Assessment of Temperament in the Toddler Age Group

(1)

Assessment

of Temperament

in the Toddler

Age Group

Frank

Oberklaid,

MBBS,

FRACP,

**DCh*;**

Margot

Prior,

BMus,

BA, MSc,

PhD,

FAPsSI;

Ann Sanson,

BA, PhDt;

Jill Sewell,

MBBS,

**FRACP*;**

and Michael

Kyrios,

BA, DEdPsych,

MPsych,

MaPsSt

From the *Depa,.ment of Ambulatory Paediatrics, Royal Children’s Hospital, the tPsychology Department, Latrobe University, and the jPsychology Department, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT. We used the Toddler Temperament Scale

with large representative samples of younger (mean age

= 20.5 months; N = 1188) and older (mean age = 35.4 months; N = 1360) Australian toddlers. There were

sig-nificant sex differences on 6 of the temperament

dimen-sions for the young group, and on 5 of the 9 dimensions

for the older group. Older boys were also more likely to

be categorized clinically as having a “difficult”

tempera-ment and less likely to have an “easy” temperament.

Each group was divided into quartiles according to

socioeconomic status. For the younger toddlers there were

significant differences in 3 of 9 temperament dimensions,

and for the older group there were significant differences in 7 of 9 dimensions. Groups with higher socioeconomic status had temperament ratings which were more likely

to make them easier to manage, and to be categorized

clinically as having an easy temperament, but toddlers

with low socioeconomic status were more likely to have

a difficult temperament. There were significant

differ-ences in temperament dimension scores between

Austra-han toddlers and those studied in an American setting.

These results indicate that toddler temperament

rat-ings differ according to age, sex, social class, and cultural

context. Great caution needs to be taken in interpreting

individual temperament profiles utilizing comparison

data obtained from different sociocultural settings.

Fu-ture temperament “norms” may need to specify

charac-teristics of the group of children from which they were

derived to allow more valid comparisons. Pediatrics 1990;

85:559-566; temperament, toddlers, socioeconomic status,

cross-cultural.

Received for publication Feb 17, 1988; accepted Aug 18, 1989. Presented, in part, at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the

Ambulatory Pediatric Association, Washington, DC, May 3,

1988.

American Academy of Pediatrics.

In the past 20 years, temperament in infants and young children has been the focus of ever increasing clinical and research interest. Thomas and Chess”2 described temperament as the behavioral style of the child in interacting with the environment, and their pioneering New York Longitudinal Study gave rise to much of the subsequent work in this area. On theoretical and clinical grounds they

concep-tualized and defined nine dimensions of

tempera-ment, which have been described previously.3 They

further

derived three clinical categories: the diffi-cult child (arrhythmic, low in approach and

adapt-ability, intense and predominantly negative in

mood), the easy child (opposite characteristics to

difficult: rhythmic, approaching, adaptable, mild in

reactions, and positive in mood), and the slow to warm up child (low in activity, approach, and adapt-ability, variable in rhythmicity, mild intensity, and

slightly negative mood). The remaining children

were called intermediate.

Thomas and Chess”2 collected their data by

means of lengthy and complex parent interviews,

which were not practical for routine clinical use.

Carey and co-workers4 subsequently developed a

series

of

temperament questionnaires designed to be completed by parents, and this greatly facilitated the clinical use of temperament measures.

Thomas and Chess”2 demonstrated that a child

with a difficult temperament was more likely to develop behavioral problems. Relationships have been documented between particular temperament profiles and colic,7 night waking,8 accidents,9 school

adjustment,9 and conduct disorders.’#{176}

Tempera-ment theory and measurement may thus be utilized

(2)

