Infant Temperament and School Age Behavior: 6-Year Longitudinal Study in a Pediatric Practice

(1)

Infant

Temperament

and School

Age

Behavior:

6-Year

Longitudinal

Study

in a Pediatric

Practice

Richard C. Wasserman, MD, MPH; Christine M. DiBlasio, PhD*; Lynne A. Bond, PhD*; Paul C. Young, MD; and Richard B. Colleth, MD

From the Departments of Pediatrics and *psychofr,gy, University of Vermont College of

Medicine, Burlington

ABSTRACT. We conducted a retrospective cohort study

in a pediatric practice to assess the association between

parents’ ratings of temperamental difficulty

(observa-tions of specific infant behaviors) and perceptions of

temperamental difficulty (impressions of one’s infant as

compared with other infants) in infancy and behavior

problems at school age. Mothers of 129 infants, who had

completed the Revised Infant Temperament

Question-naire at the 4-month visit, completed the Child Behavior

Checklist when the child was 6 years of age. Teachers of

102 of these children completed the teacher Child

Behav-ior Checklist. Temperamental difficulty was defined by

assessments of rhythmicity, approach/withdrawal,

inten-sity, mood, and adaptability. Initial analyses revealed

that low socioeconomic status (r = -.29, P = .001),

ratings of temperamental difficulty (r = .17, P = .06),

and perceptions of temperamental difficulty (r = .22, P

= .02) at 4 months of age were associated with increased

maternal rating of behavior problems at 6 years of age

(all 2-tailed tests). However, a multivaniate regression

analysis showed only low socioeconomic status (P < .01)

and increased perceptions of temperamental difficulty (P

= .02) associated with maternal behavior problem scores.

Teacher behavior problem scores were associated only

with low socioeconomic status (r = -.27, P = .01). These

results suggest that the link between difficult infant

temperament and later behavior problems is complex and

probably reflects both child factors and parent attitudes

about what constitutes typical infant behavior. Pediatrics

1990;85:801.-807; infant temperament, temperament; be-havior problems; longitudinal studies.

Approximately 10% of infants seen in pediatric practice have a difficult temperament (behavioral

Received for publication Aug 26, 1988; accepted Jul 27, 1989. Presented, in part, at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Behavioral Pediatrics, April 27, 1987, Anaheim, CA.

Reprint requests to (R. C. W.) University Pediatrics, One South Prospect St, Burlington, VT 05401.

American Academy of Pediatrics.

style).”2 Temperamentally difficult infants are

typ-ically irregular in bodily functions and more likely

to withdraw in new situations; they are prone to

intense reactions, display a predominance of

nega-tive mood, and adapt slowly to change.3 As such, these infants are especially challenging to nurture and may cause considerable parental distress.

Pediatricians often need to counsel the parents of these difficult infants. Not infrequently, these

parents become concerned about the future,

won-dening whether their children are destined to have

behavior problems when they get older.

Profession-als may question whether specific interventions

need to be targeted at children identified as difficult but still in infancy. How should these questions be answered?

Bates4 has pointed out that the association be-tween difficult temperament in infancy and

behav-ion problems beyond toddlerhood is far from clean.

The original analysis of data from the New York Longitudinal Study did not demonstrate an asso-ciation between difficult temperament in infancy and behavior problems at 5 years of age.5 Cameron’s

reanalysis of New York Longitudinal Study data,

using a different definition of difficult temperament

(substituting high persistence for high intensity),

did suggest an association between difficult infant temperament and later behavior problems, but only

in combination with “adverse parental attitudes.”6

Carey et al7 reported an inconsistent relation be-tween infant temperament and later school

adjust-ment at 5 and 7 years of age. Although difficult

infants later displayed poorer school adjustment

and higher impulsivity scores than intermediately rated infants, infants who had been classified as

easy had even less favorable scones. Mclnenny and

(2)

of follow-up in the study was only 18 months. Thus,

although research has suggested that difficult

in-fants might be more likely to develop behavior

problems, this association may hold only in

com-bination with certain parental factors, be nonlinear,

and/or exist only oven short periods.

