The Learning Behaviors Scale P. A. McDermott, L. F. Green, J. M. Francis, & D. H. Stott

Description of the LBS I 29 items, each presenting a specific learning-related behavior Observer is required to indicate whether behavior Most often applies, Sometimes applies, or Does not apply. Some items indicate positive learning behaviors and others indicate negative behaviors to reduce response sets.

LBS Description II The 29 items provide 4 subscale scores: Competence Motivation (8 items) Attitude Toward Learning (9 items) Attention/Persistence (7 items) Strategy/Flexibility (7 items) Subscales allow for targeted intervention You can also obtain a global LBS score

CONTEXT FOR DEVELOPMENT I Knowing that a student is “bright” or “not as bright” does not fully explain performance Knowing a student’s intellectual capacity provides limited information for intervention What do you do when faced with a “bright” student who is not doing well?

Context for Development II There are behaviors associated with learning. What behaviors do you think are associated with learning? Some of them are as follows: Listening attentively Participating in classroom activities Accepting correction Sticking to tasks until completed Working to please teacher

Context for Development III There is evidence that these learning behaviors are teachable. Idiographic data is useful in this arena, but time-consuming to gather We did not have good nomothetic data on learning behaviors. However, we know that school teachers are relatively accurate, reliable, unobtrusive, cost-beneficial observers of classroom behavior, when they have had ample opportunity to observe.

Context For Development IV In light of the previous information, the authors of the LBS set out to develop a scale to measure learning behaviors reliably and validly in 5 - 17 year olds, using teacher observation. The research work on the LBS started in the mid 1980s and the scale was published in 1999.

Preliminary Research Examined Reliability of subscale scores and total score in small samples. Validity of subscale and total scores in small samples. Created scale that worked well.

US Standardization Sample 1,500 students, 750 males and 750 females 5 to 17 years old Used 1992 U.S. Census to obtain demographics Blocking for sex, age, grade in school Stratified random sampling by race, class, family structure, community size, and geographic region

Final Norm Sample Race: 67.7% White, 15.9% Hispanic, 12.1% African American, 4.3% other groups. Family: 76.6% with two parents or guardians, 21.3% single mom, 2.1% single dad. Representation by SES based on parent education, and exceptionality Final selection was randomly selected from those who gave consent, restricted only by stratification quotas and ≤ 2 students per teacher.

Test Retest Reliability (n = 77) Competence Motivation .92 Attitude Toward Learning .91 Attention/Persistence .92 Strategy/Flexibility .93

Inter Rater Reliability (n = 72) Competence Motivation .83 Attitude Toward Learning .83 Attention/Persistence .83 Strategy/Flexibility .83

Internal Consistency I

Internal Consistency II

Validity Coefficients

T & T Sample The LBS was completed on all 700 students in the sample, with no rater missing more than 2 items. The distribution was skewed toward the higher end--that is, most students were rated as having learning behaviors in the normal range.

Factor Analyses As is recommended, we used factor analysis to look at the structural validity of the LBS in the T & T sample. We used multiple criteria to determine how many factors would work best. The goal was to find a factor structure that was generalizable across the whole sample, as well as the gender subgroups.

Factor Analyses 2 In the US, the LBS is made up of four factors. We ran five factor, four-factor, three-factor, and two-factor models. The only structure that generalized from the whole sample across gender groups was the two-factor one (see p. 8 in manual and note pattern coefficients).

Factor Analyses 3 Factor I consists of 18 items and is labeled Attitude Toward Learning (AL). The items on this factor made up the Competence Motivation, Attention-Persistence, and Attitude Toward Learning subscales in the U.S. structure. Factor II, labeled Strategy Flexibility, consisted of the 7 SF items in the U.S. norming, but of 9 items in Trinidad. The AL and SF factors have two items in common (10 & 14).

Attitude Toward Learning Items

Strategy Flexibility

Let’s look at reliability estimates for the T & T scores

Reliability and Validity Evidence Reliability estimates for scores on the total scale were consistently high across all subgroups. Reliability estimates for subscale scores were very high for Factor 1 and moderate for Factor II. No reliability estimates fell below .75. There were no statistically significant differences between genders, among ethnic groups, or among grade levels.

Administration Speak to teacher who has seen students for at least 6 school weeks or 30 days. Ask teacher to rate the student as accurately as possible. Let the teacher know that this information will help in your assessment of the student. Teacher should rate all responses. Will require 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

Scoring Use scoring template to complete raw score for each dimension. Raw scores for Factor 1 (AL) range from 0 to 36. Raw scores for Factor II (SF) range from 0 to 18. Raw scores on Total Scale range from 0 to 54. Put raw scores in boxes on Score Summary sheet. Convert raw scores to %tiles using table on p. 10. Always double check your scoring.

Interpretation I Scores on the LBS should be only one part of a broader psychoeducational evaluation. Higher scores represent the presence of more learning behaviors. Students who obtain scores at or above the 40th percentile are displaying learning behaviors at or above the average range.

Interpretation II Students whose learning behaviors are between the 20th and 40th percentiles are students who may benefit from interventions aimed at increasing their learning behaviors in general. Students whose scores fall below the 20th percentile are manifesting deficits in learning behaviors and may benefit from immediate interventions.

Let’s Practice