Ilata from the

NATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY

Behavior

In School

Patterns

OfYouths12-17Years

United States

Teachers’ ratings on the intellectual ability, academic performance,

popularity, and emotional adjustment ofadolescents inschool presented

by ageand sex.

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1621

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Public Health Service

Health Resources Administration

National Center for Health Statistics

Series 11

Number 139

Rockville, Md. May 1974
Series 11 reports present findings from the National Health Examination Survey, which

obtains data through direct examination tests, and measurements of samples of the U.S.

population. Reports 1 through 38 relate to the adult program, Cycle I of the Health

Examination Survey. The present report is one of a number of reports of findings from the

children and youth programs, Cycles II and III of the Health Examination Survey. These

latter reports from Cycles II and III are being published in Series 11 but are numbered

consecutively beginning with 101. It is hoped this will guide users to the data in which they

are interested.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Behavior patterns in school of youths 12-17 years, United States.

(National Center for Health Statistics. Data from the National Health Survey. Series

11, no 139) (DHEW publication no. (HRA) 74-1621)

Includes bibliographical references.

Supt. of Dots. no.: HE 20.6209: 11/139.

1. Adolescence 2. Children–Care and hygiene. 3. Academic achievement. I. Title.

II. Series: United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics.

Series 11: Data from the National Health Survey. Data from the health examination survey,

no. 139. III. Series: United States. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW

publication no. (HFL4) 74-1621.

&%407 .3.A347 no. 139 [LB1135] 373.1’8’10973 73-20362

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20!02- Price 95cents
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

EDWARD B. PERRIN, Ph.D., Director

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D,, Deputy Director

DEAN E. KRUEGER, Acting Associate Director for Analysis

GAIL F. FISHER, Associate Director for the Cooperative Health Statistics System

ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Director for Data Systems

IWAO M. MORIYAMA, Ph.D., Associate Director for International Statistical Programs

EDWARD E. MINTY, Associate Director for Managemen+

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Associate Director for Operations

QUENTIN R. REMEIN, Associate Director for Program Development

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D., Acting Associate Director for Research

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

DIVISION OF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS

ARTHUR J. McDOWELL, Director

GARRIE J. LOSEE, Deputy Director

PETER V. V. HAMILL, M.D., Medical Advisor, Children and Youth Program

HENRY W, MILLER, ChieJ Operations and Quality Control Branch

LINCOLN I. OLIVER, ChieJ Psychological Statistics Branch

HAROLD J. DUPUY, Ph.D., psychological Advisor

Vital and Health Statistics$eries 1 l-No. 139

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1621

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-20362
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Behavioral Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coverage and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grade Placement and Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Special Educational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intellectua lAbilit y........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Academic Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ability-Performance Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peer Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Disciplinary Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotional Adjustn~ent to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ListofDetailedTables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix I. Statistical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Nonresponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Small Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix II. School Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

2

2

2

3

3

4

5

6

7

7

8

10

12

13

42

42

43

45

45

49

50

iij
SYMBOLS

Datanot available ---------------------------------------- ---

Category not applicable ------------------------------- . . .

Quantity zero ---------------------------------------------- -

Quantity morethan Obutless than0.05----- 0.0
BEHAVIOR PATTERNS IN SCHOOL

OF YOUTHS 12-17 YEARS

Lincoln I. Oliver, Divzkion of Health Examination Statistics

INTRODUCTION

Basic data on ratings by teachers and other

school officials on behavior patterns in school of

youths 12 through 17 years of age in the

noninstitutional population of the United States

are presented in this report by age and sex.

Observations of teachers obtained in the Health

Examination Survey of 1966-70 should provide

some insight into the behavior of adolescents

that is related to their growth and development

and to their ability to function in an important

life situation. A similar report on children 6-11

years of age in the U.S. population has been

published.1

The Health Examination Survey is one of

three major programs of the National Center for

Health Statistics that conducts the National

Health Survey asauthorized in 1956 by the 84th

Congress.z The Health Interview Survey, which

obtains information by household interview

among samples of persons, is concerned primarily with the impact of illness and disability

on the lives and actions of people. The Division

of Health Resources Statistics collects health

data as well as health resource and utilization

information through surveys of hospitals, nursing homes, other resident institutions, and vaiious persons in health occupations.

In the He&h Examination Survey (HES),

data are collected through direct physical examination, tests, and measurements performed on

the sample population selected for study. This

approach is viewed as the most accurate way to

obtain definite diagnostic data on the prevalence

of certain medically defined illnesses. It is the

most precise way to secure reliable information

on unrecognized and undiagnosed conditions as

well as on a variety of physical, physiological,

and psychological measurements within the

population. In addition, it makes possible the

study of relationships among the various examination findings and between these hlings and

certain demographic and socioeconomic factors.

HES is carried out as a series of separate

programs referred to as “cycles.” Each cycle is

concerned with some specific segment of the

total U.S. population, usually a particular age

group, and with certain specified aspects of the

health of that segment of the population. In

Cycle I, data were obtained on the prevalence of

certain chronic diseases and on the distribution

of various measurements and other characteristics in a defined adult populations YAIn Cycle

IIy a probability sample of the Nation’s noninstitutionalized children 6-11 years of age was

examined. The examination was directed primarily toward obtaining information on health factors related to gro&h and development; but it

also included screening for selected diseases or

a-bnormalities, an exan&ation by a dentist, a

battery of tests administered by a psychologist,

and certain other measurements.s

1
Cycle III, on which this report is based,

covered youths 12-17 years of age at the time of

the survey. A comprehensive description of the

survey plan, sample design, and examination

content has been published.G Apart from age,

the specifications of the program were similar to

those of Cycle IL Its target was the roughly 23

million U.S. youths aged 12-17 years (married or

single) living outside institutions. Field (collection) - operations started in March 1966 and

ended in March 1970. During that period, 6,768

persons (90 percent of the youths selected for

the sample) were examined. The examination

focused on health factors related to growth and

development and included an examination of

the eyes, ears, nose, and throat; a check for

goiter; a musculoskeletal and neurological evaluation; a cardiovascular examination; a dental

examination; and vision and hearing tests.

Several tests were administered by a psychologist, and a variety of other tests, procedures, and

measurements were made by technicians.

A standard single-visit examination was given

each youth by the examining team in a mobile

unit specially designed for the” survey. Prior to

the examination, information that included

demographic and socioeconomic data on the

household members was obtained from the

parent or guardian of the youth. The parent also

furnished a medical history and behavioral and

related data on the youth to be examined.

Supplementary and supporting information was

obtained from the examinee. Data on grade

placement and a teacher’s ratings of intellectual

ability, academic performance, behavior, and

degree of adjustment to school were requested

from the school last attended. A birth certificate

and other information related to birth were also

obtained for verification of the youth’s age.

Statistical information on the target population, survey design, reliability of data, and

sampling and measurement error are included in

appendix I.

BEHAVIORAL DATA

Certain behavioral information related to the

growth and development of youth was obtained

in this survey from the parent, usually the

mother, and from the school last attended. In

addition, each youth was asked to complete and

return a questionnaire on health habits and

history when reporting for the examination. The

youth was asked to complete another questionnaire, on health behavior, at the examination

center. Portions of the parent’s and the youth’s

questionnaires were designed to secure parallel

views and attitudes from the youth and his

parent concerning selected areas of health

behavior.

Behavioral questions were included in the

survey primarily to provide a means of relating

information on health, behavior, attitudes, and

other questionnaire data to specific medical

examination findings and to the results of the

psychological tests of intellectual development

and school achievement. Another purpose was

to provide a basis for comparing the expressed

perceptions, attitudes, and values of the youth

regarding a variety of topics (e.g., expectations

concerning formal educational achievement,

independence in decisionmaking, and standards

of behavior) with those of their parents.

This report is limited to the information

obtained on the questionnaire sent to the

school. Responses were sought from teachers or

others considered to have sufficient knowledge

of the youth to give an adequate rating. In

addition to providing data on grade placement,

progress in school, attendance, and special educational services needed and used, the respondents rated the youth on intellectual ability,

academic performance, popularity with peers,

and emotional adjustment to school. The questions asked are shown in appendix II. The

behavior patterns revealed by the responses to

this questionnaire are believed to have considerable value per se as baseline data for describing

teachers’ perceptions of youth with respect to

the areas covered.

FINDINGS

Coverage and Response

Ratings from schools were received for 92

percent of the youths 12-17 years of age who

were examined in this survey. The proportion of

nonresponse ranged from 5 percent for youths

12 years of age to 16 percent for those aged 17

years. The difference in response rate with

2
respect to age reflects the relatively large proportions of youths at the older ages who were not

in school either because they had graduated

from high school or because they had discontinued their schooling prior to graduation.

The nature and effect of this nonresponse is

discussed in appendix I.

To characterize the reliability of the ratings

obtained from the schools, data were collected

on the length of time and the capacity in which

the respondent had known the youth he was

rating.

Four of every five youths were rated by

school officials who had known them for at least

one semester, and one-half were rated by officials who had known them 1 year or longer

(table 1). Three of every five youths were rated

by counselors or administrative personnel, and

almost all others were rated by school principals

or classroom teachers.

Grade Placement and Attendance

Table 2 shows the percent distribution of the

youths for whom responses to the school questionnaire were received, by grade in school.

About 90 percent of the adolescent population

covered were enrolled in grades 7 through 12.

Considering age requirements for admission to

school, about 52 percent of the youths were

reported to be in the grade appropriate for their

ages (the modal grade); 12 percent were one

grade above, and 26 percent were one grade

below. Part of this lag is explained by the larger

proportion of youths who had repeated grades

(16 percent), relative to the proportion that had

skipped grades (1 percent). (See table 3.) For

one-half of the youths who were made to repeat

grades, academic failure was cited as the primary

reason; a variety of problems related to social

immaturity, excess absences, or circumstances

resulting from family or social acts were reported to have been responsible for impeding

the progress of the other half. Almost twice as

many boys as girls were reported to have failed

to advance in grade.

Around one of every eight youths were

reported to have been absent an “unusual

number of days” during the most recently

completed school year (table 4). Illness of the

youth was cited as the main reason for one-half

of the cases, a reason cited somewhat more

often for girls than for boys. As one would

expect, the higher rate of truancy was reported

for boys.

~Ial Educational Resources

Information was obtained on the need for and

the availability and utilization of special educational resources for handicapped or gifted

youths (tables 5 and 6). Resources beyond those

available in the regular classroom were recommended for one-sixth of the youths covered by

this survey. More boys were reported as needing

special instruction than were girls (20 percent,

compared with 14 percent).

Six percent of all youths 12-17 years of age,

or 37 percent of those in special programs, were

recommended for remedial reading. Training for

slow learners, another type of specizd resource

recommended for a large proportion (32 percent) of those needing any of the special

resources, was recommended for 5 percent of

the youths. Table A shows the proportions of

youths reported as needing special resources and

the percent distribution of those recommended

for the various service programs.

Information on the availability and use of

special educational resources for the youths

recommended is presented in table 6. Relatively

high rates of utilization were reported for

educational services for the gifted, the mentally

retarded, and the orthopedically handicapped.

The low rates for youths needing language

training and remedial training in speciaI subject

areas reflect the lack of special resources for

such purposes. The reasons given for non-use of

avadable special resources were grouped under

overcrowding and problems of scheduling (50

percent), students’ objections (26 percent),

parents’ objections (8 percent), and circumstances associated with illness, disability, or

inconvenience (7 percent). k 9 percent of the

cases the reasons were unknown.

Table B shows the relatively high rate of grade

repetition among youths reported as needing

special educational resources.

A question similar to the one used in Cycle III

to obtain the estimates on the need and use of

special resources (item 8, appendix II) was

included in Cycle 11.1 However, there are differ3
Table A. Percent of youths with specified problems and percent distribution of those recommended for special resources, with

standard error of percent of those recommended by type of problem, according to sex: United States, 1966-70

Type of problem

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hard of hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sight-saving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Speech therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orthopedic handicap . . . . . . . . . .

Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slow learners (not wen~~;;y

retarded) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mentally retarded . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotionally disturbed . . . . . . . . .

Remadial reading . . . . . . . . . . . .

English for youths from nonEnglish-speaking environments. .

Remedial training in special subject

areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other problems . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Youths with specified problems

~

16.7

0.3

0.2

1.1

0.2

2.8

5.3

1.3

1.2

6.2

0.7

2.6

1.4

Percent

19.5

0.4

0.2

1.3

0.1

2.5

6.4

1.9

1,7

7.7

1.0

3.2

1.8

13.9

0.1

0.2

1.0

0.3

3.0

4.1

0.8

G,7

4.7

0.5

2.1

1.1

Youths recommended for special rasources

ELkPercent distribution]

100.0

2.1

1.2

6.5

0.4

12.1

32.8

9.5

8.5

39.5

5.0

16.2

9.0

100.0

0.9

1.6

7.0

1.8

21.9

29.5

5.7

5.1

33.6

3.4

14.9

7.6

=

Standarderror of percent

of youths recommended

. . .

0.66

0.48

1.14

0.31

1.57

2.19

1.37

1.30

2.28

1.01

1.71

1.33

. . .

—

0.57

0.71

1.44

0.76

2.34

2.58

1.32

1.24

2.66

1.03

2.01

1.50

‘8ecause some youths were recommended for more than 1 resource, the percentages shown for the various categories will total

more than 100.0.

ences in wording and presentation that afforded

possible differences in interpretation by the

respondents and results that may not be generally comparable. In Cycle II, the teachers reported that about 30 percent of the children

would be recommended for special training “if

special resources were available”—a proportion

that is considerably higher than the 17 percent

of all youths in this study who were reported to

“need or be currently using” special resources.

On examining the data by age, one would

disallow certain plausible explanations of this

difference such as the effect of screening and of

growth and development. For example, 31

percent of the children 11 years of age were

reported as needing special resources, while only

20 percent of the youths 12 years of age needed

khem. This difference is much greater than that

observed for any other two conti~ous ages.

Intellectual Ability

Teachers were asked to assess the intellectual

ability of the youths using a 3-point scale to

indicate whether they considered the youth to

be above average, average, or below average in

ability (table 7).

Nearly 28 percent of the youths were rated as

above average in intellectual ability, and 20

percent received a rating of below average.

Compaxed with the boys, the girls were rated

higher in ability.

The performance of these youths as measured

by the Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of

the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

(WISC)T generally supported the teachers’ independent classification into broad ability

groups (tables 8 and 9), although it did not

reflect the more favorable ratings of the girls.

For each age-sex class, the group of youths rated

as average showed average scores on the subtests;

those rated as above average showed aboveaverage scores, and so forth.

Table 10 indicates that the youths who were

mted higher on ability were reported to have

better attendance records.

rhe similarity of the distributions of children

6-11 years (from Cycle II) and youths 12-17

4
Table B. Percent of youths recommended for special resources who repeated grades, with standard error of percent of those repaating,

by type of problem and sex: United States, 1966-70

Category of youths recommended for special resources and

type of problem

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Those not recommended for special resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Those recommended for special resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hearing, sight, orspeech therapy ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slowlearners (notmentally retarded) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mentally retarded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotionally disturbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remedial reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

English foryouths from non-English-speaking environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Remedial training inspacialsubject areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Otherproblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘Estimate inconsiderably below standards of reliability or precision.

years according to rated intellectual ability

suggests that the differential unperceived ability

for the two sexes was the same for both age

groups, with more girls than boys being rated as

having superior abiIity.

Academic Performance “

The youths were also rated by their teachers

on a 3-point scale with respect to acade~c

standing in class. The respondents indicated in

which third of the youth’s class he should be

ranked (table 7). The middle third contains

somewhat more youths than one would assign to -

that group if classes were divided into three

equal parts; but considering that for the most

part each youth was assessedindependently, the

results are understandable and reasonable. As in

the appraisal of ability, girls were rated higher

than boys, with the observed difference in

performance ratings being substantizdly greater

than the difference in ability ratings.