Two important methodologic problems

compli-cate the longitudinal study of infant temperament

and subsequent behavior. The first has been the

need to rely on information from parents for the

ascertainment of both infant temperament and

be-havioral outcome. Parent information about

tem-perament and subsequent behavior problems may

take a variety of forms, including (a) systematically

gathered ratings of particular behaviors in specified

contexts, (b) ratings of general impressions of

in-fant characteristics or traits,9 and (c) less formally

obtained anecdotal reports. The methodologic issue

here is that if the parents of identified difficult

infants later report that their children have

behav-ion problems, the findings could represent either

the parents’ sensitivity to their infants’ early

estab-lished and persistent behavioral characteristics, a

consistent bias to portray their children negatively,

or some combination of these factors.

The second important methodologic problem in

longitudinal studies of infant temperament has

been the choice and implementation of method for

measuring behavioral outcome. In the New York

Longitudinal Study, a psychiatric examination was

performed only on children whose parents on

teach-ens had voiced significant concerns,5 and not on

other children in the study cohort. In addition, the

study psychiatrist apparently was not blinded to

the infant temperament status of the examined

children. In contrast, Carey et al7 used a more

uniform but less comprehensive evaluation of

be-havional outcome, administering the Matching

Fa-miliar Figures Test’#{176}to patients aged 5 to 7 years

to measure reflectivity and impulsivity and the

Bommanito Socialization Scale” to the childnens’

teachers to measure school behavior. No behavior

problem measure was administered to the parents

in this study. Mclnerny and Chamberlin8

adminis-tered a 70-item behavior problem questionnaire’2

to the parents of 2-year-old children, but they had

no information from other sources. In summary, no

consistent on widely accepted measure of behavioral

outcome has been used in those studies that have

relied on parents for information about outcome,

and information from sources other than parents

frequently has been lacking.

In view of the continuing need for pediatricians

to counsel the parents of difficult infants, we

at-tempted to deal with these methodologic issues in

a longitudinal study of infant temperament. Our

study addressed the following question: Is difficult

infant temperament, as measured by maternal

be-havion ratings and general perceptions of their

in-fants,

associated

with school-aged child behavior

problems cited by parents on teachers?

METHODS

Data Collection

From August 1978 through December 1979,

mothers of all 269 infants seen for 4-month

check-ups at a university-based

pediatric

practice

in

Ver-mont completed the Revised Infant Temperament

Questionnaire13 as part of office routine. In the fall

of 1985, 170 (63%) of these mothers were located

and asked to participate in a study about children’s

behavior problems. Informed consent was obtained

from 129 mothers (76% of those who were located,

48% of the original sample) who completed the

Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and a

Psycho-social Health Questionnaire and gave permission

to contact the children’s teachers. Of these

teach-ens, 102 completed the Teacher Child Behavior

Checklist. Analysis of data from a review of all 269

charts (Table 1) revealed that more mothers in the

study group were married at the time of cohort

inception than those who could not be followed up. There were no differences between the study group

and those mothers and children not in the study

with respect to socioeconomic status, other

demo-graphic factors, on infant temperament ratings.

Measures

The Revised Infant Temperament Questionnaire

contains two parts.’3 In the first, parents are asked

to rate the frequency of their infants’ behaviors on

a six-point scale for 95 items that describe

partic-ulan behaviors in a variety of situations (eg, “The

infant accepts new foods night away, swallowing

them promptly.”). Each of the items reflects one of

the nine categories of temperament (activity,

adapt-ability, approach/withdrawal, distractibility,

inten-sity,

mood,

persistence,

rhythmicity,

threshold

for

response) originally described in the New York

Longitudinal Study.14 These ratings do not ask

directly about the infant’s temperament and do not

call for comparisons with other infants.

In contrast, a second part of the temperament

questionnaire consists of 10 items explicitly asking

for parents’ perceptions (impressions) of their

in-fants’ temperamental characteristics and overall

temperamental difficulty on a three-point scale, as

compared with an average infant of the same age

(eg, “In comparison with what you know of other

(3)

TABLE 1. Selected Characteristics of Study Group and Members of Original Cohort

Not in Study

Variable Study Group

(N = 129)

%or Mean (SD)

Not in Study

(N = 140)

% or Mean (SD)

Socioeconomic status4

I/Il 21 29

III 27 20

IV 19 19

V 32 32

Marriedt 90 79

Maternal age 25.8 (4.3) 25.6 (4.8)

Maternal education 13.5 (2.2) 13.5 (2.3)

Male gender 52 56

First born 58 Not available

Rating of temperamental difficulty 13.2 (2.4) 13.2 (2.6)

Perception of temperamental diffi- 13.4 (1.3) 13.6 (1.3)

culty

* Hollingshead four-factor.

t x2 = 5.36; P = .02; all other differences P > .10.

baby as to the following criteria? Intensity of

re-sponse-the energy content of responses regardless

of their quality.”).

