that teachers with little experience will be more likely to choose helping strategies to manage problem behavior.

It may be more important for training to focus on managing the costs to the class than on managing the indirect costs to the teacher. The rationale for this interpretation is as follows. The costs to the class included the likelihood that the problem behavior would hurt other children, keep other children from learning, and be imitated by other children in the class. If these events were occurring in a classroom, it seems likely that the indirect costs would increase. The indirect costs included the likelihood that the prob- lem behavior would cause parents to question the teacher’s ability to teach, lead other teachers to have less respect for the teacher, and make the principal give the teacher a poor evaluation. If costs to the class were low, then the indirect costs might also be low. The implications for choice of strategy also follow logically from this line of reasoning-that is, low costs to the class and low indirect costs appear to be important contributors to choice of a helping strategy.

Although this line of reasoning is attractive, there are other aspects of the data that would suggest more conservative interpretations. First, the subjects’ choice of helping strategy was considerably greater than their choice of restrictive strategy for both types of problem behavior (Cunningham 8z Sugawara, 1988). In this light, modifying teacher training so that preservice teachers would be more likely to choose helping strategies would result in them making only a minimal shift away from choosing restrictive strategies. The possibility does exist, however, that the responses to the Strategies Scale heavily reflected social and professionally acceptable choices rather than actual choices.

The low amount of variance in the choice of strategies accounted for by the various factors suggests limitations in the measurement scales or overall design. Causal attribu- tions, for example, are complex in nature. The subjects may not have had enough ex- posure to the teaching milieu, or information in the vignettes, to form firm opinions

Management of Children 3 Problem Behaviors 379

of the the causes of behavior. The moderate reliability coefficients of the Causal Dimen- sions Scale indicate that this instrument could be modified for greater accuracy.

The factor of teacher tolerance also failed to make a significant contribution to the selection of a management strategy. This may have been due to some confusion on the part of the subjects, several of whom wrote comments at the end of the booklet regarding the Teacher Tolerance Scale. Even though this scale clearly defined a behavior as being tolerable if it was not disturbing to the teacher, the subjects may have inter- preted teacher tolerance in different ways. For example, teacher tolerance may have been interpreted as the amount of behavioral variation from a set standard the teacher will allow or the teacher’s capacity to endure or ignore a behavior. Further investigations using the construct of teacher tolerance should consider clearly defining the term as well as thinking through how that definition relates to the overall purpose of the study.

In summary, the factors that best predicted the choice of strategy were the costs factors. The costs to the teacher factor was interpreted as a general motivating factor for choosing a strategy. The costs to the class factor and the indirect costs factor ap- peared to determine whether the strategy chosen was helping or restrictive in nature. It is from these findings that implications for teacher training programs become apparent. Training preservice teachers to manage costs to the class and indirect costs may make them more likely to choose helping strategies.

REFERENCES ALGOZZKNE, B. (1977). The emotionally disturbed child: Disturbed or disturbing? Journal of Abnormal Child

ALG~ZINE, B., YSSELDYKE, F., CHRISTENSON, S., a THURLOW, M. (1983). A factor analysis of teachers’ intervention choices for dealing with students’ behavior and learning problems. Elementary School Journal,

BROPHY, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 75, 631-661.

BROPHY, J., & EVERTSON, C. (1981). Student characteristics and teaching. New York: Longman. BROPHY, J., & ROHRKEMPER, M. (1981). The influence of problem ownership on teachers’ perceptions of

and strategies for coping with problem students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 295-31 1. CUNNINOHAM, B., & SUGAWARA, A. (1988). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of childrens’ problem behaviors.

Journal of Educational Research, 82, 34-39. ELLIOTT, S., Wrrr, J., CALVIN, G., & PETERSON, R. (1984). Acceptability of positive and reductive behavioral

interventions: Factors that influence teachers’ decision. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 353-360. HUTTON, J. (1984). Teacher ratings of problem behaviors: Which student behaviors “concern” and “disturb”

teachers? Psychology in the Schools, 21, 482-484. MOORE, W., a COOPER, H. (1984). Correlations between teacher and student background and teacher percep-

tions of descriptive problems and disciplinary techniques. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 386-392. RUSSELL, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1 145. SAFRAN, S., a SAPRAN, J. (1984). Elementary teacher’s tolerance of problem behavior. The Elementary School

Journal, 85, 237-243. SAFRAN, S., SAFRAN, J. (1985). Classroom context and teachers’ perceptions of problem behaviors. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology, 77, 20-28. WEINER, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational

WITT, J., a MARTENS, B. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms.

PSyChOlOgy, 5, 205-21 1.

84, 189-197.

PSyChology, 71, 2-25.

Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510-517.