AA00054907_00001.pdf

00006.txt

00026.txt

00047.txt

00080.txt

00058.txt

00105.txt

00060.txt

00054.txt

00092.txt

00051.txt

00055.txt

00061.txt

00137.txt

00067.txt

00037.txt

00033.txt

00100.txt

00096.txt

00108.txt

00062.txt

00002.txt

AA00054907_00001_pdf.txt

00112.txt

00076.txt

00057.txt

00087.txt

00066.txt

00073.txt

00075.txt

00007.txt

00127.txt

00027.txt

00063.txt

EJG60LRY9_9N81TB_xml.txt

00114.txt

00091.txt

00071.txt

00120.txt

00059.txt

00136.txt

00042.txt

00012.txt

00125.txt

00023.txt

00039.txt

00122.txt

00133.txt

00072.txt

00081.txt

00020.txt

00038.txt

00101.txt

00011.txt

00034.txt

00010.txt

00083.txt

00024.txt

00110.txt

00093.txt

00117.txt

00022.txt

00119.txt

00111.txt

00019.txt

00126.txt

00135.txt

00070.txt

00032.txt

00138.txt

00068.txt

00107.txt

00128.txt

00140.txt

00064.txt

00008.txt

00035.txt

00095.txt

00090.txt

00016.txt

00116.txt

00118.txt

00005.txt

00103.txt

00017.txt

00139.txt

00097.txt

00050.txt

00121.txt

00085.txt

00018.txt

00098.txt

00113.txt

00052.txt

00084.txt

00069.txt

00134.txt

00004.txt

00088.txt

00029.txt

00074.txt

00132.txt

00077.txt

00041.txt

00053.txt

00104.txt

00115.txt

00078.txt

00141.txt

00131.txt

00021.txt

00028.txt

00031.txt

00009.txt

00046.txt

00044.txt

00013.txt

00001.txt

00109.txt

00099.txt

00102.txt

00040.txt

00129.txt

00094.txt

00014.txt

00086.txt

00130.txt

00049.txt

00079.txt

00048.txt

00123.txt

00065.txt

00106.txt

00015.txt

00056.txt

00045.txt

00030.txt

00089.txt

00082.txt

00036.txt

00124.txt

00043.txt

00025.txt

00003.txt

THE DYADIC PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION CODING SYSTEM II (DPICS II):
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY WITH FATHER-CHILD DYADS
By
REBECCA CLARK FOOTE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999




TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.............................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................... iv
ABSTRACT............................................................................ vii
INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 1
Direct Behavioral Observation.............................................. 4
Characteristics of Children with Externalizing Problems ............... 9
The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System..................... 18
The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II................... 22
METHODS............................................................................ 31
Participants................................................................... 31
Measures....................................................................... 35
Procedures........................ .......................................... 41
Observers...................................................................... 44
R E SU L T S............................................................................. 47
Psychometric Properties of Measures.................................... .. 47
Differences Between Groups on Self-Report Measures................ 47
Reliability...................................................................... 49
V alidity ....................................................................... 56
DISCUSSION........................................................................ 63
Reliability...................................................................... 63
V alidity ....................................................................... 67
Limitations and Future Directions.......................................... 74
APPENDIX A TABLES.................................................... 77
APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF DPICS II CATEGORIES............ 118
REFERENCES....................................................................... 121
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................................... 131
ii




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A number of people have been extremely helpful to me in completing this project and preparing this manuscript. I would like to thank the DPICS II observers Janet Bessmer, Dan Edwards, Jenifer Jacobs, Tricia Dumrning, and Nola Litwins for their many hours of careful work coding videotapes. I am very grateful to Pamela Bryan for her collaboration through the duration of this study, and particularly for her help in the recruitment of participants and coding of videotapes. I would also like to thank Dr. Sheila Eyberg for her guidance during my graduate school training and for her support in completing this project. I am most appreciative of my other committee members Dr. James Algina, Dr. Stephen Boggs, Dr. Gary Geffken, and Dr. James Rodrigue for providing me with their time and expertise. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Joseph Lea, who was most helpful to me in the final stages of preparing this manuscript. In addition, I would like to give special thanks to Kathleen MacNaughton, lan Sadler, and Elena Schuhmann, whose friendship has been invaluable to me throughout my graduate training and particularly during the completion of my dissertation. Finally, I wish to thank my grandfather, Reverend Arthur Foote, my parents, Dr. Caleb Foote and Susan Foote, and my brother, Benjamin Foote, for their endless support and encouragement.
iii




LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Sam ple Characteristics.............................................................. 34
2. Scores on Measures Used to Compare Participants............................. 49
3. Reliability for the DPICS II Parent Categories Combined Across
Situation and Group................................................................. 52
4. Reliability for the DPICS II Child Categories Combined Across
Situation and G roup................................................................. 54
5. Mean Frequency of DPICS II Summary Variables for Clinic-Referred
and Comparison Father-Child Dyads Summed Across Situations........... 57
6. Correlations Between the DPICS II Variables and Scores on the
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and the Parental Locus of Control
Scale-Short Form .................................................................... 60
7. Correlations Between the DPICS II Summary Variables and Scores on
the Parenting Stress Index......................................................... 61
8. Categories of the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System
(D P IC S)............................................................................ 77
9. Categories of the Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System II (DPICS-H) ..... 78 10. DPICS II Parent Summary Variables............................................ 80
11. DPICS II Child Summary Variables............................................. 81
12. Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Parent Categories Across
Situations for the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups................. 82
13. Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Child Categories Across
Situations for the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups................. 84
14. Mean Frequency of DPICS II Parent Categories and Summary
Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in
the Child Directed Interaction................................................... 86
iv




15. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summary
Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in
the Parent Directed Interaction.................................................. 88
16. Mean Frequency of DPICS II Parent Categories and Summary
Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in
the Clean-up Situation............................................................. 90
17. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary
Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in
the Child Directed Interaction.................................................... 92
18. Mean Frequency of DPICS II Child Categories and Summary
Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in
the Parent Directed Interaction.................................................. 94
19. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary
Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads
in the Clean-up Situation......................................................... 96
20. Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Child Directed
Interaction......................................................................... 98
21. Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Parent Directed
Interaction.......................................................................... 100
22. Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Clean-up Situation ........... 102
23. Summary of Reliability for Child Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Child Directed
Interaction ....................................................................... 104
24. Summary of Reliability for Child Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Parent Directed
Interaction........................................................................ 106
25. Summary of Reliability for Child Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Clean-up Situation......... 108
26. Classification Results for the Discriminant Function Analysis for
Each Father-Child Dyad in the Total Sample................................. 110
V




27. Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Parent Verbalization Categories
for the Clinic-Referred Group.................................................. 114
28. Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Parent Verbalization Categories
for the Comparison Group....................................................... 115
29. Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Child Verbalization Categories
for the Clinic-Referred Group................................................... 116
30. Intercorrelation Matrix for DPICS II Summary Variables................... 117
vi




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE DYADIC PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION CODING SYSTEM II (DPICS II): RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY WITH FATHER-CHILD DYADS By
Rebecca Clark Foote
August 1999
Chairman: Sheila Eyberg
Major Department: Clinical and Health Psychology
The reliability and validity of the Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System II (DPICS II) with father-child dyads were assessed in the present study. The DPICS II is the revised version of a behavioral observation coding system used in research and clinical settings to describe the quality of parent-child dyadic interactions. The DPICS II contains 25 categories to code parents' and children's verbal and nonverbal behavior.
The study participants were sixty father-child dyads representing a clinic-referred group (n = 30) and a non-problem comparison group (n = 30). The children in the clinicreferred group were participants in a large treatment outcome study (_N = 100) for preschool children with behavior problems. All clinic-referred participants had met diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder. The data on the clinic-referred families used in the present study were collected as part of the families' standard initial assessment in the larger outcome study. The father-child pairs in the comparison group were recruited from the Gainesville, FL, community through advertisements. To be vii




included in the study, the children in the comparison group could not meet diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder.
The two groups were compared on several measures including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI), the Parental Locus of Control Scale Short Form (PLOC-SF), the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI), and the DPICS II behavior observations. Videotapes of the father-child dyads were coded by observers trained to use the DPICS II. The primary coders were blind to the hypotheses of this study. Thirty percent of the videotapes for each group, randomly selected, were re-coded to evaluate reliability. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlations and Cohen's kappa. Overall, the DPICS II categories were shown to have acceptable reliability estimates. Significant differences between groups were found on DPICS II variables, providing evidence for the discriminative validity of the coding system. Furthermore, the DPICS II demonstrated convergent validity by correlating significantly with scores on the ECBI, the PLOC-SF, and the parent and child scales of the PSI. Recommendations for improving DPICS II are discussed.
viii




INTRODUCTION
It has been well documented that fathers are neglected in research on
developmental psychopathology (e.g., Phares, 1996b; Phares & Compas, 1992). Following an extensive review, Phares and Compas (1992) reported that only 26% of studies of child and adolescent psychopathology included both mothers and fathers and provided separate analyses for each parent. Moreover, whereas 48% of the studies focused exclusively on mothers, only 1% focused exclusively on the role of fathers (Phares & Compas, 1992). This oversight has also been noted in the normative developmental research literature. Only 20% of the articles published in Child Development during 1990 included fathers (Russell & Radojevic, 1992).
The bias toward excluding fathers in studies of parental influence has serious
substantive and methodological implications for the understanding of family relationships and their impact on child adjustment, as well as for the development of prevention and intervention procedures. First, excluding fathers from participation does not allow for a comparison of each parent's contribution to childhood adjustment, nor for the likelihood that parental contributions are cumulative and interactive. Second, fathers' nonparticipation may generate biased data which limit their generalizability. For example, studies that have relied on mothers' reports of paternal activities and attitudes are of questionable reliability and validity. In addition, the father's presence or absence
1




2
within the family may change the quality of the mother-child relationship (Belsky, 1981; Hops et al., 1987). A number of plausible explanations for the lack of inclusion of fathers in clinical research have been offered. From a theoretical perspective, ignoring fathers' possible influence tends to focus the "blame" for children's problems on mothers (Caplan & Hall-McCorquodale, 1985; Downey & Coyne, 1991; Phares, 1992), thereby maintaining a sexist bias based on outmoded concepts of parental roles (Phares, 1992, 1996a). Research over the past two decades has shown that despite the lesser role fathers may play, at least in terms of proportional involvement, they can and do make significant contributions to the child's normal development that in some respects are very similar to the effects shown by mothers (Lamb, Pleck, & Levine; 1985; Parke, Maddonald, Beitel, & Bhavnagri, 1988). Moreover, a review of the studies with both referred and non-referred samples of fathers and children indicates that there is a substantial association between paternal factors and child and adolescent maladjustment (Phares & Compas, 1992).
Another explanation for excluding fathers in research relates to the assumption that many children, particularly those who are clinic-referred, do not have contact with their biological father (Phares & Lum, 1997). Based on the U.S. Census data, Roberts (1993) documented that 61% of children under 18 years old in the United States live with both of their biological parents. A total of 11% of children live with one biological parent and a stepparent, 24% live with their single (never married, separated, divorced, or widowed) mother, and 4% live with their single father. These figures differ according to race and ethnicity, with the most striking difference showing that 26% of African American children




3
live with both of their biological parents, 13% live in a stepfamily, 56% live with their single mother, and 4% live with their single father.
These data, however, do not tell us about how many children have relationships with their biological fathers or other father figures, even if they do not live with them. Selzer (1991) found that over 70% of children who do not live with their father have some type of contact with him. This contact often includes social contact, economic involvement, and paternal participation in childrearing decisions. Similar results have been found by Mott (1990) with the additional finding that a substantial number of children also have contact with a stable father figure other than their biological father. Phares and Lum (1997) examined whether the percentage of clinically-referred children living with only one biological parent was higher than in the general population. They found that while clinically referred children are somewhat less likely to live with both biological parents (42%), well over half of referred children have regular face-to-face contact with their fathers.
A third explanation for excluding fathers is based on the assumption that fathers are less willing than mothers to participate in research. Although one investigation found that fathers had lower rates of participation (Hops & Seeley, 1992), a review of child development studies found that fathers were no more difficult to recruit than mothers (Woolet, White, & Lyon, 1982). The latter review found that subject refusal was more related to factors such as time involvement and number of data collections than to parent gender (Woolet, White, & Lyon, 1982).




4
Overall, the data suggest that the majority of children do have relationships with their biological father or some other father figure, and that fathers play a significant role in their child's adjustment. Although father involvement is still quantitatively much less than mother involvement, the "new father" of the late 20th century is more physically and emotionally involved with his children than in previous generations (Lamb, 1986; Thompson & Walker, 1989). Many questions exist, however, regarding the exact ways fathers influence their children. Numerous researchers have noted the importance of including fathers in clinical and nonclinical research (Long, 1997; Phares & Compas, 1992; Phares & Lum, 1997), as well as in child and family therapy (e.g., Hecker, 1991; Horton, 1984; LeCroy, 1987). One important future direction called for by researchers involves the investigation of fathers' direct interactions with their children (Phares & Compas, 1992).
Direct Behavioral Observation
Direct behavioral observation measures have been called the "hallmark" of
behavioral assessment (Ciminero, 1986) and have been used widely across content areas within the field of psychology (Foster & Cone, 1986; Bornstein, Bridgwater, Hickey, & Sweeney, 1980). Because observational methods reduce the need to rely solely on selfreport, they are an important research tool in the assessment of children with behavior problems (McMahon & Forehand, 1988). Not only do children have difficulty providing accurate self-report about socially undesirable or inappropriate behavior (Hartman & Wood, 1990), but concerns have also been raised about the accuracy of parental perceptions of children's disruptive behavior (Wahler & Sansbury, 1992). For these




5
reasons, direct observation by an independent observer of children's behavior and their interactions with relevant individuals in their environment is considered to provide the most objective description of target behaviors, such as noncompliance to parental commands and the effectiveness of parents' responses (McMahon & Forehand, 1988).
Although behavioral observations were once seen as inherently objective and valid, it is now agreed that there are measurement issues related to aspects of observational methodology that can lead to confounds in the data collected, thereby generating invalid results (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995). A basic requirement of an observational system is that it be both reliable and valid. Furthermore, a system's utility is enhanced if it provides normative data and is clinically practical. Reliability
Reliability traditionally refers to consistency in measurement, or the extent to
which a person's score, using the same assessment device, remains constant under varying conditions (Anastasi, 1988). From this perspective, agreement between two observers, identically trained using the same coding system and observing the same situation, can be viewed as a measure of consistency.
Numerous methods of assessing interobserver agreement have been developed over the past 50 years. Only a subset of methods, however, dominate the behavioral literature (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995). One of the most easily calculated indices involves computing the percent of agreements out of the total number of agreements and disagreements. Unfortunately, because this method does not control for chance levels of agreement between observers, it is regarded by some as the least desirable of the reliability




6
estimates (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986; Jacob, Tennenbaum, & Krahn, 1987). Users of observation systems are more frequently advocating the use of the kappa statistic than percent agreement because kappa corrects for chance agreement (Hops, Davis, and Longoria, 1995; Suen & Ary, 1989). Kappa is defined as the ratio of actual nonchance agreements divided by the total possible nonchance agreements (Suen & Ary, 1989). The range of possible kappa values extends from 1.00 to 1.00. As the values approach zero and negative numbers, reliability is considered to be at chance levels of agreement or lower. Kappa values above .75 are considered excellent, values from .60 to .75 are considered good, and values from .40 to .60 are considered fair (Fleiss, 1981).
Considered the most comprehensive estimate of reliability, the intraclass
correlation coefficient method utilizes the procedures of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and incorporates tests of both interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Factors are tested for their ability to explain variance in the dependent variables of interest. When behavior is observed across several observers and subjects, the variance in the behavioral scores can be examined for differences among observers (an unwanted source of variance), differences among subjects (true score variance), and random error. Overall, intraclass correlations have been described in positive terms and are seen as broadening the scope of analysis for reliability studies (Hartmann & Wood, 1990). Validity
In addition to establishing consistency in the coding of observational data, an assessment device must be shown to measure what it purports to measure. Hops et al. (1995) discuss the concept of validity as it applies to direct observation. Estimates of




7
observer accuracy based on observer agreement with a preestablished criterion, such as a standard protocol, is one form of establishing validity. Evidence of criterion-related validity is also important and can be demonstrated by relating the observations to data collected by alternate methods either at the same point in time (i.e., concurrent validity) or at some point in the future (i.e., predictive validity). Convergent validity describes the correlation between the observed data and measures that are expected to relate, whereas discriminant validity describes the correlation between the observed data and measures that are not expected to relate. Discriminantive validity, in contrast, identifies differences between groups of individuals whose dissimilarities are established by other criteria.
Other forms of validity related to the construction of the coding system also need to be considered. Content validity applies to the adequacy of the sample of behavioral codes. If the sample of behavior is incomplete, does not reflect the intended use of the data, or is not theoretically based, then the data's relation to an alternative measure of that behavior is minimized. Construct validity is a broad concept that refers to the extent to which a measure reflects the construct of interest. Construct validity becomes an issue when individual codes are collapsed into larger clusters. Codes can be combined that (a) are assumed a priori to be part of a specific response class, (b) are demonstrated to have similarities in their functional relations, or (c) are demonstrated by factor analysis (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995).
Factors Affecting the Reliability and Validity of Observational Systems
Variables related to the design of the coding system, the coding procedure, and the training of observers affect the reliability and validity of the data collected (Johnson &




8
Bolstad, 1973). Specifically, factors such as the complexity of the coding system (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995; Jones, Reid, & Patterson, 1974; Kazdin, 1977; Mash & McElwee, 1974), the frequency of occurrence of behaviors (Hartmann, 1977), observer expectancies (Kazdin, 1977), observer drift (Johnson & Bolstad, 1973), and subject reactivity (Johnson & Boldstad, 1973) all have an impact on the interpretability of observational data. Behavioral observation coding systems need to incorporate and account for these influences.
Standardization
In addition to being reliable and valid, observational systems must be adequately standardized (Ciminero & Drabman, 1987; Goldfried, 1979). The absence of normative data has been a problem for direct observation systems, particularly as their use has increased (Ciminero & Drabman, 1987). Without normative data, one cannot assess the degree to which a parent's or child's behavior is outside of normal limits nor does one have a criterion to evaluate treatment effectiveness (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981). Practicality
Concerns regarding the practicality of direct observation, particularly in clinical
settings, have been raised (Mash & Terdal, 1988). While direct observation in naturalistic settings, such as the home or school, is thought to be too time consuming for typical clinical applications, observation in analogue situations is thought to yield information about behavior that may not be generalizable to more relevant settings. Structured behavioral observations in the laboratory setting have been proposed as an effective alternative because they can efficiently elicit the target behaviors and can facilitate




9
comparison of behavior across participants (Hughes & Haynes, 1978). In terms of the practicality of the actual system, elaborate equipment, auxiliary coders, home visits, or lengthy observational periods should not be required (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981). Finally, to be useful for researchers and clinicians who evaluate and treat child behavior problems, an observational system should accomplish the following goals: (1) describe maladaptive parent-child interactions, (2) define the child behavior(s) targeted for change, (3) specify the appropriate treatment intervention, and (4) evaluate the effects of the intervention (Roberts & Forehand, 1978).
Characteristics of Children with Externalizing Problems and Their Families
Children diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder demonstrate a "recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures," according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Learning Disorders, and Communication Disorders often co-occur in children diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (APA, 1994). Familial and Environmental Factors
Familial and environmental factors have been found to be associated with
Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Marital discord and parental psychopathology (e.g., maternal depression, parental history of behavior problems, and parental AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) are more commonly found in families with a child diagnosed with this disorder (APA, 1994; Dumas & Serketich, 1994; Griest & Forehand,




10
1982). In a non-referred sample of boys and girls, the intensity of child behavior problems was negatively correlated with parental alliance regarding parenting issues (Bearss & Eyberg, 1998). In a sample of primarily boys, Reeves et al. (1987) found that fathers of children with Conduct Disorder, a severe form of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, were more likely to be alcoholic or have antisocial personality disorder than fathers of normal children.
Fathers of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder have been found to differ from fathers of normal control children on a variety of characteristics, such as attention span (Alberts-Corush, Firestone, & Goodman, 1986), behavioral interactions (Tallmadge & Barkley, 1983), perceptions of parenting behavior and parental self-esteem (Margalit, 1985; Mash & Johnston, 1983), and expectations for future compliant child behavior (Sobol, Ashbourne, Earn, & Cunningham, 1989). In a sample of twins with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, high paternal criticism and high paternal malaise were associated with father ratings of their children's hyperactive behavior (Goodman & Stevenson, 1989). Additionally, Margalit (1985) found that life satisfaction of boys with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder was most strongly predicted by paternal support, followed by paternal discipline, paternal indulgence, and maternal support. Few differences in emotional functioning and psychological symptoms have been found between fathers of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and fathers of normal control children (Cunningham, Benness, & Siegal, 1988; Reeves, Weey, Elkind, & Zametkin, 1987).




Numerous studies have shown a link between paternal factors and delinquency.
Such factors have included: lack of paternal supervision and discipline along with a history of paternal criminality (Loeber, 1990; Loeber & Dishion, 1983); inconsistent family communication patterns (Lessin & Jacob, 1984); high amounts of paternal defensive communication in a competitive context (Alexander, Waldron, Barton, & Mas, 1989); and conflictual, unaffectionate father-son relations (Borduin, Pruitt, & Henggeler, 1986; Hanson, Henggeler, Haefele, & Rodick, 1984).
Where comparison data are available, father and mother scores on broad measures of child-related stress typically have not differed in families of preschool-aged children with normal development or a range of developmental disabilities (Cameron, Dobson, & Day, 1991; Hagborg, 1989; Kazak, 1987; Perry, Sarlo-McGarvey, & Factor, 1992; Weinhouse & Nelson, 1992; Wolf, Noh, Fishman, & Speechley, 1989). Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, Boggs, & Algina (1998) found that although fathers of conduct-disordered preschoolers reported less parent-related stress than mothers, their child-related stress scores were elevated in the clinical range and comparable to mothers' scores. Similarly, Baker and Heller (1996) found that fathers reported elevated stress levels when their child's externalizing problems were in the severe range.
Webster-Stratton (1988) found that fathers' self-reported depression, poor marital adjustment, and negative life events were unrelated to fathers' behavior with their children, whereas maternal self-reported personal adjustment was significantly related to a high number of maternal criticisms and physically negative behaviors with their children. Christensen et al. (1983) found, however, that fathers' personal discomfort was negatively




12
related to a positive approach with children and positively related to intolerance of their children's negative behaviors.
Socioeconomic disadvantage has also been identified as a characteristic of a subset of families in which a child is clinic-referred for significant behavior problems. Dodge, Pettit, and Bates (1994) found in a sample of 585 children followed from kindergarten to third grade that there was a linear relationship between the risk of developing behavior problems and lower SES. Dumas (1984) found that, in a treatment outcome study of a clinic-referred sample of children with behavior problems, a significant portion of the families (approximately 50%) were classified in the high socio-economic disadvantage range.
The relationship between these familial and environmental stressors and the
development of behavior problems has yet to be determined. However, Dumas's (1984) work indicated that specific interaction patterns differentiated mothers with lower socioeconomic status from those with higher socioeconomic status which may account for the greater numbers of lower status families in clinic-referred groups. Additionally, there is clear evidence that fathers' interaction styles are influenced by their socioeconomic circumstances (Radin & Epstein, 1975; Roberts, 1987). Mother-Child Interactions
Specific behaviors and interaction patterns have also been found to distinguish
children with significant behavior problems from non-referred children. The vast majority of literature on parent-child interactions has focused on the mother-child dyad. Although a variety of behavioral coding systems have been employed to study children with




13
behavioral problems and their mothers, several distinguishing features of these dyads have been consistently found. The most frequently replicated feature that separates the behavior of children with significant behavior problems from normal children is their rate of noncompliance. In a survey of 43 studies of home observations with conduct disordered children, 77% of the studies used coding systems that included some measure of compliance/noncompliance (McIntyre, Bornstein, Isaacs, & Woody, 1983). In the studies that included a normal comparison group, compliance was found to be significantly different between conduct-disordered and the control children. Griest, Forehand, Wells, and McMahon (1980) found that percent compliance to maternal "alpha" commands (i.e., commands for motoric behavior for which the child has an opportunity to comply) for clinic-referred children was 79.8% compared to 86.2% for the non-referred children (p <.05). Similarly, Robinson and Eyberg (1981) found that children referred for behavior problems had 48% compliance to commands compared to 62% compliance for nonreferred children (p <.01). Bessmer (1996) found that clinic-referred children were compliant with 53% of total maternal commands compared to the non-referred group who were compliant with 75% of total maternal commands (p <.001). In spite of the different methods used to measure compliance, in each of these studies the compliance ratios were significantly different.
Their rate of inappropriate behaviors is another distinguishing feature of children with behavior problems. Robinson and Eyberg (1981) found that the children with behavior problems were more likely to whine and yell than non-referred children. Other investigators have also documented significant differences in the frequency of whining




14
between groups (McIntyre et al., 1983; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975). Robinson and Eyberg (1981) found that total inappropriate behaviors (i.e., cry, whine, yell, smart talk, destructive) were 1.16 in ten minutes for normal children and 6.65 in ten minutes for behavior problem children. Forster, Eyberg, and Burns (1990) found that children with conduct problem behavior issued more commands during the Child Directed Interaction (CDI) than non-referred children. Children who issue numerous commands during play may appear "bossy" to others, which could have a negative impact on the child's social interactions (Forster et al., 1990). Bessmer (1996) found that clinic-referred children averaged approximately 31 inappropriate behaviors in the 15-minute observation period while the non-referred children engaged in an average of 10 inappropriate behaviors in the same length of time.
The findings related to whether children with behavior problems display fewer
prosocial behaviors compared to normal children are mixed. Lobitz and Johnson (1975) found that the proportion of child positive valence behaviors (i.e., laugh, approval, attention, talk, nonverbal interaction, and independent activity) to total child behavior discriminated between children with and without behavior problems. Forster et al. (1990) noted that children with behavior problems were less likely to use positive verbalizations, such as praise of the parent. However, Patterson (1976) did not find codable differences in the prosocial behaviors of conduct-problem children. Bessmer (1996) found that clinicreferred and non-referred children did not differ in prosocial behaviors when they interacted with their mothers.




15
Two types of verbal behavior have been found to consistently characterize mothers of children with behavior problems. First, mothers of children referred for behavior problems give more commands than mothers of normal children (Bessmer, 1996; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981; Rogers, Forehand, & Griest, 1981; WebsterStratton, 1985). Webster-Stratton (1985) found that mothers of clinic-referred children were more likely than mothers of non-referred children to give both indirect (e.g., "will you pick up the toys?) and direct commands (e.g., "pick up the toys."), and to repeat commands before the child had sufficient opportunity to comply. Bessmer (1996) found that mothers of children with behavior problems used significantly more commands and that a higher percentage of those commands were direct.
In addition, mothers of clinic-referred children have been found to engage in more negative verbal behavior than mothers of non-referred children. Specifically, mothers of clinic-referred children issue significantly more critical statements (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981; Bessmer, 1996; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981; Webster-Stratton, 1985). Lobitz and Johnson (1975) found that parents of referred children differed significantly from parents of non-referred children on a summary variable of negative behaviors (i.e., threatening commands, negative commands, disapproval, ignoring, and physical negative).
Bessmer (1996) found that mothers of normal children engaged in more prosocial behaviors (Answer, Acknowledgment, Behavioral and Information Descriptions, Laugh, Labeled and Unlabeled Praise, Reflections, and Physical Positive) than mothers of clinicreferred children. The non-referred mothers issued an average of 121 (SD = 34.6) prosocial behaviors during 15 minutes of observation, while the clinic-referred mothers




16
issued an average of 93 (SD = 29). This finding, however, has not been consistently demonstrated in other studies comparing referred and non-referred groups. Griest, Forehand, Wells, and McMahon (1980) found no differences between groups of mothers on total positive attention and contingent positive attention. Webster-Stratton (1985) found that Praise was significantly different between clinic and non-clinic groups of mothers, but found no differences between groups on Questions, Physical Positives, and Descriptive and Reflective Comments.
Overall, these studies suggest that children with behavior problems have
significantly higher rates of noncompliance and inappropriate behavior, and emit fewer prosocial behaviors when observed with their mothers. In addition, mothers of children with behavior problems issue significantly more commands and negative verbalizations, such as criticism.
Father-Child Interactions
In the first observational study of conduct-disordered children that included both mothers and fathers and analyzed them separately, few and relatively small differences were found between fathers and mothers in their interactions with their young children (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981). Like mothers, fathers of conduct problem children issued more direct commands than fathers of normal children. Fathers, however, tended to be even more directive and give more indirect commands than mothers when they were instructed to let their child lead the play. Similar to mothers, fathers of clinic-referred children issued significantly more critical statements than fathers of non-referred children. In addition, the clinic-referred children engaged in higher rates of deviant and




17
noncompliant behavior with their fathers than normal children. A more recent observational study (Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997) also found that disruptive preschool boys were more likely to make negative elicitations and show negative affect with their fathers than comparison boys.
In a study that compared the interactions of hyperactive and normal boys with their mothers and fathers (Tallmadge & Barkley, 1983), both mothers and fathers of hyperactive boys gave more commands and asked more questions than mothers and fathers of normal boys. When compared with parents of normal children, parents of hyperactive boys became more directive and controlling with their sons when the situation moved from free play to the task condition.
Despite the dearth of research on father-child interactions in clinic-referred
samples, the developmental literature has extensively studied the interactions of fathers and normal children. The bulk of research has failed to identify stylistic differences between mothers and fathers, using a variety of measures. For example, a number of studies following parent-infant interaction into the preschool period (Pederson, 1980) revealed many more similarities between parents than differences. Clarke-Stewart (1980) found that the quality of father-child interaction was equivalent to that of mothers and children as measured by parental responsiveness, stimulation, affection, and teaching. Pakizegi's (1978) observations ofthree-year-olds with their parents identified a typical pattern. Adults' play with preschoolers tended to support the child's activities, in exploring toys or developing lines of play. The child's approach to each parent consisted of a large proportion of requests for information or requests for action (38% of all child




18
actions), and a fair amount of"bossing" the parent. More recent research has tended to confirm the similarity between parents of normal children in the nurturance they report (Bentley & Fox, 1991), their disciplinary regimes (Hart, de Wolfe, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992), and their teaching styles in various observational settings (Worden, Kee, & Ingle, 1987).
Behavioral observation systems intended to assess parent-child interactions of children with conduct problems should include categories known to differ between children with and without clinically significant behavior problems. In addition, these systems should include categories known to differ between parents, both mothers and fathers, of conduct problem children and normal children.
The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System
The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg & Robinson, 1983) is a widely used system that allows for efficient direct observation of parent-child interactions in a standardized laboratory setting using a reliable and valid method. Designed for both research and clinical purposes, the system was intended to provide practicing clinicians with a manageable and practical way to measure pre- and posttreatment changes as well as on-going treatment progress. Simultaneously, the DPICS was intended to provide researchers with a reliable and valid system that measures behaviors with sufficient detail and specificity to advance our knowledge in the assessment and treatment of behaviorally disordered children.
Some of the basic categories of the DPICS, such as direct and indirect commands, labeled and unlabeled praise, physical positive and negative, and critical statements, were