At follow-up, mothers completed the parent

yen-sion of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist,’5

a standardized, widely recognized research

instru-ment that asks parents to rate the frequency of 112

behavior problem items based on the child’s

behav-ion over the previous 6 months. Mothers also

com-pleted a 22-item Psychosocial Health

Question-name, designed specifically for this project, that

elicited demographic, psychosocial, and health data

about the family.

Teachers completed the teacher report form of

the Child Behavior Checklist, which includes

be-havion problems specific to the school setting as

well as many of the same problems rated in the

parent form.’5

Analysis

Using the five temperament categories defined

by previous research’4 as constituting difficult

in-fant temperament (nhythmicity,

approach/with-dnawal, adaptability, intensity, and mood), two

con-tinuous temperamental difficulty scones were

cal-culated. Continuous scores, which had been used in

previous temperament studies,’6”7 were chosen to

best

translate

shadings

of temperamental

difficulty

and to facilitate regression analysis. A rating of

temperamental difficulty was calculated by

sum-ming the average ratings derived from the 95-item

instrument for each of the five temperamental

at-tributes. A score for general perception of

temper-amental difficulty was calculated similarly by

sum-ming

mothers’

general

perceptions

of their

infants

(as compared to the average infant) for each of the

five categories. Perceptions of temperamental

dif-ficulty scones were then rescaled to the same

di-mensions as the ratings of temperamental difficulty

score to facilitate comparisons between the two

sets.

For both

the ratings

and

perceptions

of

tem-peramental difficulty scores, a higher score reflects a more difficult infant. In addition, the standard

scoring technique of Carey and McDevitt,’3 which

categorizes scores in the five categories according

to the means and standard deviations derived from

their original sample, was used to categorize infants

as “easy,”

“intermediate,”

and

“difficult.”

The standardized t scones for total behavior

prob-lems

from

the parent

and

teacher

Child

Behavior

Checklists were used as outcome variables. Analysis

was directed initially at detecting associations

among the ratings and perceptions of

tempera-mental difficulty scones and child and family

van-ables. Analyses then addressed the association

be-tween child and family variables and the two

be-havior problem scones. Last, multivaniate analyses

were performed to detect associations between

either of the temperamental difficulty scores and

the behavioral problem scores, controlling for

pos-sible confounding associations. All statistical tests

of significance were 2-tailed.

RESULTS

Children were an average of 4.6 (0.9 SD) months

old at cohort inception and 6.4 (0.5 SD) years old

at follow-up. Other demographic information

de-scribing children and mothers in the study is

pre-sented in Table 1. Using Carey and McDevitt’s

system for scoring temperament based on the 95

behavior rating items,13 34% of infants were rated

as easy,

46% as intermediate, 14% as difficult, and

6% asslow-to-warm-up. This distribution of

(4)

Perceived temperamental

difficulty score

TABLE 3. Standardized t Scores for Parent and

Teacher Report Forms of the Child Behavior Checklist

Child Boys Girls

Behavior

Checklist Mean (±SD) Range Mean (±SD) Range

pediatric practices.”2”3 In response to the single

item asking for a global impression of hen infant’s

temperament, 47% of mothers rated their infants

as easier than average, 41% about average, and 12%

more difficult than average.

Table 2 presents the ratings and perceptions of

temperamental difficulty scores by gender. There

were no associations between the ratings and

per-ceptions of temperamental difficulty scores and the

child’s gender, on the mother’s age, education, or

socioeconomic status. The ratings and perceptions

of temperamental difficulty scones were associated

moderately with one another (r =.57, P < .001).

Table 3 shows standardized t scores for total

behavior problems from the Achenbach parent and

teacher Child Behavior Checklists for the study

group. The overall correlation between behavior problem scores on the parent and teacher Child Behavior Checklists (r = .28, P =.004) is consistent

with previous reports.’5

Analyses were performed to examine associations

between the outcome variables of parent and teacher behavior problem scores and a variety of independent variables, including the child’s gender,

socioeconomic status (at cohort inception), history

of health problems and family stress, and several

temperament variables: the single item asking for a global impression of temperamental difficulty,