Both

sexes

15.8

12.0

34.9

28.3

1.2

52.7

57.8

52.1

38.1

52.0

47.4

31.7

Youths who repeated grades

1

Boys I

Girls

Percent

19.6 I 11.9

1

15.0 9.0

38.9 29.1

(’) (’)

2.8 -

56.0 47.6

63.4 44.2

39.2 83.0

41.1 33.1

(’) (’)

52.2 40.0

34.5 27.6

*

Girls

Standard error

of percent of

those repeating

1.02

0.85

2.91

5.66

0.93

4.45

4.72

6.66

2.86

18.83

5.79

5.84

1.12

0.95

3.06

(1)

1.91

4.51

6.49

6.61

4.50

(’)

7.05

7.31

1.10

0.90

3.61

(’)

. . .

5.55

7.20

9.16

3.55

(’)

8.46

9.72

Mean raw scores on the two subtests (Reading

and Arithmetic) of the Wide Range Achievement

Test (WRAT),8 which were used in the survey to

measure school achievement, are shown for the

youths according to reported academic standing

in class in tables 11 and 12. These test data

strongly attest the reliability of the performance

ratings of the school officials.

A comparison of data in table 11 with that in

table 12 suggests that the criterion for rating the

youths’ performance was related more to verbal

ability than to arithmetic skill. These data also

support the finding of Arnold (1968)9 and

McCandless (1970)10 that teachers tended to

estimate the achievement of boys less accurately

than that of girls, and the survey data demonstrate that this occurred primarily with respect

to arithmetic. In all but 2 of the 18 groups by

class standing and age, the boys who were

reported to rank in a particular third of their

classes made higher achievement test scores than

did the girls in the same group (table 12).

Figure 1 shows the positive association between high academic standing in class and record

5
GOOD ATTENDANCE POORATTENDANCE

60

60

40

20

0

upper

third

BOYS

IsRiGirls

Middle Lower upper

third third third

ACAOEMIC STANDING IN CLASS

– 80

60

40

20

0

Middle Lower

third third

Figurel. Percent distribution of youths bylevel ofac4emic petiormanm, according toatiandance andsex: United States, 1966-70,

of good attendance, which is shown in greater

detail in table 13.

In table 14, information is presented on the

repeating of grades according to current

academic standing in class of the youths.

Academic failure as the main reason for repeating grades was more frequently cited for boys

whose performance was rated in the upper levels

of the class than it was for girls with a similar

performance rating.

Although the corresponding question in the

survey of children 6-11 years of age presented

categories of choice that were different from

those in this report, it may be seen that in that

study girls also were rated higher in school

performance than were boys.

In the data on academic performance of

children and youths, based on Cycle II and

Cycle III of the HES, a significant trend by age

is observed-a definite and substantial increase

with age in the proportion of boys who were

rated as below average in academic rank in class,

from 24 percent at age 6 to 40 percent at age

17.

/Wlity-Performance Comparison

The close relationship between the ratings of

intellectual ability and academic performance is

shown in table 15. For example, 88 percent of

the youths who were ranked in the lower thixd

of their classes were considered to be below

average in ability. To some extent, the perceived

relationship between ability and performance is

.reflected in this comparison of evaluations.

In figure 2 the intellectual ability of the boys

and girls as assessed by their teachers, is compared with their academic performance. Apart

from the overall higher scholastic evaluation

given the girls, the data indicate that the

difference between the sexes in academic performance was twice as large as the difference in

rated intellectual ability. This may welI be a

reflection of the effects of certain alleged

disadvantages under which boys work in schools

ae currently organized, as cited by Datta,

Schaefer, and Davisl I ; Jackson and

Lahadernel z; and Sears andFeldman.18

6
RATING LEVEL

Above average Average Below average

Boys

60 r RN Girls ,60

46

1

;

E

30

UI

n.

15

0

Ability Performance Ability Performance Ability Performance

445

1

30

15

0

Figure 2. Proportion of youths, by ratings received for intellectual ability and academic performance and sex: United States, 1966-70.

Peer Relations

Above-average popularity with other students

was recognized by the raters as a characteristic

of one of every eight youths (table 16). When

peer relations of girls were compared with those

of boys, a larger proportion of girls (14 percent)

than of boys (11 percent) were rated as having

above-average popularity. A large proportion of

the youths (64 percent) were reported to be

average in popularity, and 10 percent were

throught to be less than average. For a relatively

large proportion (13 percent) of the youths–

considering the rate of response to the other

questions–the rater indicated that he could not

assess the youth’s popularity with other students.

In the ratings for both boys and girls, more

popularity was associated with greater intellectual ability (table 17 and figure 3). A similar,

more pronounced, and consistent relationship of

a rating of high academic standing with aboveaverage popularity was observed for boys as welI

as @ls (table 18). Youths thought to be

relatively unpopular tended to have records of

poor attendance (table 19).

Disciplinary Action

One aspect of the behavior of youths in

school was explored by obtaining data on

frequency of need for disciplinary action. The

teachers reported that some disciplinary action

was required for one of every four youths and

that the need was more frequently indicated for

boys than for girls (table 20). The obsertied

difference with respect to sex is consistent with

the conclusion of McCandlessl O that adolescent

boys were more frequently scolded, reprimanded, shamed, commanded, and otherwise

disciplined than were girls. The distribution of

youths for whom data on disciplinary action

were available according to attendance shows

that a record of good attendance was positively

associated with the absence of disciplinary problems (table 20). The teachers’ assessment was

that disciplinary action was less frequently

required for youths rated higher on the scale of

intellectual ability (table 21). Naturally, the

7
ABILITY LEVEL

1- Z

UJ

0

a

I.#

Above average

ao

t

60

40

20

0

Above Average Below

average averege

Averege

@!aAbove Aversge Below

average average

POPULARITY RATING

BOYS

RSl

1

100

Girls

Below average

i

WI

Above Averse Below

aqerege average

60

40

20

0

Fiaure 3. Percent distribution of youths by peer group reletions, according to level of intellectual ab!lity and sex: United States,

1966-70.

same was true with respect to the association of

academic standing with frequency of required

disciplinary action (table 22 and figure 4). Table

23 shows that the youths considered to be more

popular with other students were less likely to

be the ones thought by teachers to require

frequent acts of discipline.

Findings on frequency of disciplinary action

horn Cycles II and III of the HES are not

directly comparable because the questions used

to obtain this information were worded somewhat differently in each of the two cycles. For

children 6-11 years of age, the question referred

to the needs of the “child,” while the word

“student” was used to characterize the individual in the survey of youths. It appears that a

broader interpretation was made by the teachers

when they responded to the question in the

earlier survey. Thus, fewer youths as students

(35 percent) than children 6-11 years (64

percent) were rated by teachers as needing some

form of discipline even when comparing 12-yearold students (38 percent) with 1l-year-old c/2ildren (60 percent).

Emotional Adjustment to School

Approximately three-fourths of the youths

were rated by their teachers as being well

adjusted to the school environment (table 16).

About 17 percent of those rated were considered to be emotionally maladjusted to some

observable degree. (This excludes those for

whom no rating was given because the respondent felt that there was no basis for making the

evaluation.) When ratings for the emotional

adjustment of boys were compared with those

of girls, a Iarger proportion of girls (four of

every five) than of boys were reported to be well

adjusted to the school situation. Lahadernel A
NEED FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

Newer Occasional y Frequently

100

80

60

40

20

0 1

Upper Middle Lower

third third third

Boys

IisiGirls

Upper Middle Lower

third third third

ACADEMIC STANOING IN CLASS

Upper

third

Middle Lower

third third

1

100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 4, Percent distribution of youths by level of academic performance, according to frequency of disciplinary action and

sex: United States, 1966-70.

and McCandlessl 0 found that girls within all

social classesadjusted better to school than boys

did.

The association between school attendance

and level of emotional adjustment (table 24) is

demonstrated in that a larger proportion of the

youths with records of poor attendance (about

40 percent) were considered to be maladjusted,

compared with those with a history of good

attendance (about 13 percent).

Table 25 shows that for two-thirds of the

youths reported to be “seriously maladjusted:’

some special educational resource was recommended. About 38 percent of those said to be

“somewhat maladjusted” were recommended

for the programs, compared with 12 percent of

those considered to be well adjusted. The large

proportions of youths reported to be maladjusted and enrolled in special programs for the

emotionally disturbed, slow learners, and those

who needed help with reading, along with the

relatively large proportions of those considered

well adjusted who were in the programs for the

gifted, tend to confirm the expected and could

be regarded as evidence of consistency in these

ratings. Compared with the girls, larger proportions of the boys in the several adjustment

groups were recommended for special educational training. However, the observed differences in percentages by sex for the two categories indicating ratings of maladjustment were

found to be statistically insignificant at the

l-percent confidence level.

Table 26 gives the percent distribution of

youths by their intellectual ability according to

three levels of estimated emotional adjustment,

age, and sex. For both boys and girls, the data

indicate a definite association between intellectual ability and level of emotional adjustment.

Youths considered to be better adjusted were

9
more often judged to have greater ability. Table

C shows that among boys and girls with aboveaverage ability more than 9 of every 10 were

considered to be well adjusted, compared with 6

of every 10 with below-average ability.

As one would expect, the relationship between academic standing in class and level of

adjustment was found to be similar to, but

stronger than, that between ability and adjustment (table 27 and figure 5).

In table 28, data on the popularity of the

youths with their peers are shown for the three

levels of adjustment. Greater popularity was

associated with more favorable evaluations of

emotional adjustment. The more unfavorably

the youth’s adjustment was viewed, the higher

the reported frequency of required disciplinary

action tended to be (table 29). More than

one-half of those reported as demonstrating the

poorest adjustment were said to have frequently

needed disciplinary action, compared with less

than 1 percent for the group described as well

adjusted.

Although data on the emotional adjustment

of children 6-11 years of age were compiled

from responses to a question for which a

somewhat different set of categories for selection was provided, some valid gross comparisons

with findings on the youths can be made. The

same proportion of children as of youths (83

percent) was rated as well adjusted or, in the

case of the children, as manifesting no problems.

However, when boys and girls are considered

separately, the data show that although there

were higher proportions of girls than of boys

classified as well adjusted in both surveys, the

proportion of boys so classified increased from

one age group (6-1 1 years) to the other (12-17

years), while that of girls declined.

SUMMARY

In this report, estimates of the distributions

of perceptions of teachers and other school

officials on selected behavioral characteristics of

youths 12-17 years of age in the noninstitutional

U.S. population have been presented by age and

sex. These findings are based on responses

obtained by questionnaire from schools last

attended by youths examined in the Health

Examination Survey of 1966-70. A total of

6,867 youths were examined. They comprised a

sample drawn to be closely representative of

U.S. adolescents with respect to age, sex, race,

region, and certain other available demographic

and socioeconomic factors.

Data are presented on various aspects of the

behavior of youths in school related to growth

and development during the adolescent period as

seen by their teachers. A descriptive analysis was

made of the teachers’ responses concerning the

youths’ intellectual ability, academic perform:

ante, peer relations, and emotional adjustment

to school. Specific behavioral patterns are examined in relation to assessments of mental

development, achievement in school, and adjustment. Certain general findings are summarized

Table C. Percent distribution of youths by rating of level of adjustment, according to rating of intellectual ability and sex: United States,

1966-70

I

Rating of intellectual ability

Rating of level of adjustment Above average Averaga Below average

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Well adjusted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Somewhat maladjusted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seriously maladjusted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

92.2 95.6 83.8 89.0 56.7 59.2

6.5 4.1 15.3 10.2 38.6 37.2

1.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 4.7 3.6

10
EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT

Well adjustsd

100

[

Upper Middle ILLower

third third third

Somewhat maladjusted

Boys

‘Eis$l Girls

Upper Middle Lower

third third third

ACAOEMIC STANDING IN CLASS

Seriously maladju.q~

1

lW

Upper Middle Lower

third third third

Figure 5. Percent distribution of youths by level of academic performance, according to level of emotional adjustment and

sex: United States, 1966-70.

and compared with results from the study of to be more successful than adolescent boys,

growth and development of children conducted particularly with respect to adjustment to the

in a previous program of the National Health specific environment. This is consistent with the

Survey. findings, based on measured performance in this

In general, the responses tended to express survey, that girls achieved higher scores on tests

the impression that in the schools of the Nation of school achievement even though boys showed

as currently organized—assuming the goals of higher scores on tests of intellectual developformal education as presently generally con- ment.

ceived to be desirable–adolescent girlsappeared

11
lNational Center for Health Statistics: Behavior patterns of

children in school, United States. Vital and Health Statistics.

Series 1l-No. 113. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM) 72-1042. Health

Services and Mental Health Administration. Washington. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Feb. 1972.

2Natiomd Center for Health Statistics: Origin, program, and

operation of the U.S. Nationaf Health Survey. Vital and Health

Statistics. PHS Pub. No, 1000-Senes l-No. 1. Public Health

Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr.

1965.

3Nationaf Center for Health Statistics: Plan and initial

program of the Health Examination Survey. Vital and Health

Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Senes l-No. 4. Pubfic Health

Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, July

1965.

4National Center for Health Statistics: Cycle I of the Hesdth

Examination Survey: Sample and response, United States,

1960-62. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Senes

1l-No. 1. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Apr. 1964.

5National Center for Health Statistics: Plan, operation, and

response results of a program of chddren’s examination. Vital

and Health Stata”stics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Senes l-No. 5. Public

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Oct. 1967.

6National Center for Health Statistics: Plan and operation of

a Health Examination Survey of U.S. youths 12-17 years of age.

Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series l-No. 8.

Public Hezdth Seivice. Was.f-dngton. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Sept. 1969.

7National Center for Health Statistics: Intellectual development of youths as measured by a short form of the Wechsler

Intelligence Scale for Childre~ United States. Vital and Health

Statistics. Series 1l-No. 128. DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 76-1610.

Health Resources Adminktration. Wasl@ton. U.S. Government

Printing OffIce, Sept. 1973.

8National Center for Health Statistics: Reading and arithmetic achievement among youths 12-17 years as measured by the

Wide Range Achievement Test, United States. Vital and Health

Statistics. Series 1l-No. 136. DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 74-1618.

Health Resources Adsniniitration. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Jan. 1974.

‘Arnold, R. A.: The achievement of boys and girls taught by

men and women teache~, Elementary School J. 68.367.71,

1968.

10McCandles\ B. R: Adolescents: Behavior and development. Hensdale, IIL Dryden Press, 1970.

1lDatta, L. E., Schaefer, E., and Davis, M.: Sex and

scholastic aptitude as variables in teachem’ ratings of the

adjustment and classroom behavior of Negro and other seventhgrade students, .LEdtic.Psych. 59:94-101, 1968.

12Jackson, P. W., and Lahademe, H. M.:Inequalities of

teacher-pupil contacts. Paper presented in a symposium “Observing in Schools” at the 74th Annual Convention of the American

Psychological Association, New York, Sept. 1966.

13Sears, P. S., and Feldman, D. H.: Teachers’ interactions

with br:’s and with girls, NatLElementuty Principal 46:30-35,

1966.

14Lahademe, H. M.: Attitudinal and intellectual correlates

of attention: A study of four sixth-grade classrooms, J. Educ.-

Psych. 59:320-24, 1968.

15NationaJ Center for Health Statistics: Pseudoreplication:

Further evaluation and application of the brdanced half-sample

technique. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Senes

2-No. 31. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Jan. 1969.

16Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Relationships

among parent ratings of behavioral characteristics of chddren,

United States. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 11, No. 121.

DHEW Pub. No. (HSM) 73-1603. Health Services and Mental

Health Administration. WasMmgton. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Oct. 1972.

12
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES

Table 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7,

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by time and capacity known to person completing school

questionnaire, according to age and sex, and standard arror of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by school placement, according to aga and sex, and standard error

ofpercent for bothsexes: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of youths 12-17 yaars of age who skipped or repeated gradas and parcent distribution of youths by reason

.

for rapeating, according to age and sex, and standard arror of percent by sex: Unitad States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . .

Percent of youths 12-17 years of age with unusual amounts of absences from school in tha past yaar and percent

distribution of youths by reason for absences, according to age and sex, and standard error of percent by sex: United

States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of youths 12-17 years of age forwhomspacial resourcaswera recommended by type of problem, age, and

sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution and standard error of percant of youths 12-17 years of age for whom special rasourcas were

recommended byavaiiability and use of resource, according totypaof problem and sax: United States, 1966-70 . .

Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of intellectual ability and academic performance, according

toageand sex, andstandard error ofpercent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean rawscores andstandard deviations of scores onthe Vocabulary subtest of the WISCfor youths 12-17 yearsof

age, by level of intellectual ability, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean rawscores andstandard deviations ofscoras onthe Block Dasignsubtest oftha WISCfor youths 12-17 years of

age, by level of intellectual ability, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percant distribution of youths 12-17 years of agaby level of intellectual ability, according toattendance, age, and

sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: Unitad States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean rawscores andstandard daviationsof scores on the Reading subtestof the WRAT for youths 12-17 yaarsof

age, bylevel ofacademic performance, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean raw scores and standard deviations ofscores onthe Arithmetic subtest of the WRATfor youths 12-17 years of

age, bylevel ofacademic performancer sex, and age: United Statas,1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of youths 12-17 yaarsof age by Iavel of academic performance, according toattendance, age,

andsex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent of youths 12-17 yaars of age who repeated grades and parcent distribution of those repeating grades by

reason for repeating, according to level of academic performance and sex, and standard error of percent by

sex: UnitedStates,1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of youths 12-17years ofageby level ofacademic performance, according tolevel of intellectual

ability, age, andsex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of adjustment to school environment and peer group

relations, according toageand sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United Statas,1966-70 . . . . . . . . . .

rage

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

22

23

24

24

25

26

27

28

13

.
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES–Con.

Paga

Table 17. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by peer group relations, according to level of intellectual ability,

age, and sax, and standard error of parcent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. Percant distribution of youths 12-17 vears of aga by pear group relations, according to level of academic

performance, age, and sax, and standard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by peer group relations, according to school attendance, age, and

sex, and standard error of parcent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20. Parcent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by frequency of disciplinary action, according to school

attendance, age, and sex, and standard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21. Percant distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by fraquency of disciplinary action, according to Iaval of

intellectual ability, age, and sex, and standard error of percant by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . .

22. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by frequency of disciplinary action, according to Iaval of academic

performance, aga, and sax, and standard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23. Percant distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by frequency of disciplinary action, according to peer group

relations, aga, and sex, and standard arror of percent by sex: Unitad States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24. ParCent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by Iaval of adjustment to school environment, according to

attandanca, age, and sex, and standard error of parcent by sax: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25. Percent of youths 12-17 yeers of age for whom special resources were recommended, by level of adjustment to

school environment, type of problem, and sex, and standard arror of percent for both sexes: United Statas, 1966-70 .

26. Parcant distribution of youths 12-17 yaars of age by [ave[ of intellectual ability, according to Iaval of adjustment to

school environment, aga, and sex, and standard error of percent by sex: Unitad States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . .

27. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of academic performance, according to level of adjustment

to school environment, age, and sex, and standard arror of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . , . .

28. Percant distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by peer group relations, according to level of adjustment to school

environment, aga, and sex, and standard arror of parcant by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by frequency of disciplinary action, according to level of

adjustment to school environment, age, and sax, and standard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70 . . .

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

14
Table 1. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by time and capacity known to parson completing school questionnaire, according to age and

Age and sex

All ages,both sexes

Total, 12-17 yeara . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Boys

Total,12.17years . . . . . .

12yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

Total, 12-17years . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wears .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Bothsexes, . . . . . . . . . .

BOVS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Time known

=

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1Oo.c

?00.0

100.0

Ioo.a

100.0

100.0

too.a

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

‘100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

20.1

27.0

19.7

19.6

23.6

16.7

11.8

19.9

26.0

20.3

16.6

23:7

16.7

11.9

20.2

26.0

19.2

22.7

23.4

16.6

11.6

1.82

2.06

1.73

29.5

37.4

34.1

30.4

34.2

22.8

14.1

29.5

37.7

33.5

30.0

35.1

21.5

15.0

29.5

37.2

34.6

30.8

33.4

24.1

13.1

2.10

2.38

2.12

I

Capacity known

I

I

1-2

More

than 2

I

Total

years

years

Teacher

in

classroom

Percent distribution

22.5

15.4

25.5

22.1

23.1

26.1

21.7

23.1

14.0

26.6

27.0

21.5

27.3

23.3

21.9

16.9

24.3

17.0

24.8

29.0

20.0

1.55

1.79

1.56

27.9

20.1

20.7

27.9

19.1

32.5

52.5

27.5

20.3

19.5

25.3

19.7

34.5

49.7

28.4

19.9

21.9

29.5

18.5

30.3

55.3

1.01

1.45

1.09

100.0

_

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

10.3

28.7

15.0

7.6

3.5

1.7

1.4

10.3

27.4

16.0

8.5

3.3

1.5

1.0

10.3

30.1

14.0

6.7

3.7

1.9

1.8

1.23

1.16

1.39

I I I

Teacher, Schcml specialty Other ‘ore principal than 1

area

1.6

2.7

2.6

2.0

0.9

0.6

0.8

1.9

2.6

3.2

2.9

1.0

0.4

1.1

1.3

2.7

1.9

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.48

0.51

0.49

26.2

30.6

29.1

24.7

22.5

23.5

25.6

27.1

33.1

29.9

26.3

21.8

23.7

26.6

25.2

28.4

28.3

23.0

23.3

23.2

24.5

1.97

1.95

2.21

60.4

38.1

51.2

63.8

71.7

73.3

71.7

59.2

35.6

48.2

60.3

72.9

73.5

70.4

61.7

36.6

54.1

67.5

70.4

73.1

73.0

0.81

1.08

1.08

1.5

1.7

2.1

1.9

1.4

1.0

0.5

1.4

1.3

2.6

2.0

1.0

0.9

0.8

1.5

2.2

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.2

0.2

0.24

0.28

0.30

15
Table2. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by school placement, according toageand sex, andstandard error of percent for

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total, 12-17years . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

Total, 12-17 years . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard arror

Both sexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

both sexes: United States, 1966-70

Grade in school High

Other

5th or

school

6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Ilth 12th

placements’

lower

graduate

Percent distribution

1.4

5.2

1.5

0.4

0.4

0.2

1.5

5.7

1.7

0.6

1.3

4.7

1.3

0.2

0.7

0.4

0.26

6.0

25.5

5.9

1.3

0.4

6.6

27.5

6.7

1.8

0.3

5.3

23.4

5.0

0.7

0.4

0.67

15.9

55.2

23.4

6.8

1.7

0.6

0.4

16.5

53.5

26.5

8.1

2.5

0.8

15.2

56.9

20.3

5.4

0.8

0.4

0.7

0.42

18.8

12.4

57.5

28.5

6.3

1.0

0.5

18.9

11.0

53.7

32.6

7.6

1.8

0.9

18.7

13.9

61.3

24.2

5.1

0.2

0.39

16.0

0.2

10.1

48.8

26.5

6.7

2.0

16.1

0.3

9.2

44.1

29.8

8.5

2.9

16.0

11.0

53.7

23.0

4.9

1.0

0.46

16.3

0.2

12.9

51.7

27.8

7.8

15.7

0.3

11.1

47.6

26.8

11.2

17.0

0.2

14.8

55.8

28.8

4.4

0.35

13.6

0.2

11.8

51.2

25.4

13.2

10.3

50.1

25.8

14.0

0.3

13.3

52.4

24.9

0.59

9.5

0.1

0.2

12.0

53.0

8.8

0.1

0.2

11.4

49.5

10.1

0.3

12.6

56.6

0.60

1.5

0.2

0.1

9.9

1.2

0.2

0.2

8.4

1.7

0.2

11.5

0.27

1.1

?.5

1.4

1.1

0.9

0.4

1.1

1.4

1.9

1.8

1.5

1.5

0.5

1,3

0.7

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.3

0.3

0.9

0.22

Note.–Excludes approximately 8 percent of the youths, mair,ly high school graduates or other persons notinschool, forwhom there was

noresponse to the school questionnaire.

‘Includes those in special placement categories andthose whodiscontinued their schooling kforegraduation from high school.
Table3. Percent of youths 12-17 years of age who skipped or repeated grades and percent distribution of youths by reason for

repeating, according toageand sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total,12.17years . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . .. i........ . . .

13years, , . ., ...,.,.., . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . .. m. . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17.years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Total,12-17years . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years, . . .. m. . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years, . .,, ., . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Bothsexes . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys . ., . .,, ,, . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent

skipping

0.9

0.7

0.8

1.0

0.7

1.3

0.9

1.0

0.9

1.0

1.2

0.6

1.5

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.9

0.9

1.1

0.9

0.17

0.18.

0.21

Percent

repeatin~

15.8

18.3

14.3

17.5

16.7

14.2

13.2

19.6

21.6

15.7

23.9

19.0

19.3

17.8

11.9

14.8

12.9

11.1

14.2

8.5

8.5

1.02

1.12

1.10

Raason for repeatirg

Total

Academic Social Excess

failure

Other Combination

immaturity absenca

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

i 00.0

100.0

100.0

I 00.0

100.0

I00.0

I00.0

I00.0

100.0

100.0

I00.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

49.6

55.1

53.0

48.5

41.8

52.5

44.4

49.9

57.2

50.7

52.7

45.5

48.5

38.4

49.1

51.7

55.7

39.0

36.6

62.6

55.1

2.87

2.98

3.20

7.8

9.4

11.0

5.2

17.1

4.3

4.1

8.3

1?.9

12.5

5.0

8.5

5.2

6.1

7.1

5.4

9.1

5.7

14.8

2.1

1.67

1.73

2.25

2.7

3.7

0.7

3.5

1.8

4.0

1.8

3.0

3.5

1.2

4.2

2.1

4.5

1.3

2.1

4.1

2.0

1.5

2.6

3.0

0.62

1.08

0.87

22.8

15.1

20.4

25.0

25.3

28.0

27.0

19.4

9.5

16.9

19.3

21.7

27.2

27.0

28.6

24.0

24.7

37.7

30.3

30.2

26.6

1.53

1.79

2.77

17.1

16.7

14.9

17.8

20.0

11.2

22.7

19.4

17.9

18.7

18.8

22.2

14.6

26.2

13.1

14.8

10.5

15.6

16.8

2.5

15.3

1.55

1.90

2.15

17
Table4. Percent of youths 12-17 years ofagewith unusual amounts ofabsences from school inthepast year andprcent distribution

of youths byreason forabsences, according toageand sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Age and sex

Al I ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bovs

Total, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Totalr12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent

absent

more than

usual

12.8

8.4

9.6

12.5

16.0

15.4

16.6

12.0

7.4

8.3

11.5

15.1

14.0

17.8

13.6

9.4

10.9

13.5

16.9

16.9

15.4

0.73

0.79

0.87

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Illness

of

youth

51.1

49.6

57.3

51.9

47.6

52.7

48.7

45.8

52.9

59.4

50.9

36.9

41.6

41.7

55.8

46.9

55.7

52.7

57.5

62.5

56.2

2.56

3.30

3.06

Reason for absence

F

Percent distribution

1.8

4.6

3.0

1.3

1.2

1.0

1.2

1.3

2.8

1.2

1.1

2.4

8.1

4.5

1.2

1.0

0,50

0.57

0.98

12.6

7.9

6.5

8.8

14.4

17.3

17.2

19.3

2.0

11.3

9.2

23.9

31.2

27.5

6.5

12.6

2.8

8.5

5.6

4.9

6.2

1.39

2.47

1.16

24.1

32.6

24.2

26.1

24.6

17.1

22.7

23.1

35.6

22.5

29.7

22.5

14.4

19.0

25.0

30.4

25.6

23.0

26.5

19.7

26.6

1.88

2.50

2.49

Combination

10.4

9.9

7.4

10.2

12.1

11.7

10.4

10.6

9.5

6.8

8.9

13.9

11.6

10.7

10.3

10,1

7.8

11.3

10.4

11.7

10.0

1.37

1.51

2.22

18
Table5. Percent ofyouths, 12.17yeara ofagefor whom special resources were recommended, by type of problem, age, andsex, andstandard error ofwrcentbysex:

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . .

12 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17vears . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—BOVS

Total, 12-17 years . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years ... .,... . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . ...!. . . . . . .

17 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

Total, 12-17 years . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both aexes . . . . . . . .

Boys, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

United States, 1966-70

Some Type of problem

,esource

recOm- Hard

Sight- Speech Orthopedic slow Mentally Emotional y Remedial

Remedial

mended of

saving therapy handicap

Gifted

hearing

learner training, Other retarded disturbed reading

other

Percent of youth

16.7

19.6

21.1

17.5

15.5

11.2

14.1

19.5

23.0

24.9

20.2

16.4

13.7

14.9

13.9

15.9

17.2

14.6

12.5

8.7

13.3

0.63

0,97

0.76

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.8

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.3

1.3

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.09

0.16

0.07

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.8

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.06

0.04

0.09

1.1

1.8

1.4

1.3

0.7

0.6

0.9

1.3

1.7

1.7

1.2

1.0

0.9

0.9

1.0

1.9

1.1

1.3

0.4

0.2

0.9

0.18

0.23

0.24

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.8

0.07

0.04

0.14

2.8

2.7

3.0

3.3

1.3

2.7

3.8

2.5

2.5

3.3

2.8

1.4

3.3

2.1

3.0

2.9

2.7

3.8

1.3

2.2

5.6

0.46

0.45

0.54

5.3

6.3

6.5

5.5

5.3

3.5

4.0

6.4

7.5

7.4

7.1

6.6

4.1

5.2

4.1

4.9

5.6

3.9

3.9

2.9

2.8

0.44

0.59

0.46

1.3

1.0

1.9

1.5

1.8

0.6

1.2

1.9

1.4

2.6

2.1

2.7

0.6

1.6

0.8

0.5

1.1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.9

0.21

0.34

0.17

1.2

1.7

1.4

1.0

1.6

0.7

0.7

1.7

2.3

2.1

1.6

2.0

0.4

1.3

0.7

0.9

0.6

0.3

1.1

1.0

0.2

0.12

0.19

o.m

6.2

10.0

8.2

6.6

5.2

4.2

1.7

7.7

11.5

10.0

8.6

6.3

6.0

2.5

4.7

8.4

6.5

4.5

4.2

2.3

0.9

0.42

0.61

0.38

2.6

2.6

3.2

3.3

2.4

1.8

2.2

3.2

3.1

4.0

4.0

2.6

2.4

2.6

2.1

2.2

2.4

2.7

2.7

1.2

1.7

0.34

0.45

0.37

2.1

2.2

2.4

1.5

2.2

1.8

2.8

2.7

2.3

3.1

1.9

3.3

2.6

3.4

1.5

2.0

1.7

1.2

1.2

0.9

2.1

0.32

0.46

0.30

19
Tsble 6. Percent distribution and standard error of percent of youths 12-17 years of age for whom special resources were recommended by availability and use of resourrn,

according totweofp roblemandsex: United States, 1966-70

Type of problem

Hwdofhearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sight-saving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spdech therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~ichantiwp . . . . . . . . . . .

Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S%w Irnrners (not mentally

retarded ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mentally retatded. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotionally disturi%d . . . . . . . . . .

Remedial reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Engfish for youths from non-Englishcpeakingenvironrmnts . . . . . . . .

Rmnedial training in ~ial mtject

areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other resourm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hardofhearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sight+wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

%aecfttherapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OrthQXdw handicap . . . . . . . . . . .

Gifmd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34.3w learner {not mmally

I’Oti ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mentally retardd . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotionaiiydktudwd . . . . . . . . . .

Rmwdhfrsading. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Engfish for youths from n.m-En@iiapeaking snvironnwnts . . . . . . . .

