ISSN 2183 - 3990       

Psychometric Analysis and Normative data for the portuguese adaptation of conners' Ctrs-28

 

Adaptação Portuguesa da escala CTRS-28 dados normativos e análise psicométrica

 

 

Eduardo Chaves Cruz[1]* / Ramon Pulido** /José Pinto Lopes***

pág.14-44

* Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro; ** Universidade de Salamanca. Facultad de Psicologia da Universidade de Salamanca, Espanha; *** Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro e Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Educativa-CIIE…

ABSTRACT

A Portuguese version of the CTRS-28 was administered on a sample of 2421 Portuguese children aged from 3-5 to 15-17 years. Although the factor structure did not fully coincide with those originally proposed, the psychometric analysis revealed that this version has reliability and validity indices similar to those presented by Conners on the three basic dimensions (Behavioral Problems, Hyperactivity, and Passivity-Distraction) integrated by 23 of the 28 items of the abbreviated form as well as in the hyperactivity index that Conners proposed as a result of the combination of items from previous dimensions. The Anglo-American normative data do not fit the Portuguese population so, additionally, this study proposes a new normative specific data to this population.

Keywords: Hyperactivity; Conduct Problems; Passivity-Distraction; CTRS-28; Portuguese Adaptation; Validity and Reliability; Normative Data.

RESUMO

Uma versão da CTRS-28 foi administrada a uma amostra de 2421 crianças portuguesas com idade compreendida entre 3-5 anos e 15-17 anos. Embora o factor estrutura não coincida plenamente com a versão originalmente proposta, a análise psicométrica mostrou que esta versão apresenta índices de fidedignidade e validade semelhantes aqueles propostos por Conners nas três dimensões básicas (Problemas de Comportamento, Hiperatividade, ePassividade-Distração) integrada por 23 dos 28 items da forma resumida assim como no índice de hiperatividade que Conners propôs como resultado da combinação dos itens das dimensões prévias. Os dados normativos Anglo-Americanos não coincidem com os da população Portuguesa, adicionalmente o estudo propõe novos dados normativos específicos para esta população.

Palavras-chave: Hiperatividade; Problemas de Comportamento; Passividade-Distração; CTRS-28; Adaptação Portuguesa; Validade e Fidedignidade; Dados Normativos.


 

INTRODUCTION

One of the psychopathological changes frequently observed during childhood and adolescence is the so-called Attention Deficit Disorder and Hyperactivity. Furthermore, many studies demonstrate that this disorder is more common in boys than in girls. In studying such changes, rating scales are one of the most employed instruments and, among such scales, Conners' scale (Conners, 1999), initially designed to evaluate possible hyperactive behavioral changes after introducing the patient to some pharmacological treatment, it is presently a useful tool for gathering information from parents and teachers (Barkley, 1998; Conners, 1994; Resnick & McEvoy, 1994). Regarding the scales for teachers, Conners proposed two versions: an extensive one formed by 39 items (CTRS-39) and the other one, an abbreviated one, composed by 28 items (CTRS-28). This latter version, according to factorial studies carried out by Conners, Sitarenios, Parker, and Epstein (1998) in Anglo-American samples, revealed the existence of three factors (Behavioral Problems, Hyperactivity, and Passivity-Distraction) which are defined by 23 of the 28 items of the scale. Additionally, Conners proposed the inclusion of a second grade factor, a hyperactivity index, that would be defined by the 10 items with higher factorial weight in the three factors of first grade. With the exception of one study carried out (Castro, Ferreira, Simões, Rebelo, & Cardoso, 1996), to date, in Portugal, this scale has been administered quite profusely but always using the psychometric referents regarding the Anglo-American population, what, applying the basic principles of any process of adaptation of scales to differing sociocultural contexts, should be questioned in terms of the adequacy of such procedure. In this regard it should be noted that Castro's study (Castro et al., 1996), which includes an original Portuguese version of the Conners' scale, is very similar in its objectives and content to the one presented here. However, it has some limitations and differences that enhance the meaning of the contribution to be presented here. That single study (Castro et al., 1996) presented a new factor structure different from that originally proposed by Conners, organized in four factors ensuing from exploratory factor analysis carried out by those researchers. In this sense, they did not conduct a Portuguese adaptation of the Conners' scale, but, instead, based on this scale, they proposed some new measures with some new factors introduced by their own factorial solution. In the study presented here, however, Conners' original factor structure is maintained, offering a Portuguese scale that differs significantly from the normative data applied to the Anglo-Saxon population.

