Observational bias can significantly affect results attained through observation. This study focused on 122 preservice teacher educators who conducted a structured observation, using momentary time sampling procedures with 10-second intervals, to measure student on-task and off-task behaviors. The experimental variable altered was the exceptionality label of the observed student to determine if the label would have a biasing effect. Labels used were oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and gifted/talented. Results suggest that an exceptionality label (i.e., oppositional defiant disorder) significantly affects observed behavior. Practical implications of the study are discussed.
Barkley, R., DuPaul, G., & McMurray, M. ( 1990). A comprehensive evaluation of attention deficit disorder with and without hyperactivity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 775-789.
2.
Behets, D. ( 1993). Systematic observation training for pre-service physical education teachers. Physical Educator, 50, 87-94.
3.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. ( 1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 365-374.
4.
Carroll, C., & Reppucci, N. ( 1978). Meanings that professionals attach to labels for children . Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 46, 372-374.
5.
Cole, D. ( 1990). The relation of social and academic competence to depressive symptoms in childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 422-429.
6.
Cooper, H., Findley, M., & Good, T. ( 1982). Relations between student achievement and various indexes of teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology , 74(4), 577-579.
7.
Field, S., Hoffman, A., St Peter,. S., & Sawilowsky, S. (1992). Effects of disability labels on teachers’ perceptions of students’ self-determination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(3), 931-934.
8.
Fogel, L., & Nelson, R. ( 1983). The effects of special education labels on teachers’ behavioral observations, checklist scores, and grading of academic work. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 241-251.
9.
Foster, G., Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. ( 1980). Classroom teacher and teacher-in-training susceptibility to stereotypical bias. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59, 27-30.
10.
Foster, G., & Ysseldyke, J. ( 1976). Expectancy and halo effects as a result of artificially induced teacher bias. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 1, 37-45.
11.
Fox, J., & Stinnett, T. ( 1996). The effects of labeling bias on prognostic outlook for children as a function of diagnostic label and profession. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 143-152.
12.
Gillung, T., & Rucker, C. ( 1977). Labels and teacher expectations. Exceptional Children, 43(7), 464-465.
13.
Hanley, G., Iwata, B., & McCord, B. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 36, 147-185.
14.
Hintze, J., & Matthews, W. ( 2004). The generalizability of systematic direct observations across time and setting: A preliminary investigation of the psychometrics of behavioral observation. School Psychology Review, 33, 158-170.
15.
Kazdin, A. ( 1978). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141-150.
16.
Klein, J. ( 2004). Who is most responsible for gender differences in scholastic achievements: Pupils or teachers? Educational Research, 46, 183-193.
17.
Lakes, K., & Hoyt, W. ( 2009). Applications of generalizability theory to clinical child and adolescent research. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 144-165.
18.
Levin, J., Arluke, A., & Smith, M. ( 1982). The effects of labeling students upon teachers’ expectations and intentions. The Journal of Social Psychology , 118, 207-212.
19.
Li, Q. ( 1999). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review. Educational Research, 41, 63-76.
20.
Reynolds, C., & Kamphaus, R. (2004). Behavior assessment system for children (BASC-2) (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
21.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
22.
Sideridis, G., Antoniou, F., & Padeliadu, S. ( 2008). Teacher biases in the identification of learning disabilities: An application of the logistic multilevel model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 199-209.
Skinner, C., Dittmer, K., & Howell, L. ( 2000). Direct observation in school settings: Theoretical issues . In E. S. Shapiro & T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in the schools: Theory, research and clinical foundations (pp. 19-45). New York: Guilford.
25.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics, 2009 (Report No. NCES 2010-013). Retrieved from Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64
26.
Volpe, R., DiPerna, J., Hintze, J., & Shapiro, E. ( 2005). Observing students in classroom settings: A review of seven coding schemes. School Psychology Review, 34, 454-474.
27.
Wooldridge, P., & Richman, C. ( 1985). Teachers’ choice of punishment as a function of a student’s gender, age, race and IQ level. Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 19-29.
28.
Ysseldyke, J., & Foster, G. ( 1978). Bias in teachers’ observations of emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children. Exceptional Children, 44(8), 613-615.