19
originally derived from the Hanf (1968) and Patterson (1969) coding systems. Additional categories including descriptive statements, acknowledgments, and irrelevant verbalizations were included in the DPICS to allow for continuous coding of all parental verbal behaviors. The system also contained categories to assess children's inappropriate behaviors (e.g., yell, whine, cry, destructive, and smart talk). Two sequences of behaviors were coded: (a) the parent's response to inappropriate child behavior, and (b) the child's response to parental commands (i.e., compliance, noncompliance, or no opportunity for compliance). The coding system was gradually developed and improved using feedback from users of the system from 1974 until its publication in 1983. The 1983 version contains a total of 22 parent and child behavior categories (Appendix A, Table 8).
DPICS observations are typically conducted in a laboratory or clinic setting. For laboratory observation, the parent-child pair is observed from behind a one-way mirror while they play with a standard set of toys selected to encourage positive, interactive play. The parent-child dyads are observed during three standard DPICS situations designed to assess the quality of the parent and child's social interactions. Each situation differs both in the amount of parental control required and the demand placed on the child for compliance.
In the first situation, called the Child-Directed Interaction (CDI), the parent is
instructed to follow the child's lead during play. CDI is intended to place little demand on the child for compliance and to offer the parent opportunities to provide the child with positive attention (e.g., descriptions, praises, answers). If the parent is successful in




20
following the child's lead in play, little child noncompliance and inappropriate behavior are expected to occur in CDI.
In the second situation, the Parent-Directed Interaction (PDI), the parent is instructed to lead the play and attempt to get the child to follow his/her rules. In this situation, the observers assess the parent's ability to direct their child and gain the child's cooperation. Because the PDI situation increases the amount of parental control, it provides observers with an opportunity to evaluate the child's response to directions (e.g., compliance, inappropriate behavior).
In the third situation, Clean-up (CU), the parent is instructed to get the child to pick up the toys without assistance and put them into their respective containers. The Clean-up situation requires the highest level of parental control. Unlike the first two play situations, Clean-up is a task situation in which parents are expected to direct their children using commands and directive information descriptions to inform the child of the task demands. This situation provides opportunities to assess the parent's success in gaining compliance from the child, to assess inappropriate behavior in response to parental demands, and to assess compliance to the commands. The parents' use of praise and positive attention for compliance can also be evaluated.
The total time required for comprehensive baseline and post-treatment observation of a parent-child dyad is approximately 25 minutes. The CDI and PDI situations each last approximately 10 minutes. The first five minutes of each of the two play situations is used as a warm-up and transition period, and the last five minutes in each of the two play situations is coded. Because cleaning up the toys may not require more than a few




21
minutes with a compliant child, the initial five minutes of the CU situation is coded, after which the observation session can be terminated.
Coding of the dyad may be conducted "live" with the observer coding during the actual observation period. Clinicians may prefer to use selected categories when coding "live" to assess behaviors targeted for change. Alternatively, the parent-child interactions can be videotaped and coded at a later date. The latter method is recommended for research purposes.
In Robinson & Eyberg's (1981) study to standardize and validate the DPICS, parent-child dyads were observed in the two play situations, CDI and PDI. The standardization sample consisted of 20 families (11 fathers) who had been referred to a university child psychology clinic for treatment of behavior problems and 22 control families (16 fathers) recruited from the community. The mean interrater reliability coefficient for parent behaviors was .91 (range = .67-1.00) and for the child behaviors was .92 (range = .76 1.00). In a discriminant analysis, the DPICS variables were found to classify correctly 94% of the families into either the clinic-referred or non-referred group. The DPICS variables also accounted for 61% of the variance in parental reports of their children's behavior at home on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). Thus, the DPICS has demonstrated reliability and validity as an observational system for children with behavior problems. The results of the study suggested that there are few and relatively small differences between fathers and mothers in their interactions with their young children. Children were equally compliant and exhibited similar rates of deviant behavior with parents of either sex in the playroom




22
observations. Mothers consistently gave more praise than fathers during CDI, whereas fathers tended to be more directive and give more indirect commands in CDI. There were no differences in parental behavior with boys and girls, nor were there differential rates of deviance or noncompliance between boys and girls.
Since its development, the DPICS has been widely used both clinically and in
research to describe parent-child interactions. For example, the DPICS has been used to distinguish parent-child interactions of mothers of neglected children, children with behavior problems, and normal control children (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981) and abusive and nonabusive families (Webster-Stratton, 1985). Furthermore, DPICS has been employed as a measure of pre- to post-treatment changes for children with behavior problems (Eyberg & Robinson, 1982; Eyberg & Matarazzo, 1980; Eisenstadt, Eyberg, McNeil, Newcomb, & Funderburk, 1993; Webster-Stratton, 1985; Zangwill, 1984). The system continued to be evaluated and refined by its users. Wruble, Sheeber, Sorenson, et al. (1991) evaluated the procedure for coding child compliance, verifying the use of the five-second interval for compliance through observation of compliance times in nonreferred children.
Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II
Recently, the DPICS has been expanded and revised. The new version, DPICS II, shares many similarities with the original system including use of the same observation procedures (i.e., CDI, PDI, and CU) and retention of many of the original categories (Eyberg, Bessmer, Newcomb, Edwards, & Robinson, 1994). The expanded version contains twenty-five categories for child behavior and twenty-seven categories for parent




23
behavior (Appendix B). The DPICS II differs from the previous version in two major ways. First, the rules or guidelines for coding behaviors have been clarified and expanded upon based on feedback from users of the DPICS. In the manual for DPICS II, the descriptions of the categories are followed by more detailed guidelines to facilitate accurate coding and by a greater variety of examples of parent and child behaviors to illustrate the coding principles. Attempts have been made by the authors to operationalize the coding criteria to a greater degree to reduce and/or eliminate subjective judgments by the coders. For verbalizations, coding rules were often based on grammatical properties of the words used rather than on assumptions about the intended meaning of the words. For vocalizations and nonverbal behaviors, the coding rules were designed to provide sufficient observable behavioral criteria to facilitate reliable coding.
The second major change involved the addition of several behavioral categories and the removal of several other categories. Table 9 in Appendix A lists the original categories of the DPICS along with the categories that have been added in DPICS II. While the DPICS focused on behaviors that seemed most salient for assessment and treatment (i.e., frequency of the child's inappropriate behaviors, frequency of parents' praise, commands, and criticism), in the DPICS II, the categories for child and parent behaviors have been designed to be reflexive, in that the same verbal and motor behaviors are coded for both the parent and child. Although this change greatly expands the total number of categories in the system, the reflexive nature of the parent and child categories enables coders to learn one set of rules for the categories which then apply to both the parent and child behaviors.




24
By allowing coding of the same behaviors for parents and children, DPICS II may be a more useful research and clinical tool. It is possible for clinicians and researchers to use the DPICS II to describe behaviors within the interaction that may elicit or maintain the children's behavior problems and assess changes in these behaviors during and after treatment. For example, parents' modeling of inappropriate behaviors may be associated with the children's use of these inappropriate behaviors. Specifically, parents' use of critical statements and smart talk may be associated with higher levels of criticisms, smart talk, whine, and yell in their children.
The DPICS II may also be useful in assessing socially appropriate behaviors.
Because children with behavior problems have been found to be less socially competent than non-referred children (La Freniere, Dumas, Capuano, & Dubeau, 1992), categories for coding child appropriate verbalizations are included to allow researchers and clinicians to use the DPICS II to examine the child behaviors related to prosocial skills.
Several new categories have been added to the original system, and others have been divided into smaller units. The DPICS categories of Descriptive Statements and Descriptive/Reflective Questions have each been divided into two categories. The subdivision of the original categories was intended to capture differences in the directiveness and/or attentiveness communicated in the verbalization. The Descriptive Statements category was divided into Behavioral Descriptions (i.e., statements that follow the other person by directly describing the on-going or immediately completed behavior of the other member of the dyad) and Information Descriptions (i.e., statements that describe aspects of the play situation (e.g., toys, feelings, behaviors of the speaker) that need not be




25
related to the behavior of the other member of the dyad). The DPICS category of Descriptive/Reflective Question has also been divided into two types of questions: (a) Information Questions that request a verbal response from the listener that is more than an acknowledgment, and (b) Descriptive/Reflective Questions that require no more than a brief verbal acknowledgment from the listener.
The Question categories were divided to enable separate recordings of
components of interactions that may be directive or coercive and have a higher likelihood of eliciting noncompliance or inappropriate behavior in children. The division of these categories is intended to allow researchers and clinicians to examine further the maladaptive interactions that distinguish children with behavior problems and their parents from families in which these difficulties are not reported.
DPICS II permits several additional sequences to be measured in the interaction. Parental Labeled Praise following child Compliance to Commands is now coded as Contingent Labeled Praise, and whether a question requesting information has been answered appropriately or not can also be recorded. This sequential information may be helpful in determining the amount of reciprocity in the dyad and may be a feature of parent-child dyads that distinguishes clinic-referred families from normal families.
Finally, several categories contained in the original system have been removed.
Reasons for removing the categories included poor interobserver agreement, infrequency of the behavior and lack of utility of the category. Parent categories that are no longer contained in the system are Irrelevant Verbalization, Responds to (child) Deviant, Ignores (child) Deviant. Child categories that have been eliminated are Change Activity and Cry.




26
In addition to research applications, the DPICS II is helpful in clinical settings as a way to monitor parents' use of effective verbal behaviors frequently taught in behavior management treatment programs for young children. Both DPICS and DPICS II have been used to monitor and assess Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), a parent training program designed to treat children with behavior problems and their parents (Hembree-Kigin & McNeil, 1995).
A basic requirement of an observational system of conduct-disordered children is that it be both reliable and valid. In addition, such a system must discriminate normal from conduct problem families. Normative data are essential in that they provide diagnostic information as well as a basis against which to evaluate treatment outcome.
Bessmer (1996) examined the reliability and validity of the research version of
DPICS II by comparing videotaped interactions of mother-child dyads in which the child was referred to a psychology clinic for behavior problems and diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder to non-referred mother-child dyads. The study participants were 60 mother-child dyads representing a clinic-referred group (n11 = 30) and a nonproblem comparison group (n = 30). The children in the clinic-referred group were participants in a large treatment outcome study (N = 100) for preschool children with behavior problems. The two groups were compared on several measures including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1995), the Parenting Locus of Control Scale (PLOC; Campis, Lyman, & Prentice-Dunn, 1986), and the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg, 1999), as well as the DPICS II behavioral observations. Reliability was assessed using percent agreement, intraclass correlations, and Cohen's kappa. Overall, the




27
DPICS II categories were shown to have acceptable reliability estimates. The DPICS II also demonstrated convergent validity by accounting for a significant proportion of the variance in the scores on the ECBI, the PLOC, and the parent and child scales of the PSI. In addition, significant differences in the expected direction were found on all of the DPICS II summary variables with the exception of child Prosocial Behavior. Finally, a discriminant function analysis was performed on selected DPICS II summary variables (i.e., child Compliance, child Prosocial Behavior, child Inappropriate Behavior, parent Total Command, parent Prosocial Behavior, parent Direct Command Ratio, and parent Inappropriate Behavior) to demonstrate that these variables could distinguish between the clinic and nonclinic samples. The DPICS II summary variables resulted in an overall correct classification rate of 86.6%. It is noteworthy that the correct classification rate was not altered when SES was entered into the analysis.
Specific Aims
The specific aims of this study were to investigate whether the DPICS II is a
reliable and valid tool for assessing father-child interactions; to provide normative data on father-child interactions for DPICS II; and to further our understanding of father-child interactions in families of normal and conduct-disordered children. This was accomplished by comparing self-report measures and videotaped interactions of non-referred father-child dyads to father-child dyads in which the child was referred to a psychology clinic for behavior problems and diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Reliability was assessed using kappa estimates and intraclass correlations. Discriminative validity was examined by evaluating the degree to which the DPICS II categories discriminate between




28
clinic-referred and non-referred dyads. In addition, the association of the DPICS II categories with the ECBI (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999), the PSI (Abidin, 1995), and the Parental Locus of Control Scale-Short Form (PLOC-SF; Rayfield, Eyberg, Boggs, & Roberts, 1995), measures which have been shown to discriminate between clinic-referred and non-referred children when completed by their mothers, were used to demonstrate the convergent validity of the coding system for use in evaluating children with behavior problems and their fathers.
Hypotheses
Based upon the previous study which used DPICS with conduct-disordered children and their fathers (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981), those studies using DPICS and DPICS II with conduct disordered children and their mothers (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981; Bessmer, 1996; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981; Webster-Stratton, 1985), and the study comparing fathers of hyperactive and normal boys (Tallmadge & Barkley, 1983), the following hypotheses were made:
1. Father-child interactions can be reliably coded using the DPICS II, as measured by Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlations.
2. The DPICS II will demonstrate discriminative validity for use with children with behavior problems and their fathers. When compared to non-referred children:
a. Children who have been referred for behavior problems will have a significantly lower compliance ratio.




29
b. The referred children will have significantly higher frequencies on the summary variable, Total Inappropriate Behavior (Criticism + Whine + Yell + Smart Talk).
c. The referred children will demonstrate fewer prosocial behaviors; specifically, they will have a lower rate of Total Prosocial Behavior (Answer + Acknowledgment + Behavioral Description + Laugh + Information Description + Praise + Physical Positive). d. Fathers of children with behavior problems will have a higher total number of commands and a higher direct command ratio (Direct Commands / Indirect + Direct Commands) than fathers of nonreferred children.
e. In addition, fathers of clinic-referred children will display
significantly fewer Total Prosocial Behaviors (Acknowledgment + Answer + Behavioral Description + Information Description + Laugh + Praise + Physical Positive + Reflection) than fathers of non-referred children.
f Fathers of the clinic-referred children will demonstrate significantly more Inappropriate Behavior (Criticism/Smart Talk) than fathers of non-referred children.
2. The DPICS II categories and summary variables of Child Compliance, Child Inappropriate Behavior, Child Prosocial Behavior, Father Inappropriate Behavior, Father Direct Command Ratio, and Father Total Commands will together correctly classify dyads




30
into their respective groups (i.e., clinic-referred and non-referred) in a discriminant function analysis.
3. The DPICS II categories and summary variables of child Compliance, child Inappropriate Behavior, child Prosocial Behavior, father Inappropriate Behavior, father Direct Command Ratio, and father Total Commands will demonstrate convergent validity by each correlating significantly with ECBI intensity scores.
4. The DPICS II categories and summary variables for child behavior (i.e., Compliance, Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior) will each demonstrate convergent validity by correlating significantly with Child Domain score on the PSI. The DPICS II summary variables for father behavior (i.e., Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior, Direct Command Ratio, and Total Commands) will each demonstrate convergent validity by correlating significantly with the Parent Domain score on the PSI.
5. The DPICS II categories and summary variables for fathers (i.e., Direct Command Ratio, Total Commands, Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior) will each demonstrate convergent validity by correlating significantly with PLOC-SF total scores.




METHODS
Participants
Two groups of 30 father-child dyads, a clinic-referred group and a non-referred comparison group, participated in the study. All dyads met the following inclusion criteria: 1) The child was between 3.0 and 7.0 years old; 2) English was the primary language spoken in the home; 3) The father and child had no history of mental retardation; 4) The child's receptive vocabulary skills were at or above a standard score of 70 as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981), with no apparent speech delay.
The 30 father-child pairs comprising the clinic-referred group were selected from a sample that was referred to the Child Study Laboratory at the University of Florida Health Sciences Center for treatment of the children's externalizing behavior problems. The children and their parents had been assessed in the Child Study Laboratory for inclusion in a treatment outcome study (Schuhmann et al., 1998). Children included in the clinicreferred group had met diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder based on their parent's responses to a structured interview designed to yield DSM-Im-R diagnoses. Parents signed a standard consent form indicating that information about their family would be used for research purposes, and data used in this study were routinely collected as part of the standard procedures for all families being assessed for inclusion in the larger treatment outcome study. To be included in the present study, the father-child 31




32
dyads had to have complete data sets. Of the 37 eligible dyads, 30 were randomly selected to participate in this study.
The normal comparison group consisted of 30 father-child pairs recruited from the Gainesville, Florida community. Advertisements were placed in Shands Hospital at the University of Florida, recreational areas and community centers, preschools, churches, automotive centers, the local newspaper, and a cable television bulletin board. Of the 30 participants, 11 responded to the newspaper or television advertisement, 10 responded to fliers placed in Shands Hospital, and the remaining nine responded to fliers placed elsewhere in the community. To be eligible for the study, the children met the inclusion criteria described for the clinic-referred sample. Unlike the clinic-referred sample, however, they did not meet criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder as determined by their fathers' responses to the DSM-IIIR structured interview. Of the 39 fathers who responded to advertisements about the study, three declined to participate, two did not show up for their appointments, three were screened out due to the age of the child (> 7.0 years), and one was screened out due to a significant speech delay. Additional demographic descriptors of the families were collected to describe the families, including child ethnicity/race, paternal age, paternal level of education and occupation, average annual income, and marital status.
The normal comparison group was balanced with the clinic group only for sex of the child. Otherwise, the comparison group was not formally matched to the clinicreferred group. To ensure that there were no significant demographic differences between the two groups, independent samples t tests or chi-square tests were performed. There




33
were no statistically significant differences between groups on any of the demographic variables. The only statistically significant difference between the groups that was found was on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981), the measure used to screen for delay in receptive vocabulary. The clinic-referred children received a mean score of 92.6 (SD = 14.8), and the children in the comparison group received a mean score of 102.9 (SD = 17.3).
The children in the clinic-referred group ranged in age from three years, four
months to six years, 11 months, with a mean age of five years, two months (SD = 1 year,
1 month). The children in the comparison group ranged in age from three years, one month to six years, 11 months, with a mean age of four years, nine months. The clinicreferred group consisted on 23 males and seven females, and the comparison group consisted of 22 males and eight females. In the clinic-referred group, there were 25 Caucasian children and five children of color. Of the minority children, two were African American, one was biracial and was being raised by Caucasian grandparents, one child was Hispanic, and one child was of Asian descent but was being raised by Caucasian parents. In the comparison group, 23 children were Caucasian, and seven children were of color. Of the minority children, two were African American, four were biracial (two had Hispanic mothers and Caucasian fathers, and two had African American fathers and Caucasian mothers), and one child was of Indian descent. A summary of the demographic information collected on the participant families is presented in Table 1.




34
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Variable Clinic-referred Comparison (n = 30) (n = 30)
Sex of child (% male) 76% 73% Child race (%)
Caucasian 83% 77% African American 7% 7% Other 10% 16% Mean child age (months) 62.0 57.0 PPVT- R standard score'
M 92.6 102.9 SD 14.8 17.3 Family composition (%)
Two-parent home 93% 87% Single-parent home(s) 7% 13% Paternal age (years) 36.7 36.8 Paternal education (years) 13.8 14.8 SESb
M 41.8 44.0 SD 11.5 13.0 Note. PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). b SES = Socioeconomic status according to the Hollingshead (1975) Index. p < .05.
The families' socioeconomic status (SES) was calculated using Hollingshead's
Four Factor Index (Hollingshead, 1975), which yields a score based on parents' education,




35
occupation, sex, and marital status. The mean SES for clinic-referred families was 41.8 (D = 11.5) and ranged from 19.5 to 66.0. The mean SES for comparison families was 44.0 (D = 13.0) and ranged from 22 to 66. Means for both the clinic-referred and the comparison group fell within Hollingshead's (1975) Class II category, described as medium business, minor professional, and technical workers.
Fathers in both groups had typically graduated from high school and completed some college. In the clinic-referred group, 28 fathers were married and two fathers were single. Of the single fathers, one was sharing custody with the child's mother, and one was the child's primary caregiver. In the comparison group, 26 fathers were married, three were divorced, and one was single. Of the four unmarried fathers, three were primary caregivers and one was sharing custody of the child.
Measures
Screening Measures
Demographic
Demographic data was collected via a standard form. Fathers were asked to provide basic demographic information of family members including sex, age, race, occupation, and education level.
DSM-IV
The DSM-IV Structured Interview was conducted with fathers to determine whether children met the DSM-IV criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (APA, 1994). In the interview, parents are asked to describe their child's behavior in terms of the symptoms that comprise Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Parents report the duration of




36
symptoms and whether they occur rarely, occasionally, pretty often, or very often; a child is considered to display a particular symptom only if the parent indicates that it occurs pretty often or very often, and diagnoses are made according to whether the child demonstrates the minimum number of symptoms specified in the DSM-IV for the disorder. High levels of interrater agreement (> 98%) on diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder using the DSM-III-R criteria in an identical structured format have been found (McNeil et al., 1991; Schuhmann et al., 1998). Interrater reliability was assessed for this measure by comparing the interview checklist data collected by the primary interviewer with that generated by an independent observer (an undergraduate assistant). The assistant scored the interview from a videotape. Interrater agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements. Agreement was defined as exact correspondence between the two observers on binary decisions (e.g., has the duration of problem behavior been at least 6 months?) and as both observers scoring the occurrence of individual symptoms as present (i.e., rated as occurring pretty often or very often) or absent (i.e., rated as occurring rarely or occasionally). According to the above definition, interrater reliability was calculated as 100% on diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test --Revised (PPVT-R: Dunn & Dunn, 1981)
The PPVT-R is a measure of receptive vocabulary for American Standard English. The PPVT-R has two forms, L and M, which each contain 175 items. The measure is individually administered to participants who are asked to select verbally or non-verbally the picture that best represents each test item verbally presented by the examiner. The




37
PPVT-R is quick and easy to administer because only those items between the child's basal and ceiling level are administered. The instrument also can be scored rapidly. The raw scores are then converted to standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.
The PPVT-R was standardized on 4,200 children between the ages of 2 1/2 and 18 years old, with 100 children of each sex at each age level (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). The sample of children approximated the 1970 U. S. census data for sex, age, geographic location, occupational background, racial/ethnic and urban/rural population distributions. Internal consistency coefficients of the PPVT-R, Form L, ranged from .67 to .88, based on split-half reliability procedures. Test-retest reliability coefficients for standard scores ranged from .54 to .90, with a median value of .77. Test-retest reliability was evaluated on a subsample of 962 children with the retest interval ranging from 9 to 31 days. Although the PPVT-R scores should not be interpreted as intelligence scores, IQ scores and PPVT-R scores have been found to be correlated between .40 and .60. Measures for Assessing Clinic and Home Behavior The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999)
The ECBI consists of 36 items describing typical problem behaviors for children. Parents rate the frequency with which these behaviors occur on a scale of 1 (never occurs) to 7 (always occurs). An intensity score, ranging from 36 to 252, may be derived by summing these ratings. A problem score, ranging from 0 to 36, is derived by summing the number of child behaviors deemed problematic by the parent.




38
The ECBI was recently restandardized with 798 children and adolescents aged 2 to 16 drawn from several pediatric health care settings (Colvin, Eyberg, & Adams, 1997). The participants were representative of the demographic composition of the Southeastern United States. The mean problem score for children aged 3 through 6 was 6.7 (E = 7.3). The mean intensity score for children aged 3 through 6 was 100.8 (SD = 34.7). The internal consistency coefficient for the ECBI intensity score was .94, and for the problem score was .93. The ECBI Intensity and Problem Scale scores were not significantly correlated with Hollingshead SES scores, child age or ethnic group. The test-retest reliability coefficients for the Intensity Scale and Problem Scale have been reported as .85 and .80, respectively, after a three month interval and .75 and .75, respectively after a ten month interval (Eyberg, 1992). The ECBI has demonstrated external validity by differentiating children with behavior problems from children without behavior problems (Eyberg & Ross, 1978) and by showing pre- to post-treatment changes (Schuhmann et al., 1998).
Parenting Stress Index (PSI, Abidin, 1995)
The PSI is a 101-item pencil and paper measure with an optional Life Stress scale consisting of 19 items. It was originally developed as a screening measure for the detection of stressors within a parent-child system commonly associated with dysfunctional parenting. The items of the PSI are divided into two domains, the Child Domain and the Parent Domain, each of which is further divided into subscales. The 47 items comprising the Child Domain are divided into six subscales: Adaptability, Acceptability, Demandingness, Child Mood, Distractibility, and Reinforces Parent. The 54




39
items comprising the Parent Domain are divided into seven subscales: Parent Depression, Parent Attachment, Restrictiveness of Parental Role, Parental Sense of Competence, Social Isolation, Relationship with Spouse, and Parental Health. Finally, the optional Life Stress Domain assesses the number of major changes in the family's environment (e.g., death in the family, job changes). Normative information on the PSI has been gathered on large samples of mothers recruited from a variety of public and private pediatric clinics in the United States (Abidin, 1995). Percentiles, means, and standard deviations are available for the domain scores and the total score by child age. The normative information on fathers' responses to the PSI (n = 200) suggests that fathers earn significantly lower stress scores on all components of the PSI when compared to mothers (Abidin, 1995). The fathers in the normative sample, however, were predominantly Caucasian (95%) and college-educated (48%) and may not be representative of the general population. Internal reliability coefficients for the subscales of the PSI have been determined for both the original standardization sample of 534 parents who obtained services from small group pediatric clinics in central Virginia and from a cross-cultural sample of 435 parents from Bermuda and the United States (Hauenstein, Scarr, & Abidin, 1986). The internal reliability coefficients from both of these samples were fairly consistent. The alpha coefficients for both samples ranged from .59 to .78 for the Child Domain subscales and from .55 to .80 for the Parent Domain subscales. Based on the sample of 534 parents, the internal reliability coefficient was .89 for the Child Domain Total Scale score, .93 for the Parent Domain Scale Total score, and .95 for the Total stress score. Test-retest reliability coefficients have been computed for intervals ranging three weeks, three months, and one




40
year. Both of the domain scores as well as the total stress score were shown to have adequate test-retest reliability coefficients.
In a study with mothers, the PSI was found to correlate with both the Intensity and the Problem Scales on the ECBI (Eyberg, Boggs, & Rodriguez, 1992), indicating that child disruptive behaviors are associated with maternal stress. Discriminative validity has been demonstrated by Mouton and Tuma (1988) and Bessmer (1996) who found that the PSI parent and child domain scores were significantly higher for clinic-referred mothers as compared to control mothers.
The Parental Locus of Control-Short Form (PLOC-SF: Rayfield, Eyberg, Boggs. Roberts. 1995)
The PLOC-SF was developed from the Parental Locus of Control Scale (Campis, Lyman, & Prentice-Dunn, 1986). The PLOC-SF consists of 25 items intended to assess parents' attitudes about their ability to influence their children's behavior. The test items are rated by parents on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These ratings are summed to yield a total score. In addition, the PLOC-SF is divided into three subscales labeled Control, Fate/Chance, and Responsibility. Only the total score will be used in this study. The PLOC-SF has demonstrated good internal consistency for the total scale (Cronbach's alpha = .80), and was highly correlated (r = .90) with the original form of the measure.
Using the PLOC, Campis et al. (1986) found that parents whose children had behavior/emotional problems had significantly higher total scores than a non-problem sample, indicating that they perceived their child's behavior as less under their control.




41
Comparing the results of behavioral observation of mothers and their children with the PLOC, the total score was found to be negatively correlated with child compliance Cr = .349, p < .01), and positively associated with negative talk (r = .346, 9 <.01), cry/yell ( = .276, p < .05), and the ECBI intensity score (Q = .259, p < .05) (Roberts et al., 1992).
Procedure
The fathers of the non-referred children were recruited through fliers placed in the community (i.e, recreational centers, video arcades, public libraries, day care centers). Fathers were also recruited through advertisements placed in the classified section of the Gainesville Sun newspaper and on the Cox Cable television bulletin. For fathers who responded to the advertisements, a brief telephone interview was conducted by the author to assess their eligibility for the study. If the father reported that English was the primary language in the home, that his child was between three and seven, and that neither he nor his child had a history of mental retardation, a screener for Oppositional Defiant Disorder was administered. If the child had no history of learning or behavior problems and received five or more "no" responses on the DSM-IV screener, an appointment at the Child Study Laboratory was scheduled at the family's convenience.
The administration of questionnaires and videotaping of observations of the nonreferred father-child dyads were conducted in a standardized manner by the author during one data collection session. First, fathers were administered the DSM-IV Diagnostic Interview for Oppositional Defiant Disorder. This interview was videotaped so that it could later be checked for reliability by an undergraduate assistant. Then, children were




42
administered the PPVT-R. If the child did not meet criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder and the child scored 70 or above on the PPVT-R, informed consent was obtained. Following informed consent, the first of two observations was videotaped. Next, fathers completed a demographic information questionnaire, the ECBI, the PSI and the PLOC-SF. Finally, the second observation was videotaped. After completion of data collection, the fathers in the non-referred sample were paid $20 for their participation.
All data on the clinic-referred sample used in this study were collected in a similar manner as part of a more extensive, standard assessment conducted for a treatment outcome study. The clinic-referred families were paid $50 for their participation in the standard assessment by the treatment outcome researchers. Unlike the non-referred group, however, the two videotaped observations of the clinic-referred group were collected over two visits with a week interval between each observation. The advantage of collecting observational data on two different days is that the combined data are thought to be more representative of a child's typical behavior. The obvious disadvantage, however, of requiring families to come to a laboratory for two visits is the increased probability of subject attrition after the first visit. The decision to conduct both videotaped observations of the non-referred group during one visit was made in order to maximize the probability of full participation in the study. Similar to the clinic-referred sample, the non-referred sample completed questionnaires in between the videotaped observations.
To assure confidentiality of the dyads, the videotapes and questionnaires, including the demographic information, was labeled with only a number and was kept in locked files




43
accessible only to the author of the study. The primary observer did not have access to demographic or identifying information about participating families.
The videotaping of the non-referred dyads was conducted according to the same procedures as the clinic-referred dyads. The father and child were brought into a playroom in the Child Study Laboratory where five age-appropriate toys (i.e., Nesting Animals, Lincoln Logs, Waffle Blocks, Magna Doodles, and the Sesame Street Garage), selected for their unstructured, interactive quality, were provided. There, the dyad was videotaped from behind a one-way mirror in the three DPICS-II standard situations. The CDI and PDI situations were videotaped for 10 minutes, and the CU was videotaped for five minutes. Coding, however, will be completed only on the second five minutes of the CDI and PDI situations, as well as on the five minutes of CU. During the observations, the fathers wore a bug-in-the-ear device, an audio receiver worn in the ear similar to a hearing aid. This device was used to signal unobtrusively to the fathers when CDI began and when to change from one situation to another. At five-minute intervals, the fathers were read standard instructions over the device from a transmitter in the observation room.
For the first situation, CDI, the following directions were given:
"In this situation, tell that he/she may play with whatever he/she
chooses. Let him/her choose any activity he/she wishes. You just follow his/her
lead and play along with him/her."
After the five minute warm-up period, the father was told:




44
"You're doing a nice job of allowing to lead the play. Please
continue to let him/her lead."
In the second situation, PDI, the following instructions were given:
"That was fine. Do not clean up the play things at this time. Now we'll switch to another situation. Tell that it is your turn to choose the game. You
may choose any activity. Keep him/her playing with you according to your rules."
After the five minute warm-up period, the father was told:
"You're doing a nice job of leading the play. Please continue to get to play along with you according to your rules." For the third situation, CU, the father was given the following instructions:
"That was fine. Now I'd like you to tell that it is time to
leave the playroom and the toys must be put away. Make sure you have him/her
put the toys away by him/herself. Have him/her put all the toys in their containers
and all the containers in the toybox."
Observers
Before coding videotapes for the dyads, all observers successfully completed
training procedures for the DPICS II in accordance with the recommendations provided by The Workbook: A coder training manual for the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II (Eyberg, Edwards, Bessmer, & Litwins, 1994). Standard training consists of a minimum of 30 hours of didactic training in DPICS II which includes reading the coding manual, studying and successfully completing paper and pencil training exercises and quizzes, and coding transcripts of actual parent-child interactions. The




45
observers then code training videotapes with a transcript, code videotapes with feedback from a trained coder, and finally code criterion tapes to evaluate their level of mastery. The coders are considered successfully trained when they achieve a minimum of 80% agreement with correct codings of a criterion tape. Training sessions are held weekly by a faculty member with expertise in the DPICS II, during which the observers discuss subtle coding distinctions and practice coding categories that they consider difficult. Weekly training sessions occurred throughout the duration of the study to prevent observer drift and keep coding skills sharp.
Observers recorded their observations using a computer software package, TM (Eyberg & Celebi, 1993), which allows for recording of the sequence in which behaviors occur, as well as the time they occur. To ensure optimal reliability, primary observers prepared brief, written logs for each five-minute situation coded, noting the beginning and ending time of each segment and documenting verbalizations that were difficult to hear and/or understand.
The coding of the videotapes for the clinic-referred dyads was completed by
observers hired for the larger treatment outcome study. Videotapes of the non-referred dyads were assigned to an undergraduate research assistant who served as the primary observer and was paid $10 for each videotape coded. The primary observer was aware of group membership but was masked to the hypotheses of the study.
The primary observer coded the three videotaped situations (CDI, PDI, CU)
collected from each of the two observation periods for a total of six five-minute segments of videotape per dyad. To assess reliability for the non-referred group, the author




46
randomly selected two five-minute segments of videotape for each dyad to re-code. Reliability estimates had already been obtained for 30% of the sample from which the clinic-referred families were drawn.