            This paper reports a work defined by two main objectives. On the one hand, to carry out the adaptation of the Portuguese version of the revised Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS-28) through interpreting the scale's items (Appendix A presents the Portuguese version) and, then, verifying the scale's psychometric properties by studying the reliability (internal consistency) and the construct validity through exploratory factor analysis, in order to demonstrate whether the original scale's properties and factor structure are maintained in a sufficiently consistent way to be applied to the Portuguese version. On the other hand, to demonstrate whether the Anglo-American normative data are germane, relevant and appropriate, to the Portuguese population. It was hypothesized that the Anglo-American scales are not applicable to the Portuguese population, given to the idiosyncrasies of both populations, and these normative data were qualified and adapted to the Portuguese population.

METHOD

Participants

Participated in this study 2421 children and adolescents, boys and girls, from the north/northeast of Portugal, particularly from the districts of Vila Real and Amarante. The total sample was distributed into age levels ranging from three up to 17 years of age, covering the various stages of schooling - kindergarten, elementary, preparatory and secondary education. Table 1 shows that 52.2% of the participants were boys compared to 47.8% of girls, that is, a balanced sample.

                        Participants

 

Gender

 

Age

Boys

Girls

Total

3-5

65

55

120

 

5.1%

4.8%

5.0%

6-8

404

351

755

 

32.0%

30.3%

31.2%

9-11

365

336

701

 

28.9%

29.0%

29.0%

12-14

270

282

552

 

21.4%

24.4%

22.8%

15-17

160

133

293

 

12.7%

11.5%

12.1%

Total

1264

1157

2421

 

52.2%

47.8%

100.0%

Table 1. Percentage of participants by age range and gender

Considering the age groups, it can be observed a certain imbalance in the extreme points (3-5 years and 15-17 years), when compared with the intermediate age groups in which the number of participants was significantly higher. Nevertheless, all of the categories are sufficiently represented in the overall composition of the sample. Data collection through filling in the CTRS-28 scale was carried out by a total of 115 teachers. Participation in this study was voluntary for teachers, children and adolescents, always with parental consent.

Instruments

 

Conners' Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS-28)

 

The scale consists of 28 items, however for the present study the differing analysis were performed only considering the 23 items that Conners proposed as unequivocal for the factorial structure (Goyette, Conners, & Ulrich, 1978) and leading to the setting up of the three dimensions of Behavioral Problems, Hyperactivity, and Passivity-Distraction. It has been eliminated from the analysis all those results referred to by Conners as “other items” and not included in any of the already established dimensions (items: 13, 17, 19, 24 and 25). The items in Conners' scale have a response shape of a rating scale with four degrees of intensity that, in this case, correspond to the following values: 0 = “none”; 1 = “little”; 2 = “much” e 3 = “very”. Taking this into account, the various dimensions assessed have a level of minimum and maximum possible scores as follows:

A. Behavioral Problems: 8 items (minimum = 0 and maximum = 24);

B. Hyperactivity: 7 items (minimum = 0 and maximum = 21);

C. Passivity-Distraction: 8 items (minimum = 0 and maximum = 24);

D. Hyperactivity Index: 10 items (minimum = 0 and maximum = 30).

(Appendix A presents the Portuguese translation of the scale and, in brackets, for each item, the factor or dimension to which it belongs according to the Conners' classification).