%tmdial traini~ m apecid s“mct

●reas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other resc.urce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Both sexes

.otal

W.o

Coo

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

W.o

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

00.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

51 .B

58.8

67.3

85.2

89.2

72.9

66.8

51.5

73.3

52.2

57.4

53.8

20.86

19.61

6.47

14.73

2.69

4.14

4.2a

7.40

3.33

14.66

7.54

7.87

19.4

20.0

6.6

5.s

3.4

5.7

3.2

19.0

9.2

3.8

7.2

?7.1

16.29

10.25

2.27

8.o3

1.51

1.91

1.85

6.16

1.84

3.s4

2.36

4.93

26.9

11.1

26.0

9.0

7.4

21.4

10.0

29.5

17.5

44.0

35.4

29.2

12.64

Il.@

7.19

14.56

2.36

3.8a

3.61

6.21

3.17

14.97

7.87

6.m

e.oys Girls

Total Resourms Available, Not

I

Resources Ava,lable,

Total Not

used “ot used avaiIable used not used availabk

100.0

1OQ.o

100.0

lm.o

lm.o

Im.o

100.0

100.0

Im.o

lm.o

lm.o

100.0

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

..

...

...

Percmt distribution

45.8 17.0

79.4

62.9 5.2

37.9 24.6

90.4 3.0

71.1 5.0

86.2 3.0

46.2 14.1

73.6 8.3

51.5 5.6

55.6 7.8

46.8 19.3

Standard error of percent

24.44

22.12

10.19

36.95

3.10

5.14

5.53

7.78

3.58

m.48

8.09

8.43

15.76

. . .

3.31

34.66

1.76

1.39

2.25

5.84

2.m

5.64

3.05

5,75

37.3

20.6

31.8

37.4

6.6

24.0

10.8

37.1

16.1

42.9

36.5

33.9

19.46

22.12

lo.m

36.74

2.48

4s6

4.72

6.7a

3.64

m.11

7.91

6.8s

Im.o

lm.o

lm.o

Im.o

100.0

1m.o

100.0

100.0

1m.o

100.0

lm.o

lm.o

.

. . .

. . .

. . .

.,<

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

. .

. .

—

72.4

56.8

73.3

lm.o

68.1

75.9

66.1

68.4

72.7

53.7

60.1

66.8

41.37

25.87

7.24

22.s

3.62

4.65

8.06

18.66

4.21

17.65

11.za

9.38

27.6

43.2

6.5

3.8

6.9

3.7

30.7

10.9

6.1

13.2

3.56

24.52

4.73

. . .

2.33

3.76

4.13

16.26

2.3Q

. . .

3.55

7.96

16.2

8.1

17.2

5.2

9.9

16.4

46.3

33.8

20.9

. . .

. . .

6.66

. . .

3.40

4.30

6.96

7.43

3.48

17.85

10.82

6.W

20
.

Table 7. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of intellectual ability and academic performance, according to age

and sex, and standard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total, 12-17years . . . .

12years m. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years........,...,..

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Total, 12-17 years . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes ..,......

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

100.0

-

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Intellectual ability

27.7

27.1

28.1

26.5

25.9

30.0

29.2

24.9

24,0

27.0

24.7

24.4

26.0

22.9

30.7

30.3

29.2

28.4

27.5

34.2

35.7

1.25

1.16

1.59

50.4

51.2

48.0

51.3

49.3

50.8

51.8

49.9

50.0

46.8

48.6

50.5

50.9

53.4

50.8

52.4

49.2

54.0

48.1

50.8

50.3

0.95

1.10

1.39

19.5

20.0

20.7

19.7

21.8

16.5

17.6

23.0

23.8

23.6

24.5

22.9

20.4

22.0

15.9

15.9

17.7

14.7

20.6

12.5

13.1

0.89

1.10

0.93

Total

Percent distribution

2.4

1.8

3.2

2.5

3.0

2.6

1.3

2.3

2.2

2.5

2.2

2.2

2.8

1.7

2.6

1.4

3.8

2.9

3.8

2.4

0.9

0.21

0.23

0.33

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Academic standing

26.2

28.7

27.4

26.3

22.6

25.6

26.4

21.9

23.7

24.6

21.5

22.0

20.2

18.4

30.7

34.0

30.3

31.3

23.2

31.1

34.5

0.88

1.02

1.19

39.5

40.1

38.9

40.7

38.3

39.3

39.7

37.9

40.2

37.2

39.3

35.1

37.8

37.8

41.1

39.9

40.7

42.1

41.7

40.9

41.6

0.57

0.97

0.82

28.9

26.1

28.0

27.9

32.1

29.2

30.6

35.2

31.0

33.8

33.8

37.3

36.3

40.3

22.4

20.9

22.0

21.8

26.8

21.9

20.7

1.08

1.18

1.09

5.4

5.2

5.7

5.1

7.0

5.9

3.3

5.0

5.1

4.4

5,4

5.7

5.7

3.5

5.8

5.2

7.0

4.8

8.3

6.2

3.2

0.55

0.62

0.64

21
Table8. Mean rawscores andstandard deviations of scoreson the Vocabulary subtestof the WISCfor youths 12-17 years ofage, by level of

intellectual ability, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70

Intellectual ability

Sex and age

Boys

12years . . . .

13 years . . . .

14 years . . . .

15 years . . . .

16 years . . . .

17 years . . . .

Girls .

12years . . . .

13years . . . .

14years . . . .

15 years . . . .

16 years . . . .

17years . . . .

Above

average

Unknown

II I 1 , 1

Mean raw score Standard deviation

37.8

40.3

42.0

43.5

45.1

45.2

35.2

37.3

39.7

40.9

43.7

45.3

36.7

39.7

38.9

39.9

40.3

46.0

36.7

27.0

29.6

25.0

. . .

38.0

7.94

15.53

5.12

7.07

11.51

. . .

4.99

2.00

10.12

. . .

. . .

3.46

45.6

49.5

51.5

54.0

54.6

55.8

41.9

44.4

47.3

50.7

51.8

53.6

37.9

40.4

42.0

43.7

46.2

46.7

34.2

37.1

39.4

40.5

42.8

45.1

30.3

31.2

33.5

34.3

36.5

36.9

27.1

27.1

28.6

30.5

32.6

36.3

3s.2

40.1

37.0

42.7

39.3

43.4

29.0

33.9

39.0

37.4

45.8

36.4

7.40

7.89

8.03

7.07

7.86

6.89

7.20

7.27

8.34

8.64

8.38

7.79

8.47

9.03

8.61

9.15

8.85

9.37

7.32

8.75

8.86

8.46

8.24

8.43

8.23

8.73

9.48

8.12

9.53

9,29

8.01

8.48

8.07

8.78

9.62

9.68

6.33

10.01

6.76

10.55

10.71

5.17

6.89

9.62

10.34

11.15

9.16

14.35

Tabla 9. Mean raw scores and standard deviations of scores on the 810ck Design subtest of the WISC for youths 12-17 years of age, by level of

intellectual ability, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70

Intellectual ability

Mean

raw score,

all youths

Sex and age Above

iverage Average Below No basis

average

for

judging

Unknown Above

average

Below

No basis

for

judging

Unknown

average

Boys —

12 years . . . .

13years . . . .

14 years . . . .

15 years . . . .

16 years . . . .

17 years . . . .

Girls —

12 years . . . .

13yaars . . . .

14 years . . . .

15 years . . . .

16years . . . .

17 years . . . .

Mean raw score Standard deviation

25.6

27.7

30.8

31.3

34.2

33.9

22.4

25.0

27.6

27.7

29.4

32.0

34.9

35.3

40.0

39.1

42.5

41.6

29.9

32.6

36.8

36.1

37.2

4Ck2

24.9

27.0

30.6

32.0

35.0

35.4

20.9

24.0

26.3

28.2

29.0

31.2

18.6

20.6

22.9

23.4

25.9

27.8

14.0

15.7

19.5

17.7

16.9

25.8

27.4

34.1

26.5

41.1

34.8

11.7

32.9

8.0

10.4

32.0

. . .

18.0

11.03

10.69

10.44

10.89

9.13

9.64

12.58

12.03

11.18

12.14

11.23

10.93

11.98

13.02

12.50

12.16

12.63

12.70

11.79

12.87

12.19

12.63

13.08

12.65

10.74

1‘1.82

13.65

12.13

13.35

13.42

9.09

10.09

11.68

11.32

11.49

12.61

9.59

13.18

13.96

14.27

13.83

12.10

11.52

12.51

12.46

13.06

17.15

7.68

9.80

14.16

2.70

7.45

15.36

0.96

2.00

2.00

7,03

,..

. . .

13.85

20.4

26.1

25.1

26.0

29.7

33.6

20.1

23.0

26.5

22.0

26.6

28.7

22
Table 10. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of intellectual ability, according to attendance, age, and sex, and

standard error of percent by sax: United Statas, 1966-70

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bovs

Total, 12-17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Total, 12-17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . ..m.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys, , . .,, ,, ., . .,, .,,...., . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Good attendance I

Poor attendance

Total

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

30.9

28.9

30.5

30.4

29.8

34.1

32.8

27.6

26.3

29.2

27.6

26.7

28.7

26,8

34.4

31.7

31.8

33.4

33.0

39.8

38.6

1.40

1.19

1.93

51.3

52.1

49.4

52.2

50.4

51.6

52.2

51.2

51.2

48.2

49.8

52.6

52.8

53.4

51.4

53.0

50.7

54.8

48.1

50.3

51.0

1.14

1.26

1.60

Total

Percant distribution

17.8

18.9

20.1

17.4

19.8

14.3

15.0

21.3

22.5

22.6

22.6

20.7

18,5

19.8

14.1

15.2

17.5

11.7

18.9

9.9

10.3

0.76

0.90

0.98

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Abovaav.fags

ability

13.6

15.8

15.2

10.4

10.9

15.4

15.0

11.3

6.7

12.8

10.4

12.4

16.2

8.1

15.7

22.7

17.0

10.4

9.5

14.8

23.1

1.88

2.00

2,43

Average

ability

54.1

52.6

54.6

53.6

54,5

52.3

56.2

52.7

55.1

52.0

50.0

52.0

46.6

59.9

55.3

50.7

56.7

57.1

56.8

57.4

51.9

2.45

3.42

2.61

Belowaverage

ability

32.4

31.6

30.2

36.0

34.6

32.3

28.8

36.1

38.2

35.2

39.6

35.6

37.3

32.0

29.0

26.6

26.4

32.5

33.7

27.8

25.0

2.37

3,54

2.59

23
Table Il. Mean rawscores andstandard deviations of scores onthe Reading subtest of the WRATfor youths 12-17 years of age, bylevel of academic

performance, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70

Academic performance

Mean

raw score,

all y~uths

Upper

1/3 in

class

Age and sex

Boys —

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean raw score

41.1

44.E

47.C

48.9

51.2

51.e

43.1

46.C

49.4

50.8

54.4

55.8

41.9

46.8

50.0

51.1

54.1

55.4

42.5

45.3

48.8

52.6

54.9

55.2

39.1

45.1

51.5

46.3

49.3

54.0

43.2

48.3

48.2

50.2

52.3

52.9

32.2

25.7

44.6

39.8

80.0

56.1

37.3

37.5

31.7

49.8

59.2

46.8

10.83

10.46

10.03

8.33

10.86

9.94

10.03

9.96

10.06

9.96

10.BO

9.72

9.71

11.25

10.88

11.25

10.18

11.23

9.23

10.20

10.49

9.96

9.98

11.70

9.36

11.38

11.36

12.96

11.86

13.31

9.09

10.00

10.78

11.71

12.03

11.82

11.04

10.81

14.05

12.33

12.98

12.96

10,77

12.92

9.13

12.28

12.90

18.86

10.85

10.74

12.11

11.92

. . .

6.31

11.85

12.72

16.22

18.90

7.49

10.34

50.8

54.0

56.0

61.5

62.6

63.9

49.5

53.0

56.7

60.4

62.1

66.2

33.6

36.3

37.4

41.5

45.2

46.5

34.7

37.5

42.3

41.3

48.2

4B.7

Table 12. Mean raw scores and standard deviations of scores onthe Arithmetic subtest of the WRATfor vouths12-17 vearsofaae. bv level of academic

. . .

performance, sex, and age: United States, 1966-70

Academic parfcmmance

Mean

raw score,

all youths

Sex and age

.

Upper Middle

1/3 in 1/3 in

class class

Lower No basis

113 in for Unknown

c1ass judging

80YS —

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—G irk

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘f5years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean raw score Standard deviation

19.1

21.1

23.0

24.1

25.8

25.6

19.3

21.1

23.0

23.9

25.3

25.8

23.0

26.3

29.0

29.6

32.7

34.1

22.1

24.7

27.7

29.9

30.1

31.9

19.5

21.7

23.9

25.5

28.0

26.9

19.0

21.0

22.2

24.0

25.4

25.3

16.3

17.2

18.9

20.4

22.0

23.0

16.6

16.4

19.0

19.3

20.9

21.9

17.8

22.1

22.5

22.6

23.4

26.6

19.5

20.0

22.4

23.3

24.1

23.0

16.1

12.5

18.8

19.4

38.0

30.0

17.0

15.9

20.1

21.8

31.8

24.6

5.24

5.97

5.48

4.20

5.44

6.57

4.46

5.11

6.19

5.61

5.32

6.42

4.32

5.45

5.09

5.29

5.72

6.33

4.71

4.55

5.00

5.13

5.79

5.46

3.93

4.69

5.72

6.05

6.05

6.15

3.59

3.80

4.60

5.55

5.27

5.31

4.28

6.14

6.44

6.89

5.07

6.73

4.71

5.76

6.05

7.88

7.31

9.73

4.68

7.41

5.63

3.24

. . .

2.47

4.18

4.64

5.18

6.90

4.00

3.91

24
Table 13. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of agaby level ofacademic performance, according toattendance, age, and sex,

andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

—

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total, 12-17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Total, 12-17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . .. m........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Bothsexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1Coo

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

...

...

...

30.5

31.6

30.1

31.1

28.6

30.6

30.8

25.7

26.6

27.3

25.0

27.3

24.1

22.6

35.6

36.9

33.2

37.5

29.9

37.6

38.7

0.95

0.95

1.49

43.3

43.0

42.6

43.9

42.3

44.7

43.4

41.7

43.4

40.2

42.2

38.3

44.1

42.1

45.0

42.6

45.2

45.7

46.7

45.4

44.7

0.71

1.15

0.96

Percent distribution

26.2

25.4

27.3

25.1

29.1

24.7

25.8

32.6

30.0

32.5

32.8

34.3

31.8

35.4

19.4

20.5

21.7

16.8

23.4

17.1

16.6

0.98

0.92

1.20

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

...

...

...

Poor attendance

=E=l_=

10.6

15.1

18.7

8.5

6.0

9.3

10.2

6.0

4.8

11.1

8.0

4.2

5.3

4.3

14.9

22.8

24.7

9.0

7.7

12.9

17.2

1.66

1.93

2.08

31.9

36.7

32.6

36.3

29.2

26.9

32.8

28.0

34.8

30.1

34.8

24.3

19.7

29.8

35.3

38.0

34.6

37.6

33.6

33.4

36.2

1.78

2.29

2.78

57.5

48.3

48.6

55.1

64.8

63.7

57.0

66.0

60.3

58.7

57.2

71.6

75.0

65.9

.49.8

39.1

40.7

53.4

58.7

53.6

46.6

2.20

2.79

2.86

25
TabIe 14. Percantof youths 12-17 yaarsof agewhorepeatd grades andpercent distribution ofthosa repating grades byreason for repeating,

according to level of acedemic performance andsex, andstandard error. of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Sex and academic

performance

Both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . .

Upper l/3in class . . . . . . .

Middle 1/3 in class . . . . . .

Lowar 1/3 in class . . . . . .

Boys

Total, 12-17 years . .

Upper l/3inclass . . . . . . .

Middla 1/3 in class . . . . . .

Lower 1/3 in class . . . . . .

Girls

Total, 12-17 years . .

Upper 1/3 in class . . . . . . .

Middle 1/3 in class . . . . . .

Lower 1/3 in class . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes, total . . .

Boys, total . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls, total . . . . . . . . . . .

Parcent

Raason for repeating

who had

repeated All Academic Social

Excessive

Truancy

Changed Othar Combinations

grades reasons failure

absence,

immaturity schools reasons of reasons

other

Percent distribution

15.8

3.1

9.4

34.4

.

