364
RICHARD R. ABIDIN
REFERENCES
BARRISH,
H.
H.,
SAUNDERS,
M.,
I&
WOLF,
M. M.
Good
behavior game: effects of individual con-
tingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom.
Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,
1969,
8,
119-124.
BERSOFF, D.
N.
&
GRIEGER,
R.
M. An Interview Model
for
the psychosituational assessment of
children’s behavior.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1971, 41, 483-493.
BIJOU,
S.
W.
Experimental studies of child behavior, normal and deviant. In
L.
Krasner and
L.
P.
Ullman (Eds.),
Research
in
behavior modification.
New York: Holt, Rinehart
&
Winston,
1966.
BUCKLEY,
N.
K.
&
WALKER,
H.
N. Free operant teacher attention to deviant behavior after treat-
ment in
a
special class.
Psychology
in
the Schools,
1971,8, 275-284.
CAPLAN,
G.
The theory and practice of mental health consultation.
New York: Basic Books,
1970.
GRIEGER, R.
M.
Teacher attitudes as
a
variable in behavior modification consultation.
Journal
of
HALL,
R.
V.,
LUND,
D.,
L%
JACKSON,
D.
Effects of teacher attention on study behavior.
Journal
LAZARUS,
A. A.
Behavior therapy and beyond.
New York: McGraw-Hill,
1971.
LOVITT,
T.
C.,
&
CURTISS,
K.
Academic response rate as
a
function of teacher and self-imposed
contingencies.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
1969,
2,
49-53.
MADSEN, C., JR., BECKER, W.,
&
THOMAS,
D.
Rules, praise, and ignoring; elements
of
elementary
classroom control.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
1968,
1,
139-150.
O’LEARY,
K.
P.,
&
DRABMAN, R.
Token reinforcement programs in the classroom:
a
review.
Psy-
chological Bulletin,
1971.
PATTERSON,
G.
R., COBB,
J.
A.,
&
RAY,
R.
S.
A social engineering technology
for
retraining
ag-
gressive boys. In
H.
Adams
&
L.
Unikel Eds.,
Georgia Symposium
in
ezperimental clinical psy-
chology.
New
York:
Pergamon Press,
1970.
REYNOLDS,
N.
J.
&
RISLEY,
T.
R.
The role of social and material reinforcers in increasing talking
of
a disadvantaged preschool child.
Journal
of
Applied Behavior Analysis,
1968,1, 253-262.
ROTTER,
J.
B. Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement.
Psycho-
logical Monographs,
1966,80 (1,
Whole
No.
609).
SIEGEL, G.
M.,
LENSKE,
J.,
&
BROEN,
P.
Suppression
of
normal speech disfluencies through response
cost.
Journal
of
Applied Behavior Analysis,
1969,
8,
265-276.
WOLF,
M.,
RISLEY,
T
,
&
MIES, H. Application of operant conditioning procedures to the behavior
problems of an autistic child.
Behavior Research and Therapy,
1964, 1, 305-312.
School Psychology,
in press.
of Applied Behavior Analysis,
1968, 1, 1-12.
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACCURACY
OF
SELF-REPORTED
HIGH-SCHOOL GRADES
ROBERT BIRNBAUM
Department of Higher Education, Trenton,
N.
J.
Self-reported grades often are used
as
a variable in research studies. These data
are relatively easy to collect in comparison with the administrative problems
associated with determining grade averages through analysis of individual student
records. Several annual nation-wide testing and research endeavors, including the
American College Testing Program and the Cooperative Institutional Research
Program of the American Council
on
Education, collect self-reported grades, as do
many institutional research programs. The accuracy of self-reported grades is there-
fore of some interest to those who use these data for research or administrative
purposes.
Previous studies have indicated that students can accurately self-report specific
grades
or
grade averages, with typical correlations of approximately
+
.90
between
actual and reported grades (American College Testing Program,
1965;
Kirk
&
Sereda,
1969;
Jung
&
Moore,
1970;
Maxey
&
Ormsby,
1971;
Perry,
1940)
and that self-
reported grades can be substituted for school-reported grades in predictive formula8