1. 1 The Ford Wheel Results of pilot 1 Various forms of analysis were carried out on a large data set Significant results occur by chance about fifty times when conducting over 1000 investigations. All significant results are therefore reduced to ‘interesting’, worthy of further investigation and to help formulate specific hypotheses for the pilot 2 study Analysis of rating data permitted me to examine the difference between what I intended the rating constructs to be compared to how the adults actually responded to the construct during the meeting This allowed me to improve or discard some constructs. It also provided insight into the different rating behaviour of teachers vs parents, males vs females, etc. Samples of the results are shown on the following pages.

2. 2 40 teachers and support assistants were surveyed. There was a 37.5% return: 87% said they remembered the meeting 77% said it was worth attending 69% said the meeting did not worry them 92% said they felt they could express their views in the meeting 55% said the meeting helped them, as members of staff 23% said it helped the child 38% said they were not sure it helped the child Follow-up of teachers via questionnaire survey

3. 3 What did parents say? (parent comments gathered incidentally at follow-up meetings) “It was very nice to feel listened to.” “I found it hard to rate my son.” “I don’t remember the method.” “I can see my son’s problems are small.” “I want to go home now.” “It was fascinating.” “It was very helpful.” “Can we now look at my son’s SATs results?”

4. 4 I looked at the 20 rating constructs e.g. Anxiety - the 59 ratings normally distributed - range 3.7 of possible 4 points - the construct was intentionally avoided once - 16% of raters used the ‘3’ rating - the construct significantly correlated with 3 other feeling states - a very high correlation with ER (r=0.62, p<0.000) - males confounded Anxiety with Anger (r=0.68, p0.004) - ‘Anxiety’ led to valuable discussion Evaluation: include it in Pilot 2 rewrite vignette ‘3’

5. 5 Interpretation: The staff at school begin every meeting by rating the child equally high or equally low on the first four rating constructs, which are all to do with the child’s observable behaviour. Why are they not discriminating between the constructs? Are they simply using the opportunity to say: “Yes, yes – his behaviour is clearly of major concern.” ?

6. 6 Interpretation: Parents were using a lot of discrimination from the outset. None of the correlations are statistically significant. This finding is further illuminated by the results of factor analysis. Correlational Analysis of 28 Parents & Relatives of the Child

7. 7 Some constructs were rated the same ! Evaluation of ER * r=0.835 with ID (sig p <0.000) * avoided six times correlates (p0.05) with 16 out of 20 other constructs not a good construct * omit from pilot 2

8. 8 Teachers rated pupils significantly higher than parents did on 6 of the 20 constructs AverageAverageNSig ratingrating. Interpersonal2.82.3 40+28 p0.05 Identity3.42.9 38+26 p0.008 Anxiety3.22.7 38+26 p0.04 ER3.42.8 33+22 p0.03 Social Models*2.62.0 24+15 p0.03 Under Stress3.12.1 24+14 p0003

9. 9 Do teachers and parents use the whole of the rating scales? Also, forty-six percent of teachers used the '3' rating – the rating construct needs re-writing ! Grief & Loss construct the F ratio test of variances is statistically significant at the p0.05 level showing that the variances are not equal - parents are showing much more sensitivity to the question than the teachers are showing.

10. 10 He’s not listening, he won’t write, he can’t organize himself, he isn’t learning – it’s my job to ensure this, isn’t it? Interpretation This factor analysis of the ratings made by 40 male or female teachers and other male relatives makes rather depressing reading; shades of Jim has not yet fixed it! I’m not completely blind -he seems confused, suffering emotionally, anxious, perhaps... He won’t talk about it. He can’t concentrat e on anything! He is seeking attention, he is over-active, he shows little ER (r=0.85 with anger!) The male perspective

11. 11 My child’s behaviour is trying to communicate something to me. Whereas, 28 mothers, female relatives & female support assistants seem to be supplying a much more coherent message! The teacher sees over- activity, arguments, reduced attention and deterioration in expected skills My child’s emotional states and sense of being are affected …influencing his receptivity and his ability to function and make good social choices The female perspective

12. 12 Publication The pilot 1 study is being prepared for publication in an educational journal. Pilot 2 will hopefully involve other professionals using a free, updated version of the Ford Wheel. Facilitators must be EPs or EPs in training, Assistant Psychologists or Clinical Psychologists who are prepared to run a meeting according to the format and submit prescribed, anonymized data for full hypothesis testing of pilot 2 cases.