 

RESULTS

Psychometric Analysis

Reliability

In order to analyse the reliability of the total scale and of the different subscales, an analysis of their internal consistency was carried out. Table 2 shows the different Cronbach's "alpha" coefficients of internal consistency, obtained from the total 2418 participants. It shows that the values range from 0.937 to 0.864 for the total 23 items corresponding to the eight items of the "Behavioral Problems" dimension.

Scale

alpha

A Conduct problem (items: 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 23 and 27)

.864

B Hyperactivity (items: 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15 and 16)

.918

C Inattentive-passive (items: 7, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 28)

.862

D Hyperactivity Index (items: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21 and 26)

.911

Total: 23 items (A+B+C)

.937

Table 2. Total Internal Consistence (N = 2418)

These results allow for the conclusion that the degree of reliability for the different subscales as well as for the totality of the scale is high and satisfactory. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 specifies this analysis by differentiating for each subscale the differing levels of internal consistency for each of the subgroups of participants according to age and gender. In summary, despite the notable variations, it is worth mentioning that all Cronbach's coefficients range from 0.941, corresponding to the “alpha” coefficient for 15 to 17 year-old boys for the D scale (Hyperactivity Index) and the value of 0.743 corresponding to 15 to 17 year-old girls for the A scale (Behavior Problem).

 

Gender

 
 

Boys

Girls

Age

n

alpha

n

alpha

3-5

65

.881

55

.810

6-8

403

.846

350

.843

9-11

365

.862

336

.832

12-14

269

.858

282

.871

15-17

160

.916

133

.743

Total

1262

.873

1156

.844

           

Table 3. Internal Consistence for A. Conduct Problem (items: 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 23 and 27)

 

Gender

 
 

Boys

Girls

Age

n

alpha

n

alpha

3-5

65

.928

55

.899

6-8

403

.925

350

.920

9-11

365

.904

336

.862

12-14

269

.931

282

.911

15-17

160

.938

133

.799

Total

1262

.925

1156

.903

           

Table 4. Internal Consistence for B. Hyperactivity (items: 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15 and 16)

Such values seem high enough and suitable for the established measures. It should be noted that, in general, the established measures for boys are more consistent than those for girls, in all assessed subscales.

 

Gender

 
 

Boys

Girls

Age

n

alpha

n

alpha

3-5

65

.848

55

.865

6-8

403

.855

350

.875

9-11

365

.858

336

.848

12-14

269

.843

282

.874

15-17

160

.905

133

.830

Total

1262

.862

1156

.861

           

Table 5. Internal Consistence for C. Inattentive-Passive (items: 7, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 28)

 

Gender

 
 

Boys

Girls

Age

n

alpha

n

alpha

3-5

65

.920

55

.903

6-8

403

.900

350

.893

9-11

365

.911

336

.880

12-14

269

.913

282

.912

15-17

160

.941

133

.843

Total

1262

.915

1156

.896

           

Table 6. Internal Consistence for D. Hyperactivity Index (items: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21 and 26)

ConstructValidity

To demonstrate the construct validity, data were submitted to exploratory factorial analysis of the main components with Promax oblique rotation because it was assumed that the factors proposed by Conners are related (Browne, 2001; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Within this approach, three tests were carried out. The first one including all participants of the sample and two other analysis for gender. Table 7 shows the most significant results of the analysis with the total sample. Three significant factors were obtained according to Kaiser's criterion of extraction (eigenvalues ≥ 1) which explains 62.71% of the total variance. Of this percentage, the first factor alone explains 44.42% of the variance which suggests, along with the size of its eigenvalue (10.22), that, despite the initial solution, an underlying one-dimensional structure. In fact, Table 7 shows that the items that Conners classified as dimensions A and B (Behavioral Problems and Hyperactivity) jointly define factor 1 and residually factor 3, while most of the items Conners identified as indicators of dimension C (Passivity-Distraction) clearly define factor 2 in the present factor structure. In the same way, the correlation coefficients presented in Table 8 seem relevant since they indicate the existing relations among additive scores established according to Conners' guidelines for each of the dimensions defined by the CTRS-28 and the factorial scores generated from the present factorial solution. Additionally, Table 8 also presents the inter-correlations produced by the three significant factors.