classification as easy/intermediate/difficult by the

technique of Carey and McDevitt, and infant

rat-ings and perceptions of temperamental difficulty

scores. Results can be seen in the correlation matrix

in Table 4. The Carey and McDevitt classification

was not associated with behavioral outcomes. Only

independent variables that were associated with

one or more behavior problem outcomes at P < .10

are reported. Mothers’ ratings of school-aged child behavior problems were negatively associated with

socioeconomic status (at cohort inception) and

pos-TABLE 2. Rated Temperamental

ceived Temperamental Difficulty S

Difficulty and

Per-cores by Gender

Mean (±SD) Range

Rated temperamental difficulty

Boys Girls

Perceived temperamental difficulty

Boys Girls 13.2 (2.2) 13.4 (2.6) 13.1 (1.1) 13.4 (1.6) 8.4-19.9 8.2-24.7 10.9-18.9 10.9-18.9

Parent 55.3 (10.0) 38-76 54.4 (10.0) 35-84

Teacher 51.2 (10.0) 33-69 45.8 (7.8) 37-72

TABLE 4. Associations of Parent and Teacher Behav-ior Problem Scores With Independent Variables (Pearson

r, 2-tailed P Value) _____________

_____

Independent Variable Child Behavior Checklist

Parent Teacher

Socioeconomic status r = -.29 r =

-

.27

P= .001 P= .007

r= .17 r= .01

Rated temperamental

difficulty score

P= .055 P= .892

r= .22 r= .09

P= .019 P= .378

itively associated with the infant ratings and

per-ceptions of temperamental difficulty scores. That

is, the lower the socioeconomic status and the

higher the mother’s ratings and perceptions of her

infant’s temperamental difficulty, the higher the

mother’s rating of her child’s behavior problems 6

years later. Teacher-rated behavior problem scones

were associated with lower socioeconomic status

alone; therefore, no further analyses of teacher

scores were performed.

A series of stepwise multiple regression analyses

were used to assess the respective contribution of

socioeconomic status, ratings and perceptions of

temperamental difficulty to the parent-rated

be-havior problem score. The analyses were run for

the group overall, and then separately by gender.

Results are presented in Table 5. Only independent

variables that entered at P < .10 are reported, with

the exceptions noted.

Several findings in Table 5 should be emphasized.

First, the ratings of temperamental difficulty scone

fails to enter on any regression run. Second,

socio-economic status enters the regression equation first

(ie, explains the greaten proportion of subsequent

behavior problem ratings) for both the study group

overall and for girls alone. Third, no variable

achieves a statistically significant. association for

the boys. Last, the proportion of the variance in

behavior problem scones accounted for by the

per-ceptions of temperamental difficulty score (the

dif-fenence in Adjusted R2), although statistically

sig-nificant, is modest: 4% for the group overall and

5% for the girls.

DISCUSSION

These results indicate that, when asked to

com-pare their infants to the average infant, mothers

who perceived their infants as more irregular in

bodily functions, apt to withdraw in new situations, prone to intense responses, predominantly negative

in mood, and slower to adapt to change were likely

(5)

prob-TABLE 5. Stepwise Multiple Regressions of Socioeconomic Status and Temperamental

Difficulty Scores with Total Behavior Problems (Parent)

Variable B (±SE) /3 T P Adjusted

Overall

Socioeconomic status -.19 (.06) -.29 -3.26 <.01 .08

Perceived temperamental 1.60 (.67) .21 2.41 .02 .12

difficulty Girls

Socioeconomic status -.31 (.09) -.45 -3.68 <.01 .18

Perceived temperamental 1.57 (79) .24 2.00 .05 .23

difficulty

Boys

Socioeconomic status4 -.08 (.09) -.14 -1.06 .30

Perceived temperamental 1.99 (1.28) .22 1.55 .13

difficulty4

4Variables are not significantly associated withdependent variables, but results are listed

for comparison.

lems 6 years later, even after controlling for

socio-economic status. In contrast, mothers’ ratings of

the specific behaviors that reflect the same

temper-amental attributes were not associated with

in-creased ratings of behavior problems at school age.

Neither mothers’ perceptions nor ratings of

tem-peramental difficulty were associated with teachers’

ratings of behavior problems.