RESULTS
Psychometric Properties of Measures
All of the measures used to evaluate the DPICS II categories for validity were first evaluated for internal consistency within the present samples. Cronbach's index of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951) was computed for the fathers' responses to the ECBI Intensity score, the PSI, and the PLOC-SF to assure measurement reliability for the specific populations sampled. The internal consistency estimates for the clinic-referred and non-referred groups combined were as follows: alpha = .94 for the PSI total score, alpha = .92 for the PSI child domain score, alpha = .92 for the PSI parent domain score, alpha = .81 for the PLOC-SF total score, and alpha = .95 for the ECBI intensity score. These internal consistency estimates are consistent with previously published findings, and were considered adequate for use in further analyses.
Differences Between Groups on Measures
The clinic-referred and comparison groups were expected to differ significantly on the measures related to child behavior problems and these differences were, in fact, found. The clinic-referred group demonstrated significantly elevated scores on measures of child behavior, parenting stress, and parental locus of control compared to the non-referred group. Statistically significant differences between the groups were found on the ECBI intensity score, t (58) = 8.74, R < .001, and problem score, t (58) = 9.36, 2 < .001. Fathers in the clinic-referred and comparison groups rated their children as having mean 47




48
intensity scores of 164.3 (SD = 25.9) and 104.9 (SD = 26.7), respectively. On the problem score, the clinic-referred children had a mean of 21.4 (SD = 5.3) and the comparison children had a mean of 5.8 problem behaviors (5D = 7.4). On the PSI (Abidin, 1995), statistically significant differences between the groups were found on the total stress score, t (58) = 7.04, D < .001, the child domain score, t (58) = 9.63, p < .001, and the parent domain score, t (58) = 3.40, 2 = .001. Fathers of clinic-referred children reported a mean total stress score of 270.3 (SD = 32.6), which falls at the 90t percentile. Fathers of children in the comparison group reported a mean total stress score of 213.5 (D = 29.8), which falls at the 40th percentile. Fathers of the clinic-referred children reported a mean child domain score of 137.0 (98h %; SD = 16.6), and a parent domain score of 133.6 (72nd %; SD = 21.5). Fathers of the children in the comparison group reported a mean child domain score of 97.7 (45th %; SD = 14.9), and a parent domain score of 115.8 (41t%; SD = 18.8).
Finally, statistically significant differences between the groups were found on the PLOC-SF total score, t (58) = 4.08, p <.001. Fathers in the clinic-referred group received total scores of 67.0 (S1 = 8.8) and fathers in the comparison group received total scores of 57.0 (SD = 10.1). Normative data for fathers on the PLOC-SF have not been established.




49
Table 2
Scores on Measures Used to Compare Participants
Measure Clinic-referred Comparison M SD M SD
ECBI Intensity' 164.3 (25.9) 104.9 (26.7) ECBI Problem" 21.4 (5.3) 5.8 (7.4) PSI Total Score* 270.3 (32.6) 213.5 (29.8) PSI Child Domain Score* 137.0 (16.6) 97.7 (14.9) PSI Parent Domain Score* 133.6 (21.5) 115.8 (18.8) PLOC-SF* 67.0 (8.8) 57.0 (10.1) Note. Analyses based on n = 30 in each group. ECBI = Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. PSI Parenting Stress Index. PLOC SF = Parental Locus of Control Scale Short Form. p <.001.
Reliability
Cohen's kappa (1960) and intraclass correlations (P) were computed to determine the reliability of the parent and child categories of DPICS II. Reliability estimates were obtained for both groups in the three DPICS-II situations on 30% of the segments observed by both the reliability and primary coders. The kappa statistics were computed using a computer software program developed specifically for the DPICS-II (Eyberg & Celebi, 1993). This program calculates kappa by comparing a series of film pairs coded by




50
independent observers using a one-second window. The program also creates a confusion matrix that indicates on which codes the coders agree and disagree.
The kappa estimates are affected by the number of other categories in the system and the number of behaviors included in the confusion matrix. In order not to inflate the kappa estimates by including additional, non-related categories, the present study divided the categories into four classes of behaviors: verbalizations, vocalizations, responses to commands and questions, and physical behaviors. These classes contain the categories that are likely to be confused with one another. For instance, Direct Commands could be confused with Indirect Commands, questions, and descriptions, but not with Laugh or Physical Positive. Each class of behaviors was analyzed separately to reduce any artificial inflationary effect. Kappa estimates for parent and child behaviors were also computed in separate confusion matrices to reduce the likelihood of an overestimation of the reliability.
Fleiss (1981) indicated that kappa values greater than .75 can be considered as representing excellent agreement beyond chance. Kappa values ranging from .60 to .75 indicate good agreement beyond chance, values between .40 to .60 indicate fair agreement, and values below .40 are indicative of poor agreement. These kappa values were used to evaluate the kappas found in this study.
Intraclass correlations were included in the study to provide an alternative method of evaluating reliability. Intraclass correlations are based on examining the amount of variance attributed to between subjects differences and the variance attributed to within subject differences, or in this case, coder error. The correlation coefficient (_) is interpretable as "...the proportion of variance of an observation due to subject-to-subject




51
variability in error-free scores (Fleiss, 1986, p.3)." To achieve a high intraclass correlation, the variability in the frequency of occurrence between the participants must be greater than the variability between two observers' values for a given behavioral category on a particular subject. Intraclass correlations were computed by a formula derived by Fleiss (1981) which is based on analysis of variance procedures, and evaluated as standard correlation coefficients (Suen & Ary, 1989).
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the reliability estimates for the parent and child
categories. The DPICS I categories were summed across the three five-minute coding intervals (i.e., CDI, PDI, CU) and across the groups (clinic-referred and comparison). The DPICS II categories are ranked within the tables with the highest kappa estimates appearing first. In addition, borrowing the convention used to rate kappa estimates created by Fleiss (1981), the estimates are divided into groups considered to have "excellent," "good," and "fair" reliability estimates.
To address the problem of poor reliability estimates in a prior study of DPICS II (Bessmer, 1996) and also to simplify the coding system, several DPICS II categories were coded differently in the comparison sample. First, the codes of Unlabeled, Labeled and Contingent Praise were combined into one category and coded as Praise (total). Second, the Criticism and Smart Talk codes were collapsed into one category of Negative Talk. Third, the parent vocalization codes of Whine and Yell were not coded. Finally, the physical behavior codes of Physical Negative and Destructive were not coded for either fathers or children. Because the father-child dyads in the clinic-referred sample had been




52
coded prior to the current study, their observations were coded according to the formal system.
Table 3
Reliability for the DPICS II Parent Categories Combined Across Situations and Groups
Parent Category K P
Excellent
Compliance .86 .89 Play Talk .80 .97 Answer .79 .82 Information Question .76 .91 No Opportunity for Compliance .76 .66 Physical Negative' .74 .75 Good
Descriptive / Reflective Question .69 .89 Physical Positive .68 .48 Unlabeled Praise" .66 .75 Direct Command .65 .98 Indirect Command .64 .92 Praise (total)b .64 .89 No Answer .64 .49 No Opportunity for Answer .64 .54




53
Table 3--continued
Parent Category K P
Acknowledgment .62 .90 Fair
Reflection .58 .66 Noncompliance .58 .63 Criticism .57 .92 Information Description .57 .90 Smart Talk' .56 .65 Negative Talkb .52 .92 Labeled Praise" .49 .05 Contingent Praise" .49 .00 Laugh .48 .83 Behavioral Description .46 .53 Poor
Destructive" ** -.03 Whine" ** .26 Yell" ** ** Note. Analyses based on N = 104 5-minute coding intervals, including the clinic-referred group (n = 47 coding intervals) and the comparison group (n = 57 coding intervals); Coded only for the clinic-referred group; b Coded only for the comparison group (Negative Talk = Criticism/Smart Talk; Praise Total= Unlabeled Praise/Labeled Praise/Contingent Praise).
** Kappa could not be calculated due to insufficient data.




54
Table 4
Reliability for the DPICS II Child Categories Combined Across Situations and Groups
Child Category K P
Excellent
Smart Talk 1.0 .91 Physical Negative' 1.0 .89 Answer .84 .93 Information Question .83 .88 Acknowledgment .81 .91 Descriptive / Reflective Question .78 .90 Play Talk .76 .92 Good
Yell .75 .76 Whine .73 .78 Reflection .72 .81 Information Description .71 .92 No Opportunity to Answer .70 .74 Compliance .69 .95 Direct Command .67 .86 Negative Talkb .66 .89




55
Table 4--continued
Child Category K P
Laugh .66 .85 Praise (total)b .66 .84 No Opportunity for Compliance .65 .92 Physical Positive .65 .40 Noncompliance .61 .92 Criticism" .61 .74 No Answer .61 .67 Indirect Command .60 .83 Behavioral Description .60 .58 Fair
Unlabeled Praise" .49 .64 Poor
Destructive' .09 .88 Labeled Praise" ** .00 Note. Analyses based on N= 104 5-minute coding intervals, including the clinic-referred group (nj = 47 coding intervals) and the comparison group (n = 57 coding intervals); Coded only for the clinic-referred group; b Coded only for the comparison group (Negative Talk= Criticism/Smart Talk; Praise Total= Unlabeled Praise/Labeled Praise/Contingent Praise).
** Kappa could not be calculated due to insufficient data.
The remaining hypotheses of the study, which were related to the validity of the DPICS II, involved summary variables comprised of combinations of the individual




56
categories. All of the variables used in the summary variables, with the exception of child Labeled Praise, demonstrated adequate kappa reliability (> .40), thus were considered acceptable to be used in subsequent analyses.
Validity
Discriminative Validity
Previous behavioral observation systems have found that specific behaviors
differentiate children with behavior problems from non-referred children. Analyses were conducted on the DPICS-II variables to evaluate the discriminative validity of the system. Independent samples t tests were used to test differences between groups on child Compliance Ratio (Compliance/Total Commands), child Inappropriate Behavior (Whine + Yell + Criticism + Smart Talk), child Prosocial Behavior (Acknowledgment + Answer + Behavioral Descriptions + Praise + Laugh + Physical Positive), father Total Commands (Direct + Indirect Commands), father Direct Command Ratio (Direct Commands/Total Commands), father Prosocial Behavior (Acknowledgement + Answer + Behavioral Descriptions + Praise + Reflection + Laugh + Physical Positive), and father Inappropriate Behavior (Criticism + Smart Talk). Table 5 includes the mean frequency of occurrence and standard deviations of the behavioral categories for the clinic-referred group and for the comparison group. The means reported here represent the frequency of occurrence summed across the CDI, PDI and Clean-up situations.




57
Table 5
Mean Frequency of DPICS II Summary Variables for Clinic-Referred and Comparison Father-Child Dyads Summed Across Situations
DPICS II Variable Clinic-Referred Comparison M (SD) M (SD)
Child Compliance Ratio" 00.58 (00.23) 00.70 (00.16) Child Inappropriate Behavior* 49.53 (27.47) 28.73 (15.73) Father Direct Command Ratio 00.70 (00.13) 00.64 (00.14) Father Prosocial Behavior 177.10 (53.57) 175.13 (60.73) Father Prosocial Behavior-R" 70.73 (29.44) 90.00 (26.95) Father Inappropriate Behavior* 28.87 (11.64) 17.56 (9.33) Father Total Commands 114.17 (52.24) 104.77 (48.91) Child Prosocial Behavior 178.47 (55.72) 178.90 (53.15) Child Prosocial Behavior-R 64.47 (27.17) 63.47 (29.99) Note. Analyses based on n = 30 for the clinic-referred and comparison groups; Prosocial Behavior-R = without Information Descriptions. R <.05. IR < .01.
Statistically significant differences between the groups were found on child
Compliance Ratio, t (58) = -2.73, p < .01, child Inappropriate Behavior, t (58) = 1.81, p < .05, and father Inappropriate Behavior, t (58) = 2.33, p < .05. Statistically significant differences were found on father Prosocial Behavior, t (58) = -2.64, 12 <.01, only when




58
Information Descriptions were removed from the summary variable. Information Descriptions were removed from the Prosocial Behavior variable because they reflect neutral statements and are not necessarily "prosocial." Statistically significant differences were not found on father Total Commands or child Prosocial Behavior (with or without Information Descriptions).
A discriminant function analysis was performed on the summary variables to
evaluate the extent to which DPICS II variables could be used to distinguish between the clinic and non-clinic samples. The cross-validation procedure, which helps to diminish the optimistic bias, was used. In this procedure, each case is classified into a group according to the classification functions computed from all the data except the case being classified.
The seven DPICS II summary variables of child Compliance, child Prosocial Behavior, child Inappropriate Behavior, father Total Commands, father Prosocial Behavior, father Direct Command Ratio, and father Inappropriate Behavior were entered together to yield the following results: Wilk's Lambda = .752 (p < .05), Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients: child Compliance = .787, child ProsocialRevised = -.129, child Inappropriate Behavior = .268, father Total Command = .127, father Prosocial Behavior-Revised =.544, father Direct Command Ratio = -.488, father Inappropriate Behavior = -.287, n = 60. When the combination of these variables was used, 68% of the original grouped cases were correctly classified. When the crossvalidation procedure was applied, 60% of the grouped cases were correctly classified. Forty percent of cases from each group were misclassified. The classification of each case is presented in Table 26 of Appendix A.




59
Convergent Validity
Several hypotheses predicted that DPICS II variables would correlate with the scores on the measures associated with child behavior problems. Because the conductdisordered children were over-represented in this study's sample (i.e., 50%), the groups were weighted to reflect the estimated prevalence of conduct problem behavior in the general population of preschool-aged children (i.e., 16%; Campbell, 1990). The created sample was normally distributed. The results of the analyses of the specific hypotheses are described below and are presented in Tables 6 and 7.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the DPICS II variables would correlate significantly with the ECBI Intensity score. The ECBI Intensity score was negatively correlated with child Compliance, r (60) = -.42, p < .01, positively correlated with child Inappropriate Behavior, r (60) = .40, p12 < .01, and positively correlated with father Inappropriate Behavior, r (60) = .46, p <.01. The ECBI Intensity score, however, was not significantly associated with child Prosocial Behavior (with or without Information Descriptions), father Direct Command Ratio, or father Total Commands.
In Hypothesis 4, it was predicted that the DPICS II categories and summary
variables for child behavior (i.e., Compliance, Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior) would correlate with the Child Domain score on the PSI. Child Compliance, r (60) = -.42, p = .001, and child Inappropriate Behavior, r (60) = .39, p = .01, were significantly correlated with the Child Domain score on the PSI. Child Prosocial Behavior




60
Table 6
Correlations Between the DPICS II Variables and Scores on the Evberg Child Behavior Inventory and Parental Locus of Control Scale-Short Form
DPICS II Variable ECBI-P ECBI-I PLOC-SF
Child Behavior
Compliance Ratio -.21 -.42" -.25 Inappropriate .13 .39** .25" Prosocial -.06 -.03 .13 Prosocial-R .05 -.01 -.05 Parent Behavior
Direct Command Ratio .18 .06 -.12 Inappropriate .30* .46" .26* Prosocial .04 .07 -.08 Prosocial-R -.03 -.04 -.05 Total Commands .16 .20 .22 Note. ECBI-P = ECBI Problem score; ECBI-I= ECBI Intensity score; PLOC-SF = PLOC-SF Total score. S<5.05; "p < .01; "* < .001.




61
Table 7
Correlations Between DPICS II Summary Variables and Scores on the Parenting Stress Index
DPICS II Variable Child Domain Parent Domain Total Score
Child Behavior
Compliance Ratio -.41"' -.15 -.31' Inappropriate .33" .13 .26' Prosocial .00 .04 .02 Prosocial-R -.05 -.07 -.07 Parent Behavior
Direct Command Ratio -.02 -.04 -.04 Inappropriate .38"** .13 .28' Prosocial .12 -.21 -.04 Prosocial-R -.02 -.08 -.05 Total Commands .05 -.26' -.12 Note. D <.05; 'p < .01; < .001.
(with or without Information Descriptions), was not significantly associated with the score. It was also predicted that the DPICS II summary variables for fathers would correlate significantly with the Parent Domain score on the PSI. Only the correlation between Total Commands and the Parent Domain score on the PSI, r (60) = -.26, 1 < .05, was statistically significant.




62
In Hypothesis 5, it was predicted that the DPICS II summary variables for fathers would correlate with PLOC-SF total scores. A small but statistically significant correlation was found between father Inappropriate Behavior and the PLOC-SF total score, r (60) = .26, p < .05.




DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine several types of reliability and validity (both discriminative and convergent) of the DPICS II with father-child dyads. Results show solid evidence for the reliability and validity of the coding system. First, the majority of the individual categories of the DPICS II demonstrated good reliability. Second, in support of the discriminative validity of DPICS II, significant differences were found between the clinic and nonclinic groups on several of the DPICS II summary variables. Finally, in support of the convergent validity of the DPICS II, specific summary variables were shown to correlate significantly with other measures associated with behavior problems in children.
Reliability
Both kappa and intraclass correlations were examined for these data. All of the parent and child DPICS II categories were ranked according to kappa estimates and then subdivided into groupings labeled "excellent", "good", "fair", and "poor" to provide a method of organizing the information. The reliability estimates were interpreted using several general guidelines. First, the estimates were judged in relation to accepted standards within the literature for reliability. Then, the similarity between the estimates for each category was considered. The reliability estimates for categories with similar kappa values and intraclass correlations were considered accurate estimates. For those categories with poor to fair reliability estimates, the confusion matrices obtained in the 63




64
process of calculating kappa were very helpful in identifying which pairs of categories were mistaken for one another. In this study, the majority of the DPICS II categories demonstrated adequate reliability by at least one of the two estimates. Those categories that occurred frequently in both the clinic-referred and comparison groups, such as Acknowledgment, Answer, and Information Question, tended to have the highest reliability estimates for fathers and children by both methods. One exception was the parent category of Information Descriptions, which was classified as having "fair" reliability despite its high frequency of occurrence. Examination of the confusion matrices for parent verbalizations suggests that this category was most often confused with Direct and Indirect Commands, two other frequently occurring parent verbalization categories.
Only three parent categories (i.e., Whine, Yell, Destructive) and two child
categories (i.e., Destructive, Labeled Praise) were classified as having "poor" reliability. These categories, which also demonstrated poor reliability in Bessmer's (1996) study with mothers-child dyads, had a low frequency of occurrence. When reliability estimates are based on infrequent occurrence both within and across subjects, the estimates are likely to be affected by restricted variance. Because of limited opportunity to code infrequently occurring variables, the coders have to be 100% accurate across subjects. The resulting reliability estimates will either be an overestimate or an underestimate simply due to restricted variance.
Reliability estimates for infrequently occurring behaviors and estimates for
behaviors occurring in only a few subjects are also likely to be inconsistent across studies. Basic statistical principles indicate that an estimate based on a single measurement is less




65
reliable and less representative of the population mean than an estimate based upon multiple measurements (Fleiss, 1986). This may explain why the infrequently occurring category of Physical Negative showed excellent reliability in this study and poor reliability in Bessmer's (1996) study.
The probability that a behavior will occur, or the base rate, likely affects the observers in several ways. They may have less practice coding these low base rate behaviors and have less chance to become experienced with them during the actual coding. In addition, the observer's preparedness for infrequent categories differs from their preparedness for more frequently occurring categories. Because the majority of these categories are likely to have a low frequency of occurrence in both clinic-referred and normal samples, observers may require additional training in observing these categories and more frequent reliability checks during coding to assure adequate reliability.
The parent categories of Yell, Whine, Destructive, Physical Negative and Warning, and the child categories of Destructive and Physical Negative were not coded in the comparison group of this study because they occurred so infrequently (or not at all) in Bessmer's (1996) study, that no estimate could be made of their reliability. It remains possible, however, that these behaviors may occur in a pre-treatment clinic-referred sample on occasion. In addition, Contingent Praise and Labeled Praise rarely occur in pretreatment samples (clinic-referred or nonreferred) and are more likely to occur in a posttreatment sample. Therefore, these categories should remain in the system until their usefulness in studies with a pre- and post-treatment design has been evaluated.




66
The results of this study point to the importance of accurately identifying those dyads in which inappropriate behaviors occur because of their power to discriminate between children with significant behavior problems and those without. The poor reliability estimates of some of the inappropriate behavior categories found in this study as well as Bessmer's (1996) study (i.e., Destructive, parent Yell) indicate that further work needs to be done to define these categories and/or additional training needs to be conducted with the coders to consistently attain accepted standards of reliability. One possible solution, which may be more appropriate for certain research studies than for others, would be to combine the inappropriate behavior categories and code them as a single variable. While this option might improve reliability estimates, it would not necessarily improve observer accuracy.
Because inappropriate physical behaviors (i.e, Destructive, Physical Negative) and vocalizations (Whine, Yell) appear to be the most problematic for observers, additional training might consist of coding selected videotapes of dyads in which these categories occur frequently. Observers would have to reach a specified criterion (i.e., kappa estimates > .60) on these categories before coding videotapes for research. The use of videotapes to supplement the training manual and workbook is particularly important for training in coding physical behaviors, which must be observed, and vocalizations, which must be heard to code them accurately.
Coding physical behaviors and vocalizations is also difficult because observers must simultaneously attend to verbalizations, of which there are many to discriminate between. Observer reliability and accuracy might improve if observers focused on one




67
class of behaviors at a time. For example, one observer could code the verbalizations of a dyad, after which another observer would code the physical behaviors. This process might prove to be more efficient in that it would save individual observers time and also promote the development of "expertise" in the various behavior classes. In general, more frequent reliability checks should occur both during training and during coding of research tapes to ensure observer accuracy and prevent drift. Confusion matrices are particularly helpful, as noted earlier, in helping observers to identify which codes they are mistaking for one another.
This study took a step toward simplifying the DPICS II by combining the categories of Criticism and Smart Talk as well as the categories of Labeled Praise, Contingent Praise, and Unlabeled Praise. Although this step clearly expedited the coding process by requiring less discriminations, combining Criticism and Smart Talk did not improve the reliability of these categories for either parents or children. Combining the praise categories, however, significantly improved the reliability estimates, particularly for the child categories which occur less often.
Validity
Differences in Self-report Measures Between the Clinic-referred and Non-referred Fathers
Significant differences were found between the groups on the ECBI, PSI, and PLOC-SF. In addition, for the clinic-referred group, the scores on the ECBI (both Problem and Intensity scores) and the PSI (Child Domain, Parent Domain, and Total scores) were in the clinical range while the scores for the comparison group were in the normal range. These findings suggest that the ECBI and the PSI are good tools for




68
distinguishing between fathers of clinic-referred and non-referred children. Although norms have not been established for the PLOC-SF, the results of this study suggest that fathers of children referred for behavior problems tended to have a more external locus of control than fathers of comparison children. In other words, they perceived themselves as having less control over their child's behavior.
A statistically significant difference between groups was also found on the PPVTR (Dunn & Dunn, 1981), the measure used to screen for delay in receptive vocabulary. Children in the clinic-referred group received a mean score of 92.6 (aD = 14.8) and the children in the comparison group received a mean score of 102.9 (SD = 17.3). Although scores for both groups fall within the average range, the lower score for the clinic-referred children is consistent with the literature reporting an association between language delays and behavior problems in young children (Cantwell, Baker, & Mattison, 1979; Cohen, Davine, & Meloche-Kelly, 1989; Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982). Behavioral Differences Between Clinic-referred and Non-referred Families
Discriminative validity identifies differences between groups of individuals whose dissimilarities are established by other criteria. In this study, significant differences were found on four of the seven DPICS II summary variables. First, child compliance was significantly different between the two groups. The clinic-referred children on average across the three situations were compliant with 58% of paternal total commands compared to the non-referred group who were compliant with 70% of paternal total commands. It is important to note that the compliance ratios described here include the child's compliance only to those direct and indirect commands for which they had an opportunity to comply,




69
and represent compliance across the three situations. The compliance ratios reported in the present study are fairly similar to the previous DPICS II study with mothers (Bessmer, 1996). In her study of mother-child dyads, Bessmer (1996) found that the clinic-referred children were compliant with 53% of their mother's commands compared to the nonreferred group who were compliant with 75% of their mother's total commands. Robinson and Eyberg (1981), who defined compliance as compliance to all commands regardless of opportunity to comply, found that children referred for behavior problems had 48% compliance to commands compared to 62% compliance for non-referred children.
Second, the frequency of inappropriate behaviors (i.e., whining, yelling, criticism and sarcasm) was quite different between the groups. Clinic-referred children averaged approximately 50 inappropriate behaviors in the 30-minute observation period while the non-referred children engaged in an average of 29 inappropriate behaviors in the same length of time. Other observational studies have also found that clinic-referred children engage in higher rates of deviant behavior with their fathers than normal children (Eyberg & Robinson, 1982; Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997; Webster-Stratton, 1985).
The prosocial behaviors of the children, however, were not found to be
significantly different between the clinic-referred group and the comparison group. This finding is consistent with the findings ofBessmer (1996) and Patterson (1976) who also did not find codable differences in the prosocial behaviors of conduct-disordered children with their mothers. In this study, prosocial behavior was operationalized as the sum of




70
several categories of child verbalizations, as well as Physical Positive and Laugh. One potential problem with this definition of prosocial is that the verbalization categories are not specific enough to reflect the content of the children's speech. For example, as long as the child does not whine, yell, or speak in a sarcastic tone of voice, the statements "I don't want to share the toys" and "I want to share my toys with you" would both be coded as Information Descriptions. In addition, the DPICS II system does not take into account turn-taking behavior or positive affect (e.g., smiling) which are important prosocial behaviors in preschoolers. Research using the Family Intake Coding System (FICS; Stormshak & Greenberg, 1996) found that comparison children displayed more positive affect than clinic-referred children while interacting with their parents (Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997). Rather than using Information Descriptions broadly as part of the prosocial variable, it might be more useful to use behaviors consistent with "positive elicitation" (Stormshak & Greenberg, 1996). This category would include asking a parent to play or offering a toy. Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to supplement the quantitative Prosocial score with a qualitative rating of positive affect. In the FICS (Stormshak & Greenberg, 1996), parents and children are rated on an ordinal 5-point scale (0 = hostile/angry, 4 = positive affect, happiness).
The present study also replicated some, but not all of the previous findings with DPICS and DPICS II related to parent behavior. Fathers of clinic-referred children exhibited significantly more inappropriate behaviors (i.e., critical and sarcastic statements) than comparison fathers. Over the combined 30 minutes that the dyads were observed, the referred fathers issued approximately 29 critical/sarcastic statements compared to an




71
average of 18 critical/sarcastic statements from comparison fathers. Inconsistent with previous findings, total commands used during the 30 minutes were not significantly different between the two groups of fathers. Eyberg and Robinson (1982) found that fathers of clinic-referred children issued more commands than fathers of normal children. Their analysis, however, was based on a shorter observation period (i.e., 10 minutes) that did not include a clean-up situation. Bessmer (1996) found that mothers of clinic-referred children used significantly more commands than mothers of non-referred children, and that a higher percentage of those commands were direct.
Although untreated clinic-referred mothers and fathers tend to use predominantly direct commands (72% in Bessmer's study and 70% in this study), their children are not more compliant with their requests. Direct commands alone do not appear to lead to child compliance. During PCIT, the parent is taught to utilize direct commands so that it is clear to the child what behavior is expected. Yet it may be other aspects of their commands (e.g., timing, use of commands which give the child opportunity to comply), other behaviors (consistent consequences for compliance and noncompliance), or the improved relationship overall that account for increased compliance. The ratio of direct commands, then, may not change from pre- to post-treatment, but other aspects of parents' behavior do change to reduce the child's noncompliance.
Other important differences were noted in the paternal behaviors between the clinic-referred and non-referred groups. Consistent with Bessmer's (1996) findings for mothers, parent prosocial behaviors differentiated the two groups of fathers. The summary variable of father Prosocial Behavior included the categories of




72
Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavior and Information Descriptions, Laugh, Labeled and Unlabeled Praise, Reflection, and Physical Positive. Interestingly, only when Information Descriptions were removed from the summary variable did significant differences emerge. As mentioned earlier, Information Descriptions can be positive ("I want to play with you"), negative ("I don't want to play with you"), or neutral ("this is a blue car") statements and appeared to be inflating the prosocial behavior variable for both the clinicreferred and comparison fathers. When these statements were removed from the scores, the score for the clinic fathers was reduced from 177 to 70 and from 175 to 90 for the non-referred fathers. The other categories in the summary variable occur less often and more clearly reflect behavior that is responsive and positive toward the child. Griest, Forehand, Wells, and McMahon (1980) found no differences between clinic and nonclinic groups of mothers on total positive attention and contingent positive attention. WebsterStratton (1985) found that Praise was significantly different between clinic and nonclinic groups of mothers, but found no differences between groups on questions, Physical Positive, or a category that included Information Descriptions, Behavior Descriptions, and Reflections.
Although statistically significant differences were found between the two groups on four of the seven DPICS II summary variables, only 60% of the cases were correctly classified in a discriminant function analysis. In contrast, Bessmer (1996) found statistically significant differences on six of the same seven DPICS II summary variables, and found that 87% of the cases could be correctly classified. Based on this study and Bessmer's (1996) study, the DPICS II combined summary variables appear to be more




73
robust in distinguishing between referred and non-referred mother-child dyads than they are in distinguishing between referred and non-referred father-child dyads. Further research will be important in understanding the differences between the use of DPICS II with mothers and fathers.
Convergent validity describes the correlation between the observational data and measures that are expected to relate to it. Several of the DPICS II summary variables correlated with scores on self-report measures used to assess children with behavior problems and their parents, supporting the convergent validity of the coding system. Both Child Compliance and child Inappropriate Behavior correlated significantly with the ECBI Intensity score. These DPICS II variables, child Compliance and child Inappropriate Behavior, also correlated significantly with the Child Domain score on the PSI. The finding that child Prosocial Behavior was not associated with these measures is not surprising given that neither the ECBI nor the PSI specifically measure prosocial behavior in children. In fact, these findings support the discriminant validity of the child Prosocial variable.
Father Inappropriate Behavior was positively and significantly correlated with the ECBI Intensity score, suggesting a relationship between a father's ratings of his child's negative behavior and his own negative behavior toward the child. Father Inappropriate Behavior was also significantly correlated with the PLOC-SF score, suggesting a positive relationship between a father's perception of his lack of control over his child's behavior and his own negative behavior toward the child. In addition, a small but significant, negative correlation was found between father Total Commands and the Parent Domain




74
score on the PSI. This finding is difficult to interpret. It may be a chance finding, or perhaps, fathers who are experiencing more personal distress actually tend to give fewer commands and are less engaged with their children in general than fathers who are experiencing less distress. In support of this interpretation is the finding that fathers of children with behavior problems who report less marital satisfaction also report less parenting involvement (Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997).
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of this study warrant discussion. First, it has been found that fathers are more reactive to observation than mothers, and interact differently with children based on the setting of the assessment (home vs. laboratory; Cassidy, Parke, Butkovsky, & Braungart, 1992). The results of this study, therefore, may not generalize to other settings. Second, the majority of this sample was comprised of Caucasian boys from two-parent families. Further study of referred and non-referred minorities is necessary to have adequate information on children from diverse backgrounds and their fathers. It will also be important for future research to compare the interactions of children from families with different constellations (e.g., single parent, divorced parents with joint custody, step-families). Although girls were included in this study, they were not sufficient in number to make statistical comparisons between clinic-referred and nonreferred girls or between clinic-referred boys and clinic-referred girls. It has been suggested that boys and girls at this age differ in their interactions with parents of different gender. Future research with larger samples of girls would provide the opportunity to examine this issue.