 

Component

ITEM

1

2

3

01 Restless in the “squirm” sense (B) (D)

.883

.352

.370

02 Makes inappropriate noises when s/he shouldn’t (B)

.886

.360

.362

03 Demands must be met immediately (B)

.585

 

.628

04 Acts “smart” (impudent or sassy) (A)

.778

 

.553

05 Temper outbursts and unpredictable behavior (A) (D)

.818

 

.623

06 Overly sensitive to criticism (A)

   

.732

07 Distractibility or attention span a problem (C) (D)

.712

.683

 

08 Disturbs other children (B) (D)

.892

.410

.398

09 Daydreams (C)

.689

.721

 

10 Pouts and sulks (A) (D)

.504

.379

.749

11 Mood changes quickly and drastically (A) (D)

.654

.343

.698

12 Quarrelsome (A)

.773

.356

.567

14 Restless, always up and on the go (B) (D)

.881

.385

.384

15 Excitable, impulsive (B) (D)

.867

.359

.511

16 Excessive demands for teacher’s attention (B)

.507

 

.645

18 Appears to be easily led by other children (C)

 

.671

 

20 Appears to lack leadership (C)

 

.696

 

21 Fails to finish things that s/he starts (C) (D)

.471

.789

 

22 Childish and immature (C)

.501

.724

.346

23 Denies mistakes or blames others (A)

.622

.539

.510

26 Easily frustrated in efforts (C) (D)

.315

.574

.486

27 Uncooperative with teacher (A)

.374

.560

.331

28 Difficulty in learning (C)

 

.723

 

Eigenvalues

10.22

2.67

1.54

% variance

44.42

11.61

6.68

Table 7. Promax Rotation ≥ 0.30 ( N = 2407)

Note. In parentheses factorial structure from Conners

Table 8 shows a high correlation between dimension B and factor 1 and dimension C and factor 2. Dimension A is grouped with dimension B to form factor 1 and, residually, it is the dimension that best defines factor C. Dimension D (Hyperactivity Index that according to Conners is composed by different items from the other three dimensions), as expected, shows high correlation with the other three factors. Interfactor correlations that also appear in Table 8, also suggest a unidimensional underlying structure. Likewise, as already mentioned, analysis were repeated separating participants by gender.

 

factor score 1

factor score 2

factor score 3

A Conduct Problem

.818

.499

.830

B Hyperactivity

.962

.394

.573

C Inattentive-Passive

.582

.976

.311

D Hyperactivity Index

.947

.618

.599

factor score 1

 

.443

.477

factor score 2

   

.244

Table 8. Correlation matrix between empirical measures for each dimension of CTRS-28 and factorial measures (N = 2407)

Accordingly, Table 9 shows the most significant results of the analysis with the sample of boys. Again, three significant factors, according to the Kaiser criterion of extraction (eigenvalues ≥ 1), were obtained, that, in this case, explain 63.63% of the total variance. Of this percentage, the first factor alone explains 45.63% of the variance, also suggesting that for boys, along with the size of its eigenvalue (10.49), despite the initial solution, there is an underlying one-dimensional structure.