These results need to be considered in light of

previous temperament research and the setting of

the present study. As noted in the introduction, the

findings of studies seeking to associate difficult

temperament in infancy and behavior problems at

school age have been inconsistent. Our results

ap-pear to support the work of Cameron,6 who found

an association between infant temperament and school-aged behavior only when parental attitudes

were taken into account. In our study, it is only

mothers’ perceptions of their infant’s

tempera-mental difficulty relative to other infants at 4

months of age (perceptions of temperamental

dif-ficulty) that correlates with ratings of behavior

problems 6 years later. The questions used to

gen-erate the perceptions of temperamental difficulty

score ask parents to compare their infants to other

infants the same age. These impressions of

temper-ament, which are correlated moderately with the

temperamental rating scone, reflect both the

in-fant’s temperamental difficulty and the mother’s

expectations and assumptions regarding typical

in-fant behavior. As such, these global perceptions are

probably best understood as a measure of the fit

between infant and parent at 4 months.

Note that these results cannot be explained

sim-ply as a consistent bias on the part of some mothers

to portray their children negatively. In our analyses

there was no association between the single item

asking for mothers’ overall global impression of

their infant’s temperament (easy, average, difficult)

and subsequent behavior problem scores. Rather, it

was mothers’ perceptions that their infants were

different from the average baby on the five

dimen-sions that constitute temperamental difficulty that

was associated with increased behavior problems 6

years later.

Analysis by gender reveals that the association

between perceived temperamental difficulty and

subsequent behavior problems is largely accounted

for by girls. This finding is intriguing, and it is

consistent with a larger body of developmental

lit-eratune that reveals greaten stability and

predicta-bility oven time in the behaviors of female vs male

children.’8 It is also likely that cultural stereotypes

lead to parental expectations that girls will be

“eas-ier” than boys, which may make it more

problem-atic for parents to interact constructively with

young daughters with difficult temperaments.

The finding of association between

socioeco-nomic statis in infancy and behavior problems 6

years later is not surprising and is supported by

other research.’9 This association held for both

parent and teacher reports of behavior problems.

The fact that teacher reports of behavior problems

were not associated with perceived infant

temper-amental difficulty may be due to a variety of factors.

Most likely, children’s behavior in the school

set-ting was qualitatively different than their behavior

at home. Teachers did, in fact, give consistently

lower behavioral problem scores to children than

did parents (see Table 3).

The overall contribution of perceived infant tem-peramental difficulty in predicting behavior prob-lems at school age was small. Inspection of the

regression equation shows that, after controlling

for socioeconomic status, only 4% of the variance

in behavior problem scones (5% among girls) could

be attributed to perceived temperamental difficulty.

(6)

impressions of an infant at 4 months of age would

be associated significantly with increased behavior

problems 6 years later, this contribution should not

be overestimated. Given the magnitude of the

ef-feet, it could not by itself be used to predict

subse-quent difficulties.

How should pediatricians answer the question of

whether a temperamentally difficult infant is more

likely to have behavior problems when he on she

gets older? Results of this study suggest the

follow-ing possible response. A difficult infant

tempera-ment does not itself predispose a child to later behavior problems. However, the fact that parents

perceive their infant as more difficult than other

infants reflects a variety of factors that could

con-tribute to subsequent behavior problems. These

may include (1) temperamental characteristics of

the child that contribute both directly and

mdi-rectly (through effects on parent-child interactions

and other environmental factors) to subsequent

difficulties, and (2) assumptions and strategies of

the parents which, in turn, foster parent-child

in-tenactions that contribute to the development of

problems. The fact that mothers’ ratings of discrete

difficult infant behaviors did not relate to ratings

of later behavior problems suggests the importance

of focusing upon the ways that parents compare

their infant with others. Pediatricians should

ex-plore the range of behaviors that parents might

consider as typical for infants, emphasizing that it

is normal for most infants to display some difficult

behaviors. In addition, they should encourage

par-ents to view their infants, not as individuals with fixed personalities, but as developing persons who will adapt positively to an environment responsive

to their particular needs.

These study results in no way diminish the

din-ical value of temperament data in helping

pediatni-cians to help parents deal with the day-to-day

prob-lems of child rearing. The concept of temperament

remains a powerful construct which is useful in

many clinical settings.2#{176}

For several reasons, results of this study cannot

be viewed as conclusive. Approximately half of the

parents who could have participated were not in

the study sample. Although the only difference

between the groups that did and didn’t participate

in the study was in marital status, with infant

temperament scones and all other demographic

fac-tons quite similar, it is possible that some

differ-ences between these groups could bias the study results.