19.6

3.7

11.3

37.2

11.9

2.6

7.7

29.8

1.02

1.12

1.10

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

50.1

34.8

47.8

52.2

50.5

43.0

48.3

51.8

49.3

26.2

47.1

53.2

2.95

3.01

3.39

8.0

1.9

8.5

8.4

8.4

3.7

6.7

9.2

7.4

11.0

6.6

1.90

1.93

2.46

1.4

2.7

1.B

1.6

2.3

1.0

5.5

0.9

0.48

0,66

0.57

7.4

14.0

8.1

6.7

5.1

6.5

6.7

4.5

11.6

21.8

10.0

11.2

1.05

0.94

2.70

2.8

7.5

4.3

1.9

3.1

10.1

5.7

1.9

2.3

4.8

2.3

2.0

0.66

1.15

0.93

13.3

29,4

18.0

10.2

11.9

22.1

15.8

10.0

16.7

37.0

20.9

10.7

1.14

1.51

2.39

16.9

9.8

13.5

lB.8

19.3

14.6

16.9

20.4

12.6

4.7

8.6

15.5

1.59

2,14

2,12

26
Table 15. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of academic performance, according to level of intellectual ability, age, and

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years. .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

BOW

Total, 12-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14y~ars . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Total, 12-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexas . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

sex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Above-average ability

EIEEl!E

100.0

=

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

76.4

83.5

78.0

79.0

75.0

68.5

74.1

70.9

75.2

72.5

75.6

75.2

63.9

60.3

81.1

90.6

83.2

82.0

74.7

72.2

83.5

1.45

2.12

1.38

20.8

14.7

20.2

18.9

20.9

27.2

23.1

25.0

22.5

24.6

21.4

19.1

29.9

34.5

17.2

8.0

16.0

16.7

22.5

25.0

15.4

1.24

1.82

1.41

2.8

1.8

1.9

2.1

4.2

4.3

2.7

4.1

2.3

3.0

3.0

5.7

6.2

5.2

1.7

1.3

0.8

1.3

2.8

2.8

1.1

0.51

0.83

0.46

Percent distribution

100.0

10.0.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

11.2

13.5

13.0

11.4

7.2

11.4

9.9

9.4

11.9

11.4

7.3

8.0

8.3

8.8

13.0

15.1

14.4

15.2

6.3

14.6

11.0

0.73

0.92

1.06

65.4

68.2

66.7

66.5

66.7

61.6

61.5

62.0

67.2

61.4

69.0

59.8

60.1

52.9

68.8

69.3

71.8

64.2

74.3

63.2

70.8

1.31

1.40

1.82

23.4

18.2

20.4

22.0

26.1

27.0

28.6

28.6

20.9

27.1

23.6

32.2

31.6

38.3

18.2

15.6

13.8

20.6

19.4

22.2

18.2

1.06

1.10

1.57

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

1.4

2.1

1.4

1.7

2.0

0.5

0.8

1.4

1.5

0.7

0.8

2.3

3.2

1.2

3.5

3.5

1.5

0.27

0.21

0.69

10.4

11.5

9.0

11.3

10.9

7.7

11.4

8.7

10.0

9.8

5.7

9.7

4.4

12.0

13.0

13.8

7,8

20.9

12.3

13.4

10.3

0.83

0.96

1.58

88.2

86.4

89.6

87.0

87.0

91.7

88.6

90.6

88.5

88.7

93.6

89.5

95.6

88.0

84.7

83.0

90.9

75.6

84.2

85.1

89.7

0.98

0.99

1.75

27
Table 16. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of adjustment toschool environment and Wergroup relations, according

toageand sex, andstandard error ofpercent by sex: United States, 1966-70

School adjustment I

Peer group relations

I

Total

Well

adjusted

Age and sex No basis

for

judging --J_- Below

No basis

for

everage

judging

Somewhat

maladjusted

Seriously

maladjusted

Above

average

Total Average

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 yeara .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total, lZ-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17yeers . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gids

Total, 12-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16yeers . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution

100.0 76.8 14.1 1.4 7.7 100.0 12.4 64.0 10.4 13.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

78.7

74.5

75.6

74.0

79.4

78.8

73.8

73.2

71.3

72.4

74.6

77.2

74.7

79.8

84.5

77.7

79.0

73.3

81.6

83.0

0.67

0.87

0.B7

14.6

16.0

15.3

14.0

11.6

12.5

16.Ss

18.9

19.1

19.1

14.7

12.7

15.9

11.3

10.2

12.9

11.4

13.4

10.4

9.1

0.45

0.73

0.67

0.8

1.5

1.1

2.5

1.2

1.1

1.8

1.0

2.2

1.6

3.3

1.1

1.4

1,0

0.6

0.8

0.6

1.7

1.3

0.8

0.17

0.18

0.23

5.8

8.0

7.9

9.5

7.8

7.6

7.6

6.9

7.4

6.9

7.5

8.9

8.0

7.9

4.6

8.6

9.1

11.5

6.7

7.1

0.61

0.59

0.89

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

13.6

11.0

10.9

10.9

10.6

18.0

10.5

11.5

9.3

9.8

10.8

8.5

13.1

14.4

15.7

12.7

12.1

11.1

12.8

22.8

0.66

0.73

67.6

67.1

64.7

60.6

63.7

59.0

65.8

67.8

69.0

66.8

63.4

65.1

61.5

62.1

67.4

65.1

62.4

57.6

62.3

56.4

1.12

1.34

1.27

10.4

11.4

9.6

11.4

8.5

10.9

10.6

12.4

11.1

9.9

9.9

8.0

11.9

10.2

8.3

11.7

9.4

12.9

8.9

9.8

0.50

0.52

0.80

8.4

10.6

14.7

17.1

17.2

12.2

13.2

8.3

10.6

13.5

15.9

18.4

13.5

,

13.3

8.5

10.5

16.0

18.4

15.9

11.0

0.93

1.06

0.89 1.02

28
Table 17. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by peer group relations, mording tolevel ofintellectual atiliW, age, andsex, andtindard error ofwrcentby Sx:

United States, 1966-70

Above-average ability I Average ability I Below-average ability

Age and sex Above- Average Below- AboveTotal averags average Total

popularity average

popularity popularity popularity

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 yews . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

li5years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 yean . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Boys

Total, 12.17 years . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13year5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 yews . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Girls

Totd,12-17ycsrs . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14y@us . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 YAWS. . . . . . . . . . . . .

16yMrs . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 yac.rs . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution

100.0 31.3 64.7 3.9 100.0 6.9 81.3 9,8 100.0 4.0 66.8 2%2

80.9

82.1

80.8

82.3

84.3

77.4

83.2

81.2

84.7

84.1

86.3

85.8

78.7

79.4

WJ.6

78.6

77.8

79.1

82.8

76.0

0.88

0.70

1.32

9.7

10.9

9.8

9.6

8.9

9.9

9.0

10.7

9.6

7.9

6.8

6.2

10.7

10.6

6.7

12.1

11.6

12.4

9.6

9.1

0.78

0.87

1.10

100.0

1U3.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

lW.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

1Ou.o

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

3.1

6.7

3.2

5.5

3.4

3.5

1.7

6.7

3.0

4.8

3.9

4.7

6.4

6.8

3,7

6.3

2.5

0.58

0.82

1.21

69.5

65.7

71.9

59.1

73.2

62.4

69.3

68.0

68.0

73.7

54.5

79.0

63.1

82.9

73.7

62.6

68.5

51.6

62.0

61.2

2.10

2.26

3.34

27.4

27.6

24.8

35.5

26.8

34.3

272

30.3

26.3

23.3

30.7

21.0

32.9

32.3

22.9

30.7

27.8

42.1

38.0

%.4

1.91

1.79

3.10

100.0

100.0

1OQ.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

lCO.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1OQ.o

1C@.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

160.0

100.0

1W.o

. . .

. .

. . .

34.8

25.2

26.o

29.9

30.0

43.4

29.3

33.8

22.5

26.2

32.5

27.7

35.8

33.0

35.6

27.6

25.9

27.7

31.9

48.3

1.70

2.41

1.94

63.0

70.0

69.7

66.1

68.5

61.4

66.8

84.4

72.5

67.5

66.3

69.4

59.0

63.1

62.0

67.9

71.8

C6.8

64.3

46.6

1.43

2.s3

1.76

2.2

4.8

4.2

4.0

3.4

5.2

3.9

1.8

5.0

6.3

2.2

2.9

5.2

3.9

2.4

4.5

2.4

5.6

3.8

5.1

0.80

0.57

1.02

100.0

100.0

1CQo

100.0

loa.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

VXt.o

100.0

100.0

. . .

. .

. . .

8.4

7.0

8.3

6.2

6.9

12.6

7.7

6.2

5.7

6.0

7.8

6.0

10.5

10.1

10.7

8.3

10.6

8.5

7.7

15.0

0.60

0.57

1.08

29
Tabfe 18. Percent distribution of vouths 12-17 vears of we bv Deer arouDrelations. Xcor&nq tolevel ofacademic wrformance. aQe, andsex. andstandard error afnercentk

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BOW —

T0tal,12-17 years . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

Total, 12-17 years . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13w3ars . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . .

BOYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

sex: United States, 1966.70

Upper 1/3 in class Middle l/3 in class Lower 1[3 m class

Abcwe- Average Below- Above- Average Below- AboveTotal average average Total

Average

Belowaverage Total popularity popularity

average avelatw average

popularity popularity popularity popularity popularity

popularity

popularity

Percent distribution

loil.o

100.0

100.0

1OQ.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1@Jo

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

lW.O

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

33.9

26.7

2s.1

33.3

32.1

47.1

3.26

32.9

23.9

24).3

39.8

32.9

40.7

33.3

34.7

28.8

26.5

27.3

31.6

50.4

2.07

3.05

2.04

64.5

64.1

69.9

69.6

64.7

65.6

50.2

64.9

64.6

71.5

67.7

59.5

63.5

58.2

64.3

63.5

5S.6

71.0

69.3

67.0

46.1

1.S8

2.07

1.96

2.5

2.0

3.4

2.3

2.0

2.2

2.7

2.5

2.2

4.6

1.9

0.6

3.6

1.1

2.4

1.6

2.5

2.5

3.3

1.4

3.5

0.47

0.57

0.70

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1W.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1S0.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

9.6

10.2

6.9

9.6

7.8

8.3

15.0

8.6

9.4

5.7

9.0

5.8

6.9

16.1

10.5

11.1

8.0

10.2

9.6

9.7

14.B

0.75

0.83

0.92

63.4

S2.O

B5.2

83.4

86.2

S6.4

77.1

84.4

BO.B

B7,1

83.S

90.9

90.2

74.8

82.4

B3.3

83.4

83.1

B2.1

82.7

79.4

1.W

1.05

1.14

7.0

7.7

7.9

7.0

6.0

5.3

7.9

7.0

9.8

7.2

7.2

3.3

2.9

10.1

7.1

5.5

8.7

6.7

B.3

7.6

5.8

0.83

0.97

1.03

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

10Q.O

10Q.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

lW.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

10+3.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

3.8

2.2

5.2

3.5

5.3

1.8

4.5

3.5

2.4

5.s

2.7

4.9

1.5

3.5

4.2

1.8

4.3

4.9

6.0

2.2

6.5

0.49

0.67

0.97

68.1

70.4

65.3

69.4

63.2

74.2

67.1

72.0

70.9

69.2

74.0

6s.5

77.7

72.3

61.7

69.8

59.2

61.7

54.6

67.8

57.4

1.75

1.91

3.0!

2s.1

27.4

29.5

27.1

31.5

24.1

28.3

24.5

26.7

25.0

23.3

26.5

20.7

24.2

34.1

28.4

36.5

335

39.5

28.9

36.1

1.66

1.54

2.77

30
Table 19. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years ofageby ~ergroup relations, according toschool attendance, age, andsex, and

Age and sex

All agas, both sexes

Total, 12-17 yaars . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total, 12-17 years . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Total,12-17years . . . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years .,, , . . . . . . . . . ..m

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Bothsexes . . . . . . . . . .

Boys, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

standard error of percant by sex: United States, 1966-70

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Good attendance I

Poor attendance

Aboveaveraga

popularity

15.5

15.8

12.7

14.3

15.0

13,6

23.0

13.1

13.6

10.3

12.6

14.0

11.7

17.8

18.0

18.0

15.3

16.1

16.1

15.6

28.0

0.87

0.96

1.06

Average

popularity

75.3

74.7

76.2

76.8

75.4

80.1

67.9

77.6

75.4

78.7

79.1

77.7

82.6

71.8

72.9

74.0

73.6

74.3

72.8

77.4

64.3

0.89

1.05

1.20

Belowaverage

popularity

Percent distribution

9.2

9.5

11.1

8.9

9.6

6.3

9.0

9.3

10.9

11.0

8.3

8.3

5.7

10.4

9.1

8.0

11.1

9.6

11.1

7.0

7.7

0.51

0.58

0.79

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

6.9

6.1

8.8

4.8

6.6

6.2

8.5

6.1

3.9

11.9

3.8

9.7

1.8

5.7

7.5

8.3

6.6

5.7

3.7

9.8

11.5

1.04

1.42

1.42

63.5

64.4

64.8

69.5

60.4

61.4

61.6

64.3

58.1

62.4

66.3

64.7

65.6

65.8

62.8

70.4

66.5

72.5

56.1

57.9

57.1

2.65

3.48

3.30

Belowaverage

popularity

29.6

29.5

26.4

25.6

33.0

32.4

29.9

29.6

38.0

25.7

29.8

25.6

32.6

28.5

29.7

21.3

26.9

21.7

40.3

32.3

31.4

2.45

3.30

2.93

31
Tab[e 20. Percent distribution of youths 12.17 years of we by frquency ofdisciplinaw action. Xcorting to XhoOlattendance, age, ati sex, andstandard error ofpercent Lw sex: Umred Stales,

1956-70

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Boys

Total, 12-17 years .

12year5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Girls

T.axal,12.17 years . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15vears . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Boths.?xes . . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

All youths Gwd attendance

II

Total II Never

disciplined

occasionally

disciplined

Fre. I

No bask I

Never

I

occa- Frequently for Total

disciplined

disciplined

sionally quent[y

judging disciplined disciplined

II

Percent distribution

100.0

.

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1silo

10Q.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1W.o

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

65,2

62.0

61.9

61.0

56.6

71.5

70.5

56.0

50.1

52.5

52.0

61.0

63.9

5S.4

74.8

74.6

71.3

70.3

72.4

79.3

82.6

0.66

1.18

0.60

22.5

26.7

25.1

26.1

19.4

18.5

17.s

29.J2

35.0

32.0

34.4

25.1

23.6

26.8

15.1

17.9

18.1

17.5

13.5

13.3

8.8

0.76

0.87

1.00

3.3

3.6

3.7

3.1

3.4

2.5

3.1

5.0

6.0

5.8

4.5

4.3

3.6

5.7

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

2.5

1.1

0.6

0.25

0.45

0.22

8.9

7.5

9.4

9.9

10.6

7.6

6.5

8.2

8.0

8.7

9.2

8.6

8.7

8.1

8.6

5.9

9.0

10.6

11.7

6.3

8.0

0.69

0.79

0.61

100.0

.

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

16+3.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

160.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

54.5

60.6

55.9

52.9

52.9

59,6

47.7

40.3

45.4

43,2

51.3

34.6

44.6

26.3

67.2

71.0

65.4

54.3

69.8

72.9

69.4

2.09

3.35

2.66

34.7

20.5

32,9

33.2

37.6

29.9

41.8

43.s

42.3

40.0

30.5

51.5

37.8

55.9

26.6

22.5

27.6

35.6

24.6

23.2

26.1

2.16

2.64

3.05

10.6

8.9

11.2

13.9

8.5

10.3

10.5

16.0

12.3

16.6

18.1

13.7

17.7

15.9

6.2

6.6

7.0

10.1

:1.6

3.9

4.5

1.28

1.72

1.24

Total

100.0

.

100.0

100.0

109.0

100.0

100.0

100.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1W.o

100.0

100.0

1OQ.o

100.0

lCO.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. .

. . .