questionnaires has gained acceptance by parents

who consider that it enhances the understanding

and management of their children.12 However,

de-spite the demonstrated clinical utility of measuring

temperament, there is ongoing debate regarding its

categorization, measurement, continuity over time,

and underlying socioeconomic and cultural

differ-ences.#{176}3The original New York Longitudinal Study

dimensions and categories were selected on

concep-tual and intuitive grounds, and commonly used

temperament questionnaires have been criticized as

being psychometrically suspect because they were

not derived empirically.’3 There have been many

reports of studies examining the factor structures

of these questionnaires and using larger and more

representative samples.147

There is also discussion of the validity of

mater-nal ratings of temperament, with some authors182#{176}

asserting that maternal characteristics strongly

in-fluence temperament scores. While the debate

con-tinues regarding the objective and subjective

corn-ponents of temperament measures,18’19 there is also

evidence that parental reports do provide accurate

descriptions of temperament and behavior.21’22

The New York Longitudinal Study

conceptuali-zation of temperament and the series of

question-naires modeled on this construct are still the widely

used, and this “makes necessary further studies of

this model on a general population, representative

of every socioeconomic class, and culturally

differ-ent if possible.”14

There have been few published studies of

tern-perament in the toddler age group. The Toddler

Temperament Scale5 was developed specifically for

the 1- to 3-year-old group and has been utilized in

other studies.1722’23 Normative values for the

Tod-dler Temperament Scale were obtained from a

sam-ple of 340 toddlers who attended two private

pedi-atric practices in suburban Philadelphia.5 Despite

the limitations of this sample, these have been the

only normative data available for this age group.

We have argued that it is important to use

cul-turally appropriate instruments and norms for

temperament24 and have demonstrated significant

cross-cultural differences in temperament

val-ues.t’25 In this study we were interested in studying

temperament in a cohort of Australian toddlers. In

addition to the question of whether the

cross-cul-tural differences demonstrated in infancy24’25 were

still apparent, we were interested in determining

whether there were other variables that influenced

temperament ratings in this age group, especially

gender and socioeconomic status.

Although some previous studies have

demon-strated sex differences in temperament, these have

been generally inconsistent and unlikely to be

sig-nificant on an individual subject basis.14’17’26

Al-though boys are commonly believed to have a more

active temperament, it is believed that systematic

differences in temperament between boys and girls

do not appear before 4 years of age.27 A number of

studies have suggested social class differences in

temperament ratings,19’20’28 and others have re-ported either very small or no differences.’4”7’26

In this paper we report temperament values de-rived from a large, representative group of Austra-han toddlers, discuss the influence of sex and

socio-economic status on temperament, and compare

temperament scores for Australian toddlers with

the original American standardization sample.

METHODS

The children sampled were being followed

longi-tudinally as part of the Australian Temperament

Project, which enrolled a cohort of 2443 Victorian

infants between 4 and 8 months of age who came

from families whose sociodemographic

character-istics closely resembled those of the Australian

population as a whole.29

The Toddler Temperament Scale is based on the

New York Longitudinal Study conceptualization of

temperament, with nine underlying dimensions.”2

It is a 97-item scale in which parents are asked to

rate the child’s current behavior in a very

specifi-cally defined daily situation. Each item is rated on

a 6-point scale from “almost never” to “almost

always.”

Minor revisions were made to several questions

on the Toddler Temperament Scale in order to

conform to Australian language usage. For example,

“fussy”

was changed to “irritable,” and “intestinal

virus” was changed to “gastric upset.” This revised

Toddler Temperament Scale has been shown to be

satisfactory for use in an Australian context with

psychometric properties similar to the original

Tod-dier

Temperament Scale.22 Calculation of

socioeco-nomic status was made on the basis of occupation

and education level for each parent using the

6-point Broom, Jones, and Zubrzycki occupation

scale3#{176}which ranges from professional (1) to

un-skilled laborer (6), and an 8-point scale classifying

education level for postgraduate (1) to primary

school education only (8). Thus four scores per

family were combined to give a maximum composite

score of 28 (lowest socioeconomic status) and

mm-imum of 4 (highest socioeconomic status). Families

were then divided into quartiles based on these scores.

In 1984 and 1985 the questionnaires were sent

according to a predetermined random sampling

framework to a proportion of families comprising

(3)

1984 Cohort (N = 1188)

1985 Cohort (N = 1360)

Age Mean in months (SD)

Range in months

20.5 (2.1) 15-29 35.4 (1.5) 30-46 Sex Male Female 51.6% 48.4% 52.6% 47.4%

Birth order 1st

2nd

3rd or greater

48.9% 31.2% 19.9% 47.5% 30.1% 22.2%

Maternal age Mean in years (SD)

Range in years

29.2 (4.4) 18-46

30.6 (4.3)

18-46

Paternal age Mean in years (SD)

Range in years

31.8 (0.2)

18-46

33.1 (4.9)