75
Another limitation of this study relates to the fact that data from the clinic-referred and non-referred groups were collected differently. Observational data for the clinicreferred group were collected on two separate visits, one week apart. In an attempt to reduce attrition, observational data for the comparison group were collected on the same day, with a half-hour interval between each observation. The data for the comparison group may be less stable in that they were collected on only one day, and in that the dyads may have become more tired over two consecutive 25-minute observations. Determining the best method to collect observational data (e.g., length of session, number of sessions) is an important empirical question that requires investigation.
This research has several implications for the use of direct observations as an
assessment tool. In future projects utilizing DPICS II, the researchers may choose to limit the number of categories coded to a subset of the entire system that is relevant to their research question. DPICS II was designed for this purpose (Eyberg et al., 1994). By limiting the number of categories, the coding will be less demanding on the observers for both their attention and the time required to observe. Limiting the categories also is likely to increase the reliability estimates (Suen & Ary, 1989).
In addition, the complexity of the coding system, particulary its exhausive coding of each consecutive behavior, lends itself to a lag sequential analysis. Other researchers employing this technique have found patterns of behavior that differentiate types of clinicreferred dyads. Dumas (1984), for example, evaluated conditional probabilities for parent and child aversive behavior and found that mothers who were unsuccessful in parent training were more aversive and indiscriminate in their behavior toward children. It is




76
possible that a comparison of sequences of behaviors would differentiate referred and nonreferred parent-child dyads. For example, future studies could evaluate the conditional probabilities of behaviors following child and parent prosocial behaviors, such as praise, behavior descriptions, and reflections, as well as inappropriate behaviors, such as noncompliance, criticism, and whining.
In summary, the present study demonstrates that DPICS II can be used reliably and is valid for use with children with behavior problems and their fathers. The summary variables measuring child compliance and the inappropriate behavior of children appear to be most useful in distinguishing between clinic-referred and non-referred father-child dyads. The DPICS II fulfills the criteria established by Roberts and Forehand (1978) as an assessment device for children and has a variety of applications both in clinical and research settings. The present study clearly supports the inclusion of fathers in observational studies of children with disruptive behavior.




APPENDIX A TABLES
Table 8
Categories of the Original Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS)
Parent Behavior Child Behavior
Acknowledgment Reflective Statements Descriptive Statements Descriptive/Reflexive Questions Indirect Commands Direct Commands Labeled Praise Unlabeled Praise Criticism Smart Talk Yell
VWhine
Physical Negative Physical Negative Physical Positive Physical Positive Destructive Compliance Noncompliance No Opportunity for Compliance Changes Activity Ignores/Responds to Deviant
Note: Adapted from Eyberg & Robinson, 1983.
77




78
Table 9
Categories of the Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System -II (DPICS-II)
Parent Behavior Child Behavior
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment Answer Answer Behavioral Description' Behavioral Description Compliance Compliance Contingent Labeled Praiseb
Criticism Criticism Descriptive/Reflective Question Descriptive/Reflective Question Destructive Destructive Direct Command Direct Command Indirect Command Indirect Command Information Description' Information Description Information Question Information Question Labeled Praise Labeled Praise Laugh Laugh No Answer No Answer No Opportunity for Answer No Opportunity for Answer




79
Table 9--continued
Parent Behavior Child Behavior
No Opportunity for Compliance No Opportunity for Compliance Noncompliance Noncompliance Physical Negative Physical Negative Physical Positive Physical Positive Playtalk Playtalk Reflective Statements Reflective Statements Smart Talk Smart Talk Unlabeled Praise Unlabeled Praise Yell Yell Whine Whine Warningb
Note. In DPICS, descriptions were coded Descriptive Statement; b Coded only for parents.




80
Table 10
DPICS II Parent Summary Variables
Inappropriate Behavior Prosocial Behavior Total Commands
Criticism Acknowledgment Direct Commands Smart Talk Answer Indirect Commands Whine Behavior Description Yell Information Description Physical Negative Labeled Praise Destructive Laugh Reflection
Physical Positive
Note. Used by Bessmer (1996).




81
Table 11
DPICS II Child Summary Variables
Inappropriate Behavior Prosocial Behavior
Criticism Acknowledgment Destructive Answer Physical Negative Behavioral Descriptions Smart Talk Information Descriptions Whine Labeled Praise Yell Unlabeled Praise Physical Positive
Note. Used by Bessmer (1996).




82
Table 12
Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Parent Categories Across Situations for the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups.
Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison k P k P
Acknowledgment .59 .91 .62 .89 Answer .71 .70 .84 .90 Behavior Description ** .33 .64 .78 Compliance .75 .81 .94 .98 Contingent Praise .50 1.0 * Criticism .58 .92 * Direct Command .70 .97 .60 .98 Descriptive/Reflective Question .68 .83 .69 .92 Destructive ** -.03 * Indirect Command .63 .88 .64 .97 Information Description .57 .85 .58 .95 Information Question .77 .84 .76 .92 Labeled Praise .50 .05 * Laugh ** .64 ** .90 Negative Talk * .53 .93 No Answer .61 .44 .70 .52




83
Table 12--continued
Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison k P k P
Noncompliance .47 .49 .73 .76 No Opportunity for Answer .57 .46 .81 .64 No Opportunity for Compliance .67 .48 .85 .83 Physical Negative .74 .75 * Physical Positive .78 .38 ** .85 Play Talk .66 .81 .86 .99 Praise (total) * .64 .89 Reflection .38 .40 .66 .85 Smart Talk .57 .65 * Unlabeled Praise .66 .76 * Whine ** .26 * Yell ** ** * Note. K = kappa estimate, P = intraclass correlation coefficient. Analyses based on n =47 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and n = 57 5-minute coding intervals for the comparison group.
* Not coded. ** Insufficient data for calculation.




84
Table 13
Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Child Categories Across Situations for the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups.
Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison k P k P
Acknowledgment .73 .83 .86 .98 Answer .80 .93 .84 .93 Behavior Description .50 .37 .67 .79 Compliance .66 .94 .73 .95 Criticism .61 .74 * Descriptive/Reflective Question .75 .83 .80 .96 Destructive .09 .88 * Direct Command .64 .81 .71 .90 Indirect Command .54 .61 .63 .93 Information Description .67 .88 .74 .95 Information Question .79 .83 .86 .92 Labeled Praise ** .82 * Laugh .47 .82 .94 .88 Negative Talk * .66 .89 No Answer .64 .55 .61 .82 Noncompliance .61 .89 .64 .94 No Opportunity for Answer .71 .55 .70 .72




85
Table 13--continued
Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison
No Opportunity for Compliance .60 .89 .71 .97 Physical Positive .48 .24 ** ** Physical Negative 1.0 .89 * Play Talk .69 .91 .85 .94 Praise (total) * .66 .84 Reflection .70 .84 .75 .76 Smart Talk .66 .91 * Unlabeled Praise .50 .64 * Whine .67 .66 .77 .94 Yell .62 .79 1.0 .61 Note. K = kappa estimate, P = intraclass correlation coefficient. Analyses based on n = 47 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and n = 57 coding intervals for the comparison group.
* Not coded. ** Insufficient data for calculation.




86
Table 14
Mean Frequency of DPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Child Directed Interaction
Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
Acknowledgment 16.0 10.2 17.3 11.4 Answer 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.1 Behavior Description .55 1.1 .83 1.2 Compliance 3.8 4.3 2.2 3.1 Contingent Praise .00 .00 * Criticism 3.4 5.2 * Direct Command 9.3 7.9 9.1 10.1 Descriptive/Reflective Question 18.2 10.7 23.4 10.1 Indirect Command 2.6 2.4 3.1 3.1 Information Description 26.9 16.3 33.2 16.3 Information Question 13.8 5.4 12.8 9.1 Laugh 1.9 1.8 2.8 2.4 Labeled Praise .21 .49 * Negative Talk * 2.3 2.1 No Answer 1.7 2.0 .76 .83 Noncompliance 1.0 1.4 .28 .53




87
Table 14--continued
Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
No Opportunity for Answer 1.8 2.4 .72 .88 No Opportunity for Compliance 7.9 5.0 4.5 4.2 Physical Positive .52 1.2 .21 .62 Play Talk 6.4 13.6 3.9 9.4 Praise * 3.0 2.0 Reflection 1.3 3.2 3.1 3.5 Smart Talk .07 .37 * Unlabeled Praise 1.8 2.4 * Inappropriate Behavior 3.4 5.5 2.5 2.3 Prosocial Behaviorb 52.8 21.6 64.8 22.0 Prosocial Behavior-R 25.9 12.0 30.1 14.3 Total Commandsd 11.9 8.7 12.6 11.6 Direct Command Ratio' .73 .27 .65 .29 Note. Based on n = 30 for each group. 'Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk; b Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description, Information Description, Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positive, Reflection, Unlabeled Praise; C Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands.
* Not coded




88
Table 15
Mean Frequency of DPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Parent Directed Interaction
Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
Acknowledgment 14.0 9.8 18.5 9.0 Answer 3.5 3.8 3.0 2.6 Behavior Description .45 1.4 1.2 2.0 Compliance 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 Contingent Praise .03 .19 * Criticism 14.7 10.7 * Direct Command 37.3 22.2 31.4 18.6 Descriptive/Reflective Question 19.2 12.4 25.4 11.0 Indirect Command 14.8 6.2 15.5 7.3 Information Description 44.7 15.2 51.6 17.3 Information Question 10.7 7.5 11.9 6.2 Laugh .97 1.4 3.1 3.6 Labeled Praise .24 .51 * Negative Talk * 9.8 8.0 No Answer 1.4 1.8 .86 1.4 Noncompliance 1.8 1.8 .89 1.2




89
Table 15--continued
Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
No Opportunity for Answer 1.0 1.1 .50 .79 No Opportunity for Compliance 4.6 4.6 3.6 2.9 Physical Positive .69 1.6 .61 .99 Play Talk .66 1.1 6.8 15.9 Praise (total) * 7.3 4.5 Reflection .90 .94 2.5 2.3 Smart Talk .52 .74 * Unlabeled Praise 4.8 4.4 * Inappropriate Behavior 15.2 10.9 9.6 7.9 Prosocial Behavior 68.2 22.8 75.2 22.9 Prosocial Behavior-R 24.5 13.4 24.1 11.8 Total Commands 52.2 24.2 45.4 23.1 Direct Command Ratio .67 .16 .65 .13 Note. Based on n = 30 for each group. 'Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk; b Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description, Information Description, Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positive, Reflection, Unlabeled Praise; C Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands.
* Not coded.




90
Table 16
Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Clean-up Situation
Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
Acknowledgment 11.9 9.8 15.3 7.5 Answer 4.3 3.1 4.0 3.6 Behavior Description .24 .69 .37 .61 Compliance .34 .72 .73 .41 Contingent Praise .00 .00 * Criticism 9.7 9.0 * Direct Command 43.8 31.2 27.0 18.0 Descriptive/Reflective Question 12.0 8.7 18.5 8.2 Indirect Command 15.7 11.0 16.2 10.1 Information Description 35.3 17.8 39.4 16.7 Information Question 6.1 5.8 8.2 4.5 Laugh .69 1.2 2.7 4.2 Labeled Praise .69 1.4 * Negative Talk * 8.6 7.0 No Answer 1.4 1.7 .87 1.0 Noncompliance 1.9 2.3 1.3 2.2




91
Table 16 Continued
Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
No Opportunity for Answer .76 .87 .87 .94 No Opportunity for Compliance 2.5 3.2 3.4 3.0 Physical Positive .79 1.2 .80 1.3 Play Talk .45 .99 1.9 5.7 Praise (total) * 6.9 4.3 Reflection .69 1.0 2.2 1.9 Smart Talk .59 1.2 * Unlabeled Praise 6.1 6.5 * Inappropriate Behavior 10.3 9.4 8.1 7.1 Prosocial Behavior 60.8 28.5 69.5 26.0 Prosocial Behavior-R 25.4 15.4 31.4 13.5 Total Commands 59.5 35.5 41.3 27.0 Direct Command Ratio .72 .15 .57 .23 Note. Based on n = 30 for each group. "Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk; b Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description, Information Description, Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positive, Reflection, Unlabeled Praise; C Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; dTotal Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands.
* Not coded




92
Table 17
Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Child Directed Interaction
Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD)
Acknowledgment 15.2 7.2 12.9 8.0 Answer 7.8 4.2 7.6 5.6 Behavior Description .10 .41 .07 .26 Compliance 3.2 2.7 4.7 5.5 Criticism 3.8 5.1 * Direct Command 8.7 6.1 4.9 4.8 Descriptive/Reflective Question 5.4 4.8 4.8 4.6 Indirect Command 3.4 2.6 2.2 3.1 Information Description 44.5 16.0 45.9 20.3 Information Question 7.2 7.3 4.5 3.7 Laugh 3.4 4.4 1.8 2.7 Labeled Praise .07 .26 * Negative Talk * 3.2 3.6 No Answer 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.9 Noncompliance 1.3 1.6 .72 .92 No Opportunity for Answer 3.3 2.1 3.2 3.0

PAGE 1

THE DYADIC PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION CODING SYSTEM II (DPICS II): RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY WITH FATHER-CHILD DY ADS By REBECCA CLARK FOOTE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDG1\1ENT......................... ...................................... 111 LIST OF TABLES .. ........ ............................................................ lV ABSTR.ACT.. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. ... . .. . .... vii INTRODUCTION...... ...................... ... .................................... 1 Direct Behavioral Observation ... . . . . . . . . . . 4 Characteristics of Children with Externalizing Problems . . . 9 The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System................... 18 The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II ... . . . 22 1\1ETIIODS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Participants.... ............................. .................................. 31 Measures...................................................................... 35 Procedures.................... ....... .......................................... 41 Observers............ ....................................................... 44 RESULTS...................... ... .. ............................. ............. .... 47 Psychometric Properties of Measures......... ............................ 47 Differences Between Groups on Self-Report Measures.... ............ 47 Reliability... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Validity. ........ ............................ ................................. 56 DISCUSSION.............................................................. ... .... ... 63 Reliability.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Validity............................... .. ... ................................. ... 67 Limitations and Future Directions........................................ 74 APPENDIX A APPENDIXB TABLES .................................................... SUMMARY OF DPICS II CATEGORIES ........... 77 118 REFERENCES................ ...................... ................................. 121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.................................................. ...... 131 11

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of people have been extremely helpful to me in completing this project and preparing this manuscript. I would like to thank the DPICS II observers Janet Bessmer, Dan Edwards, Jenifer Jacobs, Tricia Durning, and Nola Litwins for their many hours of careful work coding videotapes. I am very grateful to Pamela Bryan for her collaboration through the duration of this study, and particularly for her help in the recruitment of participants and coding of videotapes I would also like to thank Dr. Sheila Eyberg for her guidance during my graduate school training and for her support in completing this project. I am most appreciative of my other committee members Dr. James Algina, Dr. Stephen Boggs, Dr. Gary Geffken, and Dr. James Rodrigue for providing me with their time and expertise. I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Joseph Lea, who was most helpful to me in the final stages of preparing this manuscript. In addition, I would like to give special thanks to Kathleen MacNaughton, Ian Sadler, and Elena Schuhmann, whose friendship has been invaluable to me throughout my graduate training and particularly during the completion of my dissertation Finally, I wish to thank my grandfather, Reverend Arthur Foote, my parents, Dr. Caleb Foote and Susan Foote, and my brother, Benjamin Foote, for their endless support and encouragement. 111

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES 1 Sample Characteristics ... .. .. ............................ .......... ..... ......... 34 2 Scores on Measures Used to Compare Participants....... ................ .. .... 49 3. Reliability for the DPICS II Parent Categories Combined Across Situation and Group........ ... ... ... ............ ............................... 52 4 Reliability for the DPICS II Child Categories Combined Across Situation and Group... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Summary Variables for Clinic-Referred and Comparison Father-Child Dyads Summed Across Situations...... ...... 57 6. Correlations Between the DPICS II Variables and Scores on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and the Parental Locus of Control Scale-Short Form ......... .... ............................ ....................... ... 60 7. Correlations Between the DPICS II Summary Variables and Scores on the Parenting Stress Index......... ......... .............. ................. .. ... 61 8. Categories of the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS)... ..................................... .... ........... ... ... .. .. ....... 77 9 Categories of the Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System II (DPICS-II) ..... 78 10. DPICS II Parent Summary Variables .. ....................... ... ............... 80 11. DPICS II Child Summary Variables ... .... ........... .. ............. .. ....... 81 12. Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Parent Categories Across Situations for the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups .. ... ... ...... ... 82 13. Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Child Categories Across S i tuations for the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups ...... ........... 84 14. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Child Directed Interaction... . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 IV

PAGE 5

15. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Parent Directed Interaction......... ........................... ... ... .. ..... 88 16. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Clean-up Situation... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 17. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Child Directed Interaction.............. ........... ... .. ... .. .. ............. 92 18. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Parent Directed Interaction ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 19. Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Clean-up Situation ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 20. Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the Clinic Referred and Comparison Groups During the Child Directed Interaction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 21. Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the Clinic Referred and Comparison Groups During the Parent Directed Interaction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 22. Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Clean-up Situation...... .... 102 23. Summary ofReliability for Child Categories in the Clinic Referred and Comparison Groups During the Child Directed Interaction...................... .. ................ ........................... 104 24. Summary of Reliability for Child Categories in the Clinic Referred and Comparison Groups During the Parent Directed Interaction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 25. Summary ofReliability for Child Categories in the ClinicReferred and Comparison Groups During the Clean-up Situation . . 108 26. Classification Results for the Discriminant Function Analysis for Each Father-Child Dyad in the Total Sample.......... ........................ 110 V

PAGE 6

27. Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Parent Verbalization Categories for the Clinic-Referred Group ............................................ .. . 28 Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Parent Verbalization Categories for the Comparison Group .. ............ ... ................. .. .. ............. 29 Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Child Verbalization Categories for the Clinic-Referred Group ....... ... ............ .. .. ......... .. ... . 30 Intercorrelation Matrix for DPICS II Summary Variables .. ..... ........... Vl 114 115 116 117

PAGE 7

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE DYADIC PARENT-CHILD INTERACTION CODING SYS1EM II (DPICS II): RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY WITH FATHER-CHILD DY ADS By Rebecca Clark Foote August 1999 Chairman : Sheila Eyberg Major Department: Clinical and Health Psychology The reliability and validity of the Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System II (DPICS II) with father-child dyads were assessed in the present study. The DPICS II is the revised version of a behavioral observation coding system used in research and clinical settings to describe the quality of parent-child dyadic interactions The DPICS II contains 25 categories to code parents' and children's verbal and nonverbal behavior. The study participants were sixty father-child dyads representing a clinic-referred group (n = 30) and a non-problem comparison group (n = 30). The children in the clinic referred group were participants in a large treatment outcome study (N = 100) for preschool children with behavior problems. All clinic-referred participants had met diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder The data on the clinic-referred families used in the present study were collected as part of the families' standard initial assessment in the larger outcome study. The father-child pairs in the comparison group were recruited from the Gainesville, FL, community through advertisements. To be Vil

PAGE 8

included in the study, the children in the comparison group could not meet diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder. The two groups were compared on several measures including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI), the Parental Locus of Control Scale Short Form (PLOC-SF), the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI), and the DPICS II behavior observations. Videotapes of the father-child dyads were coded by observers trained to use the DPICS II. The primary coders were blind to the hypotheses of this study Thirty percent of the videotapes for each group, randomly selected were re-coded to evaluate reliability. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlations and Cohen's kappa. Overall, the DPICS II categories were shown to have acceptable reliability estimates. Significant differences between groups were found on DPICS II variables, providing evidence for the discriminative validity of the coding system Furthermore, the DPICS II demonstrated convergent validity by correlating significantly with scores on the ECBI, the PLOC-SF, and the parent and child scales of the PSI. Recommendations for improving DPICS II are discussed. Vlll

PAGE 9

INTRODUCTION It has been well documented that fathers are neglected in research on developmental psychopathology (e.g., Phares, 1996b~ Phares & Compas, 1992). Following an extensive review, Phares and Compas {1992) reported that only 26% of studies of child and adolescent psychopathology included both mothers and fathers and provided separate analyses for each parent. Moreover, whereas 48% of the studies focused exclusively on mothers, only 1 % focused exclusively on the role of fathers (Phares & Compas, 1992). This oversight has also been noted in the normative developmental research literature Only 20% of the articles published in Child Development during 1990 included fathers (Russell & Radojevic, 1992). The bias toward excluding fathers in studies of parental influence has serious substantive and methodological implications for the understanding of family relationships and their impact on child adjustment, as well as for the development of prevention and intervention procedures. First, excluding fathers from participation does not allow for a comparison of each parent's contribution to childhood adjustment, nor for the likelihood that parental contributions are cumulative and interactive Second, fathers' nonparticipation may generate biased data which limit their generalizability. For example, studies that have relied on mothers' reports of paternal activities and attitudes are of questionable reliability and validity. In addition, the father's presence or absence 1

PAGE 10

2 within the family may change the quality of the mother-child relationship (Belsky, 1981; Hops et al., 1987). A number of plausible explanations for the lack of inclusion of fathers in clinical research have been offered. From a theoretical perspective, ignoring fathers' possible influence tends to focus the "blame" for children's problems on mothers (Caplan & Hall-McCorquodale, 1985; Downey & Coyne, 1991; Phares, 1992), thereby maintaining a sexist bias based on outmoded concepts of parental roles (Phares, 1992, 1996a). Research over the past two decades has shown that despite the lesser role fathers may play, at least in terms of proportional involvement, they can and do make significant contributions to the child's normal development that in some respects are very similar to the effects shown by mothers (Lamb, Pleclc, & Levine; 1985; Parke, Maddonald, Beitel, & Bhavnagri, 1988). Moreover, a review of the studies with both referred and non-referred samples of fathers and children indicates that there is a substantial association between paternal factors and child and adolescent maladjustment (Phares & Compas, 1992) Another explanation for excluding fathers in research relates to the assumption that many children, particularly those who are clinic-referred, do not have contact with their biological father (Phares & Lum, 1997). Based on the U.S. Census data, Roberts (1993) documented that 61 % of children under 18 years old in the United States live with both of their biological parents. A total of 11 % of children live with one biological parent and a stepparent, 24% live with their single (never married, separated, divorced, or widowed) mother, and 4% live with their single father. These figures differ according to race and ethnicity, with the most striking difference showing that 26% of African American children

PAGE 11

live with both of their biological parents, 13% live in a stepfamily, 56% live with their single mother, and 4% live with their single father 3 These data, however, do not tell us about how many children have relationships with their biological fathers or other father figures, even if they do not live with them. Selzer (1991) found that over 70% of children who do not live with their father have some type of contact with him. This contact often includes social contact, economic involvement, and paternal participation in childrearing decisions Similar results have been found by Mott (1990) with the additional finding that a substantial number of children also have contact with a stable father figure other than their biological father. Phares and Lum (1997) examined whether the percentage of clinically-referred children living with only one biological parent was higher than in the general population. They found that while clinically referred children are somewhat less likely to live with both biological parents ( 42% ), well over half of referred children have regular face-to-face contact with their fathers A third explanation for excluding fathers is based on the assumption that fathers are less willing than mothers to participate in research Although one investigation found that fathers had lower rates of participation (Hops & Seeley, 1992), a review of child development studies found that fathers were no more difficult to recruit than mothers (Woolet, White, & Lyon, 1982) The latter review found that subject refusal was more related to factors such as time involvement and number of data collections than to parent gender (Woolet, White & Lyon, 1982).

PAGE 12

4 Overall, the data suggest that the majority of children do have relationships with their biological father or some other father figure, and that fathers play a significant role in their child's adjustment. Although father involvement is still quantitatively much less than mother involvement, the "new father'' of the late 20th century is more physically and emotionally involved with his children than in previous generations (Lamb, 1986; Thompson & Walker, 1989). Many questions exist, however, regarding the exact ways fathers influence their children Numerous researchers have noted the importance of including fathers in clinical and nonclinical research (Long, 1997; Phares & Compas, 1992; Phares & Lum, 1997), as well as in child and family therapy (e.g., Hecker, 1991; Horton, 1984; LeCroy, 1987). One important future direction called for by researchers involves the investigation of fathers' direct interactions with their children (Phares & Compas, 1992). Direct Behavioral Observation Direct behavioral observation measures have been called the "hallmark" of behavioral assessment (Ciminero, 1986) and have been used widely across content areas within the field of psychology (Foster & Cone, 1986; Bornstein, Bridgwater, Hickey, & Sweeney, 1980). Because observational methods reduce the need to rely solely on self report, they are an important research tool in the assessment of children with behavior problems (McMahon & Forehand, 1988) Not only do children have difficulty providing accurate self-report about socially undesirable or inappropriate behavior (Hartman & Wood, 1990), but concerns have also been raised about the accuracy of parental perceptions of children's disruptive behavior (Wahler & Sansbury, 1992). For these

PAGE 13

reasons, direct observation by an independent observer of children's behavior and their interactions with relevant individuals in their environment is considered to provide the most objective description of target behaviors, such as noncompliance to parental commands and the effectiveness of parents' responses (McMahon & Forehand, 1988) 5 Although behavioral observations were once seen as inherently objective and valid, it is now agreed that there are measurement issues related to aspects of observational methodology that can lead to confounds in the data collected, thereby generating invalid results (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995) A basic requirement of an observational system is that it be both reliable and valid. Furthermore, a system's utility is enhanced if it provides normative data and is clinically practical. Reliability Reliability traditionally refers to consistency in measurement, or the extent to which a person's score, using the same assessment device, remains constant under varying conditions (Anastasi, 1988) From this perspective, agreement between two observers, identically trained using the same coding system and observing the same situation, can be viewed as a measure of consistency Numerous methods of assessing interobserver agreement have been developed over the past 50 years. Only a subset of methods, however, dominate the behavioral literature (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995). One of the most easily calculated indices involves computing the percent of agreements out of the total number of agreements and disagreements. Unfortunately, because this method does not control for chance levels of agreement between observers, it is regarded by some as the least desirable of the reliability

PAGE 14

6 estimates (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986; Jacob, Tennenbaum, & Krahn, 1987). Users of observation systems are more frequently advocating the use of the kappa statistic than percent agreement because kappa corrects for chance agreement (Hops, Davis, and Longoria, 1995; Suen & Ary, 1989). Kappa is defined as the ratio of actual nonchance agreements divided by the total possible nonchance agreements (Suen & Ary, 1989) The range of possible kappa values extends from 1.00 to 1.00 As the values approach zero and negative numbers, reliability is considered to be at chance levels of agreement or lower Kappa values above .75 are considered excellent, values from .60 to .75 are considered good, and values from .40 to .60 are considered fair (Fleiss, 1981) Considered the most comprehensive estimate of reliability the intraclass correlation coefficient method utilizes the procedures of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and incorporates tests of both interobserver and intraobserver reliability. Factors are tested for their ability to explain variance in the dependent variables of interest. When behavior is observed across several observers and subjects, the variance in the behavioral scores can be examined for differences among observers (an unwanted source of variance), differences among subjects (true score variance), and random error. Overall, intraclass correlations have been described in positive terms and are seen as broadening the scope of analysis for reliability studies (Hartmann & Wood, 1990). Validity In addition to establishing consistency in the coding of observational data, an assessment device must be shown to measure what it purports to measure. Hops et al. (1995) discuss the concept of validity as it applies to direct observation Estimates of

PAGE 15

7 observer accuracy based on observer agreement with a preestablished criterion, such as a standard protocol, is one form of establishing validity. Evidence of criterion-related validity is also important and can be demonstrated by relating the observations to data collected by alternate methods either at the same point in time (i.e concurrent validity) or at some point in the future (i.e predictive validity) Convergent validity describes the correlation between the observed data and measures that are expected to relate, whereas discriminant validity describes the correlation between the observed data and measures that are not expected to relate Discriminantive validity, in contrast, identifies differences between groups of individuals whose dissimilarities are established by other criteria Other forms of validity related to the construction of the coding system also need to be considered. Content validity applies to the adequacy of the sample of behavioral codes If the sample of behavior is incomplete, does not reflect the intended use of the data, or is not theoretically based, then the data's relation to an alternative measure of that behavior is minimized Construct validity is a broad concept that refers to the extent to which a measure reflects the construct of interest. Construct validity becomes an issue when individual codes are collapsed into larger clusters Codes can be combined that (a) are assumed a priori to be part of a specific response class (b) are demonstrated to have similarities in their functional relations, or ( c) are demonstrated by factor analysis (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995). Factors Affecting the Reliability and Validity of Observational Systems Variables related to the design of the coding system the coding procedure, and the training of observers affect the reliability and validity of the data collected (Johnson &

PAGE 16

Bolstad, 1973). Specifically, factors such as the complexity of the coding system (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995; Jones, Reid, & Patterson, 1974; Kazdin, 1977; Mash & McElwee, 1974), the frequency of occurrence of behaviors (Hartmann, 1977), observer expectancies (Kazdin, 1977), observer drift (Johnson & Bolstad, 1973), and subject reactivity (Johnson & Boldstad, 1973) all have an impact on the interpretability of observational data Behavioral observation coding systems need to incorporate and account for these influences. Standardization 8 In addition to being reliable and valid, observational systems must be adequately standardized (Ciminero & Drabman, 1987; Goldfried, 1979). The absence of normative data has been a problem for direct observation systems, particularly as their use has increased (Ciminero & Drabman, 1987). Without normative data, one cannot assess the degree to which a parent's or child's behavior is outside of normal limits nor does one have a criterion to evaluate treatment effectiveness (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981). Practicality Concerns regarding the practicality of direct observation, particularly in clinical settings, have been raised (Mash & Terdal, 1988). While direct observation in naturalistic settings, such as the home or school, is thought to be too time consuming for typical clinical applications, observation in analogue situations is thought to yield information about behavior that may not be generalizable to more relevant settings Structured behavioral observations in the laboratory setting have been proposed as an effective alternative because they can efficiently elicit the target behaviors and can facilitate

PAGE 17

9 comparison of behavior across participants (Hughes & Haynes, 1978). In terms of the practicality of the actual system, elaborate equipment, auxiliary coders, home visits, or lengthy observational periods should not be required (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981). Finally, to be useful for researchers and clinicians who evaluate and treat child behavior problems, an observational system should accomplish the following goals: (1) describe maladaptive parent-child interactions, (2) define the child behavior(s) targeted for change, (3) specify the appropriate treatment intervention, and (4) evaluate the effects of the intervention (Roberts & Forehand, 1978). Characteristics of Children with Externalizing Problems and Their Families Children diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder demonstrate a "recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures," according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Learning Disorders, and Communication Disorders often co-occur in children diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder {AP A, 1994) Familial and Environmental Factors Familial and environmental factors have been found to be associated with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Marital discord and parental psychopathology (e.g., maternal depression, parental history of behavior problems, and parental Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder) are more commonly found in families with a child diagnosed with this disorder {APA, 1994; Dumas & Serketich, 1994; Griest & Forehand,

PAGE 18

10 1982). In a non-referred sample of boys and girls, the intensity of child behavior problems was negatively correlated with parental alliance regarding parenting issues (Bearss & Eyberg, 1998) In a sample of primarily boys, Reeves et al. (1987) found that fathers of children with Conduct Disorder, a severe form of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, were more likely to be alcoholic or have antisocial personality disorder than fathers of normal children Fathers of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder have been found to differ from fathers of normal control children on a variety of characteristics, such as attention span (Alberts-Corush, Firestone, & Goodman, 1986), behavioral interactions (Tallmadge & Barkley, 1983), perceptions of parenting behavior and parental self-esteem (Margalit, 1985; Mash & Johnston, 1983), and expectations for future compliant child behavior (Sobol, Ashbourne, Earn, & Cunningham, 1989). In a sample of twins with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, high paternal criticism and high paternal malaise were associated with father ratings of their children's hyperactive behavior (Goodman & Stevenson, 1989). Additionally, Margalit (1985) found that life satisfaction of boys with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder was most strongly predicted by paternal support, followed by paternal discipline, paternal indulgence, and maternal support Few differences in emotional functioning and psychological symptoms have been found between fathers of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and fathers of normal control children (Cunningham, Benness, & Siegal, 1988; Reeves Weey, Elkind, & Zametkin, 1987).