Also, there are technical issues with respect to

the concept of difficult temperament that should

be mentioned in the context of the study findings. In this study temperament was ascertained at an

average age of 4.5 months, which is the lower end

of the age range appropriate for the Carey and

McDevitt Revised Infant Temperament

Question-name. It is conceivable that the lack of association

between temperament ratings and subsequent

be-havior problems is due to the limitations of the

instrument in assessing this age. Also, the selection

of the temperamental attributes (nhythmicity,

ap-proach/withdnawal, intensity, mood, and

adapta-bility) that comprise this particular constellation of

“difficult” is open to debate. These attributes,

which date back to the New York Longitudinal

Study,5 were selected by experienced clinicians

based on what would make an infant problematic

to care for, and not for their predictive value. It is

possible that a better constellation of predictive

temperamental attributes could be identified on an

empirical basis in future research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was supported, in part, by a grant from the

American Academy of Pediatrics Memorial and

Endow-ment Fund for Children.

REFERENCES

1. Carey WB. A simplified method for measuring infant tern-perarnent. Pediatrics. 1970;77:188-194

2. Vaughn B, Deinhard A, Egeland B. Measuring temperament in pediatric practice. J Pedicitr. 1980;96:510-514

3. Chess S. Individuality in children, its importance to the

pediatrician. J Pediatr. 1966;69:676-684

4. Bates JE. The concept of difficult temperament. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1980;26:299-319

5. Thomas A, Chess 5, Birch HG. Temperament and Behavior Disorders in Children. New York: New York University Press; 1968

6. Cameron JR. Parental treatment, children’ s temperament, and the risk of childhood behavioral problems, 2: initial temperament, parental attitudes, and the incidence and

form of behavioral problems. Am J Orthopsychiatry.

1978;48:140-147

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

in early school adjustment. Pediatrics. 1977;60:621-624

8. Mclnerny T, Chamberlin RW. Is it feasible to identify infants who are at risk for later behavioral problems? Clin Pediatr. 1978;17:233-238

9. Carey WB. Some pitfalls in infant temperament research.

Infant Behav Dev 1983;6:247-254

10. Kagan J. Developmental studies in reflection analysis. in Kidd A, Rivoire JL, eds. Perceptual Development in Chil-dren. New York; International Universities Press: 1966

11. Bommarito J. Conditioning by Mild Verbal Punishment as a Predictor of Adiustment in Kindergarten. Detroit, MI:

Wayne State University; 1964. Dissertation.

12. Chamberlin RW. Can we identify a group of children at age two who are at high risk for the development of behavioral or emotional problems in kindergarten and first grade?

Pediatrics. 1977;59(suppl):971-981

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

tempera-ment questionnaire. Pediatrics. 1978;61:735-739

14. Thomas A, Chess 5, Birch HG, Hertzig ME, Korn S. Be-havioral Individuality in Early Childhood. New York: New

York University Press; 1963

(7)

Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: 1983

16. Chess 5, Thomas, A. Origins and Evolution of Behavior Disorders. New York:Brunner Mazel; 1984

17. Korn S. Continuities and discontinuities in difficult/easy temperament: infancy to young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Q.1984;30:189-199

18. Maccoby EE, Jacklin CH. The Psychology ofSex Differences. Stanford:Stanford University Press; 1974

19. Rutter M, Yule B, Quinton D, et al. Attainment and

adjust-ment in two geographical areas. III: some factors accounting

for area differences. Br J Psychiatry. 1974;125:520-533 20. Carey WB. Clinical use of temperament data in pediatrics.

J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1985;6:137-142

FACULTY SCHOLARS’ AWARDS

Each year the William T. Grant Foundation makes awards to up to five

investigators whose research contributes to understanding the development and

well-being of children, adolescents, and youth. Awards are for five (5) years,

totaling $175,000 including indirect costs.

The goal of the Faculty Scholars’ program is to promote development of

children to healthy and productive adulthood by supporting investigators in a

variety of fields on topics such as problem behaviors in school-aged children.

Applicants should be young, but established investigators (with a record of

publications), not yet in tenure positions. Award recipients will be called

William T. Grant Faculty Scholars.

Applicant institutions and individuals should obtain the brochure outlining

the application procedure from:

Robert J. Haggenty, MD

President

William T. Grant Foundation

515 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10022-5403

(8)

1990;85;801

Pediatrics

B. Colletti

Richard C. Wasserman, Christine M. DiBlasio, Lynne A. Bond, Paul C. Young and Richard

Pediatric Practice