A concurrent validity study of teachers' ratings for nominated 'problem' children

Background. Behaviour rating scales completed by parents and teachers are widely used in clinical practice, educational guidance and research. Yet evidence for their validity is mostly indirect, and may not address what ratings really signify. Aims. This study examined whether teachers' ratings of particular problem children displayed concurrent validity with independent coded observations of those children based on a time sampling technique. It was specifically hypothesised that ratings of the Distractible subscale from the Learning Behaviours Scale (Stott er al., 1988) would be strongly linked to frequency measures of task related behaviour. Sample, Teachers rated two nominated problem children per class, aged between 5 and 10 years, drawn from 63 different schools which had student teacher placements. Method, Each child was coded in two kinds of lessons (formal and informal), based upon time sampling observations by a student teacher, whilst the regular teacher completed the LBS instrument on the two nominated children. Results. Concurrent validity coefficients for the three LBS subscales relative to these counts were found to be very weak, including for the Distractible subscale. However the frequency of disruptive episodes was a significant predictor of Uncooperative ratings. Ratings were found to reflect rather a wider spectrum of implicit expectations by teachers regarding grade-appropriate behaviour and lesson context. Concurrent validity as defined was thus very poor. Conclusions. These findings suggested that teachers' ratings need to be treated both as indicators of contemporaneous behaviour and as markers of the ongoing interaction between child and teacher. In particular teachers of younger children used some scales more leniently than teachers of primary age children. Ratings were also more closely related to observed behaviour informal than informal lessons. These factors helped undermine concurrent validity with other contemporary markers of child behaviour. Clinical interpretation of ratings accordingly needs to be far more circumspect.