PAGE 19

11 Numerous studies have shown a link between paternal factors and delinquency. Such factors have included: lack of paternal supervision and discipline along with a history of paternal criminality (Loeber, 1990; Loeber & Dishion, 1983); inconsistent family communication patterns (Lessin & Jacob, 1984); high amounts of paternal defensive communication in a competitive context (Alexander, Waldron, Barton, & Mas, 1989); and conflictual, unaffectionate father-son relations (Borduin, Pruitt, & Henggeler, 1986; Hanson, Henggeler, Haefele, & Rodick, 1984). Where comparison data are available, father and mother scores on broad measures of child-related stress typically have not differed in families of preschool-aged children with normal development or a range of developmental disabilities (Cameron, Dobson, & Day, 1991; Hagberg, 1989; Kazak, 1987; Perry, Sarlo-McGarvey, & Factor, 1992; Weinhouse & Nelson, 1992; Wolf, Noh, Fishman, & Speechley, 1989). Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, Boggs, & Algina (1998) found that although fathers of conduct-disordered preschoolers reported less parent-related stress than mothers, their child-related stress scores were elevated in the clinical range and comparable to mothers' scores. Similarly, Baker and Heller ( 1996) found that fathers reported elevated stress levels when their child's externalizing problems were in the severe range Webster-Stratton (1988) found that fathers' self-reported depression, poor marital adjustment, and negative life events were unrelated to fathers' behavior with their children, whereas maternal self-reported personal adjustment was significantly related to a high number of maternal criticisms and physically negative behaviors with their children. Christensen et al. (1983) found, however, that fathers' personal discomfort was negatively

PAGE 20

related to a positive approach with children and positively related to intolerance of their children's negative behaviors 12 Socioeconomic disadvantage has also been identified as a characteristic of a subset of families in which a child is clinic-referred for significant behavior problems Dodge Pettit, and Bates (1994) found in a sample of 585 children followed from kindergarten to third grade that there was a linear relationship between the risk of developing behavior problems and lower SES. Dumas (1984) found that, in a treatment outcome study of a clinic-referred sample of children with behavior problems, a significant portion of the families (approximately 50%) were classified in the high socio-economic disadvantage range The relationship between these familial and environmental stressors and the development of behavior problems has yet to be determined. However, Dumas's (1984) work indicated that specific interaction patterns differentiated mothers with lower socio economic status from those with higher socioeconomic status which may account for the greater numbers oflower status families in clinic-referred groups Additionally, there is clear evidence that fathers' interaction styles are influenced by their socioeconomic circumstances (Radin & Epstein, 1975; Roberts, 1987). Mother-Child Interactions Specific behaviors and interaction patterns have also been found to distinguish children with significant behavior problems from non-referred children The vast majority of literature on parent-child interactions has focused on the mother-child dyad. Although a variety of behavioral coding systems have been employed to study children with

PAGE 21

13 behavioral problems and their mothers, several distinguishing features of these dyads have been consistently found The most frequently replicated feature that separates the behavior of children with significant behavior problems from normal children is their rate of noncompliance. In a survey of 43 studies of home observations with conduct disordered children, 77% of the studies used coding systems that included some measure of compliance/noncompliance (McIntyre, Bornstein, Isaacs, & Woody, 1983) In the studies that included a normal comparison group, compliance was found to be significantly different between conduct-disordered and the control children. Griest, Forehand, Wells, and McMahon (1980) found that percent compliance to maternal "alpha" commands (i.e., commands for motoric behavior for which the child has an opportunity to comply) for clinic-referred children was 79 8% compared to 86.2% for the non-referred children (n < 05). Similarly, Robinson and Eyberg (1981) found that children referred for behavior problems had 48% compliance to commands compared to 62% compliance for non referred children (n < 01). Bessmer (1996) found that clinic-referred children were compliant with 53% of total maternal commands compared to the non-referred group who were compliant with 75% of total maternal commands (n < .001) In spite of the different methods used to measure compliance, in each of these studies the compliance ratios were significantly different. Their rate of inappropriate behaviors is another distinguishing feature of children with behavior problems Robinson and Eyberg (1981) found that the children with behavior problems were more likely to whine and yell than non-referred children Other investigators have also documented significant differences in the frequency of whining

PAGE 22

14 between groups (McIntyre et al. 1983; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975) Robinson and Eyberg (1981) found that total inappropriate behaviors (i.e., cry, whine, yell, smart talk, destructive) were 1.16 in ten minutes for normal children and 6.65 in ten minutes for behavior problem children. Forster, Eyberg, and Bums (1990) found that children with conduct problem behavior issued more commands during the Child Directed Interaction (CDI) than non-referred children. Children who issue numerous commands during play may appear "bossy'' to others, which could have a negative impact on the child's social interactions (Forster et al., 1990) Bessmer (1996) found that clinic-referred children averaged approximately 31 inappropriate behaviors in the 15-minute observation period while the non-referred children engaged in an average of 10 inappropriate behaviors in the same length of time. The findings related to whether children with behavior problems display fewer prosocial behaviors compared to normal children are mixed Lobitz and Johnson (1975) found that the proportion of child positive valence behaviors (i.e laugh, approval, attention, talk, nonverbal interaction, and independent activity) to total child behavior discriminated between children with and without behavior problems Forster et al (1990) noted that children with behavior problems were less likely to use positive verbalizations, such as praise of the parent. However, Patterson (1976) did not find codable differences in the prosocial behaviors of conduct-problem children. Bessmer (1996) found that clinic referred and non-referred children did not differ in prosocial behaviors when they interacted with their mothers.

PAGE 23

15 Two types of verbal behavior have been found to consistently characterize mothers of children with behavior problems. First, mothers of children referred for behavior problems give more commands than mothers of normal children (Bessmer, 1996; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981; Rogers, Forehand, & Griest, 1981; Webster Stratton, 1985). Webster-Stratton (1985) found that mothers of clinic-referred children were more likely than mothers of non-referred children to give both indirect ( e g., "will you pick up the toys?) and direct commands (e.g., "pick up the toys."), and to repeat commands before the child had sufficient opportunity to comply. Bessmer (1996) found that mothers of children with behavior problems used significantly more commands and that a higher percentage of those commands were direct. In addition, mothers of clinic-referred children have been found to engage in more negative verbal behavior than mothers of non-referred children. Specifically, mothers of clinic-referred children issue significantly more critical statements (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981; Bessmer, 1996; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981; Webster-Stratton, 1985). Lobitz and Johnson (1975) found that parents ofreferred children differed significantly from parents of non-referred children on a summary variable of negative behaviors (i.e., threatening commands, negative commands, disapproval, ignoring, and physical negative). Bessmer (1996) found that mothers of normal children engaged in more prosocial behaviors (Answer, Acknowledgment, Behavioral and Information Descriptions, Laugh, Labeled and Unlabeled Praise, Reflections, and Physical Positive) than mothers of clinic referred children The non-referred mothers issued an average of 121 (SD= 34.6) prosocial behaviors during 15 minutes of observation, while the clinic-referred mothers

PAGE 24

16 issued an average of93 (SD= 29). This finding, however, has not been consistently demonstrated in other studies comparing referred and non-referred groups Griest, Forehand, Wells, and McMahon (1980) found no differences between groups of mothers on total positive attention and contingent positive attention. Webster-Stratton (1985) found that Praise was significantly different between clinic and non-clinic groups of mothers, but found no differences between groups on Questions, Physical Positives, and Descriptive and Reflective Comments Overall, these studies suggest that children with behavior problems have significantly higher rates of noncompliance and inappropriate behavior, and emit fewer prosocial behaviors when observed with their mothers. In addition, mothers of children with behavior problems issue significantly more commands and negative verbalizations, such as criticism Father-Child Interactions In the first observational study of conduct-disordered children that included both mothers and fathers and analyzed them separately, few and relatively small differences were found between fathers and mothers in their interactions with their young children (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981) Like mothers, fathers of conduct problem children issued more direct commands than fathers of normal children. Fathers, however, tended to be even more directive and give more indirect commands than mothers when they were instructed to let their child lead the play Similar to mothers, fathers of clinic-referred children issued significantly more critical statements than fathers of non-referred children In addition, the clinic-referred children engaged in higher rates of deviant and

PAGE 25

noncompliant behavior with their fathers than normal children. A more recent observational study (Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997) also found that disruptive preschool boys were more likely to make negative elicitations and show negative affect with their fathers than comparison boys. 17 In a study that compared the interactions of hyperactive and normal boys with their mothers and fathers (Tallmadge & Barkley, 1983), both mothers and fathers of hyperactive boys gave more commands and asked more questions than mothers and fathers of normal boys When compared with parents of normal children, parents of hyperactive boys became more directive and controlling with their sons when the situation moved from free play to the task condition Despite the dearth of research on father-child interactions in clinic-referred samples, the developmental literature has extensively studied the interactions of fathers and normal children The bulk of research has failed to identify stylistic differences between mothers and fathers, using a variety of measures For example, a number of studies following parent-infant interaction into the preschool period (Pederson, 1980) revealed many more similarities between parents than differences Clarke-Stewart {1980) found that the quality of father-child interaction was equivalent to that of mothers and children as measured by parental responsiveness, stimulation, affection, and teaching. Pakizegi's (1978) observations of three-year-olds with their parents identified a typical pattern. Adults' play with preschoolers tended to support the child's activities, in exploring toys or developing lines of play The child's approach to each parent consisted of a large proportion of requests for information or requests for action (3 8% of all child

PAGE 26

actions), and a fair amount of"bossing" the parent. More recent research has tended to confirm the similarity between parents of normal children in the nurturance they report (Bentley & Fox, 1991), their disciplinary regimes (Hart, de Wolfe, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992), and their teaching styles in various observational settings (Worden, Kee, & Ingle, 1987). Behavioral observation systems intended to assess parent-child interactions of children with conduct problems should include categories known to differ between children with and without clinically significant behavior problems In addition, these systems should include categories known to differ between parents, both mothers and fathers, of conduct problem children and normal children. The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System 18 The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg & Robinson, 1983) is a widely used system that allows for efficient direct observation of parent-child interactions in a standardized laboratory setting using a reliable and valid method Designed for both research and clinical purposes, the system was intended to provide practicing clinicians with a manageable and practical way to measure preand posttreatment changes as well as on-going treatment progress Simultaneously, the DPICS was intended to provide researchers with a reliable and valid system that measures behaviors with sufficient detail and specificity to advance our knowledge in the assessment and treatment of behaviorally disordered children. Some of the basic categories of the DPICS, such as direct and indirect commands, labeled and unlabeled praise, physical positive and negative, and critical statements, were

PAGE 27

19 originally derived from the Hanf (1968) and Patterson (1969) coding systems. Additional categories including descriptive statements, acknowledgments, and irrelevant verbalizations were included in the DPICS to allow for continuous coding of all parental verbal behaviors. The system also contained categories to assess children's inappropriate behaviors (e.g., yell, whine cry, destructive, and smart talk) Two sequences of behaviors were coded : (a) the parent s response to inappropriate child behavior, and (b) the child's response to parental commands (i.e compliance, noncompliance, or no opportunity for compliance) The coding system was gradually developed and improved using feedback from users of the system from 1974 until its publication in 1983 The 1983 version contains a total of 22 parent and child behavior categories (Appendix A, Table 8) DPICS observations are typically conducted in a laboratory or clinic setting. For laboratory observation, the parent-child pair is observed from behind a one-way mirror while they play with a standard set oftoys selected to encourage positive, interactive play. The parent-child dyads are observed during three standard DPICS situations designed to assess the quality of the parent and child's social interactions. Each situation differs both in the amount of parental control required and the demand placed on the child for compliance. In the first situation, called the Child-Directed Interaction (CDI), the parent is instructed to follow the child's lead during play CDI is intended to place little demand on the child for compliance and to offer the parent opportunities to provide the child with positive attention (e.g., descriptions, praises, answers) If the parent is successful in

PAGE 28

20 following the child's lead in play, little child noncompliance and inappropriate behavior are expected to occur in CDI. In the second situation, the Parent-Directed Interaction (PDI), the parent is instructed to lead the play and attempt to get the child to follow his/her rules. In this situation, the observers assess the parent's ability to direct their child and gain the child's cooperation Because the PDI situation increases the amount of parental control, it provides observers with an opportunity to evaluate the child's response to directions (e g., compliance, inappropriate behavior) In the third situat i on, Clean-up (CU), the parent is instructed to get the child to pick up the toys without assistance and put them into their respective containers The Clean-up situation requires the highest level of parental control. Unlike the first two play situations, Clean-up is a task situation in which parents are expected to direct their children using commands and directive information descriptions to inform the child of the task demands This situation provides opportunities to assess the parent's success in gaining compliance from the child, to assess inappropriate behavior in response to parental demands, and to assess compliance to the commands. The parents' use of praise and positive attention for compliance can also be evaluated. The total time required for comprehensive baseline and post-treatment observation of a parent-child dyad is approximately 25 minutes The CDI and PDI situations each last approximately 10 minutes The first five minutes of each of the two play situations is used as a warm-up and transition period, and the last five minutes in each of the two play situations is coded Because cleaning up the toys may not require more than a few

PAGE 29

21 minutes with a compliant child, the initial five minutes of the CU situation is coded, after which the observation session can be terminated. Coding of the dyad may be conducted "live" with the observer coding during the actual observation period. Clinicians may prefer to use selected categories when coding "live" to assess behaviors targeted for change. Alternatively, the parent-child interactions can be videotaped and coded at a later date The latter method is recommended for research purposes In Robinson & Eyberg's (1981) study to standardize and validate the DPICS, parent-child dyads were observed in the two play situations, CDI and PDI. The standardization sample consisted of20 families (11 fathers) who had been referred to a university child psychology clinic for treatment of behavior problems and 22 control families (16 fathers) recruited from the community The mean interrater reliability coefficient for parent behaviors was .91 (range= .67-1.00) and for the child behaviors was 92 (range= 76 1.00). In a discriminant analysis, the DPICS variables were found to classify correctly 94% of the families into either the clinic-referred or non-referred group. The DPICS variables also accounted for 61 % of the variance in parental reports of their children's behavior at home on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) Thus, the DPICS has demonstrated reliability and validity as an observational system for children with behavior problems. The results of the study suggested that there are few and relatively small differences between fathers and mothers in their interactions with their young children. Children were equally compliant and exhibited similar rates of deviant behavior with parents of either sex in the playroom

PAGE 30

22 observations Mothers consistently gave more praise than fathers during CDI, whereas fathers tended to be more directive and give more indirect commands in CDI. There were no differences in parental behavior with boys and girls, nor were there differential rates of deviance or noncompliance between boys and girls Since its development, the DPICS has been widely used both clinically and in research to describe parent-child interactions. For example, the DPICS has been used to distinguish parent-child interactions of mothers of neglected children, children with behavior problems, and normal control children (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981) and abusive and nonabusive families (Webster-Stratton, 1985) Furthermore, DPICS has been employed as a measure of pre-to post treatment changes for children with behavior problems (Eyberg & Robinson, 1982; Eyberg & Matarazzo, 1980; Eisenstadt, Eyberg, McNeil, Newcomb, & Funderburk, 1993; Webster-Stratton, 1985; Zangwill, 1984). The system continued to be evaluated and refined by its users Wruble, Sheeber, Sorenson, et al ( 1991) evaluated the procedure for coding child compliance, verifying the use of the five-second interval for compliance through observation of compliance times in non referred children. Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II Recently, the DPICS has been expanded and revised The new version, DPICS II, shares many similarities with the original system including use of the same observation procedures (i.e CDI, PDI, and CU) and retention of many of the original categories (Eyberg, Bessmer, Newcomb, Edwards, & Robinson, 1994) The expanded version contains twenty-five categories for child behavior and twenty-seven categories for parent

PAGE 31

23 behavior (Appendix B). The DPICS II differs from the previous version in two major ways. First, the rules or guidelines for coding behaviors have been clarified and expanded upon based on feedback from users of the DPICS. In the manual for DPICS II, the descriptions of the categories are followed by more detailed guidelines to facilitate accurate coding and by a greater variety of examples of parent and child behaviors to illustrate the coding principles Attempts have been made by the authors to operationalize the coding criteria to a greater degree to reduce and/or eliminate subjective judgments by the coders For verbalizations, coding rules were often based on grammatical properties of the words used rather than on assumptions about the intended meaning of the words. For vocalizations and nonverbal behaviors, the coding rules were designed to provide sufficient observable behavioral criteria to facilitate reliable coding. The second major change involved the addition of several behavioral categories and the removal of several other categories Table 9 in Appendix A lists the original categories of the DPICS along with the categories that have been added in DPICS II. While the DPICS focused on behaviors that seemed most salient for assessment and treatment (i.e., :frequency of the child's inappropriate behaviors, :frequency of parents' praise, commands, and criticism), in the DPICS II, the categories for child and parent behaviors have been designed to be reflexive, in that the same verbal and motor behaviors are coded for both the parent and child. Although this change greatly expands the total number of categories in the system, the reflexive nature of the parent and child categories enables coders to learn one set of rules for the categories which then apply to both the parent and child behaviors

PAGE 32

24 By allowing coding of the same behaviors for parents and children, DPICS II may be a more useful research and clinical tool. It is possible for clinicians and researchers to use the DPICS II to describe behaviors within the interaction that may elicit or maintain the children's behavior problems and assess changes in these behaviors during and after treatment. For example, parents' modeling of inappropriate behaviors may be associated with the children's use of these inappropriate behaviors. Specifically, parents' use of critical statements and smart talk may be associated with higher levels of criticisms, smart talk, whine, and yell in their children. The DPICS II may also be useful in assessing socially appropriate behaviors. Because children with behavior problems have been found to be less socially competent than non-referred children (La Freniere, Dumas, Capuano, & Dubeau, 1992), categories for coding child appropriate verbalizations are included to allow researchers and clinicians to use the DPICS II to examine the child behaviors related to prosocial skills. Several new categories have been added to the original system, and others have been divided into smaller units. The DPICS categories of Descriptive Statements and Descriptive/Reflective Questions have each been divided into two categories The subdivision of the original categories was intended to capture differences in the directiveness and/or attentiveness communicated in the verbalization The Descriptive Statements category was divided into Behavioral Descriptions (i.e., statements that follow the other person by directly describing the on-going or immediately completed behavior of the other member of the dyad) and Information Descriptions (i.e., statements that describe aspects of the play situation (e.g., toys, feelings, behaviors of the speaker) that need not be

PAGE 33

25 related to the behavior of the other member of the dyad) The DPICS category of Descriptive/Reflective Question has also been divided into two types of questions : (a) Information Questions that request a verbal response from the listener that is more than an acknowledgment, and (b) Descriptive/Reflective Questions that require no more than a brief verbal acknowledgment from the listener. The Question categories were divided to enable separate recordings of components of interactions that may be directive or coercive and have a higher likelihood of eliciting noncompliance or inappropriate behavior in children. The division of these categories is intended to allow researchers and clinicians to examine further the maladaptive interactions that distinguish children with behavior problems and their parents from families in which these difficulties are not reported DPICS II permits several additional sequences to be measured in the interaction Parental Labeled Praise following child Compliance to Commands is now coded as Contingent Labeled Praise and whether a question requesting information has been answered appropriately or not can also be recorded This sequential information may be helpful in determining the amount of reciprocity in the dyad and may be a feature of parent-child dyads that distinguishes clinic-referred families from normal families. Finally, several categories contained in the original system have been removed Reasons for removing the categories included poor interobserver agreement, infrequency of the behavior and lack of utility of the category Parent categories that are no longer contained in the system are Irrelevant Verbalization, Responds to ( child) Deviant, Ignores ( child) Deviant. Child categories that have been eliminated are Change Activity and Cry.

PAGE 34

26 In addition to research applications, the DPICS II is helpful in clinical settings as a way to monitor parents' use of effective verbal behaviors frequently taught in behavior management treatment programs for young children. Both DPICS and DPICS II have been used to monitor and assess Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) a parent training program designed to treat children with behavior problems and their parents (Hembree-Kigin & McNeil, 1995) A basic requirement of an observational system of conduct-disordered children is that it be both reliable and valid In addition, such a system must discriminate normal from conduct problem families. Normative data are essential in that they provide diagnostic information as well as a basis against which to evaluate treatment outcome Bessmer (1996) examined the reliability and validity of the research version of DPICS II by comparing videotaped interactions of mother-child dyads in which the child was referred to a psychology clinic for behavior problems and diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder to non-referred mother-child dyads. The study participants were 6 0 mother-child dyads representing a clinic-referred group (n = 30) and a non probl e m comparison group (n = 30) The children in the clinic-referred group were participants in a large treatment outcome study (N = 100) for preschool children with behavior problems The two groups were compared on several measures including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1995), the Parenting Locus of Control Scale (PLOC; Campis, Lyman, & Prentice-Dunn, 1986), and the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg, 1999), as well as the DPICS II behavioral observations. Reliability was asses s ed using percent agreement, intraclass correlations, and Cohen's kappa. Overall, the

PAGE 35

27 DPICS II categories were shown to have acceptable reliability estimates The DPICS II also demonstrated convergent validity by accounting for a significant proportion of the variance in the scores on the ECBI, the PLOC, and the parent and child scales of the PSI. In addition, significant differences in the expected direction were found on all of the DPICS II summary variables with the exception of child Prosocial Behavior. Finally, a discriminant function analysis was performed on selected DPICS II summary variables (i.e., child Compliance, child Prosocial Behavior, child Inappropriate Behavior, parent Total Command, parent Prosocial Behavior, parent Direct Command Ratio, and parent Inappropriate Behavior) to demonstrate that these variables could distinguish between the clinic and nonclinic samples The DPICS II summary variables resulted in an overall correct classification rate of 86.6% It is noteworthy that the correct classification rate was not altered when SES was entered into the analysis. Specific Aims The specific aims of this study were to investigate whether the DPICS II is a reliable and valid tool for assessing father-child interactions; to provide normative data on father-child interactions for DPICS II; and to further our understanding of father-child interactions in families of normal and conduct-disordered children This was accomplished by comparing self-report measures and videotaped interactions of non-referred father-child dyads to father-child dyads in which the child was referred to a psychology clinic for behavior problems and diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Reliability was assessed using kappa estimates and intraclass correlations. Discriminative validity was examined by evaluating the degree to which the DPICS II categories discriminate between

PAGE 36

28 clinic-referred and non-referred dyads. In addition, the association of the DPICS Il categories with the ECBI (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999), the PSI (Abidin, 1995), and the Parental Locus of Control Scale-Short Fonn (PLOC-SF; Rayfield, Eyberg, Boggs, & Roberts, 1995), measures which have been shown to discriminate between clinic-referred and non-referred children when completed by their mothers, were used to demonstrate the convergent validity of the coding system for use in evaluating children with behavior problems and their fathers. Hypotheses Based upon the previous study which used DPICS with conduct-disordered children an d their fathers (Robinson & Eyberg, 1981), those studies using DPICS and DPICS Il with conduct disordered children and their mothers (Aragona & Eyberg, 1981; Bessmer, 1996; Robinson & Eyberg, 1981; Webster-Stratton, 1985), and the study comparing fathers of hyperactive and nonnal boys (Tallmadge & Barkley, 1983), the following hypotheses were made: 1. Father-child interactions can be reliably coded using the DPICS Il, as measured by Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlations. 2. The DPICS Il will demonstrate discriminative validity for use with children with behavior problems and their fathers When compared to non-referred children : a Children who have been referred for behavior problems will have a significantly lower compliance ratio

PAGE 37

b The referred children will have significantly higher frequencies on the summary variable, Total Inappropriate Behavior (Criticism+ Whine + Yell + Smart Talk). 29 c. The referred children will demonstrate fewer prosocial behaviors; specifically, they will have a lower rate of Total Prosocial Behavior (Answer + Acknowledgment + Behavioral Description + Laugh + Information Description+ Praise+ Physical Positive) d. Fathers of children with behavior problems will have a higher total number of commands and a higher direct command ratio (Direct Commands/ Indirect+ Direct Commands) than fathers ofnonreferred children e In addition, fathers of clinic-referred children will display significantly fewer Total Prosocial Behaviors (Acknowledgment+ Answer + Behavioral Description + Information Description + Laugh+ Praise+ Physical Positive+ Reflection) than fathers of non-referred children f Fathers of the clinic-referred children will demonstrate significantly more Inappropriate Behavior (Criticism/Smart Talk) than fathers of non-referred children 2 The DPICS IT categories and summary variables of Child Compliance, Child Inappropriate Behavior, Child Prosocial Behavior, Father Inappropriate Behavior, Father Direct Command Ratio, and Father Total Commands will together correctly classify dyads

PAGE 38

into their respective groups (i.e., clinic-referred and non-referred) in a discriminant function analysis. 3. The DPICS II categories and summary variables of child Compliance, child 30 Inappropriate Behavior, child Prosocial Behavior, father Inappropriate Behavior, father Direct Command Ratio, and father Total Commands will demonstrate convergent validity by each correlating significantly with ECBI intensity scores. 4. The DPICS II categories and summary variables for child behavior (i.e Compliance, Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior) will each demonstrate convergent validity by correlating significantly with Child Domain score on the PSI. The DPICS II summary variables for father behavior (i.e., Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior, Direct Command Ratio, and Total Commands) will each demonstrate convergent validity by correlating significantly with the Parent Domain score on the PSI. 5. The DPICS II categories and summary variables for fathers (i.e., Direct Command Ratio, Total Commands, Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior) will each demonstrate convergent validity by correlating significantly with PLOC-SF total scores.

PAGE 39

METHODS Participants Two groups of30 father-child dyads, a clinic-referred group and a non-referred comparison group, participated in the study. All dyads met the following inclusion criteria : 1) The child was between 3.0 and 7.0 years old; 2) English was the primary language spoken in the home; 3) The father and child had no history of mental retardation ; 4) The child's receptive vocabulary skills were at or above a standard score of70 as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981), with no apparent speech delay. The 30 father-child pairs comprising the clinic-referred group were selected from a sample that was referred to the Child Study Laboratory at the University of Florida Health Sciences Center for treatment of the children's externalizing behavior problems. The children and their parents had been assessed in the Child Study Laboratory for inclusion in a treatment outcome study (Schuhmann et al. 1998) Children included in the clinic referred group had met diagnostic criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder based on their parent's responses to a structured interview designed to yield DSM-ill-R diagnoses. Parents signed a standard consent form indicating that information about their family would be used for research purposes, and data used in this study were routinely collected as part of the standard procedures for all families being assessed for inclusion in the larger treatment outcome study. To be included in the present study, the father-child 31

PAGE 40

dyads had to have complete data sets Of the 3 7 eligible dyads, 3 0 were randomly selected to participate in this study 32 The normal comparison group consisted of30 father-child pairs recruited from the Gainesville, Florida community. Advertisements were placed in Shands Hospital at the University of Florida, recreational areas and community centers, preschools, churches, automotive centers, the local newspaper, and a cable television bulletin board Of the 30 participants, 11 responded to the newspaper or television advertisement, 10 responded to fliers placed in Shands Hospital, and the remaining nine responded to fliers placed elsewhere in the community To be eligible for the study, the children met the inclusion criteria described for the clinic-referred sample. Unlike the clinic-referred sample, however, they did not meet criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder as determined by their fathers' responses to the DSM-IIIR structured interview. Of the 39 fathers who responded to advertisements about the study, three declined to participate, two did not show up for their appointments, three were screened out due to the age of the child(> 7.0 years), and one was screened out due to a significant speech delay Additional demographic descriptors of the families were collected to describe the families, including child ethnicity/race, paternal age, paternal level of education and occupation, average annual income, and marital status. The normal comparison group was balanced with the clinic group only for sex of the child. Otherwise, the comparison group was not formally matched to the clinic referred group. To ensure that there were no significant demographic differences between the two groups, independent samples tests or chi-square tests were performed There

PAGE 41

33 were no statistically significant differences between groups on any of the demographic variables. The only statistically significant difference between the groups that was found was ori Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test -Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981), the measure used to screen for delay in receptive vocabulary. The clinic-referred children received a mean score of92. 6 (SD= 14.8), and the children in the comparison group received a mean score of 102.9 (SD= 17 3). The children in the clinic-referred group ranged in age from three years, four months to six years, 11 months, with a mean age of five years, two months (SD = 1 year, 1 month) The children in the comparison group ranged in age from three years, one month to six years, 11 months, with a mean age of four years, nine months. The clinic referred group consisted on 23 males and seven females, and the comparison group consisted of 22 males and eight females. In the clinic-referred group, there were 25 Caucasian children and five children of color Of the minority children, two were African American, one was biracial and was being raised by Caucasian grandparents, one child was Hispanic, and one child was of Asian descent but was being raised by Caucasian parents. In the comparison group, 23 children were Caucasian, and seven children were of color. Of the minority children, two were African American, four were biracial (two had Hispanic mothers and Caucasian fathers, and two had African American fathers and Caucasian mothers), and one child was of Indian descent. A summary of the demographic information collected on the participant families is presented in Table 1

PAGE 42

Table 1 Sample Characteristics Variable Sex of child (% male) Child race (%) Caucasian African American Other Mean child age (months) PPVTR standard score M SD Family composition (%) Two-parent home Single-parent home(s) Paternal age (years) Paternal education (years) Clinic-referred (n = 30) 76% 83% 7% 10% 62 0 92 6 14 8 93% 7% 36 7 13.8 41.8 11.5 Comparison (n = 30) 73% 77% 7% 16% 57.0 102 9 17 3 87% 13% 36.8 14 8 44. 0 13.0 Note PPVT-R = Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). b SES= Socioeconomic status according to the Hollingshead (1975) Index. 11 < 05. 34 The families' socioeconomic status (SES) was calculated using Hollingshead's Four Factor Index (Hollingshead, 1975), which yields a score based on parents' education,

PAGE 43

occupation, sex, and marital status. The mean SES for clinic-referred families was 41.8 (SD= 11.5) and ranged from 19.5 to 66.0. The mean SES for comparison families was 44.0 (SD= 13.0) and ranged from 22 to 66. Means for both the clinic-referred and the comparison group fell within Hollingshead's (1975) Class II category, described as medium business, minor professional, and technical workers. 35 Fathers in both groups had typically graduated from high school and completed some college In the clinic-referred group, 28 fathers were married and two fathers were single. Of the single fathers, one was sharing custody with the child's mother, and one was the child's primary caregiver. In the comparison group, 26 fathers were married, three were divorced, and one was single Of the four unmarried fathers, three were primary caregivers and one was sharing custody of the child Screening Measures Demographic Measures Demographic data was collected via a standard form Fathers were asked to provide basic demographic information of family members including sex, age, race, occupation, and education level. DSM-IV The DSM-IV Structured Interview was conducted with fathers to determine whether children met the DSM-IV criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (AP A, 1994). In the interview, parents are asked to describe their child's behavior in terms of the symptoms that comprise Oppositional Defiant Disorder Parents report the duration of

PAGE 44

36 symptoms and whether they occur rarely, occasionally, pretty often, or very often; a child is considered to display a particular symptom only if the parent indicates that it occurs pretty often or very often, and diagnoses are made according to whether the child demonstrates the minimum number of symptoms specified in the DSM-IV for the disorder High levels ofinterrater agreement(> 98%) on diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder using the DSM-III-R criteria in an identical structured format have been found (McNeil et al., 1991; Schuhmann et al. 1998). Interrater reliability was assessed for this measure by comparing the interview checklist data collected by the primary interviewer with that generated by an independent observer (an undergraduate assistant) The assistant scored the interview from a videotape Interrater agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements Agreement was defined as exact correspondence between the two observers on binary decisions (e. g has the duration of problem behavior been at least 6 months?) and as both observers scoring the occurrence of individual symptoms as present (i.e. rated as occurring pretty often or very often) or absent (i.e., rated as occurring rarely or occasionally). According to the above definition, interrater reliability was calculated as 100% on diagnoses of Oppositional Defiant Disorder Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test --Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) The PPVT-R is a measure of receptive vocabulary for American Standard English. The PPVT-R has two forms, L and M, which each contain 175 items The measure is individually administered to participants who are asked to select verbally or non-verbally the picture that best represents each test item verbally presented by the examiner. The

PAGE 45

PPVT-R is quick and easy to administer because only those items between the child's basal and ceiling level are administered The instrument also can be scored rapidly The raw scores are then converted to standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. 37 The PPVT-R was standardized on 4,200 children between the ages of2 1/2 and 18 years old, with 100 children of each sex at each age level (Dunn & Dunn, 1981). The sample of children approximated the 1970 U. S census data for sex, age, geographic location, occupational background, racial/ethnic and urban/rural population distributions Internal consistency coefficients of the PPVT-R, Form L, ranged from .67 to .88, based on split-half reliability procedures. Test-retest reliability coefficients for standard scores ranged from .54 to 90, with a median value of .77 Test-retest reliability was evaluated on a subsample of 962 children with the retest interval ranging from 9 to 31 days. Although the PPVT-R scores should not be interpreted as intelligence scores, IQ scores and PPVT-R scores have been found to be correlated between .40 and .60. Measures for Assessing Clinic and Home Behavior The Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI: Eyberg & Pincus, 1999) The ECBI consists of 3 6 items describing typical problem behaviors for children Parents rate the frequency with which these behaviors occur on a scale of 1 (never occurs) to 7 (always occurs) An intensity score, ranging from 36 to 252, may be derived by summing these ratings. A problem score, ranging from O to 3 6, is derived by summing the number of child behaviors deemed problematic by the parent.

