Disturbing behaviors in the secondary classroom: how do general educators perceive problem behaviors?

While previous research has determined the perceptions of disturbing behaviors of elementary teachers or special groups of secondary teachers, no known studies exist that examine the perceptions of disturbing behaviors of secondary certified. regular education teachers. The purpose of this study was to establish the behaviors that a sample of regular educators at the secondary level find least tolerable, using the Disturbing Behavior Checklist I. Regular secondary educators found behaviors related to social defiance most disturbing, then behaviors related to socialized delinquency. There was no difference among means using ANOVA for various teacher demographics and scores on the behavioral clusters or mean of total scores on the DBCI, but teacher subject area and highest degree earned correlated with perceptions of disturbing behaviors.

Rationale for Research

In recent years, beliefs in a unitary system of education for all disabled and nondisabled students, also referred to as the regular education initiative, have resulted in federal legislation requiring restructured regular classroom settings when at all possible (Landon & Mesinger, 1989). While educators may be forced to modify coursework, instruction, and tests to appropriately respond to the needs of students diagnosed with learning or behavior disorders students, modifying teachers' personal beliefs about the students themselves may be more difficult. For example, Walker and Rankin (1983) reviewed the behavioral standards and expectations of regular elementary classroom teachers and found them to be narrow, intense, and very demanding. Their conclusion was that "a significant number of children would fall below minimal levels of (behavioral) competence," and that the potential implications of such conflict for school success and adjustment capability are not encouraging." Regular educators tend to be significantly less tolerant of certain types of overt, noxious behaviors than are special educators (Safran & Safran, 1985). Further studies indicate that regular educators' perceptions of problem behaviors were also more extreme than those perceptions of special educators (Safran & Safran, 1987).

Regular educators, however, spend significantly more nonacademic time attending to the educational needs of students with learning or behavioral difficulties, and may spend up to 90% more time with these students than with students without such difficulties (Thompson, White, & Morgan, 1982). This is consistent with research that students with diagnosed learning or behavioral disabilities score significantly higher on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scales of Neuroticism, Psychoticism, and Lying (Porrata, 1997), and "pervasive dysfunction" (Grewe, 1993) than students without such diagnosed disabilities. In mainstream classes, regular educators will require additional time, effort, and resources to deal with such students; as such, a method of objectifying the specific behaviors that educators find least tolerable is needed. Previous research conducted on perceptions of disturbing behaviors has focused on elementary education (Safran & Safran, 1984), elementary education student teachers (Lewin, Nelson, & Tollefson, 1983), alternative secondary education programs (Ritter, 1989), and a combination of teachers of various grade levels, subjects, or discipline (Landon & Mesinger, 1989), but no such research has been documented for regular education teachers at the secondary level.

Ratings by educators may differ significantly on degrees of tolerance for specific behaviors (Gersten, Walker, & Darch, 1988). If regular educators perceive that particular students may cause a "ripple effect" in classroom disruptiveness, then these teachers may feel an increased need to be punitive in the early stages of behaviors perceived as intolerable, restrict positive attention given to these students, or thwart their behavioral or academic progress (Safran, 1982). These indications of the lower tolerance of regular educators than special educators for disturbing behaviors may influence decisions concerning placement in mainstreamed classrooms (Algozzine, 1980).

Ecological Theory

Despite common beliefs that disorders of emotions or conduct in school age or adolescent students are disorders inherent in the students themselves, ecological models identify the relationship between the child and the environment as more critical than any individual pathologies of the child or environment (Algozzine, 1980). Algozzine & Curran (1979) describe several important assumptions in understanding this ecological theory of the relationships between the "disturbed" or "disturbing child" and its environment. These assumptions are as follows: 1. stimulus qualities, physical characteristics, or behaviors are differentially disturbing to people; 2. differential disturbingness is caused by these qualities; stimulus qualities, physical characteristics, or behaviors cause differential attitudes and interaction potentials; and 3. these potentials cause differential interactions which affect interpersonal relationships (Algozzine & Curran). Particular student behaviors may not elicit the same responses or reactions in different teachers. This may be evidenced by the observations that one type of student may do well with a particular teacher while another performs badly, not due to an inferiority of the latter, but due to a mismatch of student and teacher (Hill, 1990).

To corroborate the contentions of ecological theory, extensive research has demonstrated a variety of characteristics shown to have varying levels of disturbingness to students, teachers, student interns, or student teachers. Characteristics such as race (Datta, Schaefer, & Davis, 1968; Coates, 1972), perceived attractiveness (Algozzine, 1977), psychoeducational diagnostic label (Algozzine & Stoller, 1981), gender (Lietz & Gregory, 1978; Christenson, Ysseldke, Wang, & Algozzine, 1983), and student achievement (Brophy & Good, 1970), have correlated with differential levels of teacher perceptions of disturbing behaviors. Likewise, deviant behaviors cause varying levels of disturbingness, and these differences vary for regular educators versus special educators (Algozzine, 1977).

Relative to ecological theory, the relationship between the teacher and the student, as well as the role of the teacher as a socializing agent, should not be minimized. A child's teacher becomes a significant parental surrogate during the school day as well as primary transmitters of culture for the school age child. As such, the behaviors of an individual so close to a child may enhance or retard the development of the child's self-control, self-esteem, character traits, work ethic, work habits, and values.

Manifestations of Teacher Expectations

As a component of ecological theory, teacher expectations and perceptions of disturbing behaviors may form the basis for how the student and teacher interact. Previous research has highlighted the powerful nature of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Merton (1948) described the self-fulfilling prophecy as any beliefs that may lead to their own fulfillment. These self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom are what drive the current study: teacher perceptions, expectations, and behaviors are based in behavioral impressions. In order to qualify and quantify defiant behavior for assessment and remediation, a basic understanding is needed of which behaviors are appropriate or at the very least, tolerable, in the mainstreamed classroom setting.