20-59

Australian born Mother

Father

82.2%

75.9%

82.8%

75.9% Maternal occupation* Rating 1-2

Rating 3-4 Rating 5-6 29.3% 59.0% 11.8% 32.6% 51.7% 15.6%

Paternal occupation Rating 1-2

Rating 3-4 Rating 5-6 39.1% 48.9% 12.0% 45.9% 43.3% 10.9%

Maternal educationt Rating 1-3

Rating 4-6 Rating6-8 25.9% 40.9% 33.2% 28.9% 39.2% 31.9%

Paternal education Rating 1-3

Rating 4-5 Rating 6-8 29.3% 48.0% 22.8% 32.9% 43.8% 22.1%

* Occupation: Rating 1 = professional, management; Rating 2 = clerical, craftsmen,

assistants; Rating 3 = laborer, unemployed.

t

Education: Rating 1 = diploma, degree; Rating 2 = apprentice, year 10-12 high school;

Rating 3 = primary, year 9 high school.

stamped, addressed envelope to facilitate the return

of the questionnaires. Questionnaire packages were

sent to 1646 families in 1984 and 1804 families in

1985. In 1984 two thirds of the original cohort was

chosen randomly, while in 1985 the remaining one

third plus half of the 1984 sample (randomly se-lected) comprised the study group. This random sampling framework allowed for the assessment of the effect of repeated administration of

question-naires. Data were coded, keypunched, and analyzed

using the Statistical Package for Social

Sciences-X.3’

RESULTS

The response rate for return of questionnaires

was 86% in 1984 and 84% in 1985. There was a

nonsignificant tendency for nonresponders to be of lower socioeconomic status and to be of non-Aus-tralian birthplace compared to the original cohort.

Questionnaire packages that were incomplete or

had more than 20% of data missing on the Toddler Temperament Scale were not utilized. Final anal-yses were performed on 1188 toddlers in 1984 and

1360 in toddlers in 1985.

The demographic characteristics ofthe final sam-ple in each year are outlined in Table 1. It can be

TABLE 1. Sample Characteristics

seen that the mean age for the 1984 cohort was 20.5

months (range 15-29) and the mean age for the

1985 cohort was 35.4 months (range 30-46). There

is a wide range of parental education and

occupa-tion indicating a widely representative cohort of

toddlers.

Alpha coefficients were computed to determine the internal reliability and consistency of the Aus-tralian revision of the Toddler Temperament Scale. They ranged from a low of 0.55 to a high of 0.87 with an overall mean of 0.71, and were marginally

lower for the younger as compared with the older group. The a level for the dimension “threshold”

was low for both groups (0.55 and 0.56).

Temperament dimension means were computed

separately for the younger group (1984) and the older group (1985). The age range for our younger and older group extended considerably beyond the sample reported by Fullard et al;5 the upper age

limit for that normative sample had been 35

months. We therefore analyzed data from our older

group separately to see whether there were any

differences on dimension scores between toddlers

aged 36 months or over (N = 573) and those 35

months or less (N = 689). There were no differences

on any of the temperament dimensions, so the

(4)

TABLE 2. Comparison of Younger an

on Nine Temperament Dimensions

d Older Toddlers

Dimension Young Old t Value P Value

(N = 1188) (N = 1360) Mean ± SD Mean ± SD

Activity 4.01 ± 0.69 3.84 ± 0.70 6.16 .000

Rhythmicity 2.83 ± 0.75 2.93 ± 0.73 -3.43 .000

Approach 2.97 ± 0.92 3.03 ± 0.96 -1.60 NS*

Adaptability 3.34 ± 0.78 3.00 ± 0.78 10.98 .000

Intensity 3.81 ± 0.70 3.71 ± 0.72 3.54 .000

Mood 2.97 ± 0.64 2.87 ± 0.64 3.93 .000

Persistence 3.63 ± 0.73 3.13 ± 0.68 17.89 .000

Distractibility 4.19 ± 0.61 4.22 ± 0.61 -1.24 NS

Threshold 3.69 ± 0.80 4.16 ± 0.74 -15.40 .000

* NS, not significant.

original division by Fullard et a15 into younger and

older toddlers.

Student’s t tests were performed to see whether

there were differences between the younger and

older toddler groups. As can be seen from Table 2,

in 7 of the 9 temperament dimensions there were

significant differences between the groups.

