Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Child Psychiatry and Human Development Vol. 4(2), Winter 1973 121
122 Child Psychiatry and Human Development
T h e s t u d y o n p r e v a l e n c e gave us t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o m p a r e t h e IQs
o f h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e n o t selected f o r b e i n g p a t i e n t s w i t h
the IQs o f t h e i r classmates.
Method
The study was carried out in a school district serving one of the older
suburbs of Saint Louis. Two out of the 11 elementary schools in this district
were special "demonstration schools," 2 were in particular affluent neighbor-
hoods, and 1 school had a new administration. These five schools were not
considered for the study. Four schools were chosen at random from the
remaining six.
The senior author met with the teachers of each school, and made a standard
presentation in which he asked the teachers to screen their own classes for any
child who showed one or more of the following items: fidgetiness and restless-
ness, inattentiveness, being hard to manage, not being able to sit still, being
easily distracted, and not being able to accept frustration. He later interviewed
the teachers individually, using a questionnaire derived from the Pittsburgh
Adjustment Survey Scales [3]. The questionnaire (see Appendix) contained 28
statements from these scales that were judged to be particularly relevant to the
behavior of a hyperactive child. The teacher was asked to answer yes or no to
each of the statements, of which some were positive and some negative. The
general characteristics covered by the questions were overactivity, lack of con-
centration, impulsiveness, emotional lability, poor school performance, and low
self-esteem.
Children were diagnosed as hyperactive if the teachers reported that they
were overactive and distractible, and if in addition 5 or more other "symptoms"
from the list of 28 items were reported as present by the teacher.
Results
T a b l e 1 s h o w s t h e n u m b e r o f b o y s a n d girls w h o w e r e d i a g n o s e d
as h y p e r a c t i v e . T h e p r e v a l e n c e varied f r o m o n e g r a d e t o a n o t h e r , b u t
t h e r e did n o t s e e m t o b e a t r e n d r e l a t e d t o age. T h e r a t i o o f
h y p e r a c t i v e b o y s t o girls also varied, b u t again t h e r e was n o t r e n d
w i t h age.
Scores f r o m L o r g e - T h o r n d i k e intelligence tests w e r e available f o r
22 o f t h e b o y s i d e n t i f i e d as h y p e r a c t i v e , a n d 3 o f t h e girls. T h e i r
scores are p r e s e n t e d in t a b l e 2, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e average scores o f
t h e i r classmates o n t h e s a m e tests. T h e h y p e r a c t i v e b o y s h a v e a
deficit in m e a s u r e d intelligence w h i c h is a l m o s t e x a c t l y t h e s a m e as
t h a t f o u n d b y Palkes a n d S t e w a r t [2] w h e n t h e y c o m p a r e d t h e
scores o f 35 h y p e r a c t i v e b o y s w h o w e r e p a t i e n t s in a p s y c h i a t r i c
TABLE 1
~a 440 . . . . 41 . . . . 9.32 . . . .
t-t
t'@
124 Child P s y c h i a t r y a n d H u m a n Development
TABLE 2
S ~ ~ ~ s ~ s
Hyperactive Boys 22 94.0* 14.2 95.1"* 15.7 94.9** 14.1
clinic with the scores of their classmates. The deficit in the IQs of the
hyperactive girls is striking but needs to be confirmed by examininga
larger group.
Di~usmon
Appendix
References
4. Stewart MA, Pitts FN, Craig AG, et ah The hyveractive child syndrome. Amer
J Orthopsychiat 36:861-67, 1966.
5. Mendelson W, Johnson N, Stewart MA: Hyperactive children as teenagers: A
follow-up study. JNerv Ment Dis 153:273-79, 1971.
6. Morrison JR, Stewart MA: A family study of the hyperactive child syndrome.
BiologPsychiat 3:189-95, 1971.
7. Minde K, Lewin D, Weiss G, et al: The hyperactive child in elementary school:
A 5 year controlled follow-up. Exceptional Children 38:215-21, 1971.
P~eS
STATEMENT OF N P SEE INSTRUCTIONS
OW ERSHI .M A N A G E M E N T AND CIRCULATION ON PAGE 2 REVER
Quarterly
NAME
io.
I 2. ~ I H o m v m s u v ~ o vo ~ e ~ AGENTS. aUT ~OV ~ L D I none n~e