Current Study

The behavioral impressions that students have on teachers affect teachers' responses and expectations. In order to understand, quantify, and qualify which behaviors are deviant or intolerable, a study was needed to determine which behaviors are tolerable or intolerable in the mainstreamed classroom setting.

Since no known research exists that comprehensively examines the characteristics and related behavioral perceptions of secondary regular educators teaching grades six through twelve, this study examined these behavioral perceptions on the instrument most commonly used in previous research, the Disturbing Behavior Checklist I (Algozzine, 2000). Only one very limited study (Ritter, 1989) examined demographic variables (gender and years teaching experience only), concluding that male teachers were more tolerant of problem behaviors. Since gender and years teaching experience are the only demographic variables of teachers relative to the perceptions of disturbing behaviors reported in previous research, this study attempts to establish a knowledge base for a more comprehensive exploration of teacher characteristics relative to perceptions of disturbing behaviors.

The suggested research hypothesis was that secondary regular education teachers would perceive the factors of social defiance most disturbing, followed by socialized delinquent behaviors, physical disturbance, and social immaturity, and that general ratings of disturbing behaviors would be higher than those of special educators in previous research. A statistically significant correlation was expected between teacher age, teaching experience, and gender, with the tour behavioral clusters and the mean of total scores the DBCI. No statistically significant relationship was expected between gender, subject area taught, or highest degree earned and the mean of total scores on the DBCI.

The analysis of this study has implications for continued secondary referrals for psychoeducational evaluation, teacher attributions of students' psychoeducational or interpersonal difficulties, the resistance of regular educators in mainstreaming students in regular education classrooms, and special education students" increased maladaptive behaviors found in particular regular education classrooms. Further research should determine if a relationship exists between behaviors which secondary regular educators find intolerable and their referral of students that exhibit those behaviors for psychoeducational evaluation. Other research may be helpful to determine the relationship of the perceptions of disturbing behaviors to teaching effectiveness.

Method

Subjects

The sample for this study consisted of eighty-eight secondary teachers teaching grades six through twelve in a one of twenty school districts served by a regional education service center in Central Texas. Districts were randomly selected by obtaining a list of all school districts served by the Educational Service Center, Region XII, and using random numbers to select five schools of each size classification (A, AA, AAA, AAAA, and AAAAA) for participation in the study. The superintendents and principals for each secondary school for those districts were contacted by the researcher to request participation in the study. If the superintendent and principals of selected districts agreed to participation in the study, a list of all regular education, secondary certified teachers was obtained. Using the list of certified secondary teachers provided by each selected district's administration staff, ten teachers were randomly selected from each school district using random numbers. The copyrighted version of the Disturbing Behavior Checklist I (Algozzine, 2000) was placed in these regular education teachers' mailboxes with instructions to mail (in stamped, addressed envelopes to the researcher) the completed surveys at the end of the day. Two hundred teachers were asked to participate in the study, and eighty-eight teachers participated in this study by returning surveys.

Instrument

The Disturbing Behavior Checklist I (DBCI) was developed by Algozzine (2000) and used in many studies in its manuscript form (Herr, Algozzine, & Eaves, 1976; Algozzine & Curran, 1979; Algozzine, 1977, 1980; Mullen & Wood, 1986; Landon & Mesinger, 1989), but was used in this study in its copyrighted form (2000). No known changes have been made in the form since its use in other studies (Algozzine, 1977, 1979). Fifty-five problem behaviors, adapted from the Behavior Problem Checklist (BPC; Quay & Peterson, 1979), are rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not very disturbing) to 5 (very disturbing). The Disturbing Behavior Checklist I and its fifty-five items are listed in Table 1. Four behavioral clusters are on the DBCI, as identified by factor analysis (Algozzine, 1977): social immaturity, social defiance, physical disturbance, and socialized delinquency.

A principal component factor analysis yields four main factors of items on the DBCI with loadings greater than .40--Factor I: socially immature/social facilitative behaviors (22 items-5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 30, 32, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 49, 50, 52, 55); Factor II: socially defiant behaviors (15 items: 3, 8, 11, 22, 25, 27, 31, 33, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53); Factor III: physically or "motorically" disturbing behaviors (restlessness) (2 items: 2, 44); and Factor IV: socialized delinquent behaviors (7 items: 4, 26, 29, 35, 36, 51, 54), (Mullen & Wood, 1986). Mullen and Wood concluded that the principal components analyses were consistent with the constructs measured for each of the four behavioral constructs. Algozzine (1977, 1979) reported that the Kuder Richardson 20 reliability coefficients for each of the four factors ranged from .62 to .93.

Procedure

As written directions are given at the top of the DBCI, no clarification of these directions was given, aside from a brief explanation of the survey itself in the informed consent form. No definitions for "disturbing" or any terms or items were clarified. Teachers were asked to voluntarily complete the DBCI. The subjects had no face-to-face contact with the researcher.

Results

Since respondents were asked to return the survey at the end of the day in which it was administered, two weeks were allowed for receipt of surveys before beginning data analysis. A total of eighty-eight surveys were returned, yielding a high return rate of 44%, which is attributed to methodology used in which teacher administrators encouraged teacher to return surveys. Of returned surveys, three were deleted due to being outliers--the mean of their total scores was at least three standard deviations above or below the mean; two were upper outliers and one was a lower outlier. This left a total of eighty-four surveys for analysis. The demographic data of respondents is reported in Table 1.