 

Component

ITEM

1

2

3

01 Restless in the “squirm” sense (B) (D)

.883

.328

.378

02 Makes inappropriate noises when s/he shouldn’t (B)

.889

.365

.378

03 Demands must be met immediately (B)

.603

 

.673

04 Acts “smart” (impudent or sassy) (A)

.781

 

.557

05Temper outbursts and unpredictable behavior (A) (D)

.815

 

.640

06 Overly sensitive to criticism (A)

   

.743

07 Distractibility or attention span a problem (C) (D)

.740

.663

 

08 Disturbs other children (B) (D)

.889

.421

.406

09 Daydreams (C)

.715

.711

 

10 Pouts and sulks (A) (D)

.521

.392

.730

11 Mood changes quickly and drastically (A) (D)

.661

.340

.686

12 Quarrelsome (A)

.772

.380

.551

14 Restless, always up and on the go (B) (D)

.875

.379

.389

15 Excitable, impulsive (B) (D)

.863

.380

.542

16 Excessive demands for teacher’s attention (B)

.529

 

.640

18 Appears to be easily led by other children (C)

 

.663

 

20 Appears to lack leadership (C)

 

.674

 

21 Fails to finish things that s/he starts (C) (D)

.470

.785

 

22 Childish and immature (C)

.513

.710

.324

23 Denies mistakes or blames others (A)

.637

.545

.516

26 Easily frustrated in efforts (C) (D)

.347

.627

.485

27 Uncooperative with teacher (A)

.365

.574

 

28 Difficulty in learning (C)

.346

.720

 

Eigenvalues

10.49

2.59

1.55

% variance

45.63

11.24

6.76

Table 9. Promax Rotation ≥ 0.30 boys ( N = 1255).

Note. In parentheses factorial structure from Conners

In fact, Table 9 shows a factorial solution very similar to that obtained with this total sample. Along the same line, Table 10, which is a replica of Table 8 with results for boys, presents correlation coefficients very similar between both samples, allowing to ensure that both factorial structures are virtually identical.

 

factor score 1

factor score 2

factor score 3

A Conduct Problem

.825

.505

.807

B Hyperactivity

.959

.403

.581

C Inattentive-Passive

.611

.971

.289

D Hyperactivity Index

.949

.613

.589

factor score 1

 

.453

.452

factor score 2

   

.226

Table 10. Correlation matrix between empirical measures for each dimension of CTRS-28 and factorial measures boys ( N= 1255)

Regarding the results of the factor analysis for the group of girls, there is a slightly difference from the two previous ones. Factorial solution obtained in this case revealed the presence of four significant factors (eigenvalues ≥ 1) that explaining 65.11% of the total variance which, apparently, indicates a different factor structure for boys and girls (Table 11).

 

Component

ITEM

1

2

3

4

01 Restless in the “squirm” sense (B) (D)

.866

.342

.351

.355

02 Makes inappropriate noises when s/he shouldn’t (B)

.870

.315

.320

.335

03 Demands must be met immediately (B)

.574

 

.568

 

04 Acts “smart” (impudent or sassy) (A)

.735

 

.560

.399

05 Temper outbursts and unpredictable behavior (A)(D)

.810

 

.575

.446

06 Overly sensitive to criticism (A)

   

.753

 

07 Distractibility or attention span a problem (C) (D)

.652

.726

 

.353

08 Disturbs other children (B) (D)

.884

.355

.365

.386

09 Daydreams (C)

.624

.744

 

.393

10 Pouts and sulks (A) (D)

.516

.327

.772

.464

11 Mood changes quickly and drastically (A) (D)

.634

 

.699

.478

12 Quarrelsome (A)

.751

 

.555

.535

14 Restless, always up and on the go (B) (D)

.878

.350

.357

.387

15 Excitable, impulsive (B) (D)

.853

 

.431

.435

16 Excessive demands for teacher’s attention (B)

.494

 

.649

.351

18 Appears to be easily led by other children (C)

 

.726

   

20 Appears to lack leadership (C)

 

.749

 

.311

21 Fails to finish things that s/he starts (C) (D)

.423

.745

 

.613

22 Childish and immature (C)

.435

.711

.347

.521

23 Denies mistakes or blames others (A)

.554

.396

.382

.761

26 Easily frustrated in efforts (C) (D)

 