Never

Occa. Fre.

disc, p!med

smmilly q.ently

dtmphned dw,plmed

74.0

67.7

69.7

69.2

76.1

81.0

62.8

54.5

55.7

60.0

57.5

72.4

74,8

72.0

83.9

Sol

79.7

81.9

64.3

67.4

93.2

0.84

1.32

1.16

23.4

26.6

27.2

28.7

19.3

17,6

154

31.5

362

349

280

24.7

23.0

24.4

15.0

16.6

19.2

17.5

13.5

11.8

6.8

0.75

1.16

1.11

2.5

3,7

3,2

2.1

2.6

1.4

1.7

4.0

6,2

52

3.5

2.8

2.1

3.6

1.0

1.2

1.1

0.6

2.2

0.7

0.25

0.4s

0.17

32
Table 21. Percent distribution ofyouths 12-17 years of~ebyfrequenW oftisciplinaw actiOn, accotiingtolewlof ;ntellwtual atility, age, andsex, andstandard error ofprcent

Age and sex

All ages,both sexes

Total, 12.17 years . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—BOYS

Tmal,12.17yeats . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14year.s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lbyem, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Girls

Total, 12.17 years , . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13year* . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Bmhsexes . . . . . . . .

BOYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

by sex: United States, 1966-70

Above-average ability Average ability Below-average ability

Never occa- Fre- Never occa- Fre. Occa. FreTmal sionally quentlv Total Never

disciplined disciplimd discip!imd sionally

dkcipli”ed

quently Total

disciplined disciplimd sianally

disciplimd

quently

disciplined disciplined

Percent distribution

100.C

.

100.C

100.C

too.c

1Oo.c

100.C

100.C

100.0

100.0

100.0

100,0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.C

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

86.4 —

79.1

82.5

83.3

88.9

92.3

94.0

79.4

69.4

73.4

78.3

82.9

89.8

B9.7

92.0

86.9

91.2

89.4

94.6

94.1

96.7

1.13

2.03

1.28

12.4 —

19.5

15.6

15.3

9.9

6.9

5.3

18.1

27.6

22.8

20.6

15.5

8.4

9.3

7.8

13.1

8.8

10.6

4.6

5.9

2.B

0.98

1.B2

1.30

1.2 —

1.3

1.B

1.4

t .2

0.7

0.7

2.5

3.0

3.8

3.1

1.5

1.8

1.1

0.2

0.8

0.5

0.40

0.86

0.13

100.0

.

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

7t .2 —

66.9

58.6

66.7

75.7

76.6

73.6

61.4

55.1

58.7

56.8

71.3

88.8

58.5

B1.0

7B.7

78.0

76.3

80.5

84.6

90.5

0.76

1.41

1.07

25.9

—

30.2

28.4

29.6

21.3

21.1

23.7

34.3

41.1

36.4

37.5

25.3

28.2

36.4

17.4

19.3

21.0

21.9

17.0

73.7

9.5

0.63

1.26

0.95

2.9

_

2.9

2.9

3.7

3.0

2.4

2.7

4.3

3.7

4.9

5.7

3.4

3.0

5.1

1.5

2.0

1.1

1.8

2.5

‘t.7

0.31

0.50

0.30

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.O

1Cm.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1W.o

?03.0

10+3.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

49.9 —

50.3

.f5.7

46.0

52.4

51.3

56.1

41.6

39.9

36.9

36.6

42.9

48.4

48.9

62.0

6s.1

5B.B

62.6

6-4.6

56.0

67.4

2.19

2.25

3.12

41.0

38.5

44.3

48.2

38.3

41.1

32.8

46.6

43.8

50.4

57.4

46.1

41.0

35.4

32.7

30.9

36.8

31.5

26.3

41.3

28.8

2.12

2.25

3.36

9.1

11.2

9.9

5.9

9.3

7.6

11.0

11.6

16.3

12.7

5.6

11.1

10.6

15.7

5.3

4.0

6.5

5.9

7.1

2.7

3.9

1.10

1.48

1.20

33
Table 22. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by frequency of disciplinary action, according to level of academic performance, age, and sex, and standard error of

Age and sex

All ages, both wxes

Total, 12.17 years . . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15year5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I?years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60ys —

Tcdal,12-17 years . . .

12yews . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

—

Totd,12-17 years . . .

12 yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard arror

Both sexes . . . . . . . .

soys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

percent by sex: United States, 1886-70

UpWr 1/3 in class I Middle 113 in class I Lower 113 in CIW

Never occa- FreNever occa- Fre.

Total

disciplimd

occa- Fre.

sionally quently Total Never

disciplined

sionally quently Total

disciplined dkciplimd disciplined disciplimd disciplined

sionally quently

disciplined disciplined

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Ioll.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

10Q.O

16Q.O

10Q.O

100.0

10Q.O

. . .

. . .

. . .

B7.7

77.7

84.7

83.9

91.9

88.3

96.7

82.6

8s.5

77.4

60.1

88.9

94.1

98.0

91.4

84.6

80.7

S6.5

94.8

97.7

97.1

1.03

1.76

1.23

12.1

21.s

16.3

15.8

6.1

3.7

3.3

17.1

30.5

22.6

19.1

11.1

5.9

4.0

8.6

15.4

9.3

13.5

5.2

2.3

2.9

1.03

1.77

1.23

0.1

0.4

0.4

0.3

1.0

0.9

0.07

0.16

10Q.O

1OQ.o

10+3.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

76.3

70.9

72.5

71.9

82.0

81.4

S1 .5

67.3

69.0

62.9

80.0

77.1

78.0

70.6

65.0

83.3

S1 .3

84.0

S6.1

84.6

92.0

1.26

2.39

1.12

22.2

—

26.6

25.8

26.5

17.1

17,9

17.4

311.7

37.7

35.0

37.7

21.2

21.4

27.7

14.1

15.2

17.4

15.1

13.5

14.6

7.5

1.10

2.17

1.00

1.4

2.4

1.7

1.6

1.0

O.B

1.1

2.0

3.3

2.0

2.3

1.6

0.8

1.7

0.9

1.5

1.3

0.9

0.4

0.9

0.5

0.30

0.56

0.28

100.0

103.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

180.0

lCO.O

100.0

1Ou.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

49.8

49.s

45.6

44.6

53.6

53.3

52.3

41.5

40.0

37.2

37.6

46.3

46.4

41.3

83.0

63.7

58.1

55.6

65.2

85.4

73.1

2.M

2.46

2.3f

40.2

39.6

42.5

46.3

36.3

38.5

37.8

45.6

45.6

48.4

61.6

42.8

43.1

44.1

31.7

31.2

36.6

38.1

25.8

30.6

25.9

1.92

2.35

2.46

10.0

10.6

11.9

9.1

10.2

8.2

9.9

12.9

14.5

16.4

10.9

10.9

10.6

14.8

5.3

5.1

6.3

6.2

S.9

3.9

1.0

0.97

1.31

1.00

34
Table 23. Percent dlstributionof youths 12-17 vearsof age bv frequency of ti%iptinarv action, according topeergroup relations, aS, and=x, andtiandard error ofwrcentby Sx:

United States, 1966.70

Above.average popularity I Average popularity I Be[wwaverage popularity

Age and sex

Never occa- FreTotal

disciplined

sionally quently

disciplined disciplimd

Never Occa. FreTotal disciplined sionally quently

disciplined disciplined

*

Frequently

disciplimd

All ages, both saxes

Total, 12-17 years , . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ifiyear s . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Boys

Total, 12.17 years . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Girls

Total, 12-17 years . . .

12yetws . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13war5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . . .

BOVS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girl$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.0 82.6 16.1 1.4 100.0 72.6 25.1 2.3 100.0 47.1 37.7 15.1

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

76.3

72.8

83.5

61.4

68.4

92.2

73.4

69.9

59.9

72.9

73.5

84.6

81.4

89.2

81.2

81.8

92.1

89.2

91.0

96.3

1.91

3.18

1.65

23.7

24.3

15.6

15.8

10.6

6.5

24.6

30.1

33.2

25.5

24.7

15.4

16.3

9.9

18.8

18.2

7.9

7.1

7.4

1.0

1.s0

3.13

1.46

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

69.0

69.0

67.1

76.4

77.1

80.9

62.8

56.1

59.2

57.6

68.7

69.9

69.5

83.3

82.6

79.6

77.6

85.2

64.8

93.3

0.91

1.43

1.21

2B.1

28.7

30.6

21.1

20.8

17.?

33.7

39.3

37.3

3s.9

27.3

27.2

26.7

15.8

16.4

19.3

21.5

14.0

14.1

6.2

0.91

1.36

1.19

2.9

2.3

2.3

2.5

2.0

1.2

3.5

4.7

3.5

3.6

4.0

2.9

1.6

0.9

1.0

1.1

0.9

0.8

1.1

0.5

0.23

0.51

0.22

160.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

103.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

IO+J.O

100.0

1W.o

100.0

1Ou.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

.,.

. . .

. . .

38.1

54.0

43.1

52.1

53.4

41.7

35.1

31.6

42.1

30.8

39.1

40.5

27.4

59.6

46.6

65.2

57.0

62.3

65.4

59.2

2.59

3.01

4.18

42.9

26.7

42.6

34.5

35.3

44.2

42.5

43.5

30.5

49.8

43.9

39.4

48.5

32.8

42.2

26.9

34.4

27.2

31.4

38.8

2.66

3.55

4.26

19.0

17.4

14.3

13.3

11.3

14.1

22.4

24.8

27.3

19.4

17.0

20.1

24.1

7.6

11.3

7.9

8.6

10.5

3.1

1.9

2.03

2.61

1.&l

2.6

0.7

2.8

1.0

1.3

2.0

6.9

1.6

1.8

2.3

0.9

3.7

1.6

0.7

0.36

0.69

0.41

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

35
Table 24. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of adjustment to school environment, according toettendance,

age, andsex, andstanderd error ofpercerrt by sex: United States, 1966-70

Age and sex

●

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys

Total, 12-17 years .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls

Totel,12-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

,..

. . .

—

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Good attendance IPoor attendance

Well Somewhat

adjusted maladjusted

86.7

85.0

82.8

85.1

87.7

90.6

91.0

83.4

80.2

78.4

80.7

86.3

90.0

87.5

90.2

90.1

87.4

89.9

89.2

91.1

94.3

0.45

0.76

0.72

12.5

14.4

15.7

14.3

11.2

9.0

8.6

15.6

19.1

19.3

18.6

12.4

9.5

11.8

9.3

9.6

12.0

9.7

9.8

8.5

5.5

0.42

0.73

0.70

Seriously

maladjusted

Total

Percent distribution

0.8

0.5

1.5

0.6

1.1

0.4

0.5

1.1

0.7

2.3

0.7

1.2

0.5

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.6

0.4

1.0

0.4

0.3

0.11

0.18

0.16

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

Well

adjusted

58.8

69.0

62.4

60.4

50.2

61.2

55.1

54.4

60.5

62.3

58.8

46.5

51.9

53.1

62.7

75.1

62.5

61.8

53.8

68.4

57.7

2.14

3.11

1.94

Somewhat Seriously

maladjusted maladjusted

34.8

26.3

33.9

34.2

37.7

31.8

40.9

37.4

32.2

33.6

33.0

36.3

41.5

43.6

32.3

22.0

34.1

35.4

39.1

24.4

37.3

1.50

2.54

1.74

6.5

4.8

3.7

5.4

12.1

7.0

4.0

8.2

7.3

4.1

B.2

17.2

6.7

3.3

u

5.0

2.9

3.4

2.8

7.2

7.3

5.0

1.14

1.30

1.41

36
Table 25. Percent of youths 12-17 vearsof age forwhom special resources wererecOmmended. bvlev@l Ofadiustment tOschOOl environment, typeOfprOb!em. andsex, and

Type of problem

All special resources . . . . .

Hard of hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sight.saving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Speech therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orthopedic handicap . . . . . . . . .

Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Slowlearner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mentally retarded . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotionally disturbed . . . . . . . .

Remedial reading . . . . . . . . . . .

Engllsh for children from nonEnglish.speaking enviromnents .

Remedial traluing in special

subject areas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error, both sexes .

standard error of parcent for both sexes: Unitad States, 1966-70

Youths recommended for special resources

Percent of

~

adjusted maladjusted maladjusted adjusted

16.7

0.3

0.2

1.1

0.2

2.8

5.3

1.3

1.2

6.2

0.7

2.6

1.4

0.63

11.7

_

0.1

0.2

0.9

0.2

3.3

2.9

0.9

0.0

4.2

0.6

1.4

0.5

0.59

37.5

0.9

0.4

1.s

0.2

1.1

15.0

2.9

4.8

14.7

1.0

8.2

4.7

1.44

85.8

0.9

0.9

21.5

8.9

35.4

15.1

0.8

10.3

14.2

3.76

Soys I

Girls

Percent

Somewhat Seriously Well Somewhat Seriously

maladjusted maladjusted adjusted maladjusted maladjusted

13.5

_

0.2

0.2

0.9

0.0

3.2

3.6

1.3

0.1

5.1

0.9

1.7

0.5

0.83

40.2

1.3

0.5

2.3

0.4

0.7

15.7

3.5

6.0

16.8

1.2

8.1

5.6

2.30

69.5

1.4

1.3

18.4

11.6

33.8

16.8

1.3

10.4

17.4

3.71

10.1

—

0.1

0.2

0.9

0.3

3.4

2.2

0.6

0.0

3.2

0.4

1.1

0.5

0.67

33.2

0.3

0.3

1.0

1.7

14.0

2.1

2.9

11.4

0.7

8.3

3.3

3.27

58.8

27.3

3.3

38.2

8.3

9.9

8.2

9.78

37
Table 26. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by level of intellectual ebility, according to level of adjustment to school environment, age,

and sex, and standard error of percent by sex: United States, 1886-70

Age and sex

All ages,both sexes

Total, 12-17 years . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 yeara . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Boys

TotaI,12-17 years . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Girls

Total, 12-17 years . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Bothsexes . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Well adjusted Somewhat maladjusted

Above- Average Be[ow- Abova- Average BelowTotal average average Total average abrlity average

ability

ability ability ability ability

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

33.1

32.0

34.6

31.9

31.9

34.4

34.5

30.2

30.3

33.1

30.8

28.8

30.1

2B.1

35.9

33.5

36.0

32.9

35.2

38.6

40.3

1.52

1.45

1.92

53.7

53.7

52.2

54.8

54.4

53.9

53.2

53.6

53.0

51.6

51.8

55.9

54.2

55.4

53.8

54.2

52.5

57.8

52.9

53.7

51.2

1.35

1.62

1.70

13.1

14.4

13.2

13.3

13.7

11.7

12.3

16.1

16.7

15.1

17.4

15.4

15.8

16.5

10.3

12.3

11.5

9.4

12.0

7.7

8.5

0.97

1.16

1.00

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

9.9

7.3

10.2

10.0

9.5

14.4

9.3

9.3

6.4

9.6

8.6

11.1

17.4

4.9

10.9

9.2

10.7

12.4

7.B

10.6

17.1

1.18

1.22

2.21

43.0

46.5

41.0

43.2

33.6

43.3

52.7

42.7

45.7

38.5

42.4

30.6

45.9

55.4

43.4

48.3

44.7

44.5

37.0

39.9

48.1

1.58

2.01

2.58

47.1

46.1

4B.8

46.8

56.9

42.3

38.0

48.0

47.9

51.7

48.9

58.3

36.7

39.7

45.6

42.5

44.6

43.1

55.2

49.5

34.8

1.89

2.36

3.04

Seriously maladjusted

=

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

...

...

. ..

15.7

28.4

15.3

18.6

6.2

10.3

19.0

39.0

19.6

16.0

16.3

9.5

23.8

11.4

5.57

7.36

7.03

29.3

39.5

23.3

35.3

14.0

57.7

30.7

24.3

47.7

12.B

34,0

21.0

33.2

22.8

38.5

36.9

51.8

40.1

78.8

44.4

5.91

4.56

16.87

55.0

60.5

48.2

49.3

67.5

36.1

59.0

58.7

58.3

4s.2

46.3

63.1

66.8

60.9

52.0

63.1

46.2

59.9

76,2

9.8

55.6

7.23

8.38

14.79

38
Table 27. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by Ieval of academic performance, according to level of adjustment to school

environment, age, andsex, andstandard error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Well adjusted I Somewhatmaladjusted I Seriously maladjusted

Total

Age and sex Upper

113 in

class

Middle

113 in

class

Lower

113 in

Upper Middle Lower

113 in 113 in 113 in

Upper

113 in

Middle

113 in

class

Lower

1/3 in

class

Total Total

class class I class I class class

All ages, both sexes

Total, 12-17 years .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . .

&

Total, 12-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

Total, 12-17 years .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes .,.,.,

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent distribution

100.0 33.9 46.6 20.5 100.0 4.8 25.0 70.1 100.0 3.5 14.2

—

7.8

36.9

11.7

34.7

13.4

14.0

39.9

22.5

15,8

29.0

21.7

66.4

4.81

5.74

10.27

82.2

_

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

35.7

36.9

34.2

30.8

32.5

32.7

29.1

31.5

33.4

30.5

28.4

26.2

23.2

38.5

39.5

40.2

37.6

33.4

38.7

41.3

1,10

1.31

1.42

45.9

44.5

46.1

47.5

45.4

44.4

45.0

46.0

43.7

44.9

45.1

45.5

44.5

46.3

45.8

45.3

47.2

50.0

45.4

44.3

0.85

1.38

0.89

18.5

18.6

19.7

21.7

22.1

23.0

26.0

22.5

23.0

24.6

26.S

28.4

32.3

15.2

14.8

14.5

15.2

16.7

15.9

14.4

1.12

1.24

1.12

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. .. .

. . .

. . .

5.2

6.6

5.3

3.7

6.0

2.9

3.6

3.0

6.5

1.1

5.1

5.7

6.8

9.3

4.1

12.2

2.1

6.4

7.8

0.66

0.63

1.25

28.0

26.8

27.8

15.2

22.6

28.9

23.2

30.1

22.1

30.3

9.1

15.9

26.9

27.8

24.0

34.2

23.7

22.5

31.7

32.3

2.31

2.77

3.73

66.8

67.6

66.9

81.1

71.4

68.2

73.2

66.9

71.3

68.6

85.8

78.3

73.1

65.4

66.7

61.7

64.1

75.4

61.9

59.9

2.3a

2.71

3.86

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

...

...

...

7.6

9.5

2.3

7.6

6.0

17.0

13.3

1.81

2.19

4.80

84.6

63.1

100.0

90.5

88.3

65.3

84.3

86.0

60.1

100.0

92.4

100.0

77.5

78.2

83.0

71.0

100.0

86.7

78.3

33.6

5.60

5.66

10.05

39
Table 28. Percent distribution of youths 12-17 years of age by peer group relations, amorting tolewlof a4ustmnt toschooI environment, aw, mdsex, and standard error

ofpercent by sex: United States, 1886-70

Wel I adjusted Somewhat maladjusted Seriously maladjusted

Above- Average

Belowrotal averme average

popularity

popularity popularity 1

Above- Average BelowTotal average average

popularity

popularity popularity

Above. Average BelowTotal averaga avarw

popularity

popularity

popularity

Age and sex

All ages, both sexes Percent distribution

Total, 12-17 years . . 100.0 11.1 79.3 3.6 100.0 2.5 49.2 48.3 100.0 26.4 736

100.0

100.0

IOQ.o

100.0

I 00.0

I 00.0

100.0

I 00.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1W.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

10+2.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

17.6

15.3

15.3

16.0

15.2

23.8

14.9

15.7

12.9

14.6

15.6

12.4

16.6

19.3

19.5

17.5

16.0

16.5

18.0

2B.6

0.97

1.03

1.19

79.4

61.4

80.5

79.6

81.5

72.4

82.3

61.9

84.7

B2.5

62.1

34.5

77.5

76.4

77.2

78.4

76.7

76.9

76.6

67.8

0.99

1.20

1.20

2.8

3.3

4.2

4.4

3.2

3.6

2.B

2.4

2.4

2.9

2.4

3.1

3.9

4.3

3.3

4.0

5.4

6.6

3.4

3.6

0.49

0.65

0.56

I 00.0

I00.0

100.0

100.0

I00.0

3.1

3.1

1.B

2.6

1.0

2.3

2.7

2.4

5.2

0.8

3.4

1.9

2.2

2.0

4.4

3.8

2.2

2.5

0.4B

0.69

0.67

45.0

51.7

66.3

47.1

54.7

38.2

53.3

47.8

55.4

80.0

52.5

59.4

43.7

42.9

39.4

46.3

49.4

40.7

49.0

28.6

2.15

2.27

4.06

51.9

45.3

41.6

50.1

44.3

59.5

44.0

48.7

38.4

38.2

44.1

23.6

64.1

55.0

66.2

53.7

46.8

57.1

51.0

67.9

2.25

2.21

3.80

I 00.0

100.0

I 00.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1OQ.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1LW.o

?OQ.o

. . .

. . .

. . .

46.B

30.3

17.4

24.2

11.7

34.6

23.3

14.2

28.2

22.B

37.4

32.0

1W.o

37.5

21.7

77.6

7.1 E

6,7$

13.51

53.2

69.7

82.6

75.8

86.3

65.4

76.7

85.B

77.8

77.2

626

100.0

100.0

68.0

62.5

100.0

100.0

78.3

22.4

7.15

6.79

13.56

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13y.9ars . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...

...

...

—BOVS

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1OQ.o

10.3.0

100.0

...

...

...

Total, 12-17 years . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls —

Total, 12-17 years . .

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . .%.......

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40
Table 29. Percent distribution of vouths 12-17 years of age by frequancv of disciplinary action, according to level of adjustment to school envircmment. age, and sex. and standard

error of percent by sex: United States, 1966-70

Wel I adjusted Somewhat maladjusted Seriously maladjusted

Age and SQX

Never

Occa- Fre.

Total

disciplimd

sionally quemly Total

disciplined disciplined

Never

occa- Fre.

disciplined sionally quendy

disciplimd disciplined 1

Never OCC* FreTotal disciplined

sionally quently

disciplined disciplined

All ages, both sexes Percent distribution

Total, 12.17 years . .

12yedrs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

lbyears . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 yews . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17yaars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—ROVS

Total, 12.17 years . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 ywirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~

Total, 12.17 Veam . . .

f2year5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iliynars . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard error

Both sexes . . . . . . . .

Buys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1Oo.c 80.3 19.1 0.6 100.0 31.4 53.3 15.3 100.C 22,8 22.8 54.4

100.C

100.C

100.C

100.C

1Oo.c

100.C

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

I 00.0

I 00.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

75.1

77.2

77.3

83.3

85.1

85.3

72.2

65.0

69.2

69.9

77.9

78.3

73.7

87.8

84.1

84.5

84.2

88.9

91.5

95.6

0.75

1.28

0.84

23.5

22.7

22.2

16.0

14.4

14.1

27.0

32.9

30.8

29.1

21.3

21.0

25.2

11.8

16.2

15.4

15.8

10.5

8.1

4.2

0.75

1.27

0.81

1.3

0.1

0.5

0.7

0.6

0.7

0.9

2.0

1.0

0.7

0.7

1.2

0.4

0.7

0.1

0.6

0.5

0.2

0.10

0.22

0.11

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

. . .

—

30.8

35.8

23.3

Za.o

29.5

30.8

23.9

23.6

28.3

16.0

31.9

24.2

20.8

42.8

43.7

46.7

36.9

45.1

35.9

48.1

2.20

1.86

3.68

54.0

47.6

61.5

47.2

56.8

53.6

66.3

56.5

50.1

67.1

50.5

67.1

54.6

48.7

49.7

43.9

50.8

43.4

56.6

51.9

2.53

2.21

4.25

15.2

16.6

15.3

14.8

13.7

15,6

19.8

20.0

21.6

16.6

17.6

18.7

24.6

8.4

6.6

9.4

12.3

11.4

7.6

1.56

1.99

1.59

100.0

1W.o

100.0

100.0

1C+2.O

loa.o

100.0

1Cm.o

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

. . .

. . .

.

20.8

8.7

29,6

18.5

58.4

16.2

10.4

13.4

3.9

33.2

5.2

26.8

49.7

39.7

35.6

20.6

45.0

87.5

44.4

5.50

3.84

12.95

28.4

16.7

7.6

41.6

6.5

6.2

27.4

29.0

19.7

10.6

51.7

9.8

13.0

27.0

21.9

12.5

5.89

6.57

6.37

50.8

74.6

62.8

39.7

35.2

77.6

62.2

57.6

76.4

56.2

43.1

73.2

90.2

37.3

33.3

64.4

79.4

33.1

55.6

5.88

7.3a

12.84

—

41
APPENDIX I

STATISTICAL NOTES

Survey Design

The sample design for each of the first three

programs of the Health Examination Survey

(Cycles I-III) has been essentially similar in that

it has been a multistage, stratified probability

sample of clusters of households in land-based

segments. The successive elements for this sample design are primary sampling units (PSU’S),

census enumeration district (ED), segment (a

cluster of households), household, eligible persons, and finally the sample person.

The 40 sample areasand the segments utilized

in the design of Cycle III were the same as those

in Cycle II. Previous reports describe in detail

the sample design used for Cycle II and discuss

the problems of and considerations given to

other types of sampling frames and whether the

selection of siblings should be controlled.T Y1G

Requirements and limitations placed on the

design for Cycle III, similar to those for the

design in Cycle II, were the following:

1. The target population was defined as the

civilian, noninstitutional population of the

United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, aged

12-17 years, with the special exclusion of

children residing on reservation lands of the

American Indians. The latter exclusion was

adopted as a result of operational problems

encountered on these lands in Cycle I.

2. The time period of data collection was

limited to about 3 years, and the length of each

individual examination within the specially constructed mobile examination center was between

2 and 3 hours.

3. Ancillary data were collected on specially

designed household, medical history, and school

questionnaires and from birth certificate copies.

4. Examination objectives were related primarily to factors of physical and intellectual

growth and development.

5. The sample was sufficiently large to yield

reliable findings within broad geographic regions

and population density groups as well as age,

sex, and limited socioeconomic groups for the

total sample.

The sample was drawn jointly with the U.S.

Bureau of the Census, starting with the 1960

decennial census list of addresses and the nearly

1,900 PSU’S into which the entire United States

was divided. Each PSU is either a standard

metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), a county,

or a group of two or three contiguous counties.

These PSU’S were grouped into 40 strata, with

each stratum having an average size of about 4.5

million persons, in such a manner as to maximize the degree of homogeneity within strata

tith regard to the population size of the PSU’S,

degree of urbanization, geographic proximity,

and degree of industrialization. The 40 strata

were then classified into four broad geographic

regions of 10 strataeach; within each region, the

strata were cross-classified by four population

density classes and classes of rate of population

change from 1950 to 1960. Using a modified

Goodman-Kish controlled-selection technique,

one PSU was drawn from each of the 40 strata.

Further stages of sampling within PSU’S required first the selection of ED’s. The ED’s are

small well-defined areas of about 250 housing

units into which the entire Nation was divided

for the 1960 population census. Each ED was

assigned a “measure of size” equal to the

rounded whole number resulting from a “division by nine” for the number of children, aged

5-9 years, in the ED at the time of the 1960

census. A sample of 20 ED’s in the sample PSU

was selected by systematic sampling with each

ED having a probability of selection proportional to the population of children 5-9 years at

the time of the 1960 census. A further random

selection by size of segments (smaller clusters of

housing units) within each ED was then made.

Because of the 3-year time interval between

Cycle II and Cycle III, the Cycle 111frame had

to be supplemented for new construction and to

compensate for segments where housing was

partially or totally demolished to make room for

highway construction or urban redevelopment.

Advanced planning for the examinations at

the various locations or stands provided for

about 17 days of examinations, which limited

42
the number of exarninees per location to

approximately 200.

In Cycle III, as in Cycle II, twins who were

deleted from the sample selection were also

scheduled for examination, time permitting, as

were youths deleted fi-om the Cycle III sample

who had been examined in Cycle II. The sample

was selected in Cycle III, as it had been for the

children in Cycle II, so as to contain the correct

proportion of youths from families having only

one eligible youth, two eligible youths, and so

on, to be representative of the total target

population. However, since households were one

of the elements in the sample frame, the number

of related youths in the resub.nt sample was

greater than would result from a design that

sampled youths aged 12-17 years without regard

to household. The resultant estimated mean

measurements or rates should be unbiased; but

their sampling variability will be somewhat

greater than those from more costly, timeconsuming, systematic sample design in which

every kth youth would be selected.

The total probability sample for Cycle HI

included 7,514 youths representative of the

approximately 22.7 million noninstitutionalized

U.S. youths aged 12-17 years. The sample

contained youths from 25 different States and

approximately 1,000 in each single year of age.

The response rate in Cycle III was 90 percent,

with 6,768 youths examined out of the total

sample. These examinees were assigned weights

to make the group representative of the entire

U.S. population studied with respect to age, sex,

race, region, population density, and population

growth in area of residence. Final sample frequency and estimated population figures are

presented by age and sex in table I.

Measures used to control in general the

quality of the data from these surveys have been

described in previous reports.G-s Those additional measures specifically related to the particuku examination, tests, or measurements were

outlined in the analytic reports describing and

presenting the respective initial findings.

Reliability

While measurement processes in the surveys

were carefully standardized and closely controlled, the correspondence between true population figures and survey results cannot be

expected to be exact. Survey data are imperfect

for three major reasons: (1) results are subject

to sampling error, (2) the actual conduct of a

survey never agrees perfectly with the design,

and (3) the measurement processes themselves

are inexact even though standardized and controlled.

The first report on Cycle HIS describes in

detail the faithfulness with which the sampling

design was carried out.

Data recorded for each sample youth were

inflated in the estimation process to characterize

the larger universe of which the sample youth

are representative. The weights used in this

Table 1. Number of youths in sample and estimated population size as of midsurvey, by age and sex: Health Examination Survey,

1966-70

Age Both sexes

!

Boys Girls Both sexes Boys Girls

Total, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 years, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of youths in I

Estimated population

the sample

size as of midsurvey

(in thousands)

6,768 3,545 3,223 22,692 11,489

1,190 643 547 4,002 2,032

1,208 626 582 3,952 2,006

1,204 618 586 3,852 1,951

1,116 613 503 3,751 1,900

1,092 656 536 3,625 1,836

958 489 469 3,510 1,764

11go3

1,970

1,946

1,901

1,851

1,789

1,746

43
inflation process are a product of the reciprocal

of the probability of selecting the youth, an

adjustment for nonresponse cases, and a poststratified ratio adjustment that increases precision by bringing survey results into closer

alignment with known U.S. population figures

by color and sex within single years of age

12-17.

In the third cycle of the Health Examination

Survey (as in Cycle II) the samples were the

result of three principal stages of selection—the

single PSU from each stratum, the 20 segments

from each sample PSU, and the sample youth

from the eligible persons. The probability of

selecting an individual youth is the product of

the probability of selection at each stage.

Since the strata are roughly equal in population size and a nearly equal number of sample

youths were examined in each of the sample

PSU’S, the sample design is essentially selfweighting with respect to the target population;

that is, each youth 12-17 years had about the

same probability of being drawn into the respective samples.

The adjustment upward for nonresponse is

intended to minimize the impact of nonresponse

on final estimates by imputing to nonrespondents the characteristics of “similar” respondents.

Here “similar” respondents were judged to be

examined youths in a sample PSU having the

same age in years and sex as youths not

examined in that sample PSU.