Of those responding, 44 reported having earned a bachelor's degree, 34 reported having earned a master's degree, and six reported having earned a master's degree and fifteen or more graduate hours. The age of respondents varied from 24 to 64 (M = 43.60, SD = 10.06). Teaching experience varied from one to 39 years (M = 16.70, SD = 10.56).

Means and ranks for all items on the Disturbing Behavior Checklist I for the sample were computed and reported in Appendix B. Items that had the highest means were considered the most disturbing, as determined by the DBCI; items that were scored lowest were classified as least disturbing. The most disturbing items included: "Stealing in the company of others," "Destructiveness in regards to his own and/or others' property," "Fighting," "Disobedience, difficulty in disciplinary control," "Belonging to a gang," and "Profane language, swearing, cursing." Items ranked as least disturbing included: "Clumsiness, awkwardness, poor motor coordination," "Shyness, bashfulness," "Self-consciousness, easily embarrassed," "Social withdrawal, preference for solitary activities," and "Hypersensitivity, always on the go."

The means and standard deviations were computed tot each of the four behavioral clusters and the mean of total scores. These results were obtained by calculating the means and standard deviations for all items known to fall into each behavioral cluster, followed by a pooled mean for each of the behavioral clusters. These results are reported in Table 2. Point biserial correlations were computed for teacher gender and scores on the behavioral clusters and mean of total scores, and are reported in Table 3.

Several one-way ANOVAs (varying sample size) were conducted to determine the effects of gender on scores on the behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 4. Unlike previous research (Ritter, 1989), the difference between male and female teachers was not statistically significant.

Pearson's r correlation coefficients were conducted for teacher age and years teaching experience to determine if these variables correlate with scores on the behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI. No correlations were statistically significant. These results are reported in Table 5.

Several one-way ANOVAs (varying sample sizes) were conducted to evaluate the effects of teaching field on scores on the behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.

For teacher subject area, the ANOVA for Cluster II--Social Defiance approached statistical significance F(6, 77, .671) = 2.125, p = .06, but no ANOVAs were statistically significant: Mean of total scores F(6, 77, .356), = 1.851,p =.1, Cluster IV--Socialized Delinquent, F(6, 77, .585) = 1.833, p =. 104, Cluster III--Motor Disturbance F(6, 77, .799) = 1.778, p = .115, and Cluster I--Social Immaturity, F(6, 77, .364) = .878, p =.515. An inspection of the bivariate scatterplot for each variable indicated that means for subject area were highest for art/music, business/computers, social studies/physical education, and vocational courses, and lowest scores were from teachers of English, foreign language, reading, and journalism, mathematics, and sciences, in that order. To further explore these differences. Pearson's r was computed for teacher subject area and the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores. The results of this analysis are listed in Table 7.

Cluster II--Social Defiance correlated with teacher subject area (r = .29, p = .001), as did the mean of total scores (r = .225, p = .05). An additional series of analyses were completed to determine relationships between combinations of variables.

Several one-way ANOVAs (varying sample sizes) were conducted to evaluate the effects of highest educational degree earned on scores on the behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 8.

ANOVA's were not statistically significant for any dependent variable. An inspection of the bivariate scatterplot for the means for each educational degree and the four behavioral clusters and the mean of total scores indicated that teachers with bachelor's degrees rated scores as more disturbing, followed by teachers with master's degrees, then teachers with master's degrees + 15 or more graduate hours. To further evaluate this relationship, Pearson's r was computed for highest educational degree earned and each of the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores, with teacher degree correlating with Cluster II--Social Defiance (M = -.228, p = .05). No other behavioral clusters, nor the mean of total scores, correlated with highest educational degree earned at any level approaching statistical significance. This information is presented in Table 9.

Discussion

This study was conducted to explore teacher characteristics relative to perceptions of disturbing behaviors. Teacher characteristics of gender, age, and teaching experience were expected to correlate with scores on the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores the Disturbing Behavior Checklist I (DBCI). Teacher characteristics of gender, subject area taught, or highest degree earned were not expected to be correlate with scores on the four behavioral clusters and the mean of total scores the DBCI.

For secondary regular educators in this study, Cluster II--Social Defiance of the DBCI was most disturbing, followed by Cluster IV--Socialized Delinquent, Cluster III--Motor Disturbance, and Cluster I--Social Immaturity. Other data analyses revealed several unexpected results. Gender, age, and teaching experience were expected to correlate with scores on the four behavioral clusters and the mean of total scores on the DBCI, but these factors did not correlate well with the perception of disturbing behaviors. However, the null hypothesis that scores on the four behavioral clusters and the mean of total scores on the DBCI would not differ by gender was retained. Several unexpected findings were noted: there was no difference between means on the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI for teacher subject area, but Cluster II--Social Defiance approached statistical significance (p = .06). Cluster II--Social Defiance correlated with subject area (r = .290, p = .001), as did the mean of total scores (r = .225, p = .05). There was no difference among scores on the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores for the highest educational degree earned by teachers. However, the highest educational degree negatively correlated with Cluster II--Social Defiance (p = .05), as teachers with less education rated items related to social defiance as more disturbing than teachers with more education. The lack of statistically significant differences between means using ANOVAs, in combination with statistically significant correlations between these demographic characteristics of teachers and their perceptions of disturbing behaviors may be due to the comparisons made in ANOVA between smaller subgroups of teacher characteristics; when pooled, however, correlations are significant.