.351

.329

.766

27 Uncooperative with teacher (A)

.349

.392

 

.762

28 Difficulty in learning (C)

 

.717

 

.407

Eigenvalues

9.56

2.86

1.52

1.04

% variance

41.56

12.45

6.60

4.50

Table 11. Promax Rotation ≥ 0.30 girls (N = 1152)

Note. In parentheses factorial structure from Conners

However, in analysing in detail the factorial weights for both structures, it becomes clear that they are very similar, pointing in the direction of a one-dimensional structure. The number of high self-value of the first component (9:56) relative to the rest which in itself explains 41.56% of total variance (similar to the percentage explained by the first factor in the sample of boys). Moreover, it appears that Conners B dimension (Hyperactivity) clearly defines factor 1 of the present solution while C dimension (Passivity-Distraction) defines factor. Dimension A (Behavioral Problems) turns out to be even more ambiguous although clearly associated with dimension B (Tables 11 and 12).

 

factor score 1

factor score 2

factor score 3

factor score 4

A Conduct Problem

.784

.380

.813

.728

B Hyperactivity

.962

.334

.552

.434

C Inattentive-Passive

.508

.965

.291

.618

D Hyperactivity Index

.931

.564

.576

.642

factor score 1

 

.361

.480

.477

factor score 2

   

.158

.450

factor score 3

     

.409

Table 12. Correlation matrix between the empirical measures for each dimension of CTRS-28 and factorial measures. Girls (N = 1152)

Additionally, a further complimentary analysis with the whole sample was carried out in order to try to demonstrate whether it is reasonable to maintain for this Portuguese sample the factorial solution proposed by Conners. The models of construct validity suggest that it is appropriate to conduct a Confirmatory Factor Analysis in order to demonstrate the adjustment of a possible structural model to actual data. However, in this case, it seems difficult to carry out this type of analysis for two reasons: The first one relates to the large sample size in this study that leads to the impossibility of adequate levels of adjustment On the other hand, such a high degree of interrelationship among the items makes the defined theoretical model to appear almost saturated, not to say negative, since it forces to join with connectors l, x, d, f and q all empirical variables subjected to analysis. For all that, applying a much simpler analysis, it was possible to verify whether the dimensions defined by Conners reveal an underlying one-dimensional factor structure. Exploratory factorial analysis was conducted separately for each main component of the items in each dimension. The results showed, for all the cases, an initial factorial solution represented by a single factor or significant component with a self-value greater than one. Table 13 shows the number of different self-values for each of the dimensions proposed by Conners as well as the percentage of the variance explained by each component.

 

Eigenvalue

%Variance

A Conduct Problem (8 items)

4.29

53.62

B Hyperactivity (7 items)

4.77

68.15

C Inattentive-Passive (8 items)

4.10

51.22

D Hyperactivity Index (10 items)

5.69

56.89

Table 13. Percentage of variance for each dimension from CTRS-28 (N = 2407)

As a conclusion of the different psychometric tests carried out, it is possible to say with relative certainty that the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-28 adapted to the Portuguese population maintains satisfactory levels of reliability and, in some cases, very high levels. Even so, validity of the scale was sufficiently ratified and, despite the fact that the factorial structures obtained do not exactly replicate the one revealed by Conners, it is true that the factorial structures obtained fit well to the empirically obtained scores for the Portuguese children and adolescents, boys and girls, for each of the dimensions. In any case, it is here suggested, under the psychometric results obtained, that Dimension D (Hyperactivity Index) should be eliminated and manage total scores resulted from the scores of dimensions A, B, and C, constituting a single total score of Hyperactivity. With all this, reliability and validity of the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-28 are sufficiently assured to the Portuguese population.