PAGE 46

38 The ECBI was recently restandardized with 798 children and adolescents aged 2 to 16 drawn from several pediatric health care settings (Colvin, Eyberg, & Adams, 1997). The participants were representative of the demographic composition of the Southeastern United States The mean problem score for children aged 3 through 6 was 6 7 (SD= 7.3) The mean intensity score for children aged 3 through 6 was 100.8 (SD= 34 7) The internal consistency coefficient for the ECBI intensity score was .94, and for the problem score was 93. The ECBI Intensity and Problem Scale scores were not significantly correlated with Hollingshead SES scores, child age or ethnic group. The test-retest reliability coefficients for the Intensity Scale and Problem Scale have been reported as .85 and .80, respectively, after a three month interval and .75 and .75, respectively after a ten month interval (Eyberg, 1992) The ECBI has demonstrated external validity by differentiating children with behavior problems from children without behavior problems (Eyberg & Ross, 1978) and by showing preto post-treatment changes (Schuhmann et al., 1998) Parenting Stress Index (PSI: Abidin, 1995) The PSI is a 101-item pencil and paper measure with an optional Life Stress scale consisting of 19 items It was originally developed as a screening measure for the detection of stressors within a parent-child system commonly associated with dysfunctional parenting. The items of the PSI are divided into two domains, the Child Domain and the Parent Domain, each of which is further divided into sub scales. The 4 7 items comprising the Child Domain are divided into six subscales : Adaptability, Acceptability, Demandingness, Child Mood, Distractibility, and Reinforces Parent. The 54

PAGE 47

39 items comprising the Parent Domain are divided into seven subscales: Parent Depression, Parent Attachment, Restrictiveness of Parental Role, Parental Sense of Competence, Social Isolation, Relationship with Spouse, and Parental Health Finally, the optional Life Stress Domain assesses the number of major changes in the family's environment (e.g., death in the family, job changes). Normative information on the PSI has been gathered on large samples of mothers recruited from a variety of public and private pediatric clinics in the United States (Abidin, 1995) Percentiles, means, and standard deviations are available for the domain scores and the total score by child age. The normative information on fathers' responses to the PSI (n = 200) suggests that fathers earn significantly lower stress scores on all components of the PSI when compared to mothers {Abidin, 1995). The fathers in the normative sample, however, were predominantly Caucasian (95%) and college-educated (48%) and may not be representative of the general population. Internal reliability coefficients for the subscales of the PSI have been determined for both the original standardization sample of 534 parents who obtained services from small group pediatric clinics in central Virginia and from a cross-cultural sample of 435 parents from Bermuda and the United States (Hauenstein, Scarr, & Abidin, 1986). The internal reliability coefficients from both of these samples were fairly consistent. The alpha coefficients for both samples ranged from .59 to 78 for the Child Domain subscales and from .55 to .80 for the Parent Domain subscales Based on the sample of 534 parents, the internal reliability coefficient was .89 for the Child Domain Total Scale score, .93 for the Parent Domain Scale Total score, and .95 for the Total stress score Test-retest reliability coefficients have been computed for intervals ranging three weeks, three months, and one

PAGE 48

year. Both of the domain scores as well as the total stress score were shown to have adequate test-retest reliability coefficients. 40 In a study with mothers, the PSI was found to correlate with both the Intensity and the Problem Scales on the ECBI (Eyberg, Boggs, & Rodriguez, 1992), indicating that child disruptive behaviors are associated with maternal stress. Discriminative validity has been demonstrated by Mouton and Tuma (1988) and Bessmer (1996) who found that the PSI parent and child domain scores were significantly higher for clinic-referred mothers as compared to control mothers The Parental Locus of Control-Short Form (PLOC-SF: Rayfield. Eyberg. Boggs. Roberts. 1995) The PLOC-SF was developed from the Parental Locus of Control Scale (Campis, Lyman, & Prentice-Dunn, 1986) The PLOC-SF consists of25 items intended to assess parents' attitudes about their ability to influence their children's behavior. The test items are rated by parents on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). These ratings are summed to yield a total score. In addition, the PLOC-SF is divided into three subscales labeled Control, Fate/Chance, and Responsibility. Only the total score will be used in this study. The PLOC-SF has demonstrated good internal consistency for the total scale (Cronbach's alpha= 80), and was highly correlated (r = 90) with the original form of the measure. Using the PLOC, Campis et al. (1986) found that parents whose children had behavior/emotional problems had significantly higher total scores than a non-problem sample, indicating that they perceived their child's behavior as less under their control.

PAGE 49

Comparing the results of behavioral observation of mothers and their children with the PLOC, the total score was found to be negatively correlated with child compliance 41 (I= -. 349, l2 < 01), and positively associated with negative talk (r = .3~6, l2 <.01), cry/yell (r = 276, l2 < .05), and the ECBI intensity score (r = .259, l2 < .05) (Roberts et al., 1992) Procedure The fathers of the non-referred children were recruited through fliers placed in the community (i.e, recreational centers, video arcades, public libraries, day care centers). Fathers were also recruited through advertisements placed in the classified section of the Gainesville Sun newspaper and on the Cox Cable television bulletin For fathers who responded to the advertisements, a brief telephone interview was conducted by the author to assess their eligibility for the study If the father reported that English was the primary language in the home, that his child was between three and seven, and that neither he no r his child had a history of mental retardation a screener for Oppositional Defiant Disorder was administered. If the child had no history of learning or behavior problems and received five or more no" responses on the DSM-IV screener, an appointment at the Child Study Laboratory was scheduled at the family's convenience The administration of questionnaires and videotaping of observations of the non referred father-child dyads were conducted in a standardized manner by the author during one data collection session. First, fathers were administered the DSM-IV Diagnostic Interview for Oppositional Defiant Disorder This interview was videotaped so that it could later be checked for reliability by an undergraduate assistant. Then, children were

PAGE 50

42 administered the PPVT-R. If the child did not meet criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder and the child scored 70 or above on the PPVT-R, informed consent was obtained. Following informed consent, the first of two observations was videotaped. Next, fathers completed a demographic information questionnaire, the ECBI, the PSI and the PLOC-SF. Finally, the second observation was videotaped. After completion of data collection, the fathers in the non-referred sample were paid $20 for their participation. All data on the clinic-referred sample used in this study were collected in a similar manner as part of a more extensive, standard assessment conducted for a treatment outcome study. The clinic-referred families were paid $50 for their participation in the standard assessment by the treatment outcome researchers Unlike the non-referred group, however, the two videotaped observations of the clinic-referred group were collected over two visits with a week interval between each observation. The advantage of collecting observational data on two different days is that the combined data are thought to be more representative of a child's typical behavior. The obvious disadvantage, however, of requiring families to come to a laboratory for two visits is the increased probability of subject attrition after the first visit. The decision to conduct both videotaped observations of the non-referred group during one visit was made in order to maximize the probability of full participation in the study. Similar to the clinic-referred sample, the non-referred sample completed questionnaires in between the videotaped observations. To assure confidentiality of the dyads, the videotapes and questionnaires, including the demographic information, was labeled with only a number and was kept in locked files

PAGE 51

accessible only to the author of the study The primary observer did not have access to demographic or identifying information about participating families. 43 The videotaping of the non-referred dyads was conducted according to the same procedures as the clinic-referred dyads The father and child were brought into a playroom in the Child Study Laboratory where five age-appropriate toys (i.e Nesting Animals, Lincoln Logs, W aflle Blocks, Magna Doodles, and the Sesame Street Garage), selected for their unstructured, interactive quality, were provided. There, the dyad was videotaped from behind a one-way mirror in the three DPICS-II standard situations. The CDI and PDI situations were videotaped for 10 minutes, and the CU was videotaped for five minutes. Coding, however, will be completed only on the second five minutes of the CDI and PDI situations, as well as on the five minutes of CU. During the observations, the fathers wore a bug-in-the-ear device, an audio receiver worn in the ear similar to a hearing aid This device was used to signal unobtrusively to the fathers when CDI began and when to change from one situation to another. At five-minute intervals, the fathers were read standard instructions over the device from a transmitter in the observation room. For the first situation, CDI, the following directions were given: "In this situation, tell that he/she may play with whatever he/she chooses. Let him/her choose any activity he/she wishes. You just follow his/her lead and play along with him/her After the five minute warm-up period, the father was told :

PAGE 52

44 "You're doing a nice job of allowing _____ to lead the play. Please continue to let him/her lead In the second situation, PDI, the following instructions were given : "That was fine. Do not clean up the play things at this time Now we'll switch to another situation. Tell _____ that it is your tum to choose the game You may choose any activity. Keep him/her playing with you according to your rules After the five minute warm-up period, the father was told : "You're doing a nice job of leading the play Please continue to get ______ to play along with you according to your rules." For the third situation, CU, the father was given the following instructions: That was fine. Now I'd like you to tell that it is time to leave the playroom and the toys must be put away Make sure you have him/her put the toys away by him/herself Have him/her put all the toys in their containers and all the containers in the toybox." Observers Before coding videotapes for the dyads, all observers successfully completed training procedures for the DPICS II in accordance with the recommendations provided by The Workbook : A coder training manual for the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II (Eyberg, Edwards, Bessmer, & Litwins, 1994). Standard training consists of a minimum of 3 0 hours of didactic training in DPICS II which includes reading the coding manual, studying and successfully completing paper and pencil training exercises and quizzes, and coding transcripts of actual parent-child interactions The

PAGE 53

45 observers then code training videotapes with a transcript, code videotapes with feedback from a trained coder, and finally code criterion tapes to evaluate their level of mastery The coders are considered successfully trained when they achieve a minimum of 80% agreement with correct codings of a criterion tape. Training sessions are held weekly by a faculty member with expertise in the DPICS II, during which the observers discuss subtle coding distinctions and practice coding categories that they consider difficult. Weekly training sessions occurred throughout the duration of the study to prevent observer drift and keep coding skills sharp. Observers recorded their observations using a computer software package, (Eyberg & Celebi, 1993), which allows for recording of the sequence in which behaviors occur, as well as the time they occur. To ensure optimal reliability, primary observers prepared brief, written logs for each five-minute situation coded, noting the beginning and ending time of each segment and documenting verbalizations that were difficult to hear and/or understand. The coding of the videotapes for the clinic-referred dyads was completed by observers hired for the larger treatment outcome study. Videotapes of the non-referred dyads were assigned to an undergraduate research assistant who served as the primary observer and was paid $10 for each videotape coded. The primary observer was aware of group membership but was masked to the hypotheses of the study. The primary observer coded the three videotaped situations (CDI, PDI, CU) collected from each of the two observation periods for a total of six five-minute segments of videotape per dyad. To assess reliability for the non-referred group, the author

PAGE 54

randomly selected two five-minute segments of videotape for each dyad to re-code. Reliability estimates had already been obtained for 3 0% of the sample from which the clinic-referred families were drawn. 46

PAGE 55

RESULTS Psychometric Properties of Measures All of the measures used to evaluate the DPICS II categories for validity were first evaluated for internal consistency within the present samples. Cronbach's index of internal consistency (Cronbach, 1951) was computed for the fathers' responses to the ECBI Intensity score, the PSI, and the PLOC-SF to assure measurement reliability for the specific populations sampled. The internal consistency estimates for the clinic-referred and non-referred groups combined were as follows: alpha= 94 for the PSI total score, alpha= 92 for the PSI child domain score, alpha= .92 for the PSI parent domain score, alpha= .81 for the PLOC-SF total score, and alpha= .95 for the ECBI intensity score. These internal consistency estimates are consistent with previously published findings, and were considered adequate for use in further analyses Differences Between Groups on Measures The clinic-referred and comparison groups were expected to differ significantly on the measures related to child behavior problems and these differences were, in fact, found. The clinic-referred group demonstrated significantly elevated scores on measures of child behavior, parenting stress, and parental locus of control compared to the non-referred group. Statistically significant differences between the groups were found on the ECBI intensity score, t (58) = 8.74, Q < .001, and problem score, t (58) = 9.36, Q < .001. Fathers in the clinic-referred and comparison groups rated their children as having mean 47

PAGE 56

48 intensity scores of 164 3 (SD= 25 9) and 104 9 (SD= 26 7), respectively. On the problem score, the clinic-referred children had a mean of21.4 (SD= 5.3) and the comparison children had a mean of 5 8 problem behaviors (SD= 7.4) On the PSI (Abidin, 1995), statistically significant differences between the groups were found on the total stress score, t (58) = 7.04, n < .001, the child domain score, t (58) = 9.63, n < .001, and the parent domain score, t (58) = 3.40, n = .001. Fathers of clinic-referred children reported a mean total stress score of270.3 (SD= 32.6), which falls at the 90th percentile. Fathers of children in the comparison group reported a mean total stress score of 213.5 (SD= 29 8), which falls at the 40th percentile Fathers of the clinic-referred children reported a mean child domain score of 137 0 (98th % ; SD= 16.6), and a parent domain score of 133.6 (72nd % ; SD= 21.5). Fathers of the children in the comparison group reported a mean child domain score of 97.7 (45th %; SD= 14.9), and a parent domain score of 115.8 (41st %; SD= 18. 8) Finally, statistically significant differences between the groups were found on the PLOC-SF total score, t (58) = 4.08, n < .001. Fathers in the clinic-referred group received total scores of 67 0 (SD= 8 8) and fathers in the comparison group received total scores of 57.0 (SD= 10.1). Normative data for fathers on the PLOC-SF have not been established.

PAGE 57

Table 2 Scores on Measures Used to Compare Participants Measure ECBI Intensity ECBI Problem PSI Total Score PSI Child Domain Score PSI Parent Domain Score PLOC-SF Clinic-referred M SD 164 3 (25 9) 21.4 (5.3) 270.3 (32.6) 137 0 (16.6) 133. 6 (21.5) 67.0 (8.8) Comparison M SD 104.9 (26.7) 5 8 (7.4) 213.5 (29.8) 97.7 (14 9) 115.8 (18.8) 57.0 (10.1) Note Analyses based on n = 30 in each group ECBI = Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory PSI = Parenting Stress Index. PLOC SF = Parental Locus of Control Scale Short Form. I!< 001. Reliability 49 Cohen's kappa (1960) and intraclass correlations~) were computed to determine the reliability of the parent and child categories ofDPICS II. Reliability estimates were obtained for both groups in the three DPICS-11 situations on 30% of the segments observed by both the reliability and primary coders The kappa statistics were computed using a computer software program developed specifically for the DPICS-11 (Eyberg & Celebi, 1993). This program calculates kappa by comparing a series of film pairs coded by

PAGE 58

50 independent observers using a one-second window The program also creates a confusion matrix that indicates on which codes the coders agree and disagree. The kappa estimates are affected by the number of other categories in the system and the number of behaviors included in the confusion matrix In order not to inflate the kappa estimates by including additional, non-related categories, the present study divided the categories into four classes of behaviors: verbalizations, vocalizations, responses to commands and questions, and physical behaviors. These classes contain the categories that are likely to be confused with one another. For instance, Direct Commands could be confused with Indirect Commands, questions, and descriptions, but not with Laugh or Physical Positive. Each class of behaviors was analyzed separately to reduce any artificial inflationary effect. Kappa estimates for parent and child behaviors were also computed in separate confusion matrices to reduce the likelihood of an overestimation of the reliability Fleiss (1981) indicated that kappa values greater than .75 can be considered as representing excellent agreement beyond chance. Kappa values ranging from .60 to 75 indicate good agreement beyond chance, values between .40 to 60 indicate fair agreement, and values below 40 are indicative of poor agreement. These kappa values were used to evaluate the kappas found in this study Intraclass correlations were included in the study to provide an alternative method of evaluating reliability. Intraclass correlations are based on examining the amount of variance attributed to between subjects differences and the variance attributed to within subject differences, or in this case, coder error. The correlation coefficient ~) is interpretable as ... the proportion of variance of an observation due to subject-to-subject

PAGE 59

51 variability in error-free scores (Fleiss, 1986, p.3)." To achieve a high intraclass correlation, the variability in the frequency of occurrence between the participants must be greater than the variability between two observers' values for a given behavioral category on a particular subject. Intraclass correlations were computed by a formula derived by Fleiss (1981) which is based on analysis of variance procedures, and evaluated as standard correlation coefficients (Suen & Ary, 1989). Tables 3 and 4 summarize the reliability estimates for the parent and child categories. The DPICS II categories were summed across the three five-minute coding intervals (i e., CDI, PDI, CU) and across the groups (clinic-referred and comparison). The DPICS II categories are ranked within the tables with the highest kappa estimates appearing first. In addition, borrowing the convention used to rate kappa estimates created by Fleiss (1981), the estimates are divided into groups considered to have "excellent," "good," and "fair'' reliability estimates To address the problem of poor reliability estimates in a prior study ofDPICS II (Bessmer 1996) and also to simplify the coding system, several DPICS TI categories were coded differently in the comparison sample. First, the codes of Unlabeled, Labeled and Contingent Praise were combined into one category and coded as Praise (total). Second, the Criticism and Smart Talk codes were collapsed into one category ofNegative Talk. Third, the parent vocalization codes of Whine and Yell were not coded Finally, the physical behavior codes of Physical Negative and Destructive were not coded for either fathers or children Because the father-child dyads in the clinic-referred sample had been

PAGE 60

coded prior to the current study, their observations were coded according to the formal system. Table 3 Reliability for the DPICS II Parent Categories Combined Across Situations and Groups Parent Category Excellent Compliance .86 89 Play Talk .80 .97 Answer 79 .82 Information Question .76 .91 No Opportunity for Compliance 76 66 Physical Negative 74 .75 Good Descriptive / Reflective Question .69 89 Physical Positive 68 .48 Unlabeled Praise .66 .75 Direct Command .65 .98 Indirect Command 64 .92 Praise (total? .64 .89 No Answer 64 .49 No Opportunity for Answer 64 .54 52

PAGE 61

Table 3--continued Parent Category Acknowledgment Reflection Noncompliance Criticism Information Description Smart Talk Negative Talkb Labeled Praise Contingent Praise Laugh Behavioral Description Destructive YeU.62 .58 .58 .57 .57 .56 .52 .49 .49 .48 .46 ** ** ** .90 .66 .63 92 .90 .65 .92 .05 .00 .83 .53 -.03 .26 ** 53 Note. Analyses based on N = 104 5-minute coding intervals, including the clinic-referred group (n = 47 coding intervals) and the comparison group (n = 57 coding intervals); Coded only for the clinic-referred group; b Coded only for the comparison group (Negative Talk = Criticism/Smart Talk; Praise Total = Unlabeled Praise/Labeled Praise/Contingent Praise) Kappa could not be calculated due to insufficient data.

PAGE 62

54 Table 4 Reliability for the DPICS II Child Categories Combined Across Situations and Groups Child Category Excellent Smart Talk 1.0 .91 Physical Negative 1.0 89 Answer .84 .93 Information Question .83 88 Acknowledgment .81 .91 Descriptive / Reflective Question .78 .90 Play Talk 76 92 Good Yell .75 .76 Whine .73 .78 Reflection .72 .81 Information Description .71 .92 No Opportunity to Answer .70 74 Compliance 69 .95 Direct Command .67 86 Negative Talkb 66 .89

PAGE 63

Table 4--continued Child Category Laugh Praise (totalt No Opportunity for Compliance Physical Positive Noncompliance Criticism No Answer Indirect Command Behavioral Description Unlabeled Praise Destructive Labeled Praise 66 .66 .65 .65 .61 .61 .61 60 .60 .49 09 ** .85 .84 92 .40 92 .74 .67 .83 .58 .64 88 00 55 Note. Analyses based on N = 104 5-minute coding intervals, including the clinic-referred group (n = 47 coding intervals) and the comparison group (n = 57 coding intervals); Coded only for the clinic-referred group; b Coded only for the comparison group (Negative Talk = Criticism/Smart Talk; Praise Total = Unlabeled Praise/Labeled Praise/Contingent Praise). Kappa could not be calculated due to insufficient data The remaining hypotheses of the study, which were related to the validity of the DPICS II, involved summary variables comprised of combinations of the individual

PAGE 64

56 categories All of the variables used in the summary variables, with the exception of child Labeled Praise, demonstrated adequate kappa reliability (> .40), thus were considered acceptable to be used in subsequent analyses. Validity Discriminative Validity Previous behavioral observation systems have found that specific behaviors differentiate children with behavior problems from non-referred children Analyses were conducted on the DPICS-II variables to evaluate the discriminative validity of the system Independent samples t tests were used to test differences between groups on child Compliance Ratio (Compliance/Total Commands), child Inappropriate Behavior (Whine+ Yell+ Criticism+ Smart Talk), child Prosocial Behavior (Acknowledgment+ Answer + Behavioral Descriptions+ Praise+ Laugh+ Physical Positive), father Total Commands (Direct+ Indirect Commands), father Direct Command Ratio (Direct Commands/Total Commands), father Prosocial Behavior (Acknowledgement+ Answer+ Behavioral Descriptions + Praise + Reflection + Laugh + Physical Positive), and father Inappropriate Behavior (Criticism+ Smart Talk) Table 5 includes the mean frequency of occurrence and standard deviations of the behavioral categories for the clinic-referred group and for the comparison group. The means reported here represent the frequency of occurrence summed across the CDI, PDI and Clean-up situations.

PAGE 65

Table 5 Mean Frequency of DPICS II Summary Variables for Clinic-Referred and Comparison Father-Child Dyads Summed Across Situations DPICS II Variable Child Compliance Ratio Child Inappropriate Behavior* Father Direct Command Ratio Father Prosocial Behavior Father Prosocial Behavior-R .. Father Inappropriate Behavior Father Total Commands Child Prosocial Behavior Child Prosocial Behavior-R Clinic-Referred M (SD) 00 .58 (00.23) 49 .53 (27.47) 00.70 (00 13) 177 .10 (53.57) 70 .73 (29.44) 28 87 (11.64) 114 .17 (52 24) 178.47 (55.72) 64.47 (27.17) Note Analyses based on!! = 30 for the clinic-referred and comparison groups; Prosocial Behavior-R = without Information Descriptions 1! < 05 1! < 01. Comparison M (SD) 00 70 (00 16) 28 73 (15 73) 00.64 (00.14) 175 .13 (60.73) 90.00 (26.95) 17. 56 (9 33) 104.77 (48.91) 178.90 (53.15) 63.47 (29.99) 57 Statistic dly significant differences between the groups were found on child Compliance Ratio, t (58) = -2 73, 12 < .01, child Inappropriate Behavior, t (58) = 1.81, p < 05, and father Inappropriate Behavior, t (58) = 2 33, 12 < .05. Statistically significant differences were found on father Prosocial Behavior, t (58) = -2.64, 12 < 01, only when

PAGE 66

Information Descriptions were removed from the summary variable. Information Descriptions were removed from the Prosocial Behavior variable because they reflect neutral statements and are not necessarily "prosocial. Statistically significant differences were not found on father Total Commands or child Prosocial Behavior (with or without Information Descriptions). 58 A discriminant function analysis was performed on the summary variables to evaluate the extent to which DPICS II variables could be used to distinguish between the clinic and non-clinic samples The cross-validation procedure, which helps to diminish the optimistic bias was used In this procedure, each case is classified into a group according to the classification functions computed from all the data except the case being classified The seven DPICS II summary variables of child Compliance child Prosocial Behavior, child Inappropriate Behavior, father Total Commands, father Prosocial Behavior father Direct Command Ratio and father Inappropriate Behavior were entered together to yield the following results : Wilk's Lambda= .752 (n < .05), Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients : child Compliance= .787, child Prosocial Revised = 129, child Inappropriate Behavior= 268 father Total Command= 127, father Prosocial Behavior-Revised= 544, father Direct Command Ratio= -.488, father Inappropriate Behavior= 287, n = 60 When the combination of these variables was used, 68% of the original grouped cases were correctly classified When the cross validation procedure was applied 60% of the grouped cases were correctly classified Forty percent of cases from each group were misclassified The classification of each case is presented in Table 26 of Appendix A.

PAGE 67

59 Convergent Validity Several hypotheses predicted that DPICS II variables would correlate with the scores on the measures associated with child behavior problems. Because the conduct disordered children were over-represented in this study's sample (i e., 50%), the groups were weighted to reflect the estimated prevalence of conduct problem behavior in the general population of preschool-aged children (i.e., 16%; Campbell, 1990). The created sample was normally distributed The results of the analyses of the specific hypotheses are described below and are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Hypothesis 3 predicted that the DPICS II variables would correlate significantly with the ECBI Intensity score. The ECBI Intensity score was negatively correlated with child Compliance, r (60) = -.42, 12 < 01, positively correlated with child Inappropriate Behavior, r (60) = .40, 12 < 01, and positively correlated with father Inappropriate Behavior, r (60) = .46, 12 < .01. The ECBI Intensity score, however, was not significantly associated with child Prosocial Behavior (with or without Information Descriptions), father Direct Command Ratio, or father Total Commands In Hypothesis 4, it was predicted that the DPICS II categories and summary variables for child behavior (i.e., Compliance, Inappropriate Behavior, Prosocial Behavior) would correlate with the Child Domain score on the PSI. Child Compliance, r (60) = -.42, 12 = .001, and child Inappropriate Behavior, r (60) = .39, 12 = .01, were significantly correlated with the Child Domain score on the PSI. Child Prosocial Behavior

PAGE 68

Table 6 Correlations Between the DPICS II Variables and Scores on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Parental Locus of Control Scale-Short Form DPICS II Variable Child Behavior Compliance Ratio Inappropriate Prosocial Prosocial-R Parent Behavior Direct Command Ratio Inappropriate Prosocial Prosocial-R Total Commands ECBI P .21 .13 06 .05 .18 30 04 .03 .16 ECBI-I PLOC-SF -.42 ... 25 _39 .25 .03 .13 .01 -.05 .06 12 .460 26 07 -.08 04 05 .20 .22 60 Note ECBI-P = ECBI Problem score ; ECBI-I = ECBI Intensity score ; PLOC-SF = PLOC-SF Total score. 11 05; 11 .01; .. 11 .001.

PAGE 69

Table 7 Correlations Between DPICS II Summary Variables and Scores on the Parenting Stress Index DPICS II Variable Child Domain Parent Domain Child Behavior Compliance Ratio Inappropriate Prosocial Prosocial-R Parent Behavior Direct Command Ratio Inappropriate Prosocial Prosocial-R Total Commands -.41 _33 .00 -.05 -.02 38 .. .12 02 .05 Note. R .05; .. R 01; R .001. -.15 .13 .04 -.07 04 .13 -.21 08 -.26. Total Score -.31. .26 .02 -.07 04 .28 -.04 .05 12 (with or without Information Descriptions), was not significantly associated with the 61 score. It was also predicted that the DPICS II summary variables for fathers would correlate significantly with the Parent Domain score on the PSI. Only the correlation between Total Commands and the Parent Domain score on the PSI, r (60) = 26, n < 05, was statistically significant.