The toddlers were then grouped according to the

algorithm proposed by Carey32 and based on the

original work of Thomas et aP into clinical groups

of easy, difficult, and slow to warm up. In the

younger group (N = 1188), 38.7% were easy, 12.2%

were difficult, 4.1% slow to warm up, and the

re-mainder were intermediate. For the older group (N

= 1360), 40.5% were categorized as easy, 13.5% as

difficult, 4.3% as slow to warm up, and the

remain-der as intermediate.

The data were analyzed to determine whether there were sex differences for any of the tempera-ment ratings. For the younger toddlers there were

significant differences on 6 of the 9 temperament

dimensions (Table 3). For the older toddlers there

were significant differences on 5 of the 9

dimen-sions. In both groups boys were more active, less

adaptable, less persistent, and had a higher

thresh-old.

Among older toddlers, boys were significantly more likely (P < .05) to be clinically categorized as

having a “difficult” temperament, and less likely to

have an “easy” temperament. There were no

signif-icant sex differences in group membership for

younger toddlers. There were no differences

be-tween boys and girls for any of the other clinical categories.

Birth order was not related to temperament rat-ings on either dimension scores or clinical

cate-gories. However socioeconomic status did have an

appreciable effect; when the groups were divided

into socioeconomic status quartiles, there were

dif-ferences in clinical temperament categories for both

younger and older toddlers. For both groups

tod-dlers from the highest socioeconomic status quartile

TABLE 3. Sex Differences on Temperament

Dimen-sions

Younger Toddlers (N = 1188) tValue P Value

Boys were

More active 3.76 .000

Less rhythmic 3.41 .001

Less adaptable 3.68 .000

More negative in mood 3.16 .002

Less persistent 2.41 .016

Had higher threshold 4.10 .000

Older Toddlers (N = 1360) tValue P Value

Boys were

More active 5.02 .0001

Less adaptable 4.38 .0001

More intense 2.39 .02

Less persistent 3.30 .002

Had higher threshold 5.14 .0001

were significantly more likely to be categorized as having an easy temperament. In addition, in the younger group toddlers from the lower

socioeco-nomic status quartiles were significantly more

likely to be categorized as having a difficult

tem-perament. These trends parallel the results for

di-mensions of temperament.

When the temperature dimensions were

corn-pared across socioeconomic status groups (using one-way analysis of variance), there were signifi-cant differences noted for younger and older

tod-dlers. The results are summarized in Table 4. There

were differences in three dimensions for the

younger groups, and there were differences in eight dimensions for the older group. Toddlers from the higher socioeconomic status groups were generally more likely to have temperament dimension scores

which made them “easier to manage,” i.e., less

active, more rhythmic, more approachable, more

adaptable, and more positive in mood.

We then compared the temperament values for

each dimension obtained from our cohort with

those reported by Fullard et al.5 The results are portrayed in Table 5. There are significant differ-ences (at the P < .01 level or better) on four of the

dimensions for the younger group and three of the

dimensions for the older group. When compared

with the American group, Australian younger

tod-dlers were less rhythmic, less intense, less

persist-ent, and less distractible. The older Australian

tod-dlers were less intense and less persistent and had

a higher threshold than American toddlers. There also was a tendency in both groups (but not signif-icant at the .01 level) for Australian toddlers to be less active.

DISCUSSION

There is a paucity of data available about

(5)

TABLE 4. Temperament Dimension Scores According to Socioeconomic Status

Socioec onomic Status Quartiles

Younger Toddlers Older Toddlers

Low Mid-Low Mid-High High Low Mid-Low Mid-High High

Activity 4.05 4.05 4.02 3.94 3.93 3.92 3.86 3.68*

Rhythmicity 3.02 2.92 2.70 2.74* 3.09 3.02 2.85 2.82*

Approach 3.00 3.00 2.93 2.97 3.20 3.06 3.05 2.87*

Adaptability 3.39 3.41 3.27 3.33 3.14 3.06 3.01 2.84*

Intensity 3.84 3.80 3.81 3.79 3.77 3.76 3.71 3.62

Mood 3.05 3.04 2.90 2.94t 3.01 2.94 2.83 2.74*

Persistence 3.60 3.70 3.62 3.62 3.24 3.21 3.14 2.96*

Distractibility 4.27 4.24 4.22 4.08* 4.29 4.23 4.27 4.11*

Threshold 3.71 3.66 3.65 3.75 3.24 3.21 3.14 2.96t

Standard deviations and F values omitted from table for brevity. Analyses performed

using one way analysis of variance on SPSS-X. *P< .001.

tP<.01.