The results in this study differed from the results obtained from a sample of middle school teachers (Mullen and Wood, 1986). Secondary educators in this study found social defiance and motor disturbances less disturbing, and socialized delinquent behavior more disturbing than a group of middle school teachers. Means for both groups were very similar in this study (M = 3.30) as in the Mullen and Wood study (M = 3.35), (1986). Previous studies of the perceptions of disturbing behaviors of combined groups of elementary and secondary educators found that behaviors related to negative aggression were most intolerable. These results may be compared to the current study, as both scales required responses to items related to negative aggression or social defiance on a five-point Likert-scaled instrument. Combined elementary and secondary educators rated such behaviors as much higher than did subjects in the current study (Safran, Safran, & Barcikowski, 1985). Other historical research (Algozzine & Curran, 1979; Algozzine, 1977, 1980; Landon & Mesinger, 1989), did not report the actual means for the behavioral clusters or the mean of total scores on the DBCI so this study could not be compared to extant data. If these results are compared to available data, it would appear that the secondary, regular educators in this study found social defiance most disturbing, but not as disturbing as teachers who teach younger groups of students. Similarly, it appears that delinquent behavior is much more of a concern than motor disturbance and social immaturity for this group of secondary, regular education teachers.

Unlike previous research (Ritter, 1989), no statistically significant correlation was found for teacher gender and scores on the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI. Further, there was no difference between means for any of the variables of the four behavioral clusters and mean of total scores on the DBCI and the independent variable of gender. As male teachers were expected to be more tolerant of all behaviors, these findings were contrary to the expected results of this study.

No difference between means on the scores on any behavioral cluster or the mean of total scores on the DBCI was found for age or years teaching experience. This finding was not surprising, as other research had not found that teaching experience correlated with perceptions of disturbing behaviors (Ritter, 1989). While there was no difference among means using ANOVA for subject area on any dependent variable, subject area correlated well with behaviors related to social defiance and the mean of total scores on the DBCI. In order, teachers teaching in the following subject areas rated behaviors as most disturbing: art/music, business/computers, social studies/physical education, vocational, English, foreign language, reading, and journalism mathematics, and sciences. Notably, the subject areas that correlate with higher scores on the DBCI are elective courses in most schools, and subject areas that correlate with lower scores on the DBCI are required courses in most schools. These required courses often have resource-room counterparts (mathematics, science, and English), whereas elective courses do not have resource-room counterparts. Perhaps these differences in tolerances are an artifact of the experiences of having mainstreamed special education students in the classroom, with the narrowing of perceptions and expectations that may accompany this experience, as reported by Walker and Rankin (1983). To determine if this hypothesis was accurate, additional ANOVAs and correlations were analyzed with DBCI results pooled by whether teachers taught elective or core classes. ANOVAs were statistically significant for Cluster II--Social Defiance F(1, 82, .309) = 9.712, p = .0036, Cluster III--Motor Disturbance F(1, 82, .449) = 5.640, p = .020, and Mean of Total Scores F(1, 82, .187) = 8.624, p = .004. In addition, statistically significant correlations existed for elective versus core classes with Cluster II--Social Defiance (r = .294, p = .001), as did the mean of total scores (r = .243, p = .05).

Having additional training in education or graduate coursework may have some bearing on the development of tolerances to disturbing behaviors. While the highest degree earned did not correlate with the perceptions of all disturbing behaviors, there was a significant negative correlation between highest degree earned and perceptions of socially defiant behaviors, as teachers with bachelor's degrees rated socially defiant student behaviors as more disturbing than teachers with master's degrees or master's degrees with additional coursework. In this study, it appears that teachers with bachelor's degrees rated socially defiant behaviors as more disturbing than teachers with master's degrees or even more education. Previous research (Gersten, Walker, and Darch, 1988) indicated that perceptions of low tolerance for maladaptive behaviors and high expectations strongly correlated with better teaching and classroom management techniques. Perhaps additional training in education is a variable that impacts both the perceptions of disturbing behaviors and more effective teaching or behavior management, or results in a reduced threat to perceptions of defiant student behaviors. Interestingly, highest educational degree was highly correlated with whether the teachers in this study taught elective or core classes (r = .810, p = .001), with teachers of core classes holding advanced degrees more than teachers of elective courses.

Of all the teacher characteristics in this study, subject area and highest educational degree appeared to correlate best with the perception of disturbing student behaviors, especially socially defiant behaviors. Regular secondary educators listing their teaching field as "art", "music", "business", "computers", "vocational", or "social studies/physical education" (typically athletic coaches) rated behaviors as much more disturbing than teachers teaching in other core courses such as English, mathematics, and sciences. Having additional graduate training appeared to impact the perceptions of disturbing behaviors, as teachers with bachelor's degrees rated behaviors on the Disturbing Behavior Checklist as more disturbing than groups of teachers who had earned a master's degree or more. These findings may be particularly important for school administrators to consider in the hiring process of new teachers; highest educational degree and subject field appear to correlate well with how disturbing teachers find student behaviors, and may impact these teachers" tendencies to refer students exhibiting these behaviors than other teachers. However, neither gender, teacher age, nor years teaching experience held a consistent relationship with scores on the DBCI. Only one prior study had been completed to determine the relationship between teacher demographics and perceptions of disturbing behaviors (Ritter, 1989). The findings of the current study differ somewhat from the Ritter study, in that no difference between genders was found on perceptions of disturbing behaviors. These findings may be due to the geographic limitations or sample size of this study, as all teachers were surveyed in a particular geographic area in Central Texas. A larger sample of certified secondary, regular education teachers from a sample of different geographic and cultural backgrounds may yield different results than this study. Related to this issue, sample sizes were small for certain teaching fields and teachers who had earned fifteen or more graduate hours above a master's degree in this study. As such, the results for such small samples should be interpreted with caution.