PAGE 70

62 In Hypothesis 5, it was predicted that the DPICS II summary variables for fathers would correlate with PLOC-SF total scores. A small but statistically significant correlation was found between father Inappropriate Behavior and the PLOC-SF total score, r (60) = .26, n < .05

PAGE 71

DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine several types of reliability and validity (both discriminative and convergent) of the DPICS II with father-child dyads. Results show solid evidence for the reliability and validity of the coding system. First, the majority of the individual categories of the DPICS II demonstrated good reliability Second, in support of the discriminative validity ofDPICS II, significant differences were found between the clinic and nonclinic groups on several of the DPICS II summary variables. Finally, in support of the convergent validity of the DPICS II, specific summary variables were shown to correlate significantly with other measures associated with behavior problems in children. Reliability Both kappa and intraclass correlations were examined for these data. All of the parent and child DPICS II categories were ranked according to kappa estimates and then subdivided into groupings labeled "excellent", "good", "fair", and "poor" to provide a method of organizing the information. The reliability estimates were interpreted using several general guidelines First, the estimates were judged in relation to accepted standards within the literature for reliability Then, the similarity between the estimates for each category was considered The reliability estimates for categories with similar kappa values and intraclass correlations were considered accurate estimates For those categories with poor to fair reliability estimates, the confusion matrices obtained in the 63

PAGE 72

64 process of calculating kappa were very helpful in identifying which pairs of categories were mistaken for one another In this study, the majority of the DPICS Il categories demonstrated adequate reliability by at least one of the two estimates. Those categories that occurred frequently in both the clinic-referred and comparison groups, such as Acknowledgment, Answer, and Information Question, tended to have the highest reliability estimates for fathers and children by both methods. One exception was the parent category oflnformation Descriptions, which was classified as having "fair'' reliability despite its high frequency of occurrence Examination of the confusion matrices for parent verbalizations suggests that this category was most often confused with Direct and Indirect Commands, two other frequently occurring parent verbalization categories. Only three parent categories (i.e Whine, Yell, Destructive) and two child categories (i e Destructive, Labeled Praise) were classified as having "poor'' reliability These categories, which also demonstrated poor reliability in Bessmer's (1996) study with mothers-child dyads, had a low frequency of occurrence When reliability estimates are based on infrequent occurrence both within and across subjects, the estimates are likely to be affected by restricted variance Because of limited opportunity to code infrequently occurring variables, the coders have to be 100% accurate across subjects. The resulting reliability estimates will either be an overestimate or an underestimate simply due to restricted variance. Reliability estimates for infrequently occurring behaviors and estimates for behaviors occurring in only a few subjects are also likely to be inconsistent across studies. Basic statistical principles indicate that an estimate based on a single measurement is less

PAGE 73

65 reliable and less representative of the population mean than an estimate based upon multiple measurements (Pleiss, 1986). This may explain why the infrequently occurring category of Physical Negative showed excellent reliability in this study and poor reliability in Bessmer's (1996) study. The probability that a behavior will occur, or the base rate, likely affects the observers in several ways. They may have less practice coding these low base rate behaviors and have less chance to become experienced with them during the actual coding. In addition, the observer's preparedness for infrequent categories differs from their preparedness for more frequently occurring categories. Because the majority of these categories are likely to have a low frequency of occurrence in both clinic-referred and normal samples, observers may require additional training in observing these categories and more frequent reliability checks during coding to assure adequate reliability. The parent categories of Yell, Whine, Destructive, Physical Negative and Warning, and the child categories of Destructive and Physical Negative were not coded in the comparison group of this study because they occurred so infrequently ( or not at all) in Bessmer's (1996) study, that no estimate could be made of their reliability. It remains possible, however, that these behaviors may occur in a pre-treatment clinic-referred sample on occasion. In addition, Contingent Praise and Labeled Praise rarely occur in pre treatment samples ( clinic-referred or nonreferred) and are more likely to occur in a post treatment sample Therefore, these categories should remain in the system until their usefulness in studies with a preand post-treatment design has been evaluated.

PAGE 74

66 The results of this study point to the importance of accurately identifying those dyads in which inappropriate behaviors occur because of their power to discriminate between children with significant behavior problems and those without. The poor reliability estimates of some of the inappropriate behavior categories found in this study as well as Bessmer's (1996) study (i.e Destructive, parent Yell) indicate that further work needs to be done to define these categories and/or additional training needs to be conducted with the coders to consistently attain accepted standards of reliability One possible solution, which may be more appropriate for certain research studies than for others, would be to combine the inappropriate behavior categories and code them as a single variable. While this option might improve reliability estimates, it would not necessarily improve observer accuracy Because inappropriate physical behaviors (i.e, Destructive, Physical Negative) and vocalizations (Whine Yell) appear to be the most problematic for observers, additional training might consist of coding selected videotapes of dyads in which these categories occur frequently Observers would have to reach a specified criterion (i e., kappa estimates .60) on these categories before coding videotapes for research The use of videotapes to supplement the training manual and workbook is particularly important for training in coding physical behaviors, which must be observed, and vocalizations, which must be heard to code them accurately Coding physical behaviors and vocalizations is also difficult because observers must simultaneously attend to verbalizations, of which there are many to discriminate between. Observer reliability and accuracy might improve if observers focused on one

PAGE 75

67 class of behaviors at a time. For example, one observer could code the verbalizations of a dyad, after which another observer would code the physical behaviors. This process might prove to be more efficient in that it would save individual observers time and also promote the development of "expertise" in the various behavior classes In general, more frequent reliability checks should occur both during training and during coding of research tapes to ensure observer accuracy and prevent drift Confusion matrices are particularly helpful, as noted earlier, in helping observers to identify which codes they are mistaking for one another This study took a step toward simplifying the DPICS II by combining the categories of Criticism and Smart Talk as well as the categories of Labeled Praise, Contingent Praise, and Unlabeled Praise Although this step clearly expedited the coding process by requiring less discriminations, combining Criticism and Smart Talk did not improve the reliability of these categories for either parents or children Combining the praise categories, however, significantly improved the reliability estimates, particularly for the child categories which occur less often Validity Differences in Self-report Measures Between the Clinic-referred and Non-referred Fathers Significant differences were found between the groups on the ECBI PSI, and PLOC-SF. In addition, for the clinic-referred group, the scores on the ECBI (both Problem and Intensity scores) and the PSI (Child Domain Parent Domain, and Total scores) were in the clinical range while the scores for the comparison group were in the normal range These findings suggest that the ECBI and the PSI are good tools for

PAGE 76

68 distinguishing between fathers of clinic-referred and non-referred children. Although norms have not been established for the PLOC-SF, the results of this study suggest that fathers of children referred for behavior problems tended to have a more external locus of control than fathers of comparison children In other words, they perceived themselves as having less control over their child's behavior. A statistically significant difference between groups was also found on the PPVTR (Dunn & Dunn, 1981), the measure used to screen for delay in receptive vocabulary. Children in the clinic-referred group received a mean score of 92 6 (SD= 14.8) and the children in the comparison group received a mean score of 102.9 (SD= 17.3). Although scores for both groups fall within the average range, the lower score for the clinic-referred children is consistent with the literature reporting an association between language delays and behavior problems in young children (Cantwell, Baker, & Mattison, 1979; Cohen, Davine, & Meloche-Kelly, 1989; Richman, Stevenson, & Graham, 1982). Behavioral Differences Between Clinic-referred and Non-referred Families Discriminative validity identifies differences between groups of individuals whose dissimilarities are established by other criteria. In this study, significant differences were found on four of the seven DPICS II summary variables First, child compliance was signficantly different between the two groups The clinic-referred children on average across the three situations were compliant with 58% of paternal total commands compared to the non-referred group who were compliant with 70% of paternal total commands. It is important to note that the compliance ratios described here include the child's compliance only to those direct and indirect commands for which they had an opportunity to comply,

PAGE 77

69 and represent compliance across the three situations. The compliance ratios reported in the present study are fairly similar to the previous DPICS II study with mothers (Bessmer, 1996). In her study of mother-child dyads, Bessmer (1996) found that the clinic-referred children were compliant with 53% of their mother's commands compared to the non referred group who were compliant with 75% of their mother's total commands. Robinson and Eyberg (1981), who defined compliance as compliance to all commands regardless of opportunity to comply found that children referred for behavior problems had 48% compliance to commands compared to 62% compliance for non-referred children. Second, the frequency of inappropriate behaviors (i.e., whining, yelling, criticism and sarcasm) was quite different between the groups Clinic-referred children averaged approximately 50 inappropriate behaviors in the 30-minute observation period while the non-referred children engaged in an average of29 inappropriate behaviors in the same length oftime. Other observational studies have also found that clinic-referred children engage in higher rates of deviant behavior with their fathers than normal children (Eyberg & Robinson, 1982; Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997; Webster-Stratton, 1985) The prosocial behaviors of the children, however, were not found to be significantly different between the clinic-referred group and the comparison group This finding is consistent with the findings ofBessmer (1996) and Patterson (1976) who also did not find codable differences in the prosocial behaviors of conduct-disordered children with their mothers In this study, prosocial behavior was operationalized as the sum of

PAGE 78

70 several categories of child verbalizations, as well as Physical Positive and Laugh One potential problem with this definition of prosocial is that the verbalization categories are not specific enough to reflect the content of the children's speech. For example, as long as the child does not whine, yell, or speak in a sarcastic tone of voice, the statements "I don't want to share the toys" and "I want to share my toys with you" would both be coded as Information Descriptions. In addition, the DPICS Il system does not take into account tum-taking behavior or positive affect (e: g smiling) which are important prosocial behaviors in preschoolers. Research using the Family Intake Coding System (FICS; Stormshak & Greenberg, 1996) found that comparison children displayed more positive affect than clinic-referred children while interacting with their parents (Stormshak, Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg, 1997) Rather than using Information Descriptions broadly as part of the pro social variable, it might be more useful to use behaviors consistent with "positive elicitation" (Stormshak & Greenberg, 1996). This category would include asking a parent to play or offering a toy. Furthermore, it might be worthwhile to supplement the quantitative Prosocial score with a qualitative rating of positive affect. In the FICS (Stormshak & Greenberg, 1996), parents and children are rated on an ordinal 5-point scale (0 = hostile/angry, 4 = positive affect, happiness). The present study also replicated some, but not all of the previous findings with DPICS and DPICS II related to parent behavior. Fathers of clinic-referred children exhibited significantly more inappropriate behaviors (i e critical and sarcastic statements) than comparison fathers. Over the combined 30 minutes that the dyads were observed, the referred fathers issued approximately 29 critical/sarcastic statements compared to an

PAGE 79

71 average of 18 critical/sarcastic statements from comparison fathers. Inconsistent with previous findings, total commands used during the 30 minutes were not significantly different between the two groups of fathers. Eyberg and Robinson (1982) found that fathers of clinic-referred children issued more commands than fathers of normal children. Their analysis, however, was based on a shorter observation period (i.e., 10 minutes) that did not include a clean-up situation. Bessmer (1996) found that mothers of clinic-referred children used significantly more commands than mothers of non-referred children, and that a higher percentage of those commands were direct. Although untreated clinic-referred mothers and fathers tend to use predominantly direct commands (72% in Bessmer's study and 70% in this study), their children are not more compliant with their requests Direct commands alone do not appear to lead to child compliance. During PCIT, the parent is taught to utilize direct commands so that it is clear to the child what behavior is expected Yet it may be other aspects of their commands ( e.g., timing, use of commands which give the child opportunity to comply), other behaviors (consistent consequences for compliance and noncompliance), or the improved relationship overall that account for increased compliance. The ratio of direct commands, then, may not change from preto post-treatment, but other aspects of parents' behavior do change to reduce the child's noncompliance. Other important differences were noted in the paternal behaviors between the clinic-referred and non-referred groups Consistent with Bessmer's (1996) findings for mothers, parent prosocial behaviors differentiated the two groups of fathers. The summary variable of father Pro social Behavior included the categories of

PAGE 80

72 Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavior and Information Descriptions, Laugh, Labeled and Unlabeled Praise, Reflection, and Physical Positive Interestingly, only when Information Descriptions were removed from the summary variable did significant differences emerge As mentioned earlier, Information Descriptions can be positive ("I want to play with you"}, negative ("I don't want to play with you"}, or neutral ("this is a blue car") statements and appeared to be inflating the prosocial behavior variable for both the clinic referred and comparison fathers. When these statements were removed from the scores, the score for the clinic fathers was reduced from 177 to 70 and from 175 to 90 for the non-referred fathers. The other categories in the summary variable occur less often and more clearly reflect behavior that is responsive and positive toward the child Griest, Forehand, Wells, and McMahon (1980) found no differences between clinic and nonclinic groups of mothers on total positive attention and contingent positive attention. Webster Stratton (1985) found that Praise was significantly different between clinic and nonclinic groups of mothers, but found no differences between groups on questions, Physical Positive, or a category that included Information Descriptions, Behavior Descriptions, and Reflections Although statistically significant differences were found between the two groups on four of the seven DPICS II summary variables, only 60% of the cases were correctly classified in a discriminant function analysis In contrast, Bessmer (1996) found statistically significant differences on six of the same seven DPICS II summary variables, and found that 87% of the cases could be correctly classified Based on this study and Bessmer's (1996) study, the DPICS II combined summary variables appear to be more

PAGE 81

robust in distinguishing between referred and non-referred mother-child dyads than they are in distinguishing between referred and non-referred father-child dyads. Further research will be important in understanding the differences between the use of DPICS II with mothers and fathers. 73 Convergent validity describes the correlation between the observational data and measures that are expected to relate to it. Several of the DPICS II summary variables correlated with scores on self-report measures used to assess children with behavior problems and their parents, supporting the convergent validity of the coding system. Both Child Compliance and child Inappropriate Behavior correlated significantly with the ECBI Intensity score These DPICS II variables, child Compliance and child Inappropriate Behavior, also correlated significantly with the Child Domain score on the PSI. The finding that child Prosocial Behavior was not associated with these measures is not surprising given that neither the ECBI nor the PSI specifically measure pro social behavior in children. In fact, these findings support the discriminant validity of the child Prosocial variable. Father Inappropriate Behavior was positively and significantly correlated with the ECBI Intensity score, suggesting a relationship between a father's ratings of his child's negative behavior and his own negative behavior toward the child. Father Inappropriate Behavior was also significantly correlated with the PLOC-SF score, suggesting a positive relationship between a father's perception of his lack of control over his child's behavior and his own negative behavior toward the child. In addition, a small but significant, negative correlation was found between father Total Commands and the Parent Domain

PAGE 82

score on the PSI. This finding is difficult to interpret. It may be a chance finding, or perhaps, fathers who are experiencing more personal distress actually tend to give fewer commands and are less engaged with their children in general than fathers who are experiencing less distress. In support of this interpretation is the finding that fathers of children with behavior problems who report less marital satisfaction also report less parenting involvement (Stormshak, Speltz, DeK.lyen, & Greenberg, 1997). Limitations and Future Directions 74 Several limitations of this study warrant discussion. First, it has been found that fathers are more reactive to observation than mothers, and interact differently with children based on the setting of the assessment (home vs laboratory; Cassidy, Parke, Butkovsky, & Braungart, 1992). The results of this study, therefore, may not generalize to other settings. Second, the majority of this sample was comprised of Caucasian boys from two-parent families Further study of referred and non-referred minorities is necessary to have adequate information on children from diverse backgrounds and their fathers. It will also be important for future research to compare the interactions of children from families with different constellations ( e.g ., single parent, divorced parents with joint custody, step-families). Although girls were included in this study, they were not sufficient in number to make statistical comparisons between clinic-referred and non referred girls or between clinic-referred boys and clinic-referred girls. It has been suggested that boys and girls at this age differ in their interactions with parents of different gender. Future research with larger samples of girls would provide the opportunity to examine this issue.

PAGE 83

75 Another limitation of this study relates to the fact that data from the clinic-referred and non-referred groups were collected differently. Observational data for the clinic referred group were collected on two separate visits, one week apart In an attempt to reduce attrition, observational data for the comparison group were collected on the same day, with a half-hour interval between each observation The data for the comparison group may be less stable in that they were collected on only one day, and in that the dyads may have become more tired over two consecutive 25-minute observations. Determining the best method to collect observational data (e.g., length of session, number of sessions) is an important empirical question that requires investigation This research has several implications for the use of direct observations as an assessment tool. In future projects utilizing DPICS II, the researchers may choose to limit the number of categories coded to a subset of the entire system that is relevant to their research question. DPICS II was designed for this purpose (Eyberg et al., 1994) By limiting the number of categories, the coding will be less demanding on the observers for both their attention and the time required to observe Limiting the categories also is likely to increase the reliability estimates (Suen & Ary, 1989). In addition, the complexity of the coding system, particulary its exhausive coding of each consecutive behavior, lends itself to a lag sequential analysis. Other researchers employing this technique have found patterns of behavior that differentiate types of clinic referred dyads Dumas (1984), for example, evaluated conditional probabilities for parent and child aversive behavior and found that mothers who were unsuccessful in parent training were more aversive and indiscriminate in their behavior toward children It is

PAGE 84

76 possible that a comparison of sequences of behaviors would differentiate referred and non referred parent-child dyads For example, future studies could evaluate the conditional probabilities of behaviors following child and parent prosocial behaviors, such as praise, behavior descriptions and reflections, as well as inappropriate behaviors, such as noncompliance, criticism, and whining In summary, the present study demonstrates that DPICS II can be used reliably and is valid for use with children with behavior problems and their fathers The summary variables measuring child compliance and the inappropriate behavior of children appear to be most useful in distinguishing between clinic-referred and non-referred father-child dyads. The DPICS II fulfills the criteria established by Roberts and Forehand (1978) as an assessment device for children and has a variety of applications both in clinical and research settings. The present study clearly supports the inclusion of fathers in observational studies of children with disruptive behavior.

PAGE 85

Table 8 APPENDIX A TABLES Categories of the Original Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (PPICS) Parent Behavior Acknowledgment Reflective Statements Descriptive Statements Descriptive/Reflexive Questions Indirect Commands Direct Commands Labeled Praise Unlabeled Praise Criticism Physical Negative Physical Positive Ignores/Responds to Deviant Note: Adapted from Eyberg & Robinson, 1983. Child Behavior Smart Talk Yell Whine Physical Negative Physical Positive Destructive Compliance Noncompliance No Opportunity for Compliance Changes Activity 77

PAGE 86

Table 9 Categories of the Dyadic Parent-Child Coding System-II (DPICS-ID Parent Behavior Acknowledgment Answer Behavioral Description Compliance Contingent Labeled Praiseb Criticism Descriptive/Reflective Question Destructive Direct Command Indirect Command Information Description Information Question Labeled Praise Laugh No Answer No Opportunity for Answer Child Behavior Acknowledgment Answer Behavioral Description Compliance Criticism Descriptive/Reflective Question Destructive Direct Command Indirect Command Information Description Information Question Labeled Praise Laugh No Answer No Opportunity for Answer 78

PAGE 87

Table 9--continued Parent Behavior No Opportunity for Compliance Noncompliance Physical Negative Physical Positive Playtalk Reflective Statements Smart Talk Unlabeled Praise Yell Whine Warningb Child Behavior No Opportunity for Compliance Noncompliance Physical Negative Physical Positive Playtalk Reflective Statements Smart Talk Unlabeled Praise Yell Whine Note. In DPICS, descriptions were coded Descriptive Statement; 6 Coded only for parents 79

PAGE 88

Table 10 DPICS II Parent Summar:y Variables Inappropriate Behavior Criticism Smart Talk Whine Yell Physical Negative Destructive Note. Used by Bessmer (1996) Prosocial Behavior Acknowledgment Answer Behavior Description Information Description Labeled Praise Laugh Reflection Physical Positive Total Commands Direct Commands Indirect Commands 80

PAGE 89

Table 11 DPICS II Child Summary Variables Inappropriate Behavior Criticism Destructive Physical Negative Smart Talk Whine Yell Note. Used by Bessmer (1996). Prosocial Behavior Acknowledgment Answer Behavioral Descriptions Information Descriptions Labeled Praise Unlabeled Praise Physical Positive 81

PAGE 90

82 Table 12 Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Parent Categories Across Situations for the Clinic Referred and Comparison Groups Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison k k Acknowledgment 59 .91 62 .89 Answer .71 70 .84 90 Behavior Description ** .33 64 .78 Compliance .75 .81 .94 .98 Contingent Praise 50 1.0 Criticism 58 92 Direc t Command 70 97 .60 .98 Descriptive/Reflective Question .68 .83 69 92 Destructive ** .03 Indirect Command .63 88 .64 .97 Information Description 57 .85 .58 .95 Information Question .77 84 .76 .92 Labeled Praise .50 .05 Laugh ** .64 ** 90 Negative Talk .53 .93 No Answer .61 .44 .70 .52

PAGE 91

Table 12--continued Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison k k Noncompliance .47 .49 .73 .76 No Opportunity for Answer 57 .46 .81 .64 No Opportunity for Compliance .67 .48 85 .83 Physical Negative 74 .75 Physical Positive 78 38 .85 Play Talk .66 .81 .86 .99 Praise (total) .64 89 Reflection 38 .40 .66 85 Smart Talk .57 .65 Unlabeled Praise 66 .76 Whine ** 26 Yell ** ** Note K = kappa estimate, :e = intraclass correlation coefficient. Analyses based on n = 47 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and n = 57 5-minute coding intervals for the comparison group. Not coded Insufficient data for calculation 83

PAGE 92

Table 13 Reliability Estimates for the DPICS II Child Categories Across Situations for the Clinic Referred and Comparison Groups Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison k :e k :e Acknowledgment .73 .83 86 .98 Answer 80 .93 .84 .93 Behavior Description .50 37 .67 79 Compliance .66 .94 .73 .95 Criticism .61 .74 Descriptive/Reflective Question .75 .83 80 .96 Destructive 09 .88 Direct Command 64 .81 .71 .90 Indirect Command .54 .61 .63 .93 Information Description .67 .88 74 .95 Information Question 79 .83 86 .92 Labeled Praise ** 82 Laugh .47 .82 94 .88 Negative Talk 66 .89 No Answer 64 .55 .61 .82 Noncompliance .61 .89 .64 94 No Opportunity for Answer .71 .55 .70 .72 84

PAGE 93

Table 13--continued Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison No Opportunity for Compliance .60 89 .71 .97 Physical Positive .48 24 Physical Negative 1.0 .89 Play Talk 69 .91 .85 .94 Praise (total) .66 .84 Reflection 70 .84 .75 .76 Smart Talk .66 .91 Unlabeled Praise 50 64 Whine 67 66 77 94 Yell 62 79 1.0 .61 Note. K = kappa estimate, f = intraclass correlation coefficient. Analyses based on n = 47 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and n = 57 coding intervals for the comparison group Not coded ** Insufficient data for calculation 85

PAGE 94

86 Table 14 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Child Directed Interaction Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) Acknowledgment 16. 0 10. 2 17.3 11.4 Answer 3.5 4.0 3 0 3.1 Behavior Description .55 1.1 .83 1.2 Compliance 3 8 4.3 2 2 3.1 Contingent Praise 00 00 Criticism 3.4 5.2 Direct Command 9 3 7.9 9.1 10.1 Descriptive/Reflective Question 18.2 10 7 23.4 10.1 Indirect Command 2 6 2.4 3 1 3.1 Information Description 26.9 16.3 33.2 16 3 Information Question 13.8 5.4 12.8 9 1 Laugh 1.9 1.8 2 8 2.4 Labeled Praise .21 .49 Negative Talk 2.3 2.1 No Answer 1.7 2 0 76 .83 Noncompliance 1.0 1.4 28 .53

PAGE 95

87 Table 14--continued Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) No Opportunity for Answer 1.8 2.4 .72 88 No Opportunity for Compliance 7 9 5 0 4.5 4 2 Physical Positive 52 1.2 .21 .62 Play Talk 6.4 13. 6 3 9 9.4 Praise 3 0 2 0 Reflection 1.3 3.2 3.1 3.5 Smart Talk .07 37 Unlabeled Praise 1.8 2.4 Inappropriate Behavior 3.4 5.5 2.5 2.3 Prosocial Behaviol 52.8 21.6 64 8 22 0 Prosocial Behavior-Re 25. 9 12. 0 30 1 14.3 Total Commandsd 11.9 8.7 12.6 11.6 Direct Command Ratioc .73 27 .65 29 Note. Based on n = 30 for each group Inappropriate Beha vi or = Criticism + Smart Talk; 6 Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description Information Description, Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positi v e Reflection Unlabeled Praise ; 0 Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands. Not coded

PAGE 96

88 Table 15 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summey Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Parent Directed Interaction Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) Acknowledgment 14.0 9.8 18. 5 9.0 Answer 3 5 3.8 3.0 2.6 Behavior Description .45 1.4 1.2 2 0 Compliance 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 Contingent Praise .03 19 Criticism 14 7 10.7 Direct Command 37.3 22 2 31.4 18.6 Descriptive/Reflective Question 19 .2 12.4 25.4 11.0 Indirect Command 14.8 6 .2 15. 5 7 3 Information Description 44 7 15.2 51.6 17.3 Information Question 10.7 7.5 11.9 6.2 Laugh 97 1.4 3.1 3.6 Labeled Praise .24 51 Negative Talk 9.8 8.0 No Answer 1.4 1.8 .86 1.4 Noncompliance 1.8 1.8 89 1.2

PAGE 97

89 Table 15--continued Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) No Opportunity for Answer 1.0 1.1 .50 .79 No Opportunity for Compliance 4.6 4.6 3.6 2.9 Physical Positive .69 1.6 .61 .99 Play Talk 66 1.1 6.8 15.9 Praise (total) 7.3 4.5 Reflection .90 .94 2.5 2 3 Smart Talk .52 .74 Unlabeled Praise 4.8 4.4 Inappropriate Behavior 15.2 10. 9 9 6 7.9 Prosocial Behavior 68.2 22.8 75.2 22.9 Prosocial Behavior-R 24 5 13.4 24 1 11.8 Total Commands 52.2 24.2 45.4 23. 1 Direct Command Ratio 67 .16 .65 .13 Note. Based on !! = 30 for each group. a Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk; 6 Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description Information Description, Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positive, Reflection, Unlabeled Praise; 0 Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands Not coded.

PAGE 98

90 Table 16 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Parent Categories and Summaty Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Clean-up Situation Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) Acknowledgment 11.9 9.8 15. 3 7.5 Answer 4.3 3.1 4 0 3 6 Behavior Description .24 .69 .37 .61 Compliance 34 72 .73 .41 Contingent Praise .00 .00 Criticism 9.7 9 0 Direct Command 43.8 31.2 27 0 18.0 Descriptive/Reflective Question 12. 0 8 7 18. 5 8.2 Indirect Command 15.7 11.0 16.2 10.1 Information Description 35.3 17. 8 39.4 16.7 Information Question 6 1 5.8 8 2 4.5 Laugh .69 1.2 2.7 4.2 Labeled Praise 69 1.4 Negative Talk 8.6 7.0 No Answer 1.4 1.7 .87 1.0 Noncompliance 1.9 2 3 1.3 2.2

PAGE 99

91 Table 16 Continued Parent Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) No Opportunity for Answer .76 .87 .87 .94 No Opportunity for Compliance 2 5 3 2 3 4 3 0 Physical Positive .79 1.2 .80 1.3 Play Talk .45 99 1.9 5 7 Praise (total) 6 9 4.3 Reflection .69 1.0 2.2 1.9 Smart Talk 59 1.2 Unlabeled Praise 6.1 6.5 Inappropriate Behavior 10. 3 9.4 8.1 7.1 Prosocial Behavior 60 8 28 5 69 5 26 0 Prosocial Behavior-R 25.4 15.4 31.4 13. 5 Total Commands 59 5 35.5 41.3 27 0 Direct Command Ratio .72 .15 .57 .23 Note Based on n = 30 for each group. Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk; 6 Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description Information Description, Labeled Praise Laugh, Physical Positive, Reflection, Unlabeled Praise; 0 Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands. Not coded

PAGE 100

92 Table 17 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Child Directed Interaction Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) Acknowledgment 15. 2 7 .2 12 9 8.0 Answer 7.8 4 .2 7 6 5.6 Behavior Description .10 .41 .07 .26 Compliance 3.2 2.7 4.7 5.5 Criticism 3 8 5 1 Direct Command 8.7 6.1 4.9 4.8 Descriptive/Reflective Question 5.4 4 8 4 8 4.6 Indirect Command 3.4 2 6 2.2 3.1 Information Description 44 5 16 0 45.9 20.3 Information Question 7 2 7.3 4 5 3.7 Laugh 3.4 4.4 1.8 2.7 Labeled Praise 07 .26 Negative Talk 3.2 3.6 No Answer 2 3 1.9 2 0 1.9 Noncompliance 1.3 1.6 72 92 No Opportunity for Answer 3.3 2 1 3 .2 3 0

PAGE 101

93 Table 17--continued Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) No Opportunity for Compliance 7.3 6.0 6 7 7.8 Physical Positive 34 1.1 .10 .41 Play Talk 11.6 11.5 9 1 10 7 Praise (total) .45 .69 Reflection .31 60 .59 .91 Smart Talk 1.2 2 1 Unlabeled Praise .45 .91 Whine 1.4 3.4 97 1.8 Yell 1.1 2.6 69 1.4 Inappropriate Behavior 7.6 9.4 5.2 5 2 Prosocial Behavior 72 1 21.5 70.4 25.9 Prosocial Behavior-R 27.6 11.0 24 2 14.0 Compliance Ratio .68 .33 76 .40 Note. Based on n = 30 for each group Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk; 6 Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment Answer Behavioral Description Information Description, Labeled Praise Laugh, Physical Positive Reflection, Unlabeled Praise; 0 Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands ; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands. Not coded

PAGE 102

94 Table 18 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Parent Directed Interaction Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) Acknowledgment 14. 9 9 9 15.8 9.2 Answer 5.5 4.5 6.0 3 9 Behavior Description .10 .31 .11 .42 Compliance 12. 9 9 9 15.9 11.8 Criticism 3.7 5 7 Direct Command 5.1 4.3 3 6 2 9 Descriptive/Reflective Question 5 9 4.3 6 1 5.4 Indirect Command 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.7 Information Description 38.2 15.0 37.1 14. 1 Information Question 6 1 5 0 4.5 3.2 Laugh 2.7 3.7 1.8 2 3 Labeled Praise 00 .00 Negative Talk 6.8 7.0 No Answer 2.0 2.2 1.6 1.8 Noncompliance 8.7 9.2 5.7 5.5 No Opportunity for Answer 3.0 2.0 4.1 3.2

PAGE 103

95 Table 18--continued Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) No Opportunity for Compliance 30 3 15. 7 25 1 14.3 Physical Positive .10 .31 07 .26 Play Talk 3 7 6.4 6.3 9.1 Praise ( total) .46 69 Reflection .52 .69 1.1 1.7 Smart Talk 7.1 13. 9 Unlabeled Praise .69 1.5 Whine 6 0 10. 1 4 5 5.1 Yell 2 3 6 0 1.8 3.2 Inappropriate Behavior 19.2 26.3 12.8 12. 7 Prosocial Behavior 62 8 24.7 59.9 22 1 Prosocial Behavior-R 24 5 13.4 24.1 11.8 Compliance Ratio 57 26 .74 .22 Note Based on n = 30 for each group Inappropriate Behavior= Criticism+ Smart Talk; 6 Prosocial Behavior = Acknowledgment, Answer, Behavioral Description Information Description Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positive Reflection, Unlabeled Praise ; 0 Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions ; dTotal Commands= Indirect+ Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio= Direct Commands divided by Total Commands Not coded

PAGE 104

96 Table 19 Mean Frequency ofDPICS II Child Categories and Summary Variables for Referred and Non-referred Father-Child Dyads in the Clean-up Situation Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred M (SD) M (SD) Acknowledgment 10. 0 7.0 10.6 6.7 Answer 2 9 2 6 5 0 3.5 Behavior Description .00 00 .00 .00 Compliance 13.9 9 7 15.47 10.3 Criticism 2 3 2.8 Direct Command 3.3 4.4 3.2 2 8 Descriptive/Reflective Question 6 7 5 8 6.6 5.0 Indirect Command 1.7 1.6 2 2 2 6 Information Description 31.0 15.22 31.5 14.8 Information Question 6 6 6.6 7 0 4.1 Laugh 1.2 1.4 1.1 3 2 Labeled Praise .03 19 Negative Talk 4.3 5.5 No Answer 1.2 2 5 1.0 .87 Noncompliance 14. 9 15.83 7.2 6.8 No Opportunity for Answer 1.9 2 1 2.1 1.8

PAGE 105

97 Table 19--continued Child Categories Clinic-referred Non-referred No Opportunity for Compliance 30 6 20 0 20 3 13. 7 Physical Positive .31 97 07 .25 Play Talk 2.2 4.0 3.7 5 8 Praise (total) 20 .48 Reflection .48 .95 .27 .69 Smart Talk 8 2 11. 82 Unlabeled Praise 38 .78 Whine 7.8 14.3 5 3 7.5 Yell 4.7 9 6 1.0 3.2 Inappropriate Behavior 22 9 30 9 10. 0 12. 2 Prosocial Behavior 46 3 19. 3 47.0 26.0 Prosocial Behavior-R 15. 3 9 2 16.6 10.7 Compliance Ratio 52 24 .65 27 Note. Based on n = 30 for each group Inappropriate Behavior = Criticism + Smart Talk ; 6 Prosocial Behavior= Acknowledgment. Answer, Behavioral Description Information Description, Labeled Praise, Laugh, Physical Positive, Reflection, Unlabeled Praise ; 0 Prosocial Behavior without Information Descriptions; d Total Commands = Indirect + Direct Commands; Direct Command Ratio = Direct Commands divided by Total Commands Not coded