TABLE 5. Comparison Between American and Australian Toddlers on Temperament Dimensions

Younger Toddlers Older Toddlers

American Australian tValue P Value American Australian tValue P Value

(N = 167) (N = 1188) (N = 142) (N = 1360)

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Activity 4.13 (0.80) 4.01 (0.69) 2.06 NS* 3.99 (0.86) 3.84 (0.70) 2.37 NS

Rhythmicity 2.49 (0.81) 2.83 (0.75) -5.43 .001 2.78 (0.77) 2.93 (0.72) -2.35 NS

Approach 2.97 (1.00) 2.97 (0.92) 0.00 NS 2.91 (1.04) 3.03 (0.96) -1.41 NS

Adaptability 3.42 (0.86) 3.34 (0.78) 1.22 NS 3.04 (0.79) 3.00 (0.78) 0.58 NS

Intensity 4.03 (0.76) 3.81 (0.70) 3.76 .001 4.06 (0.82) 3.71 (0.72) 5.44 .001

Mood 2.96 (0.69) 2.97 (0.64) -0.19 NS 2.90 (0.65) 2.87 (0.64) 0.53 NS

Persislence 3.45 (0.83) 3.63 (0.73) -2.93 .01 2.82 (0.75) 3.13 (0.68) -5.12 .001

Distractibility 4.39 (0.76) 4.19 (0.61) 3.84 .001 4.20 (0.73) 4.22 (0.61) -0.36 NS

Threshold 3.61 (0.88) 3.69 (0.80) -1.19 NS 4.43 (0.87) 4.16 (0.74) 4.06 .001

* NS, not significant. Because multiple t tests were used, only P values < .01 were reported to be significant.

that have been reported have either described

tern-perament in small, selected samples,5’22 or else have

focused on very specific issues, such as the

relation-ship between temperament and behavior,” the

con-vergence in temperament ratings between parents

and teachers33 or caretakers,34 influence on temper-ament ratings of maternal and environmental

van-ables,’8 or stability across time.23

The a levels, a measure of internal consistency,

for our revisions of the Toddler Temperament Scale

were generally acceptable with a mean of 0.71 over-all. The a level for the dimensions threshold was

low for both groups. These values are similar to

those reported in the original standardization study

of the Toddler Temperament Scale5 and in a

pre-vious study with a smaller group of Australian

toddlers.22 It has been argued that internal

consist-ency alone is not sufficient to establish scales,35’36

so that a number of authors have conducted factor

analyses for both infant and toddler

ques-tionnaires’4’17”8’37 and we have performed similar

analyses on our infant and toddler data which have

been reported elsewhere.’5’16 Although there is

sound argument for the evaluation of temperament

measures based on empirical rather than intuitive

and conceptual grounds, instruments such as the Toddler Temperament Scale continue to be widely

used clinically without further psychometric

refine-ment. One of the aims of this study was to examine

critically the continued utilization of the original

normative data as a comparison group with toddlers

of both sexes and from different populations.

It is clear that younger and older toddlers should

be treated as separate groups in the measurement

of temperament with the Toddler Temperament

Scale.5 We found significant differences between the younger and older toddlers on seven of the nine temperament dimensions. Although the statistical significance of the differences is high partly because of the large sample size, the findings between the

two groups are consistent with developmental

changes and are in the same direction as reported

previously.5 The age range of these children is

greater than that of the original standardization

sample for the Toddler Temperament Scale, but

analyses revealed no differences between toddlers

aged 30 to 35 months of age and those older than

(6)

be an absolute cut-off mark for use of the Toddler

Temperament Scale.

In previous papers, we have demonstrated

signif-icant cross-cultural differences in infant

tern-perament24’25’38 and have cautioned about the

dan-gers of generalizing temperament values derived

from small, homogeneous samples to broader or

different populations.24 The normative values for

the Toddler Temperament Scale previously

pub-lished5 were derived from a small (N = 340) sample

of toddlers who were patients of two private

pedi-atnic practices in suburban Philadelphia. The

highly selected nature of the sample is further

con-firmed by the fact that 55% of fathers and 41% of

mothers of families attending one of the practices

were college graduates. It is probable that lower

socioeconomic status and ethnic minority groups

were significantly underrepresented. The results

published here are derived from a large,

represent-ative sample of Australian toddlers randomly

se-lected from the original cohort of infants who came

from families whose sociodemographic

character-istics closely resembled that of the Australian

pop-ulation as a whole29 and are therefore more reliably

normative values of temperament in the toddler age

group, at least in an Australian context.