 

 

Normative data on Conners' Rating Scales

 

The aim of this work, as already mentioned, was to establish updated normative data adapted to the Portuguese population. To date, for diagnostic purposes, Anglo-American normative data proposed by Conners have been used. Such values do not fit current reality. This work demonstrated that the transformation of scores into T scores (50,10) applying the normative criteria of Conners gives rise to average results, in general, much higher than expected, that is, normally, it would come up with transformation values with means and standard deviations near 50 and 10 respectively, and it did not happen for most cases. In fact, carrying out an ANOVA factorial of repeated measures by introducing as repeated measures the T scores in the dimensions A, B, C and D, and as inter-subject factors age and gender, significant effects were obtained on the interaction of both factors (F1.4 = 13.822; p = 0.000). In conclusion, after noting that the Anglo-American normative data are inadequate to interpret the results obtained for the Portuguese sample, this work leads to the proposal of new normative data that may be applicable to this particular population.

Effects of age and gender

Before presenting the new normative data, it is important to highlight the findings that the differences by gender and different age groups, such as those proposed Conners, are also seen in these results. To do this, and given the asymmetric and platicurtic (negative kurtosis) distributions with which data had to be operated, it was decided to carry out a nonparametric contrast applying the Kruskal-Wallis test. As can be seen in Tables 14 and 15, the effects of both variables are significant in all considered dimensions of the Conners' scale.

 

Dimensions from Conners Scale

Statistics

A

B

C

D

Chi-square

45.326

86.918

50.061

102.472

df

1

1

1

1

p

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table 14. Contrast statistics from Kruskal-Wallis test by gender variable

 

Dimensions from Conners Scale

Statistics

A

B

C

D

Chi-square

84.462

58.898

21.701

57.293

df

4

4

4

4

p

.000

.000

.000

.000

Table 15. Contrast statistics from Kruskal-Wallis test by age variable

In conclusion, it may be noted that the differences by age and gender showed generally significant effects in this sample data in the same direction found in Conners' original studies with Anglo-American samples.

Normative dataon Revised Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale for Portuguese population

In short, once highlighted the relatively similar functioning of the Portuguese adaptation of CTRS-28, these new normative data should be propose to be applied to the population of Portuguese children and adolescents. Tables 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 present the main descriptive statistics for each dimension of the scale and to the total score of 28 items. Appendix B presents the transformation Tables of the direct values into the corresponding T values.

   

Gender

 

Age

Statistics

Boys

Girls

Total

3-5

M

6.12

4.67

5.46

 

SD

5.68

4.55

5.22

6-8

M

3.86

3.28

3.59

 

SD

4.27

3.81

4.07

9-11

M

3.05

2.20

2.64

 

SD

3.89

3.06

3.54

12-14

M

5.02

3.29

4.14

 

SD

4.85

4.14

4.58

15-17

M

5.31

2.53

4.05

 

SD

5.82

2.75

4.88

Total

M

4.17

2.95

3.59

 

SD

4.69

3.67

4.28

Table 16. Descriptive of A. Conduct Problem (items: 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 23 and 27)

   

Gender

 

Age

Statistics

Boys

Girls

Total

3-5

M

6.35

5.36

5.90

 

SD

5.77

5.26

5.34

6-8

M

5.29

3.96

4.68

 

SD

5.21

4.66

5.00

9-11

M

3.79

2.41

3.13

 

SD

4.38

3.19

3.91

12-14

M

5.23

3.00

4.09

 

SD

5.12

4.11

4.76

15-17

M

5.21

1.98

3.74

 

SD

5.60

2.54

4.75

Total

M

4.89

3.12

4.04

 

SD

5.10

4.05

4.71

Table 17. Descriptive of B. Hyperactivity (items: 1, 2, 3, 8, 14, 15 and 16)

   

Gender

 

Age

Statistics

Boys

Girls

Total

3-5

M

6.00

4.65

5.38

 

SD

5.10

4.68

4.93

6-8

M

5.64

5.23

5.45

 