Table 11. Number and percent distribution of youths in the U.S. population and percent nonresponse to the school questionnaire, by

age and grade in school: United States, 1966-70

Age and grade in school

Allyouths, 12-17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

—Age

12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..O

15 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grade

5thgrade or lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6thgrade . . . .. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9thgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ilth grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12th grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Special placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Youths who left before completing high schooll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Estimated population

size as of midsurvey

Number in

thousands

22,692

4,002

3,952

3,852

3,750

3,625

3,510

327

1,324

3,481

4,105

3,620

3,645

2,984

2,081

416

203

507

Percent

distribution

100.0

17.6

17.4

17.0

16.5

16.0

15.5

1.4

5.8

15.3

18.1

16.0

16.1

13.2

9.2

1.8

0.9

2.2

IIBoth sexes Boys Girls

Percent nonresponse

8.4

5.4

5.5

6.6

7.5

10.7

15.7

11.0

5.9

5.3

4.8

7.9

6.8

5.3

5.5

27.2

1.3

95.0

8.1

4.5

6.3

5.8

7.3

10.1

15.4

15.4

4.8

5.1

4.7

7.8

8.1

4.6

4.3

20.2

1.9

93.3

8,7

6.3

4,6

7.4

7.7

11.3

16.0

7.4

6.0

5.5

4.9

8.0

6.6

6.1

6.5

31.8

96.5

1Some others who may be qualified in this category may be included elsewhere if last grade in school wera reported.

44
The poststratified ratio adjustment used in

Cycle III achieved most of the gains in precision

that would have been attained if the sample had

been drawn from a population stratified by age,

color, and sex. In addition, the adjustment

makes the final sample estimates of population

agree exactly with independent controls prepared by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for the

noninstitutional population as of March 9, 1968

(approximate midsurvey point for Cycle III), by

color and sex for each single year of age 12-17.

The weight of every responding sample youth in

each of the 24 age, color, and sex classes is

adjusted upwards or downwards so that the

weighted total within the class equals the independent population control h- the survey.

Nonresponse

Besides the sample youths who were not

examined, there were some for whom the school

quest io nnaire was not completed. They

amounted to 8 percent of the population of

youths being studied. Mainly, these youths for

whores no school data were received by questionnaire were high school graduates or those

who had otherwise discontinued attendance at

particular schools.

Table II shows the extent of nonresponse by

age and grade in school for the subject boys and

girls. A high rate of nonresponse (95 percent) is

seen for the youths who had left school prior to

completing high school. With respect to direction in the nature of responses, the effect of this

is somewhat offset by the nonresponse (27

percent) among the high school graduates. Note

that each of these two groups accounted for

about 2 percent of the adolescents studied. Data

on youths for whom questionnaires were received indicate that the responses horn these

two groups tended to fall at opposite ends of the

scale in such areas as intellectual ability, academic achievement, popularity, attendance, repeating grades, and frequency of required

disciplinary actions.

A more probable source of bias relates to the

underrepresentation of youths 16 and 17 years

of age (13 percent nonresponse) in the summaries of responses to the questionnaire. Table

III shows the nonresponse rates for the older

youths according to status in school. No obvious

effects of this underreporting on the reported

findings have been observed, but one shouId

consider the possibility in the interpretation of .

the data in this report.

With regard to the questionnaires received,

there were instances in which certain items of

information were not provided. For each qtiestion, this item nonresponse rate was less than 2

percent, and these unknowns were omitted in

the computation of percentages.

Standard Error

In the present. report, reference has been

made to efforts to minimize bias and variability

of measurement techniques.

The probability design of the survey makes

possible the estimation of standard errors. The

standard error is primarily a measure of sampling

variability, that is, the variations that might

occur by chance because only a sample of the

population is surveyed. As calculated for this

report, the standard error also reflects part of

the variation which arises in the measurement

process. It does not include estimates of any

biases that might be in the data. The chances are

about 68 dut of 100 that an estimate from the

sample would differ by less than the standard

error from the value obtained from an examination of all persons in the population. The

chances are about 95 out of 100 that the

difference would be less than twice the standard

error and about 99 out of 100 that it would be

less than 2?4 times as large.

Generally, the rates or percentages shown in

the detailed tables for the entire group, for all

the males, or for all the females are accompanied

by their respective standard errors. In the

interest of simplicity and brevity, specific standard errors for each estimate for youths by single

year of age are not presented; however, an

approximate standard error for each can be

estimated from the curves in figure I.

The curve labeled 4.0 (millions) provides

estimates of standard errors for percentages (or

rates) cited for all the youths (males and

females) in a single year of age group-e.g., all

45
Table II 1. Percent of vouths 14-17 years and percent nonresponse to school questionnaire, by status in school, age,

and sex: Health Examination Survey, 1866-70

Age and sex

,

Boys

Girls

4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Girls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

youths whowere 12 years old. Similarly, the2.O

curve gives estimates for either sex class in a

single year of age group, e.g., 16-year-old girls.

Table IVshows population base estimates for

those percentages that pertain to less than all

youths in an age or sex-age class–e.g., those

14-year-oldyouths whohadrepeated grades.

Employing theinformation contained intable

V, the following example shows how figure I

and table IV may be used in conjunction with

the preceding discussion to obtain estimates of

standard errors for percentages based on these

subpopulations.

The estimated standard error for the first

subgroup (2.5} was obtained by locating the

appropriate value (39.8 percent) on the horizontal scale of figure I, reading vertically on the

Status in school

=

Percent of youths in

age group

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

11.3

8.8

13.9

0.6

0.3

0.9

1.1

0.5

1.8

4.0

3.8

4.3

8.4

9.0

7.9

Status in school

High school Youths who

graduate left school

Percent nonresponse

. . .

. . .

. . .

73.4

45.1

100.0

26.2

19.5

30.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

89.0

80.6

91.7

97.3

94.3

100.0

94.3

93.5

95.3

1.0 and 2.0 (million) curves, and interpolating

for 1.7 million, using the sc~e to the kft. Tk

value for the error related to 14.8 percent may

be read directly from the appropriate curve (0.3

million), which was located by subtraction.

An approximation of the standard error of a

difference d = x - -y of two statistics s and y is

given by the formula (S: + S;)% where Sz

and SY are the standard errors, respectively, of x

and y. Of course, where the two groups or

measures are positively or negatively correlated,

this will given an overestimate or underestimate,

respectively, of the actual standard error.

Certain tests of the statistical significance of

the association between responses to related

questions in this report made use of Pearson’s

classic chi-squared test, with modifications to

46
12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 I I I 1 I I I I I I

1 2 3 456 78910 15 20 25 30 40 50

PERCENT

Figure 1. Standard errors of percentages based on categorical data from school questionnaires for youths 12-17 years: United States,

1966-70.

47
Table IV. Guide to use of standard error chart

Reference

table

number

3

10,13

14,18,22

14

15,17,21

23

25-27

Topic and catagory

Grade progression:

Repeaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Attendance:

Unusual number of absences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Goodattendanca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Academic standing:

Upperthirdofclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Middlethird ofclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowerthird ofclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Repaaters:

Upperthird ofclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Middlethirdofclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lowerthird ofclass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Intellectual ability:

Aboveaverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Averaga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Belowaverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Popularity:

Aboveaveraga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Avarage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Belowavarege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Emotional adjustment:

Well adjusted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Somawhatmaladjustad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seriously maladjusted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percent

of youths

12-17 yaars

15.8

12.8

87.2

26.2

39.5

28.9

0.8

3.7

9.9

27.7

50.4

19.5

12,4

84.0

10.4

76.8

14.1

1.4

Number of youths, 12-17 years

(millions)

Single yaar of age,

total

0,6

0.5

3.3

1.0

1.5

1.1

(’)

0.1

0.4

1.1

1.9

0.7

0.5

2.4

0.4

2.9

0.5

0,1

ingle year of age,

either sex

0.3

0.2

1.7

0.5

0.8

0,5

(’)

0.1

0.2

0.5

1.0

0.4

0.2

1.2

0.2

1.5

~:i3

lNumber insample was too small toyield reliabla standard error.

TableV. Tabulation of information relating to example of estimation ofstandard errors for subpopulations

Description of subcategory

Percent said

Population

to show aboveStandard error

base in millions estimated from

average ability

(tables 7 and 10)

(table 111) figure 1

Girls, 16years: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 2.0 2.3

Those with records ofgood attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.8 1.7 2.5

Those with records of poorattendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.8 0.3 4.5

48
adapt the original procedure for use with the sampling error may be several times as great as

complex sample design of the survey. These the statistic itself, thus indicating an unacceptaadaptations, which follow an approach suggested ble degree of unreliability in the estimate. Such

in a previous NCHS report, 15 are explained in a rates, if shown, have been included in the belief

previous report in this series. that they may help to convey an impression of

the overall story of the table.

Small Values

In some tables, magnitudes are shown for cells

for which the sample size is so small that the

49
APPENDIX II

SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE

All information w~lch would permit identification of an “mdividtul m of an estnbSishment will be held confidential, will be used

onlyby persons engaged in and for the purpose of the survey andwill be prcsected against disclosure in accordance with the

provisions of 42 CFR Part 1.

pHs-4733-s (PAGE 1) Form Appr.av,d:

REV. 9-SS DEPARTMENT OF Bu&t Bureau No. SS-R1700

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

HEALTH EXAMINATION SURVEY

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM SCHOOL

The student whose name appears below is one of tbc sample of students being studied in the Health Examination Survey.

This student’s parent or guardian has given us written authorization to obtain information from the school. Please compIete this form on the basis of school ~ecords and/or information the student’s teacher or other school official may have.

A pre.addressed envelope, requiring no postage, is furnished for yout convenience in returniog this form.

NAME OF YOUTH (L-t) (Fir.o (Middfe) SAMPLE NUMBER

f 1

HOME ADDREsS

(For Idantlfl..tf.anj

1. BIRTH DATE

(Monrh) (Day) ml.?)

2. WHAT IS THE PR~ENT GRADE PLACEMENT OF THIS STI.DENT7 grzde.

3. NAVE ANY GRAD= ❑EEN SKIPXD OR DOUBLE R?OMOTIDNS BEEN GlVEt4?

2 ONO 3 ❑ DON’T KNOW

* ❑ YES+ IF YES, ~Ch wd= W- Skipr=d?

4. HAVE ANY GRADES BEEN REPEATED FOR ANY RSA30N?

2~N0 3 •l DON*7- KNDW

1 ❑ YES+ IF YES, Whichgrades were repeated?

5. IF GRADE3 WERE REPEATED, WHAT WAS THE hWN REASON?

(C~ck mly 0~)

1 a EXCESSIVE A~sENT=EISM f-’=-~

2 0 TRUANCY

3 a MOVED INTO MORE DIFFICULT SCHOOL SYSTEM

a ❑ SOCIAL IMMATURITY

s ❑ A’=ADEMIC FAILURE

~ a OTHER (OXPf.h)

6. HAS THIS STUUENT SEEN A2SENT FRCM SCHOOL AN ~NU3UAL NO. OF DAYS OUR(NG THE M03T RECENTLY CIX!PLETED

SCHOOL YEAR?

20N0 S ❑ DON’T KNOW

1 ❑ yEs+ IF YES, WHAT IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE ABSENCES? (Check only W)

t ❑ Student’s iUness

2 •1 me= in soda’s fmnily

3 ❑ IW tO wak(either away from borne or at home for reasons other than family illness)

4 ❑ Ttusmy

S •l O&t (expIain)

50
7. HOW FREQUENTLY IS ANY SPECIFIC DISCIPLINARY ACTION REQulRED FOR THIS sTu DENT?

1 ❑ FREQUENTLY

2 ❑ OCCASIONALLY

s ❑ INEVER

4 ❑ NO BASIS FOR JUOGING WHICH OF THE ABOVE FITS THIS STUOENT

8. ARE SPECIAL RESOURCES NEEDED OR CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR THIS STUDENT?

2 ❑ NO (SKIP TO QUESTION 9)

1 u YES ~ IF Y ES, complete the following only for those special resources needed or currently being used

by this youth:

SPECIAL

RESOURCE

a. For the gifted

b. For the mentally retarded

c. For “slow learners” not

classed aa mentally

ret arded

d. For emotionally disturbed

e. For orthopedlcally handicapped

f. Special facilities for the

“hard of hearing”

g. Special facilities for the

visually handicapped

h. Speech therapy

i. Remedial reading

j. English for students from

non-english speaking

environments

k. Remedial training in

special subject area(s)

L Other resources needed

(specify)

RE$

BEING

uSED

)URCE NEEDED

Check one)

NOT

AvAILAsL

❑UT

4VA’LABLE NOT USEI

I

I

~

OVERCROWDED

REASON FOR NON-USE

(Check prim

STUDENT

OBJECTS

PARENTS

OBJECT

y rsoson)

OTHER (S@=i~y)

51
,~9. IN TERMS OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THIS STUDENT?

1 Q SEEMS WELL ADJUSTED.

2 •l SEEMS SOMEWHAT MALADJUSTED.

3 ❑ SEEMS SERIOUSLY MALADJUSTED.

4 ❑ No sAsls FoR JUDGING WHICH OF THE ABOVE FITS THIS STUDENT.

10. IN TERMS OF INTELLECTUAL ABILITY, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES THIS STUDENT?

10

20

30

4CI

ABOVE AVERAGE

AVERAGE

BELOW AVERAGE

DON*T KNOW STUOENT WELL ENOUGH TO JUOGE.

11. IN TERMS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, IS THIS STUDENT:

1 ❑ IN THE UPPER THIRD OF HIS CLASS

2 ❑ IN THE MIDDLE THIRD OF HIS CLASS

3 ❑ IN THE LOWER THIRD OF HIS CLASS

4 ❑ DON” T KNOW~i F DON’T KNOW, speci/y reason

12. IN TERMS OF POPULARITY WITH OTHER STUDENTS, IS THIS STUDENT:

1 ❑ ABOVE AVERAGE IN POPULA~l TY

2 a ABOUT AVERAGE IN POPULARITY

3 ❑ BELOW AVERAGE IN POPULARITY

4 ❑ DON*T KNOW

13. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN THIS STUDENT?

1 ❑ LESS THAN ONE SEMESTER

2 n’WORE THAN ONE sEMEsTER 8uT LEss THAN ONE YEAR

3 ❑ MORE THAN ONE YEAR BUT LESS THAN TWO YEARS.

4 0 MORE THAN TWO YEARS

SIGNATURE 01= PERSON cOMf=LETING THIS FORM

OFFICIAL TITLE DATE FORM COMPLETED

52
Series 1.

Series 2.

VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATION SERIES

Formerly Public HssltlI Ssrvics Publication No. 1000

l+ogmms and collection procedwes.— Reports which describe the general progratns of the National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions,

and other material necessary for understanding the data.

lkata evaluation and methods research. —Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical

tecbrdques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statietLcal theory.

Series 3. Analytical studies. —Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies baaedon vital and health

Sw”es 4.

Series 10.

Sm”es 11.

Sw”es 12.

Series 13.

Sw”es 14.

Series 20.

Sm”es 21.

Series 22.

~or a list

statistics, carrying the ‘analysis further than-the exposito~ types of reports in the other series.

Documents and committee repo7te.- Finsl reports of major committees concerned with vital and

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws end revised

birth and death certificates.

Lkta from ‘the Health Interview &cvvev.— Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use

of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data

collected in a continuing national household interview survey.

Data from the Health Examination &mey. —Data from direct examination, teethg, and measurement of national samples of the civilian, noninstitutional population provide the basis for two types

of reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United

States and: the distributions cd the population with respect to physical, physiological, and paychoIogical characteristics; and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without

reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.

LMtaf%om the Institutional Population Surveys .-Ststistics relating to the health characteristics of

persons in institutlona, and their medical, nursing, and personal care received, baaed on national

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the reskiente or patients.

Ikta from the Hospital Discharge Survey. —Statistics relating to discharged patienta in short-stay

hospitalq based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals.

mti on health vesources: manpoww and facilities. —Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Data on mov-tality.— Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or

montiy reports-special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic vsrfables, also

geographic and time series analyses.

Data on natility, marriage, and divorce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce

other than as included in regular annual or monthly reports ~pecial analyses by demographic

variables, also geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility.

Data from the National Natality and Mortality Surveys. —Statistics on characteristics of births

and deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these

recorde, including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, hospital experience in the

laet year of life, medical care during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, etc.

of tides of reports published in these series, write to: Wlce of Information

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service, HRA

Rockville, MtL 20852

/

....—

I
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Public Health se{vl~e U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W,

HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION HEW 390

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Md. 20852 THIRD CLASS

BLK. RATE

OF FiCIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300