The significant sex differences in scores on

tern-perament dimensions (Table 3) are at variance with

previous studies that have found either no or

incon-sistent differences.14’17’26 They appear to have

din-ical validity in the stereotypical picture of a male

toddler as more active, less persistent, and less

adaptable than his female counterpart and are

con-sistent with research findings suggesting gender

differences in emotional functioning.39 It is

impos-sible to determine conclusively whether these

dif-ferences are biological or intrinsic in nature, but it

is quite feasible and even likely that they are the

result of the process of socialization that occurs as

the children grow older, perhaps in response to

innate gender differences.39 In this postulated

con-text, boys are encouraged to be more active and

outgoing, while the opposite is true for girls.

Al-though these findings are demonstrated at a

younger age than has been postulated for the

emer-gence of sex differences in temperament,27 they

appear to be in the direction that has face validity,

and it is interesting to speculate whether these are

precursors of the well-documented sex differences

in behavior ratings in toddlers and preschoolers.40’4’

One striking finding from this study is the

sig-nificant influence of social class on temperament

ratings. For both dimension scores and clinical

categories of temperament, toddlers from high

so-cioeconomic status groups were more likely to be

rated as having temperament profiles which made

them easier to manage. Although some previous

studies have reported socioeconomic status

differ-ences in temperament ratings,’9’20’28 these have

gen-erally been with selected clinical groups; larger

more representative studies14”7 have failed to

dem-onstrate significant differences.

The differences in our results may be explained

by a number of factors. Previous studies of

socio-economic status influences have looked either at

infants14”9’20 or older children;17 the one study that

looked at toddlers and failed to demonstrate

differ-ences had a small sample of only 160 children.26

However, it is unlikely that age alone can explain

these differences. Both sample size and selection

may influence results-the Swedish study was of

160 children26-as may the different instruments

used. The two other studies looking at sex and

socioeconomic status differences outside the

in-fancy age group used different questionnaires.’7’26

There are likely to be additional explanations for

these socioeconomic status and sex differences in

temperament. One could postulate that lower

socio-economic status families have differing

expecta-tions of their children’s behavior and are less

ad-cepting of certain behavioral attributes than higher

socioeconomic status families’6’28 or that lower

so-cioeconomic status families are more likely to

ex-penience daily stress and this may be a mediator of

differing expectations.

Why this may have been the case in our study

and not reported in studies of other population

groups is of considerable interest. It could be argued

that there are specific cross-cultural differences

that may account for differing results. The reported

differences in temperament between Australian and

American toddlers (Table 5), and the previously

reported cross-cultural differences in infant tem-perament ratings24’25’38 may reflect differences in

populations studied. Parental expectations and

per-ceptions are likely to be related to cultural

back-ground as well as to social class, and thus influence

ratings of temperament. The influence of rater

characteristics on temperament measurements has

been debated widely,’821’4244 and the results of this

study could be interpreted as providing further

evidence that temperament ratings are at least

partly influenced by characteristics of the rater.

We are unable to conclude from our data that

children with higher socioeconomic status have

temperament profiles which make them easier to

manage, or that there are actual temperament

dif-ferences between boys and girls; we cannot conclude

that these differences are due to intrinsic

differ-ences in the children. However, we can say that

mothers report these toddlers as being different,

and from a clinical viewpoint parental perceptions

may be just as important as the child’s actual

(7)

Of more immediate concern is the question of the

generalizability of temperament scores. How valid

is it to utilize temperament values obtained from

one group as a basis for comparison with children

seen in clinical practice? The limitations of the

original standardization group for the Toddler

Temperament Scale have already been discussed;

there was certainly a marked underrepresentation

of children from lower socioeconomic status and

ethnic groups.5 These data, demonstrating

socio-economic status and cross-cultural differences in

temperament values, would lead us to conclude that

great caution needs to be taken in utilizing the

normative data of Fullard et al5 as a basis for

comparison for toddlers from lower socioeconomic

status on ethnic groups. Similar caveats are in order

with respect to boys and girls. It is evident that by

the toddler age group, sex differences are beginning

to emerge in temperament.