PAGE 106

Table 20 Sunumuy of Reliability for Parent Categories in the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups During the Child Directed Interaction Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Acknowledgment .62 72 Answer .76 88 Behavior Description ** .82 Criticism .74 Direct Command 68 .62 Descriptive/Reflective Question .69 .74 Indirect Command .46 .68 Information Description 54 65 Information Question .77 78 Labeled Praise ** Laugh 24 ** No Answer .54 87 No Opportunity for Answer .49 .88 No Opportunity for Compliance .60 .87 Noncompliance 37 .66 Negative Talk 58 98

PAGE 107

Table 20--continued Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Physical Positive ** ** Play Talk 75 .82 Praise (total) .60 Reflection .36 .63 Unlabeled Praise .80 .60 Note. K = kappa estimate. Analyses based on!!= 19 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and !! = 27 5-minute coding intervals for the comparison group Not coded. ** Insufficient data for calculation. 99

PAGE 108

Table 21 Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups During the Parent Directed Interaction. Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Acknowledgment 52 .54 Answer .46 .62 Behavioral Description ** .67 Criticism 54 Direct Command .69 57 Descriptive/Reflective Question .71 59 Indirect Command .71 56 Information Description .58 .48 Information Question 78 .71 Labeled Praise 67 Laugh ** Negative Talk 50 No Answer 1.0 .46 No Opportunity for Answer .49 54 No Opportunity for Compliance 64 78 Noncompliance .51 .68 100

PAGE 109

Table 21--continued Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Negative Talk .58 Physical Positive 1.0 .00 Physical Negative 1.0 Play Talk 33 .91 Praise (total) 63 Reflection .40 .63 Smart Talk .50 Unlabeled Praise .64 Note K = kappa estimate Analyses based on!!= 14 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and !!.. = 13 5-minute coding intervals for the comparison group. Not coded. Insufficient data for calculation 101

PAGE 110

Table 22 Summary of Reliability for Parent Categories in the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups During the Clean-up Situation. Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Acknowledgment .87 54 Answer .80 .94 Behavioral Description 1.0 .33 Criticism .69 Direct Command .73 .59 Descriptive/Reflective Question .85 .70 Destructive Indirect Command 77 .68 Information Description .73 .58 Information Question .96 74 Labeled Praise 50 Laugh Negative Talk .55 No Answer .68 .48 No Opportunity for Answer 1.0 .66 No Opportunity for Compliance .88 86 102

PAGE 111

103 Table 22--continued Parent Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Noncompliance .46 .81 Negative Talk .58 Physical Positive .00 .00 Physical Negative ** Play Talk ** .92 Praise (total) 70 Reflection 1.0 .74 Smart Talk .71 Unlabeled Praise .85 Note K = kappa estimate. Analyses based on!! = 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and n..= 17 5-minute coding intervals for the comparison group Not coded. Insufficient data for calculation

PAGE 112

Table 23 Summary of Reliability for Child Categories in the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups During the Child Directed Interaction Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Acknowledgment .67 .90 Answer .80 .94 Behavioral Description ** 1.0 Compliance 50 .80 Criticism .51 Descriptive/Reflective Question .81 .80 Destructive .17 Direct Command 58 .76 Indirect Command .51 .60 Information Description .65 .77 Information Question 76 .92 Labeled Praise ** Laugh .13 1.0 Negative Talk 62 No Answer 69 .63 No Opportunity for Answer .80 .71 104

PAGE 113

Table 23--continued Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison No Opportunity for Compliance .53 84 Noncompliance 84 .42 Physical Positive .58 ** Physical Negative 1.0 Play Talk .73 87 Praise (total) 1.0 Reflection .83 1.0 Smart Talk .71 Unlabeled Praise 50 Whine ** 1.0 Yell 52 1.0 Note K = kappa estimate Analyses based on!!= 19 5-minute coding intenrals for the clinic-referred group and !!.. = 27 5-minute coding intenrals for the comparison group Not coded. Insuffic i ent data for calculation 105

PAGE 114

Table 24 Surrumuy of Reliability for Child Categories in the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups During the Parent Directed Interaction. Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Acknowledgment .78 .76 Answer 76 .77 Behavioral Description .50 ** Compliance 70 80 Criticism .65 Descriptive/Reflective Question 59 .73 Destructive 1.0 Direct Command .65 .53 Indirect Command .46 65 Information Description 67 .61 Information Question .72 .78 Labeled Praise ** Laugh 1.0 .71 Negative Talk .64 No Answer .53 .63 No Opportunity for Answer 62 .52 106

PAGE 115

Table 24--continued Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison No Opportunity for Compliance 62 62 Noncompliance 66 .61 Physical Positive .12 ** Physical Negative 1.0 Praise (total) 50 Reflection .80 .40 Smart Talk .71 Unlabeled Praise 1.0 .50 Whine .70 .46 Yell 50 1.0 Note K = kappa estimate. Anal y ses based on!!= 14 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and !l. = 13 5 minute coding intervals for the comparison group Not coded. Insufficient data for calculation 107

PAGE 116

Table 25 Summary of Reliability for Child Categories in the Clinic-Referred and Comparison Groups During the Clean-up Situation Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison Acknowledgment 80 .93 Answer .76 .77 Behavioral Description ** .00 Compliance .65 76 Criticism .68 .74 Descriptive/Reflective Question .78 86 Destructive .03 Direct Command .85 .75 Indirect Command 72 .70 Information Description 70 .80 Information Question .88 .88 Labeled Praise ** Laugh 1.0 1.0 No Answer .49 .57 No Opportunity for Answer .63 88 No Opportunity for Compliance 54 69 108

PAGE 117

Table 25--continued Child Category Clinic-Referred Comparison K K Noncompliance .52 .63 Physical Positive ** ** Physical Negative ** Play Talk .40 75 Praise (total) 1.0 Reflection .50 1.0 Smart Talk 71 Unlabeled Praise ** Whine .56 .85 Yell 82 1.0 Note K = kappa estimate. Analyses based on n = 14 5-minute coding intervals for the clinic-referred group and n. = 17 5-minute coding intervals for the comparison group Not coded. Insufficient data for calculation. 109

PAGE 118

110 Table 26 Classification Results for the Discriminant Function Analysis for Each Father-Child Dyad in the Total Sample Case Number Actual Group Predicted Group 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 1 1 7 1 2 8 1 2 .. 9 1 1 10 1 2 11 1 1 12 1 2 .. 13 1 1 14 1 2 15 1 1 16 1 1 17 1 1

PAGE 119

111 Table 26--continued Case Number Actual Group Predicted Group 18 1 1 19 1 2 .. 20 1 1 21 1 2 .. 22 1 1 23 1 2 .. 24 1 2 25 1 1 26 1 1 27 1 1 28 1 2 .. 29 1 2 .. 30 1 1 31 2 1 .. 32 2 2 33 2 1 .. 34 2 1 .. 35 2 2

PAGE 120

112 Table 26--continued Case Number Actual Group Predicted Group 36 2 (. 37 2 2 38 2 2 39 2 2 40 2 2 41 2 1 .. 42 2 2 43 2 2 44 2 2 45 2 2 46 2 2 47 2 1 48 2 1 49 2 1 .. 50 2 2 51 2 2 52 2 2 53 2 (.

PAGE 121

Table 26--continued Case Number 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Actual Group 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Predicted Group 2 2 2 2 Note. Analysis based on N = 60 Group 1 = Clinic-Referred, Group 2 = Comparison Misclassified case 113

PAGE 122

114 Table 27 Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Parent Verbalization Categories for the Clinic-Referred Group Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. AK 204 0 6 11 12 4 27 3 4 3 2.BD 0 0 2 2 0 1 8 0 0 0 3 CR 4 1 136 23 2 3 39 0 0 0 4 .DC 20 0 30 485 11 30 69 7 0 4 5 .DQ 19 0 3 8 304 5 33 9 5 7 6. IC 9 0 4 28 16 202 30 4 2 4 7 .ID 27 2 35 62 40 45 635 16 10 10 8. IQ 8 0 4 2 14 2 13 216 0 1 9 .RF 3 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 15 2 10. UP 2 0 1 3 3 2 11 1 1 77 Note. AK = Acknowledgment, BO = Beha vi oral Description CR= Criticism, DC = Direct Command DQ = Descriptive/Reflective Question IC = Indirect Command ID = Information Description, IQ = Information Question, RF= Reflection, UP= Unlabeled Praise

PAGE 123

Table 28 Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Parent Verbalization Categories for the Comparison Group Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. AK 396 1 6 33 29 8 67 10 5 26 2.BD 1 13 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 3 .NT 5 1 111 23 3 0 28 6 1 2 4.DC 34 1 25 453 21 28 87 8 3 11 5 .DQ 30 1 1 25 546 22 56 14 12 5 6. IC 10 0 2 36 18 211 40 2 1 1 7 .ID 62 2 40 82 58 31 865 24 7 15 8. IQ 11 0 4 6 21 1 22 272 2 0 9.RF 9 0 3 3 12 1 20 2 71 0 10 TP 17 0 1 9 4 2 18 0 3 129 Note. AK = Acknowledgment, BD = Behavioral Description, NT = Negative Talk (Criticism/Smart Talk), DC = Direct Command, DQ = Descriptive/Reflective Question, IC = Indirect Command, ID = Information Description, IQ = Information Question, RF = Reflection, TP = Total Praise (Unlabeled/Labeled/Contingent Praise) 115

PAGE 124

Table 29 Kappa Confusion Matrix for the Child Verbalization Categories for the Clinic-Referred Group Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. AK 180 0 4 2 0 1 18 6 0 2 2 .BD 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 CR 7 0 47 3 0 0 21 0 0 0 4 .DC 1 0 2 92 2 1 26 1 0 0 5.DQ 1 0 0 3 106 3 9 3 1 0 6. IC 1 0 0 4 1 28 10 0 0 0 7.ID 13 1 13 10 14 10 754 6 3 0 8.IQ 4 0 0 3 7 0 8 103 0 0 9 .RF 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12 0 10. UP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 116 Note. AK= Acknowledgment, BD = Behavioral Description, CR= Criticism, DC = Direct Command, DQ = Descriptive/Reflective Question, IC = Indirect Command, ID = Information Description, IQ = Information Question, RF = Reflection, UP = Unlabeled Praise

PAGE 125

117 Table 30 lntercorrelation Matrix for DPICS II Summary Variables DPIC II Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Child Behavior 1. Compliance 66 .. .11 02 22 -.47 24 07 .18 2 Inappropriate .23 .08 -.02 66 .15 .01 .31 3. Prosocial 12 .06 .18 .16 14 06 4 Prosocial-R .16 10 -.02 .12 .09 Parent Behavior 5 DC Ratio .23 22 -.21 .3s 6. Inappropriate .12 -.07 .53 .. 7 Prosocial 54 .. .13 8. Prosocial-R .21 9 Total Commands Note p < 05. p < .01. p < 001

PAGE 126

APPENDIXB SUMMARY OF DPICS II CATEGORIES Note: Because the DPICS II categories are reflexive, the following list of categories applies to both parent and child behavior. 1. Playtalk -any verbalization given as part of"pretend talk", where the speaker is talking as a toy or character other than him or herself 2 Acknowledgment -a brief verbal response that indicates attention to verbal or nonverbal behavior of either person in the dyad, but does not describe or evaluate that behavior. 3. Behavioral Description -a declarative sentence where the subject is the other member of the dyad and the verb describes the other person's verbal or nonverbal observable behavior. 4. Information Description -a declarative sentence that gives an account of people, the play, or events that does not clearly describe the other member of the dyad's current or immediately completed behavior 5. Reflective Statement -a declarative statement which immediately repeats the other person's verbalization. 6 Descriptive/Reflective Question -a descriptive or reflective comment or acknowledgment expressed in a question form 7. Information Question -questions that require specific information from the other person other than a simple acknowledgment. 8 Indirect Command -an order, demand, or direction for a behavioral response that is implied, nonspecific, or stated in a question form. 9. Direct Command -a clearly stated order, demand, or direction in a declarative form which is sufficiently specific as to indicate the behavior that is expected from the other person 118

PAGE 127

10. Labeled Praise -a verbalization that expresses a favorable judgment upon a specific activity or product of the other member of the dyad or the speaker. 11. Unlabeled Praise -a verbalization that expresses a nonspecific favorable judgment of the other person/self, an attribute of the other/self, or a nonspecific activity or product of the other/self 12. Criticism -a verbal expression of disapproval of the other person, and/or the other's attributes, activities, products, or choices 13. Smart Talk -sassy sarcastic, rude, or impudent speech 14. Yell -a loud screech, scream, shout, or loud crying which is clearly above the intensity of the speaker's normal speech volume 15. Whine -words uttered in a slurring, nasal, high-pitched, falsetto tone, clearly distinct from the normal tone of the speaker's verbalizations. 16. Laugh -any chuckling or laughing that is not associated with any teasing or taunting behavior. 119 17. Physical Negative -any touching of the other person that attempts to restrain or inflict pain. 18. Physical Positive -any touching of the other person that is neutral or positive. 19. Destructive -any action which destroys, damages, or attempts to damage any object. 20. Compliance -when the person obeys, begins to obey, or attempts to obey a direct or indirect command given by the other person. 21. Noncompliance -when the person does not obey a direct or indirect command given by the other person within five seconds 22 No Opportunity for Compliance -when the person is not given adequate chance to comply with a command issued by the other member of the dyad 23. Answer -when the person answers, starts to answer, or tries to answer an information question posed by the other.

PAGE 128

24. No Answer -when the person does not answer the other person's information question within five seconds either by giving no response or by giving a rude, sassy, or deliberately false response. 120 25. No Opportunity for Answer -when the person is not given an adequate chance to respond to an information question issued by the other member of the dyad 26 Contingent Labeled Praise -when the parent issues a labeled praise in response to the child's compliance to a command 27. Warning -when the parent issues a statement following a command indicating that the child will be placed in time-out following further noncompliance to the command. T h ese categories coded for parents only

PAGE 129

REFERENCES Abidin, R.R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index manual (Third Edition). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Alberts-Corush, J., Firestone, P., & Goodman, J. T (1986) Attention and imp u lsivity characteristics of the biological and adoptive parents of hyperactive and normal control children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 413-423 Alexander, J. F., Waldron, H. B Barton, C & Mass, C H (1989) The minimizing of blaming attributions and behaviors in delinquent families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 19-24 American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed ) Washington, DC: The American Psychiatric Association Anastasi, A. (1988) Psychological Testing (6th ed.) New York: Macmillan. Aragona, J.A., & Eyberg S M. (1981). Neglected children : Mother's report of child behavior problems and observed verbal behavior. Child Development, 52, 596-602 Bakeman, R., & Gettman, J.M. (1986) Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press. Baker, B. L., & Heller, T. L. (1996). Preschool children with externalizing behaviors : Experience of fathers and mothers Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 513-532 Bearss, K., & Eyberg, S M (1998) A test of the parenting alliance theory Early Education and Development, 9, 179-18 5 Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience : A family perspective Developmental Psychology, 17, 3-23 Bentley, K. S., & Fox, R. A. (1991) Mothers and fathers of young children : Comparison of parenting styles Psychological Reports, 69, 320-322. 121

PAGE 130

Bessmer, J. (1996) The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System II NCS II): Reliability and validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. 122 Borduin, C M Pruitt, J. A, & Henggeler, S W (1986) Family interactions in Black, lower-class families with delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent boys. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, 333-342 Bornstein, P. H Bridgwater, C. A, Hickey, J S., & Sweeney, T. M. (1980). Characteristics and trends in behavioral assessment: An archival analysis. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 125-133 Cameron, S. J Dobson, L. A, & Day, D. M. (1991). Stress in parents of developmentally delayed and non-delayed preschool children Canada's Mental Health, 13-17 Campis, L. K., & Lyman, R. D., & Prentice-Dunn, S (1986). The Parental Locus of Control Scale: Development and Validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 260-267 Cantwell, D., Baker, L., & Mattison, R. (1979). The prevalence of psychiatric disorder in children with speech and language disorders: An epidemiological study. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 18, 450-461. Caplan P J., & Hall-McCorquodale, I. (1985) Mother-blaming in major clinical journals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 345-353. Christensen, A, Phillips, S., Glasgow, R. E., & Johnson, S. M (1983). Parental chara c teristics and interactional dysfunction in families with child behavior problems: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 153-166. Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1980). The fathers' contribution to children's cognitive and social development in early childhood. In F. A Pedersen (Ed ), The father-infant relationship : Observational studies in the family setting. New York: Praeger. Ciminero, AR. (1986) Behavioral assessment : An overview. In AR. Ciminero, K. S. Calhoun, & H. E Adams (Eds .), Handbook ofBehavioral Assessment, New York: Wiley Cohen, N J., Davine, M., & Meloche-Kelly, M. (1989). The prevalence of unsuspected language disorders in a child psychiatric population. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 107-111.

PAGE 131

123 Cunningham, C. E., Benness, B. B., & Siegel, L. S. (1988). Family functioning, time allocation, and parental depression in the families of normal and ADDH children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 17, 169-177. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S & Bates, J.E. (1994) Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, 649-665 Dodrill, C. (1981) An economic method for the evaluation of general intelligence in adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 668-673. Downey, G., & Coyne, J. (1991) Children of depressed parents: An integrative review Psychological Bulletin, 108, 5076. Dumas, J. (1984) Interactional correlates of treatment outcome in behavioral parent training Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 946-954. Dumas, J., & Serketich, W J. (1994) Maternal depressive symptomatology and child maladjustment : A comparison of three process models. Behavior Therapy. 25, 161181. Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulai;y Test-Revised: Manual. Circle Pines, :MN : American Guidance Service. Eisenstadt, T. H., Eyberg, S McNeil S. B Newcomb, K., & Funderburk, B. (1993). Parent-child interaction therapy with behavior problem children : Relative effectiveness of two stages and overall treatment outcome Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 22, 42-51 Eyberg, S (1996). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory : Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Eyberg, S Bessmer, J., Newcomb, K., Edwards, D., & Robinson, E. (1994). Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System --II: A manual. Social Science Documents San Raphael, CA: Select Press Eyberg, S & Celebi, S (1993) Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: User manual for the coding and analysis software (Tape, Version 1.0; Kappa, Version 1.0). [Computer software]. Gainesville, FL: Authors Eyberg, S., Edwards, D., Bessmer, J., & Litwins, N. (1994). The Workbook: A coder training manual for the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System --TI. Social Sciences Documents. San Rafael, CA: Select Press

PAGE 132

124 Eyberg, S., & Matarazzo, R. (1980). Training parents as therapists: A comparison between individual parent-child interaction training and parent group didactic training Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 492-499. Eyberg, S M., & Pincus, D (1999) Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory : Professional Manual Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources Eyberg, S., & Robinson, E. (1982) Parent-child interaction training: Effects on family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11, 130-137. Eyberg, S., & Robinson, E (1983) Dyadic parent-child interaction coding system : A manual. Psychological Documents, 13, 24. Fleiss, J. (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed) New York: Wiley. Forster, A, Eyberg, S.M., & Burns, G L. (1990) Assessing verbal behavior of conduct problem children during mother-child interactions: A preliminary investigation. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 12, 13-22 Foster, S L., & Cone J. D. (1986). Design and use of direct observation procedures In AR. Ciminero K. S Calhoun, & H E. Adams (Eds .), Handbook of behavioral assessment (p 253). New York: Wiley Goldfried, M. R. (1979). Behavioral assessment: Where do we go from here? Behavioral Assessment, 1, 19-22 Goodman, R., & Stevenson, J. (1989) A twin study of hyperactivity: II. The aetiology role of genes, family relationships and perinatal adversity Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 691-709 Griest, D L., & Forehand, R. (1984) How can I get my parent training done with all of these other problems going on? : The role of family variables in child behavior therapy Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 4, 73-80. Griest, D L., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C., & McMahon R. J. (1980). An examination of differences between nonclinic and behavior-problem clinic-referred children and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 497-500 Hagberg, W. J. (1989). A comparative study of parental stress among mothers and fathers of deaf school-age children. Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 220-224.

PAGE 133

Hanf, C (1968) Definitions used when recording mother-child interactions Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon Medical School, Crippled Children's Division Eugene, OR. Hanson, C. L. Henggeler, S W Haefele, W. F & Rodick, J. D (1984) 125 Demographic, individual, and family relationship correlates of serious and repeated crime among adolescents and their siblings Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 528-538 Hart, C H., De Wolfe, D M., Wozniak P & Bums, D. C. (1992) Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles : Relations with preschoolers' playground behavioral orientations and peer status Child Development, 63, 879-892. Hartmann D P (1977) Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-116 Hartmann, D P & Wood, D D (1990) Observational methods In A. S Bellack, M Hersen, & A. E Kazdin (Eds ) International handbook ofbehavior modification and therapy (2nd ed., pp 107-129) Hecker, L. L. (1991) Where is dad? : 21 ways to involve fathers in family therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 2, 31-45. Hembree-Kigin, T L., & McNeil, C B (1995) Parent-child interaction therapy New York: Plenum Hops, H., Biglan, A., Sherman L. Arthur, J., Friedman, L., & Osteeen, V (1987) Home observations of family interactions of depressed women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 341 346. Hops, H Davis B., & Longoria, N (1995) Methodological issues in direct observation : Illustrations with the Living in Familial Environments (LIFE) coding system. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, 193-203 Hops, H., & Seeley, J. R. (1992) Parent participation in studies of family interaction : Methodological and substantive considerations Behavioral Assessment, 14, 229-243. Horton, L. (1984) The father's role in behavioral parent training : A review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 13, 274-279 Hughes, H M & Haynes, S. N (1978). Structured laboratory observation in the behavioral assessment of parent-child interactions: A methodological critique. Behavior Therapy, 9, 428-447.

PAGE 134

126 Jacob, T. Tennenbaum, D. L., & Krahn, G (1987) Factors influencing the reliability and validity of observation data. In A. S Bellack, M. Hersen, & A. E Kazdin (Eds.) International handbook of behavior modification and therapy (2nd ed.) (pp. 297-328). Jones, R. R., Reid, J.B., Patterson, G. R. (1974) Naturalistic observation in clinical assessment. In P McReynolds (Ed. ) Advances in Psychological Assessment, (Vol. 3, pp. 42-95). San Francisco, CA: Jessey-Bass Kazak, A. E (1987) Families with disabled children : Stress and social networks in three samples Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 137-146. Kazdin, A. E. (1977) Artifact bias, and complexity of assessment : The ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141-150 La Freniere, P. J., Dumas, J.E., Capuano F & Dubeau, D (1992). Development and validation of the Preschool Socioaffective Profile Psychological Assessment, 4, 442-450. Lamb, M. E (Ed.). (1986) The father's role : Applied perspectives. New York: Wiley Lamb M. E., Pleck, J. H., & Levine, J. A., (1985). The role of the father in child development : The effects of increased paternal involvment. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds. ), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 229-266) New York: Plenum Lessin, S. & Jacob T. (1984). Multichannel communication in normal and delinquent families Journal of Abnomal Child Psychology, 12, 369-384. Lobitz, G K. & Johnson S M (1975) Normal versus deviant children : A multimethod comparison Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 3, 353-374. Loeber, R. (1990) Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency Child Psychology Rev iew, I 0, 1-41. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T J. (1983) Early predictors of male delinquency : A review Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99 Long, N (1997) Editorial: Are we contributing to the devaluation of fathers? Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2 197-199

PAGE 135

127 LeCroy, C W (1987) A model for involving fathers in family treatment. Family Therapy, 14, 237-245 Margalit, M (1985) Perception of parents' behavior, familial satisfaction, and sense of coherence in hyperactive children Journal of School Psychology, 23, 355-364. Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. (1983). Parental perceptions of child behavior problems, parenting self-esteem, and mothers' reported stress in younger an older hyperactive and normal children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 8699. Mash, E. J., & McElwee, J. D (1974) Situational effects on observer accuracy : Behavioral predictability, prior experience, and complexity of coding categories Child Development, 45, 367-377. Mash, E. J., & Terdal, L. G. (1988). Behavioral assessment of child and family disturbance. In E. J. Mash & L. G Terdal, Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders (2nd ed.) (pp 3-68) New York: Guilford McIntyre, T. J., Bornstein, P H., Isaacs, C. D Woody, D. J. (1983) Naturalistic observation of conduct-disordered children : An archival analysis. Behavior Therapy, 14, 375-385 McMahon, R. J., & Forehand, R. (1988) Conduct Disorders In E J. Mash & L. G. Terdal, Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders (2nd ed.) (pp 105-156). New York: Guilford. Mott, F. L. (1990). When is a father really gone? Paternal-child contact in father absent homes Demography, 27, 499-517 Page, T. J., & Iwata, B A. (1986) Interobserver agreement: History, theory, and current methods In A. Poling and R. W Fuqua, Research methods in applied behavioral analysis: Issues and advances New York: Plenum. Pakizegi, B. (1978) The interaction of mothers and fathers with their sons. Child Development, 49, 479-482. Parke, R. D., Macdonald, K. B., Beitel, A., & Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the development of peer relationships In R. DeV. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Social learning and systems approaches to marriage and the family (pp. 17-44) New York: Brunner-Mazel.

PAGE 136

128 Patterson, G Ray, R. S Shaw, D. A., & Cobb, J. A. (1969). A manual for coding family interactions Unpublished manuscript Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR. Patterson, G ( 197 6) The aggressive child : Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E Mash, Hamerlynck, & L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification in families (pp. 267-317). New York: Brunner!M:azel. Pedersen, F A. (1980). The father-infant relationship : Observational studies in the family setting New York: Praeger. Perry, A., Sarlo-McGarvey N & Factor, D. C (1992) Stress and family functioning in parents of girls with Rett syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 235-248 Phares, V. (1992) Where's Poppa? The relative lack of attention to the role of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology American Psychologist, 47, 656-664 Phares V. (1996a) Conducting nonsexist research prevention, and treatment with fathers and mothers : A call for change Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 55-77 Phares, V. (1996b) Fathers and developmental psychopathology. New York: Wiley Phares, V. & Compas B E (1992) The role of fathers in child and adolescent psychopathology : Make room for daddy. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 387-412. Phares, V., & Lum, J. J. ( 1997). Clinically referred children and adolescents : Fathers family constellations, and other demographic factors Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 216-223 Rayfield, A., Eyberg, S Boggs, S & Roberts, M (November, 1995) Development and validation of the Parental Locus of Control-Short Form. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AABT Preconference on Social Learning and the Family Washington, DC. Reeves, J. C Werry, J. S Elkind, G S & Zametkin, A. (1987) Attention deficit, conduct, oppositional and anxiety disorders in children : II. Clinical characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 144-155 Richman, N Stevenson J., & Graham P.J. (1982) Preschool to school : A behavioral study London: Academic Press

PAGE 137

129 Roberts, S (1993) Who we are: A portrait of America based on the latest U.S. Census. New York: Random House. Roberts, M W & Forehand, R. (1978). The assessment of maladaptive parent child interaction by direct observation : An analysis of methods. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 257-270 Robinson, E A., & Eyberg, S M. (1981) The Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System: Standardization and Validation Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 245-250. Russell, G & Radojevic, M (1992) The changing role of fathers? Current understandings and future directions for research and practice. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13, 296-311. Schaughency, E. A., & Lahey, B B (1985) Mothers' and fathers' perceptions of child deviance: Roles of child behavior, parental depression, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 718-723 Schuhmann, E., Foote, R., Eyberg, S Boggs, S & Algina, A. (1998). Efficacy of Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: Interim report of a randomized trial with short-term maintenance Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 34-45. Seltzer, J. A. (1991) Relationships between fathers and children who live apart: The father's role after separation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 79-101. Sobol, M P., Ashbourne, D T., Earn, B. M., & Cunningham, C. E. (1989). Parents' attributions for achieving compliance from attention-deficit-disordered children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 359-369. Stormshak, E. A., & Greenberg, M T. (1996) The Family Intake Coding System Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington Stormshak, E. A., Speltz, M L., DeKlyen, M., & Greenberg, M. T. (1997). Observed family interaction during clinical interviews : A comparison of families containing preschool boys with and without disruptive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25, 345-357. Suen, H.K. (1988) Agreement, reliability, accuracy and validity : Toward a clarification. Behavioral Assessment, I 0, 343-366 Suen, H K., & Ary, D (1989) Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

PAGE 138

130 Suen, H K., Ary, D & Ary, B. (1986) A note on the relationship among eight indices of interobserver agreement. Behavioral Assessment, 8, 301-303 Tallmadge, J., & Barkley R. A (1983) The interactions of hyperactive and normal boys with their fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 11, 565-580 Thompson, L., & Walker A J. (1989) Gender in families : Women and men in marriage, work, and parenthood Journal ofMarriage and the Family. 51, 845-871. Wahler, R., & Sansbury, L. L. (1992) Pathways to maladaptive parenting with mothers and their conduct disordered children Behavior Modification, 16, 574-592 Webster-Stratton, C (1985) Mother perceptions and mother-child interactions: Comparisons of a clinic-referred and a nonclinic group. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 334-339. Webster-Stratton, C. (1988) Mothers' and fathers' perceptions of child deviance : Roles of parent and child behaviors and parent adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 909 915 Weinhouse, D Weinhouse M., & Nelson, J. G (1992) Stress factors in families of young children with exceptional educational needs. School Psychology International, ll, 51-59 Wolf, L. C., Noh, S Fishman, S. N., & Speechley, M. (1989). Psychological effects of parenting stress on parents of autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 157-166. Woollett, A, White, D G., & Lyon, M. L. (1982) Studies involving fathers: Subject refusal, attrition and sampling bias. Current Psychological Reviews, 2, 193-212 Worden, P. E., Kee, D W & Ingle M J. (1987) Parental teaching strategies with preschoolers: A comparison of mothers and fathers within different alphabet tasks. Comtemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 95-109. Wruble, M K., Sheeber, L. B., Sorenson, E K., Boggs, S R., & Eyberg, S. (1991) Empirical derivation of child compliance time Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 13, 57-67 Zangwill, W M (1984) An evaluation of a parent training program. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 5, 1 16

PAGE 139

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rebecca Clark Foote is the daughter of Caleb Foote, M.D., and Susan Bartlett Foote, J.D. She was born on March 3, 1970, in Cleveland, Ohio Ms. Foote graduated from Berkeley High School in Berkeley, California, in June of 1988 She attended the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA, where she majored in psychology. Ms. Foote graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in May of 1992. For two years following her graduation, she worked as the Assistant to the Executive Director at the Institute for Mental Health Initiatives in Washington, DC. In August 1994, Ms. Foote was admitted to the graduate program in Clinical and Health Psychology at the University of Florida in Gainesville She completed her predoctoral internship at the Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford/ Children's Health Council Consortium in Palo Alto, CA, in June of 1999. Ms. Foote was then granted the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by the University of Florida in August of 1999 131

PAGE 140

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Sheila Eyberg, Chai~ Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ~,?,..~ Stephenoggs Associate Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. h~ Gary Get&en Associate Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Phil sop I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

PAGE 141

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Health Professions and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1999 ~+~?Y--/c_ Dean, College of Health Professions Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EJG60LRY9_9N81TB INGEST_TIME 2017-05-24T20:54:51Z PACKAGE AA00054907_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES