Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CITATIONS
READS
3,217
3 authors, including:
George J DuPaul
Lehigh University
206 PUBLICATIONS 9,834 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Mark D Rapport
University of Central Florida
101 PUBLICATIONS 3,336 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Mark D. Rapport
University of Massachusetts
Medical Center
University of Hawaii
at Mama
Lucy M. Perriello
disorders and concurrent academic performance dficulties are at higher risk for
poor long-term outcome (e.g., Weiss &
Hechtman, 1986).
These fmdings have direct implications for the assessment of the classroom
functioning of students with behavior
disorders. Specifically, it has become
increasingly important to screen for
possible academic skills deficits in this
population and monitor changes in academic performance associated with therapeutic interventions. Frequently, traditional measures of academic achievement
(e.g., standardized psychoeducational
batteries) are used as integral parts of the
diagnostic process and for long-term
assessment of academic success. Several
This project was supported in part by BRSG Grant SO7 RR05712 awarded to the first author by the Biomedical
Research Support Grant Program, Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health. A portion
of these results was presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists,
April, 1990, in San Francisco, CA
The authors extend their appreciation to Craig Edelbrock and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this article and to Russ Barkley, Terri Shelton, Kenneth Fletcher, Gary
Stoner, and the teachers and principals of the Worcester MA Public Schools for their invaluable contributions
to this study.
Address all correspondence
to George J. DuPaul, Department
Medical Center, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655.
284
of Psychiatry,
University
of Massachusetts
Academic
Performance
Rating Scale
285
factors limit the usefulness of norm- possess several advantages for both
referenced achievement tests for these screening and identification purposes.
purposes, such as (a) a failure to sample Teachers are able to observe student
the curriculum in use adequately, (b) the performance on a more comprehensive
use of a limited number of items to sample sample of academic content than could
various skills, (c) the use of response be included on a standardized achieveformats that do not require the student ment test. Thus their judgments provide
to perform the behavior (e.g., writing) of a more representative sample of the
interest, (d) an insensitivity to small domain of interest in academic assesschanges in student performance, and (e) ment (Gresham et al., 1987). Such judglimited contribution to decisions about ments also provide unique data regarding
the teachability (e.g., ability to succeed
programmatic interventions (Marston,
in a regular education classroom) of
1989; Shapiro, 1989).
students (Gerber & Semmel, 1984). FiGiven the limitations of traditional
achievement tests, more direct measure- nally, obtaining teacher input about a
ment methods have been utilized to screen students academic performance can
for academic skills deficits and monitor provide social validity data in support of
intervention effects (Shapiro, 1989; Sha- classification and treatment-monitoring
piro & Kratochwill, 1988.) Several meth- decisions. At the present time, however,
ods are available to achieve these pur- teachers typically are not asked for this
information in a systematic fashion, and
poses, including
curriculum-based
measurement (Shinn, 1989), direct obser- when available, such input is considered
vations of classroom behavior (Shapiro & to be highly suspect data (Gresham et al.,
Kratochwill, 1988), and calculation of 1987).
Teacher rating scales are important
product completion and accuracy rates
(Rapport, DuPaul, Stoner, & Jones, 1986). components of a multimodal assessment
These behavioral assessment techniques battery used in the evaluation of the
diagnostic status and effects of treatment
involve direct sampling of academic
behavior and have demonstrated sensitiv- on children with disruptive behavior
ity to the presence of skills deficits and disorders (Barkley, 1988; Rapport, 1987).
to treatment-induced
change in such Given that functioning in a variety of
behavioral domains (e.g., following rules,
performance (Shapiro, 1989).
In addition to these direct assessment academic achievement) across divergent
methods, teacher judgments of students settings is often affected in children with
achievement have been found to be quite such disorders, it is important to include
accurate in identifying children in need information from multiple sources across
of academic support services (Gresham, home and school environments. UnfortuReschly, & Carey, 1987; Hoge, 1983). For nately, most of the available teacher rating
example, Gresham and colleagues (1987) scales specifically target the frequency of
collected brief ratings from teachers problem behaviors, with few, if any, items
regarding the academic status of a large related directly to academic performance.
sample of schoolchildren. These ratings Thus, the dearth of items targeting teacher
were highly accurate in classifying stu- judgments of academic performance is a
major disadvantage of these measures
dents as learning disabled or non-handiwhen screening for skills deficits or moncapped and were significantly correlated
with student performance on two norm- itoring of academic progress is a focus of
the assessment.
referenced aptitude and achievement
To address the exclusivity of the focus
tests. In fact, teacher judgments were as
accurate in discriminating between these on problem behaviors by most teacher
two groups as the combination of the questionnaires, a small number of rating
scales have been developed in recent years
standardized tests.
Although teacher judgments may be that include items related to academic
acquisition and classroom performance
subject to inherent biases (e.g., confirming
previous classification decisions), they variables. Among these are the Childrens
286
School Psychology
the APRS and reports on its basic psychometric properties with respect to
factor structure, internal consistency,
test-retest reliability, and criterion-related
validity. In addition, normative data by
gender across elementary school grade
levels were collected.
METHOD
Subjects
Academic
Performance
Rating Scale
287
288
School Psychology
289
290
School Psychology
Factor Structure
TABLE1
of the Academic
Performance
Academic
Success
Scale Item
Rating
Scale
.30
0.02
.32
3. Math
.60
.06
.I1
work
4. Language
accuracy
of work
6. Follows
group
instructions
7. Follows
small-group
8. Learns material
9. Neatness
10. Quality
11. Quality
instructions
quickly
.39
.37
.81
.I7
.50
.31
of handwriting
.87
-80
of reading
of speaking
Iii
.36
14. Attention
15. Requires
.24
.44
without
prompts
assistance
carelessly
55.5
.36
Ti
.61
s3
53
-02
.35
.39
.38
.67
,57
.28
6.6
(with both genders and all grades represented) across a 2-week interval as
described previously. The reliability coefficients were uniformly high for the Total
APRS Score (.95), and Academic Success
(.91), Impulse Control (.88), and Academic Productivity (.93) subscales. Since
rating scale scores can sometimes %nprove simply as a function of repeated
administrations (Barkley, 1988), the two
mean scores for each scale were compared
using separate t-tests for correlated
measures. Scores for each APRS scale were
found to be equivalent across administrations with t-test results, as follows: Total
APRS Score (t( 24) = 1.24, N.S.), Academic
Success (t( 24) = 1.31, N.S.), Academic
Productivity (t(24) = 1.32, N.S.), and
Impulse Control (t(24) = .15, N.S.).
.23
.21
.20
.72
.82
.I6
Underlined
,Is
z
.39
Note:
.21
.35
.66
of % variance
.I7
.I6
.84
,82
F3
xi
z
169
,64
36
G
so
rl
Arts accuracy
5. Consistency
Academic
Productivity
Impulse
Control
67
head.
Academic
Means
and Standard
Deviations
Total
Score
Grade
Performance
291
Rating Scale
TABLE 2
for the APRS by Grade and Gender
Academic
Success
Impulse
Control
Academic
Productivity
Grade1
(n =82)
Girls (n = 40)
Boys(n=42)
67.02 (16.27)
71.95 (16.09)
23.92 (7.37)
26.86 (6.18)
9.76 (2.49)
10.67 (2.82)
44.68 (10.91)
46.48 (11.24)
Grade2(n=91)
Girls (n = 46)
Boys(n =45)
72.56
67.84
12.33)
14.86)
26.61 (5.55)
25.24 (6.15)
10.15 (2.70)
9.56 (2.72)
47.85
44.30
7.82)
10.76)
Grade 3 (n = 92)
Girls (n = 43)
Boys (n =49)
72.10
68.49
14.43)
16.96)
25.07 (6.07
25.26 (6.53)
10.86 (2.65)
9.27 (2.67)
47.88
45.61
9.35)
11.89)
Grade4(n
=79)
Girls (n = 38)
Boys (n=41)
67.79 (18.69)
69.77 (15.83)
24.08 (7.56)
25.35 (6.50)
10.36 (2.91)
9.83 (2.77)
44.26
45.71
Grade5(n=79)
Girls (n = 44)
Boys(n =35)
73.02 (14.10)
63.68 (18.04)
26.11 (6.01)
23.14 (7.31)
10.76 (2.34)
8.69 (2.82)
48.36
42.40 (12.47)
Grade6(n
=70)
Girls (n = 31)
Boys (n =39)
74.10 (14.45)
65.24 (12.39)
26.59 (6.26)
23.75 (5.90)
10.79 (2.25)
9.05 (2.35)
48.77 ( 9.13)
43.59 ( 8.19)
Note:
Standard deviations
are in parentheses.
variance (ANOVAs) were conducted subsequently for each of the APRS scores to
determine the source of obtained multivariate effects. A main effect for Gender
was obtained for the APRS Total score
(fll, 476) = 6.37, p < .05), Impulse Control
(F(1, 475) = 16.79, p < .OOl), and Academic Productivity (fll, 475) = 6.95, p <
.05) subscale scores. For each of these
scores, girls obtained higher ratings than
boys, indicating greater teacher-rated
academic productivity and behavioral
functioning among girls. No main effect
for Gender was obtained on Academic
Success subscale scores. Finally, a significant interaction between Gender and
Grade was obtained for the APRS Total
score (F(5,476) = 2.68, p < .05), Academic
Success (F(5, 475) = 2.63, p < .05), and
Impulse Control (e&475) = 3.59, p < .Ol)
subscale scores. All other main and
interaction effects were nonsignificant.