It is becoming apparent that it is very difficult to

sustain the notion that temperament is a holistic

measure of individual differences in infants and

children, that it can be reliably measured, and that

somehow normative values for temperament can be

obtained which can provide a valid yardstick

against which to evaluate the temperament of other

children. The results of this study provide further

evidence for the proposition that temperament

scores vary, as does behavior, according to social

class and cultural context, that the ratings are likely

to be at least partially influenced by the

character-istics of the rater, and that great care must be taken

to avoid the over-rigid interpretation of

tempera-ment profiles obtained in differing clinical settings.

The clinical utility of temperament has always been and will continue to be in providing a more detailed and quantitative description of individual

differ-ences in infants and young children. When added

to clinical data regarding the parents and

environ-ment, the clinician is then better able to evaluate

the possible contributions to a dysfunctional

trans-action. It may be that normative values for

temper-ament in the future may need to specify

sociode-mographic, cultural, and gender characteristics of

the group of children from which they were derived

to allow more valid comparisons.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by grants from the National

Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

We wish to thank Helen Boyce for typing, Robert

Pedlow for general assistance with the manuscript, and

also the anonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms

and suggestions.

REFERENCES

1. Thomas A, Chess 5, Birch HG. Temperament and Behaviour

Disorders in Children. New York: New York University

Press; 1968

2. Thomas A, Chess S. Temperament and Development. New

York: Brunner/Mazel; 1977

3. Oberklaid F, Prior M, Golvan D, Clements A, Williamson

A. Temperament in Australian infants. Aust Paediatr J.

1984;20:181-184

4. Carey WB, McDevitt SC. Revision of the infant

Tempera-ment Questionnaire. Pediatrics. 1978;68:735-739

5. Fullard W, McDevitt SC, Carey WB. Assessing

tempera-ment in one to three year old children. J Pediatric Psycho!.

1984;9:205-216

6. McDevitt SC, Carey WB. The measurement of temperament

in 3-7 year old children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry.

1978;19:245-253

7. Carey WB. Clinical applications of infant temperament measures. J Pediatr. 1972;81:823-828

8. Carey WB. Night waking and temperament in infancy. J

Pediatr. 1974;84:758-758

9. Carey WB, Fox M, McDevitt SC. Temperament as a factor

in early school adjustment. Pediatrics. 1977;60:621-624 10. Wolff S. Non delinquent disturbances of conduct. In: Rutter

ML, Hersov LA, eds. Child Psychiatry: Modern Approaches.

Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1977

11. Earls F. Temperament characteristics and behaviour

prob-lems in three year old children. J Nerv Ment Dis.

1981;169:367-373

12. Little DL. Parent acceptance of routine use of the Carey

and McDevitt Infant Temperament Questionnaire.

Pediat-rics.1988;71:104-106

13. Hubert NC, Wachs TD, Peters-Martin P, Grandour MJ.

The study of early temperament: measurement and

concep-tual ideas. Child Dev. 1982;53:571-600

14. Maziade M, Boudreault M, Thivierge J, Caperaa P, Cote R.

Infant temperament: SES and gender differences and relia-bility of measurement in a large Quebec sample.

Merrill-Palmer

Q.

1984;30:213-226

15. Sanson A, Prior M, Garino E, Oberklaid F, Sewell J. The

structure of infant temperament: Factor analysis of the

Revised Infant Temperament Questionnaire. Infant Be/wv

Dev. 1987;10:97-104

16. Prior M, Sanson A, Oberklaid F. The Australian

Tempera-ment Project. In: Kohnstamm G, Bates J, Rothbart M, eds.

Childhood Temperament. New York: John Wiley; 1989

17. Maziade M, Cote R, Boudreault M, Thivierge J, Caperaa P.

The New York Longitudinal Studies Model of

Tempera-ment: Gender differences and demographic correlates in a

French-speaking population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc

Psy-chiatry. 1984;23:582-587

18. Matheny AP, Wilson RS, Thoben AS. Home and mother: Relations with infant temperament. Dev Psycho!.

1987;23:323-331

19. Vaughn B, Deinard A, Egeland B. Measuring temperament

in paediatric practice. J Pediatr. 1980;96:510-514

20. Sameroff AJ, Seifer R, Elias PK. Sociocultural variability in infant temperament ratings. Child Dev. 1982;53:164-173 21. Carey WB. Validity of parental assessments of development

and behaviour. Am J Dis Child. 1982;136:97-99

22. Prior M, Sanson A, Oberklaid F, Northam E. Measurement of temperament in one to three year old children. Int J

Behav Dev. 1987;10:121-132

23. Matheny AP, Wilson RS, Nuss SM. Toddler temperament: Stability across settings and over ages. Child Dev. 1984;55:1200-1211