In the current study, subject area and highest educational degree appear to correlate best with scores on the DBCI, especially on items related to socially defiant behaviors. Other research is needed to better ascertain the relationship between the variables of gender, subject area, and highest educational degree, and the independent variable of scores on the DBCI. With a very large sample, the strength of correlations may be improved for the independent variables used in this study. Additional research may also be needed to determine the reasons that subject area and highest educational degree correlated well with socially defiant behaviors. Other research would be helpful to determine if a relationship exists between additional variables such as teaching efficacy and the perceptions of disturbing behaviors, such as those measured by the Disturbing Behavior Checklist I. Scientific investigations into the relationships between the perceptions of disturbing behavior and referrals to special education services may also be helpful, as would a greater understanding of the differential behaviors of special education students in resource classrooms relative to mainstream classrooms.</p> <pre> APPENDIX A Disturbing Behavior Checklist (DBC) I [c]Bob Algozzine 2000 Please respond to each item indicating how disturbing it would be in working with children. When completing the checklist, ask yourself, "... in working with children, how disturbing is" ... item ... "to me?" and then answer the item (NVD means "not very disturbing" and VD means "very disturbing"). Item

NVD VD 1. Oddness, bizarre behavior

1 2 3 4 5 2. Restlessness, inability to sit still

1 2 3 4 5 3. Attention-seeking, "show-off"

1 2 3 4 5 4. Staying out late at night

1 2 3 4 5 5. Doesn't know how to have fun

1 2 3 4 5 6. Self-consciousness; easily embarrassed

1 2 3 4 5 7. Fixed expression; lack

of emotional reactivity 1 2 3 4 5 8. Disruptiveness; tendency to annoy and bother others

1 2 3 4 5 9. Feelings of inferiority 1 2 3 4 5 10. Stealing in company with others 1

2 3 4 5 11. Boisterousness, rowdiness  1 2

3 4 5 12. Crying over minor annoyances and hurts

1 2 3 4 5 13. Preoccupation; "in a world of his own" 1 2 3 4 5 14. Shyness, bashfulness

1 2 3 4 5 15. Social withdrawal; preference

for solitary activities 1 2 3 4 5 16. Dislike for school 1 2 3 4 5 17. Jealousy over attention paid other children 1 2

3 4 5 18. Belonging to a gang 1 2 3

4 5 19. Repetitive speech 1 2 3 4

5 20. Short attention span 1 2 3 4 5 21. Lack of self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5 22. Inattentiveness to what others say 1

2 3 4 5 23. Easily flustered and confused 1 2

3 4 5 24. Incoherent speech 1 2 3

4 5 25. Fighting 1 2 3 4

5 26. Loyal to delinquent friends 1 2 3 4 5 27. Temper tantrums  1 2 3 4 5 28. Reticence, secretiveness  1 2 3 4 5 29. Truancy from school 1 2 3 4 5 30. Hypersensitivity; feelings easily hurt 1 2 3 4 5 31. Laziness in school and in performance of other tasks 1 2 3 4 5 32. Anxiety; chronic general fearfulness 1 2 3 4 5 33. Irresponsibility; undependability 1 2 3 4 5 34. Excessive daydreaming 1 2 3 4 5 35. Masturbation

1 2 3 4 5 36. Having bad companions

1 2 3 4 5 37. Tension; inability to relax

1 2 3 4 5 38. Disobedience; difficulty in disciplinary control 1 2 3 4 5 39. Depression, chronic sadness 1 2 3 4 5 40. Uncooperativeness in group situations 1 2 3 4 5 41. Passivity, suggestibility; easily led by others

1 2 3 4 5 42. Aloofness, social reserve

1 2 3 4 5 43. Clumsiness, awkwardness; poor muscular coordination 1 2 3 4 5 44. Hypersensitivity; always on the go 1 2 3 4 5 45. Distractibility

1 2 3 4 5 46. Destructiveness in regard

to his own and/or others' property 1 2 3 4 5 47. Negativism; tendency to do the opposite of what is requested 1 2 3 4 5 48. Impertinence; sauciness  1 2 3 4 5 49. Sluggishness, lethargy  1 2 3 4 5 50. Drowsiness

1 2 3 4 5 51. Profane language,

swearing, cursing 1 2 3 4 5 52. Nervousness, jitteriness, jumpiness; easily startled

1 2 3 4 5 53. Irritability, hot tempered; easily aroused to anger 1 2 3 4 5 54. Enuresis, bed-wetting

1 2 3 4 5 55. Often has physical complaints, e.g., headaches, stomachaches 1 2 3 4 5 </pre> <pre> Appendix B Ranks and Means of Items on Disturbing Behavior Checklist (DBC) I Item

Rank Mean 1. Oddness, bizarre behavior 21

3.10 2. Restlessness, inability to sit still 24 3.14 3. Attention-seeking, "show-off" 35 3.46 4. Staying out late at night 7 2.75 5. Doesn't know how to have fun 13 2.85 6. Self-consciousness; easily embarrassed

3 2.33 7. Fixed expression; lack of emotional reactivity

22 3.11 8. Disruptiveness; tendency to annoy and bother others 49 4.12 9. Feelings of inferiority

9 2.76 10. Stealing in company with others

55 4.46 11. Boisterousness, rowdiness

37 3.51 12. Crying over minor annoyances and hurts

34 3.25 13. Preoccupation; "in a world of his own" 10 2.79 14. Shyness, bashfulness

55 2.17 15. Social withdrawal; preference

for solitary activities 4 2.51 16. Dislike for school 32 3.19 17. Jealousy over attention

paid other children 15 2.93 18. Belonging to a gang 51 4.20 19. Repetitive speech