Simple effects tests were conducted
School Psychology
Correlations
TABLE 3
APRS Scores
Total
Score
Measures
ACTRS
ADHD
Between
Ratings
and Criterion
Measures
Academic
Success
Impulse
Control
Academic
Productivity
-m6()***b
9.43
0.49
,.&4***
-.72***
0.59
-.61***
0.72
On Task Percentage
.29*
.22
.24
.31*
AES
.53***
.26
.41**
.57***
CTBS Math
.48***
.62***
.28
.39**
CTBS Reading
.53***
.62***
.34*
44
CTBS Language
.53***
.61***
.41**
.45**
Abbreviated
Conners
"pC.05
Note:
National
Relationships
and Criterion
percentile
-p
= 48.
< .ool
Divergent
Academic
Correlations
Ratings
On Task Percentage
Rating Scale
TABLE 4
Between APRS Scores and Criterion
with ACTRSa Scores Partialled Out
Total
Score
Measures
ADHD
Performance
Academic
Success
293
Measures
Impulse
Control
Academic
Productivity
-.12b
0.24
0.24
-. 07
0.04
0.01
0.03
9.04
AESC
.32*
.06
.22
.37**
CTBS Math
.38**
.56***
.I4
.25
CTBS Reading
.46***
.58***
.24
.34*
CTBS Language
.43**
.54***
.28
.30*
*Abbreviated
bCorrelations
Academic
Efficiency Score.
*p < .05
Note:
National percentile
= 48.
< a01
294
APRS Ratings:
Sensitivity to Group Differences
The APRS is a brief teacher questionnaire that provides reliable and valid
information about the quality of a students academic performance and behavioral conduct in educational situations.
Separate principal components analyses
resulted in the extraction of three components or subscales (i.e., Academic
Success, Impulse Control, and Academic
Productivity) that were congruent across
random subsamples. The Academic Success subscale accounted for over half of
the variance which supports the construct
validity of the APRS, as it was intended
to assess teacher perceptions of the
quality of students academic skills. An
additional 13% of rating variance was
accounted for by the Academic Productivity and Impulse Control subscales.
Although the latter are highly correlated
with the Academic Success subscale, both
appear to provide unique information
Properties
of the APRS
Academic
Performance
Rating Scale
295
Girls were rated to be more competent than boys on the Academic Productivity subscale, regardless of grade level.
This result was expected as gender
differences favoring girls have been found
for most similar teacher questionnaires
(e.g., Weissberg et al., 1987). Alternatively,
for the total and remaining subscale
scores, girls were rated as outperforming
boys only within specific grade levels. In
general, these were obtained at the fifth
and sixth grade levels, wherein gender
differences with respect to achievement
status and behavioral control are most
evident at the upper grades. The latter
result could indicate that gender differences in daily academic performance do
not impact on teachers overall assessment of educational status until the later
grades when demands for independent
work greatly increase. Interestingly, no
significant grade differences were obtained for any of the APRS scores. As
Hightower and colleagues (1986) have
suggested, a lack of differences across
grade levels implies that teachers complete ratings of academic performance in
relative (i.e., in comparison with similaraged peers) rather than absolute terms.
296
School Psychology
Summary
The results of this preliminary investigation indicate that the APRS is a highly
reliable rating scale that has demonstrated initial validity for assessing
teacher perceptions of the quality of
student academic performance. Given its
unique focus on academic competencies
rather than behavioral deficits, it appears
to have potential utilitywithin the context
of a multimethod assessment battery. In
particular, it should serve as a valuable
of agreement for
and pS@&gical
CTB/McGraw-Hill.
(1982). l%e comprehensive
of Basic Skills. Monterey, CA Author.
Test
Academic
Performance
Rating Scale
297
Glidewell,
.I. C., & Swallow, C. S. (1969). The
prevalence
of maladjustment
in elementary
schools. Report prepared for the Joint Commission
on Mental Illness and Health of Children. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
290
-7
APPENDIX A
Student
Date
Teacher
Grade
For each of the below items, please estimate the above students performance over the PAST
WEEK. For each item, please circle one choice only.
049%
049%
I
044%
65-69%
70-79%
044%
Consistently
Poor
5049%
2
5049%
70-79%
8049%
4
804%
4
8049%
90-100%
5
90400%
5
90-100%
5
70-79%
8&89%
More Poor
than
Successful
Variable
More
Successful
than Poor
Consistently
successful
Never
Rarely
Often
Very often
Never
Rarely
Very Slow
Slow
Average
Quickly
very
Quickly
Poor
Fair
Average
Above
Average
Excellent
6549%
70-79%
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
90400%
Often
Very often
300
SchoolPsychologyReview,7997,
Vo/.2OJVo.2
Poor
Fair
Average
Above
Average
Excellent
Poor
Fair
Average
Above
Average
Excellent
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Sometimes
3
Often
4
Often
4
Often
4
Often
4
Often
4
Often
4
Often
4
Often
4
Very Often
5
Very Often
5
Very Often
5
Very Often
5
Very Often
5
Very Often
5
Very Often
5
Very Often
5