24. Oberklaid F, Sanson A, Prior M. The development of

Aus-tralian normative data for infant temperament. Aust

Pae-diatr J. 1986;22:185-187

25. Prior M, Kyrios M, Oberklaid F. Temperament in

Austra-han, American, Chinese and Green infants. J Cross Cultural Psycho!. 1986;17:455-484

26. Persson-Blennow I, McNeil TF. Temperament

characteris-tics of children in relation to gender, birth order and social

(8)

27. Buss A, Plonim R. A Temperament Theory of Personality DeLelopment. New York: John Wiley; 1975

28. Prior M, Sanson A, Carroll R, Oberklaid F. Social class

differences in temperament ratings of preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1989;35:239-248

29. Sanson A, Prior M, Oberklaid F. Normative data on

tem-perament in Australian infants. Aust J Psycho!.

1985;37:185-195

:30. Broom L, Jones FL, Zubryzcki J. Opportunity and

Attain-ment in Australia. Canberra: ANU Press; 1976

31. SPSS Incorporated. Spss-X User’s Guide. New York:

Mc-Graw-Hill; 1983

32. Carey WB. A simplified method for measuring infant

tem-perament. J Pediatr. 1979;77:188-194

:33. Field T, Greenberg R. Temperament ratings by parents and

teachers of infants, toddlers and preschool children. Child Dev. 1982;53:160-163

34. Northam E, Prior M, Sanson A, Oberklaid F. Toddler

tem-perament as perceived by mothers versus day care-givers. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1987;33:213-229

:35. Garside RF, Birch H, Scott D, et al. Dimensions of

temper-ament in infant school children. J Child Psycho! Psychiatry.

1975; 16:2 13-2 19

36. Lerner JB, Lerner RM. Temperament and adaptation across

life: Theoretical and empirical issues. Life Span Dev Behav.

1983;5:197-231

37. Persson-Plennow I, McNeil TF. Factor analysis of

temper-ament characteristics in children at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years of age. Br J Educ Psycho!. 1982;52:51-57

38. Prior M, Garino E, Sanson A, Oberklaid F. Ethnic influences

on “difficult” temperament and behavioural problems in

infants. Aust J Psycho!. 1987;39:163-171

39. Brody LR. Gender differences in emotional development: A

review of theories and research. J Pers. 1985;53:102-149

40. Richman N, Steven J, Graham PJ. Preschool to School: A

Behavioural Study. London: Academic Press; 1982

41. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CM. The Psychology ofSex Differences.

Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1974

42. Bates J, Bayles K. Objective and subjective components in

mother’s perceptions of their children from age 6 months to

3 years. Merrill-Palmer

Q.

1984;309:111-130

43. Lyon ME, Plonim R. The measurement of temperament

using parental ratings. J Child Psycho! Psychiatry.

1981;22:33-47

44. Carey WB. Some pitfalls in infant temperament research. Infant Behav Dev. 1983;6:247-254

FAMILY TYPES VARY IN EDUCATION, INCOME

Not all married couples with children are the so-called traditional family of

yesteryear.

The prevalence of divorce and remarriage in contemporary America has given

rise to a growing number of reconstituted, or blended, families, and there are

major differences among them.

Jeanne Moorman of the National Institute of Drug Abuse and Donald

Hernandez of the Census Bureau found that couples who have only biological

children are the largest group of two-parent families - 79%. These parents tend

to have more education and higher incomes, and most have been married only

once.

Adoptive parents are similar to biological parents in education and income,

but are a much smaller group - just 2% of couples with kids. They also are a

little older than biological parents and have been married longer.

The 2% of couples with both biological and adopted children are slightly less

educated than purely biological or adoptive parents, and on average, have more

kids.

As for couples with stepchildren, they tend to be younger and have lower

educational and income levels. Couples with both biological and stepchildren

are the youngest parents of all. They also are the least educated and have the

smallest incomes.

(9)

1990;85;559

Pediatrics

Frank Oberklaid, Margot Prior, Ann Sanson, Jill Sewell and Michael Kyrios