11 2.82 20. Short attention span

17 2.99 21. Lack of self-confidence

8 2.75 22. Inattentiveness to what others say

31 3.18 23. Easily flustered and confused

6 2.73 24. Incoherent speech

33 3.19 25. Fighting 53 4.28 26. Loyal to delinquent friends 42 3.70 27. Temper tantrums 11 3.98 28. Reticence, secretiveness

28 3.16 29. Truancy from school

47 4.06 30. Hypersensitivity; feelings easily hurt 18 3.07 31. Laziness in school and in performance of other tasks 41 3.67 32. Anxiety; chronic general fearfulness

20 3.10 33. Irresponsibility; undependability 39

3.60 34. Excessive daydreaming 25 3.14 35. Masturbation 11 4.01 36. Having bad companions 40 3.61 37. Tension; inability to relax 16 2.98 38. Disobedience; difficulty in

disciplinary control 52 4.25 39. Depression, chronic sadness 38 3.53 40. Uncooperativeness

in group situations 43 3.81 41. Passivity, suggestibility; easily led by others 26

3.14 42. Aloofness, social reserve 29 3.16 43. Clumsiness, awkwardness; poor muscular coordination 44. Hypersensitivity; always on the go 5 2.67 45. Distractibility

30 3.17 46. Destructiveness in regard to his own and/or others' property 45 4.43 47. Negativism; tendency to do the opposite of what is requested

48 4.08 48. Impertinence; sauciness

36 3.48 49. Sluggishness, lethargy 19 3.07 50. Drowsiness 23 3.13 51. Profane language, swearing, cursing 50 4.17 52. Nervousness, jitteriness, jumpiness; easily startled 12 2.83 53. Irritability, hot tempered; easily aroused to anger

46 4.02 54. Enuresis, bed-wetting

14 2.86 55. Often has physical complaints, e.g., headaches, stomachaches 27 3.15 </pre> <p>References

Algozzine, B. (1977). Perceived attractiveness and classroom interactions. Journal of Experimental Education, 46(1), 63-66.

Algozzine, B. (1977). The emotionally disturbed child: disturbed or disturbing? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology; 5(2), 205-211.

Algozzine, B. (1979). The disturbing child: A validation report (Research Report No. 8). Minneapolis: University of Minnesote, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

Algozzine, B. (1980). The disturbing child: a matter of opinion. Behavioral Disorders, 5, 112-115.

Algozzine, B. (2000). Disturbing Behavior Checklist-I. Charlotte, N.C.: University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Author.

Algozzine, B., & Curran, T.J. (1979). Teachers' predictions of children's school success as a function of their behavioral tolerances. Journal of Educational Research, 72(6), 344-347.

Algozzine, B., & Stoller, L. (1981). Effects of labels and competence on teachers/ attributions for a student. Journal of Experimental Education, 49(3), 132-136.

Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1980). Decision makers" prediction of students" academic difficulties as a function of referral information. Journal of Educational Research, 73(3), 145-150.

Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Hill, C. (1982). Psychoeducational decision making as a function of the amount of information reviewed. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 328-334.

Armour, D., Conry-Osequera, F., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pacal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 130 243.)

Ashton, P.T. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (5). 28-32.

Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Beilin, H. (1959). Teacher and clinicians' attitudes toward the behavior problems of children: a reappraisal. Child Development, 30, 9-25.

Bergan, J.R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

Bogner, C.J., & Martin, W.B.W. (1982). A sociological perspective on diagnosing learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(6), 347-351.

Brattesani, K.A., Weinstein, R.S., & Marshall, H.H. (1984). Student perceptions of differential teacher treatment as moderators of teacher expectations effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 236-247.

Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1970). Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365-374.

Burns, C.W. (1992). Psychoeducational decision making, test scores, and descriptive data: selected methodological issues. Journal of School Psychology, 30(1), 1-16.

Chan, K.S. (1978). Locus of control and achievement motivation--critical factors in educational psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 104-110.

Christenson, S., Ysseldyke, J.E., Wang, J.J., and Algozzine, B. (1983). Teachers' attributions for problems that result in referral for psychoeducational evaluation. Journal of Educational Research, 76 (3), 174-180.

Coates, B. (1972). White adult behavior toward black and white children. Child Development, 43, 143-154.

Cooper, H.M., & Good, T.L. (1983). Pygmalion grows up. New York: Longman, Inc.

Cornwall. A. (1990). Social validation of psychoeducational assessment reports. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(7), 413-416.

Datta, L.E., Schaefer, E., & Davis, M. (1968). Sex and scholastic aptitude as variables in teachers' ratings of the adjustment and classroom behavior of Negro and other seventh-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(2), 94-101.

Denham, C., & Michael, J. (1981). Teacher sense of self-efficacy: A definition of the construct and a model for further research. Educational Research Quarterly 6(1), 39-61.

Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290.

Dusek, J.B. (1975). Do teachers bias children's learning? Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 661-684.

Faas, L.A. (1984, March). Stress producing factors among regular educators and various types of special educators. Paper presented as a convention of the Arizona Federation of the Council for Exceptional Children, Tucson, Arizona.

Foster, G.G., Schmidt, C.R., & Sabatino, D. (1976). Teacher expectancies and the label "learning disabilities". Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9(2), 111-115.

Foster, G.G., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Reese, J.H. (1975). I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it. Exceptional Children, 41(6), 469-473.

Gerber, M.M. (1988). Tolerance and technology of instruction: Implications for special education reform. Exceptional Children, 54, 309-314.

Gerber, M.M., & Semmel, M.I. (1984). Teacher as an imperfect test: reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19(3), 137-148.

Gersten, R., Walker, H., & Darch, C. (1988). Relationship between teachers' effectiveness and their tolerance for handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 54(5), 433-438.

Giesbrecht, M.L, & Routh, D.K. (1979). The influence of categories of cumulative folder information on teacher referrals of low-achieving children for special education services. American Educational Research Journal, 16(2), 181-187.

Goodman, S.H., & Waters, L.K. (1987). Convergent validity of five locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 743-747.

Grewe, S.D. (1993). Neuropsychological and personality features of learning disabled and emotionally handicapped children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie.

Herr, D.E., Algozzine, B., & Eaves, R.C. (1976). Modification of biases held by teacher trainees toward the disturbingness of child behaviors. Journal of Educational Research, 69(1), 261-264.

Hill, R.B. (1990). The Interaction of Teacher Personality and Student Behavior on the Decision to Refer Students for Special Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State.

Hill, R.B., Baldo, A.J., & D'amato, R.C. (1999). Teachers' personalities and students' behavior in referrals for special education. Psychological Reports, 84, 491-493.

Huebner, E.S. (1987). The effects of type of referral information and test data on psychoeducational decisions. School Psychology Review, 16(1), 382-389.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Mador, S.J. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In M.P. Zenna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281-388). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Jussim, L., Soffin, S., Brown, R., Ley, J., & Kohlhepp, K. (1992). Understanding reactions to feedback by integrating ideas from symbolic interactionism and cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62, 402-421.

Kerr, M.M., & Zigmond, N. (1986). What do high school teachers want? A study of expectations and standards. Education and Treatment of Children, 9(3), 239-249.

Landon, T., & Mesinger, J.F. (1989). Teacher tolerance ratings on problem behaviors. Behavioral Disorders, 14(4), 236-249.

Lewin, P., Nelson, R.E., & Tollefson, N. (1983). Teacher attitudes toward disruptive children. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 17, 188-193.

Lietz, J.J., and Gregory, M.K. (1978). Pupil race and sex determinants in office and exceptional education referrals. Educational Research Quarterly, 32, 61-66.

Luce, S.R., & Hoge, R.D. (1978). Relations among teacher rankings, pupil-teacher interactions, and academic achievement: a test of teacher expectancy hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 489-500.

Marion, S., Smith, A., Jussim, L., Russell, D.W., Eccles, J., Palumbo, F., Walkiewicz, M. (2001). Am I as you see me or do you see me as I am? Self-fulfilling prophecies and self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (9), 1214-1224.

Merton, R.K. (1948). The self fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review; 8, 193-210.

Midgley, C., Fedlaufer, H., & Eccles, J.F. (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs during transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 247-258.

Mooney, C., & Algozzine, B. (1978). A comparison of the disturbingness of behaviors related to learning disability and emotional disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 401-406.

Mullen, J.A., Wood, F.H. (1986). Teacher and student ratings of the disturbingness of common problem behaviors. Behavioral Disorders. 11, 168-176.

National Education Association. (1979). Teacher opinion poll. Today's Education, 68, 10.

Newman, E.J. (1999). In the trenches: Increasing competency of teachers-in training by having them conduct individualized interventions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26 (1), 36-42.

Porrata, J.L. (1997). Preliminary comparison of scores of special education and regular education students on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire for Children. Psychological Reports, 80, 191-194.

Quay, H.C. (1979). Manual for the Behavior Problem Checklist. (Available from D.R. Peterson, 39 North Fifth Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904).

Ritter, D.R. (1989). Teachers' perceptions of problem behavior in general and special education. Exceptional Children, 55(6), 559-564.

Robbins, R.C., Mercer, J.R., and Meyers, C.E. (1967). Attribution in the classroom: What is just in an unjust world? Psychology in the Schools, 216-222.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement [Monograph]. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.

Safran, S.P. (1982). Resource consultant communication and teacher expectations of behaviorally disordered children. Behavior Disorders, 8, 25-29.

Safran, J.S., & Safran, S.P. (1987). Teachers' judgments of problem behaviors. Exceptional Children, 54(3), 240-244.

Safran, S.P., & Safran, J.S. (1984). Elementary teachers' tolerance of problem behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 85(2), 237-243.

Safran, S.P., & Safran, J.S. (1985). Classroom context and teachers' perceptions of problem behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 20-28.

Safran, S.P., Safran, J.S., & Barcikowski, R.S. (1985). Differences in teacher tolerance: an illusory phenomena? Behavioral Disorders, 11, 11-15.

Schlosser, L., & Algozzine, B. (1980). Sex, behavior, and teacher expectancies. Journal of Experimental Education, 48(3), 231-236.

Shavelson, R.J., and Borko, H. (1979). Research on teachers' decision-making and planning instruction. Research On Teaching, 57, 183-189.

Swann, W.B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1038-1051.

Soodak, L.C., & Podell, D.M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 66-82.

Thompson, R.H., White, K.R., & Morgan, D.P. (1982). Teacher-student interactions patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220-236.

Tobias, S., Zibrin, M., & Menell, C. (1983). Special education referrals: failure to replicate student-teacher ethnicity interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (5), 705-707.

Trentham, L., Silvern, S., Brogdan, R. (1985). Teacher efficacy and teacher competency ratings. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 343-352.

Vallerand, R.J., Fortier, M.S., & Gray, F. 1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.

Vidoni, D.O., Fleming, N.J., & Mintz, S. (1983). Behavior problems of children as perceived by teachers, mental health professionals, and children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 93-98.

Villalpando, R. (1992). The Impact of Pupil Achievement, Ability, Behavior, Temperament, and Teachability on Teachers' Decision to Refer Mexican-American Pupils for Special Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Waguespack, A.M., & Moore, L.A. (1993). Teacher preferences for service delivery: a look at attribution research. School Psychology Quarterly, 8(2), 153-158.

Walker, H.M., & Rankin, R. (1983). Assessing the behavioral expectations and demands of less restrictive settings. School Psychology Review; 12(3), 274-284.

Warren, L.L., & Payne, B.D. (1997). Impact of middle grades' organization on teacher efficacy and environmental perceptions. Journal of Educational Research, 90 (5), 301-319.

Weiner, B. (1976). An attributional approach for educational psychology. Review of Research hi Education, 4, 179-197.

Wickman, E.K. (1928). Children's behavior and teacher's attitudes. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

Ysseldyke, J.E., & Algozzine, B. (1982). Bias among professionals who erroneously declare students eligible for special services. Journal of Experimental Education, 50(4), 223-228.

Holly L. Johnson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Educational Administration, Counseling & Psychology, Tarleton State University--Central Texas. Harry L. Fullwood, Ph.D., Professor, Special Education, Texas A&M University--Commerce.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Holly Johnson at [e-mail].

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics
of Teacher Respondents

Gender                    N
  Male                    33
  Female                  51
Subject Area
  English, Foreign        28
    Languages, Reading,
    Journalism
  Mathematics             10
  Sciences                 9
  Social Studies/
    Physical Education    16
  Vocational Course        8
  Business, Computers      8
  Art, Music               5

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Behavior Clusters
and Mean of Total Scores on DBCI

Behavioral
Cluster                           Mean     SD

Cluster I-Social Immaturity       2.89   .6413
Cluster II-Social Defiance        3.83   .5842
Cluster III-Motor Disturbance     2.90   .6889
Cluster IV-Socialized Delinquent  3.61   .5819
Mean of Total Scores              3.30   .4521

Table 3
Correlations Between Teacher Gender and Scores on
Behavior Clusters and Mean of Total Scores on DBCI

Behavioral                         Teacher
Cluster                            Gender

Teachers (n = 84)
Cluster I-Social Immaturity         .058
Cluster II-Social Defiance          -.078
Cluster III-Motor Disturbance       -.012
Cluster IV-Socialized Delinquent    .004
Mean of Total Scores                .016

Table 4
Analysis of Variance for Gender and Scores on Behavior Clusters
and Mean of Total Scores on DBCI

Source                          df     F        p

Cluster I-Social Immaturity:     1   .279     .599
  Between Groups                82   (.415)
  Within Groups

Cluster II-Social                1   .504     .480
  Defiance: Between Groups      82   (.343)
  Within Groups

Cluster III-Motor                1   .012     .913
  Disturbance: Between Groups   82   (.480)
  Within Groups

Cluster IV-Social.               1   .002     .968
  Delinquent: Between Groups    82   (.343)
  Within Groups

Mean of Total Scores:            1   .020     .887
  Between Groups                82   (.207)
  Within Groups

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors.

Table 5
Correlations Between Teacher Age and Years Teaching Experience
and Scores on Behavior Clusters And Mean of Total Scores on DBCI

Behavioral Cluster                 Age      Years
                                            Experience

                                   Teachers (n = 84)

Cluster I-Social Immaturity        -.108      -.117
Cluster II-Social Defiance         -.126      -.126
Cluster III-Motor Disturbance      -.069      -.070
Cluster IV-Socialized Delinquent    .024       .058
Mean of Total Scores               -.095      -.088

Table 6
Analysis of Variance for Teaching Field on Behavioral Clusters
and Mean of Total Scores on the DBCI

Source                         df       F        p

Cluster I-Social Immaturity:   6      .878      .515
  Between Groups               77    (.415)
  Within Groups

Cluster II-Social Defiance:
  Between Groups               6     2.125      .060
  Within Groups                77    (.316)
Cluster III-Social             6     1.778      .115
  Defiance: Between Groups     77    (.449)
  Within Groups

Cluster IV-Social.             6     1.833      .104
  Delinquent: Between Groups   77    (.319)
  Within Groups
Mean of Total Scores:          6     1.851      .100
  Between Groups               77    (.193)
  Within Groups

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors.

Table 7
Correlations Between Teacher Subject Area with Scores on
Behavior Clusters and Mean of Total Scores on DBCI

                                   Teacher
                                   Subject
Behavioral Cluster                 Area

Teachers (n = 84)

Cluster I-Social Immaturity        .057
Cluster II-Social Defiance         .290 **
Cluster III-Motor Disturbance      .209
Cluster IV-Socialized Delinquent   .183
Mean of Total Scores               .225 *

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the .001 level (two-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

Table 8
Analysis of Variance for Highest Educational Degree Earned
on Behavioral Clusters And Mean of Total Scores on the DBCI

Source                         df     F        p

Cluster I--Social              2    .034     0.966
  Immaturity: Between Groups   81   (.421)
  Within Groups

Cluster II--Social             2    2.231    0.114
  Defiance: Between Groups     81   (.331)
  Within Groups

Cluster III--Social            2    1.289    0.281
  Defiance: Between Groups     81   (.471)
  Within Groups

Cluster IV--Social.            2    1.048    0.355
  Delinquent: Between Groups   81   (.338)
  Within Groups

Mean of Total                  2    .128     0.880
  Scores: Between Groups       81   (.209)
  Within Groups

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent
mean square errors.

Table 9
Correlations Between Highest Educational Degree Earned with
Scores on Behavior Clusters And Mean of Total Scores on DBCI

Behavioral Cluster                 Degree
                                   Earned
Teachers (n = 84)

Cluster I-Social Immaturity         -.023
Cluster 1I-Social Defiance         -.228 *
Cluster III-Motor Disturbance       -.051
Cluster IV-Socialized Delinquent    -.115
Mean of Total Scores                -.045

Note. * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).