SD

4.81

5.01

4.91

9-11

M

5.42

4.27

4.87

 

SD

4.45

3.97

4.26

12-14

M

7.05

5.30

6.15

 

SD

4.77

4.97

4.94

15-17

M

7.38

4.38

6.02

 

SD

5.90

3.97

5.32

Total

M

6.11

4.84

5.51

 

SD

4.92

4.60

4.81

Table 18. Descriptive of C. Inattentive-Passive (items: 7, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26 and 28)

   

Gender

 

Age

Statistics

Boys

Girls

Total

3-5

M

8.35

6.84

7.66

 

SD

7.24

6.45

6.90

6-8

M

6.48

5.03

5.81

 

SD

6.11

5.47

5.87

9-11

M

5.16

3.22

4.23

 

SD

5.64

4.19

5.08

12-14

M

7.24

4.44

5.81

 

SD

6.49

5.56

6.19

15-17

M

7.67

3.24

5.66

 

SD

7.63

3.76

6.55

Total

M

6.51

4.24

5.42

 

SD

6.41

5.11

5.93

Table 19. Descriptive of D. Hyperactivity Index (items: 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21 and 26)

   

Gender

 

Age

Statistics

Boys

Girls

Total

3-5

M

21.09

17.15

19.28

 

SD

16.830

14.496

15.861

6-8

M

17.08

15.15

16.19

 

SD

13.097

12.758

12.968

9-11

M

14.67

11.33

13.06

 

SD

12.615

9.778

11.454

12-14

M

20.58

14.41

17.42

 

SD

13.868

13.010

13.773

15-17

M

20.94

11.06

16.46

 

SD

18.447

8.840

15.650

Total

M

17.83

13.48

15.75

 

SD

14.335

11.85

13.380

Table 20. Descriptive of Total Scale (28 items)

Finally, Table 21 shows comparative results between the Conners' normative data and those obtained by this study with the Portuguese sample. Since the original Table referred in the work of Goyette, Conners, and Ulrich (1978) did not operate with direct scores but with the average of the averages of the items in each dimension, the same sort of data was presented in Table 21 in order to make the results comparable. In any case, normative data are presented here in direct scores. As it can be seen in Table 21, the scores obtained from the Portuguese sample are, in most cases, higher than those obtained with the Anglo-American sample, which, again, highlights the fact that it is inappropriate to use the Anglo-American scales to evaluate Portuguese children.

   

I.Conduct Problem

II.Hyperactivity

III.Inattentive-Passive

Index

Category

N

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

       

Both sexes by age

     

3-5

120

(24)

.68

(.49)

.65

(.74)

.84

(.74)

.79

(.74)

.67

(.83)

.61

(.87)

.76

(.78)

.69

(.82)

6-8

751

(102)

.44

(.30)

.51

(.41)

.67

(.46)

.71

(.57)

.68

(.64)

.61

(.71)

.58

(.49)

.59

(.56)

9-11

699

(108)

.33

(.40)

.44

(.60)

.44

(.56)

.55

(.69)

.60

(.69)

.53

(.67)

.42

(.54)

.50

(.59)

12-14

551

(94)

.51

(.19)

.57

(.31)

.58

(.30)

.67

(.41)

.76

(.51)

.61

(.75)

.58

(.31)

.61

(.37)

15-17

293

(55)

.50

(.27)

.60

(.53)

.53

(.33)

.67

(.53)

.75

(.58)

.66

(.59)

.56

(.39)

.65

(.53)

       

By gender

     

Males

1260

(208)

.52

(.34)

.58

(.53)

.69

(.56)

.72

(.66)

.76

(.77)

.61

(.72)

.65

(.56)

.64

(.60)

Females

1154

(175)

.36

(.27)

.45

(.46)

.44

(.32)

.57

(.46)

.60

(.45)

.57

(.54)

.42

(.34)

.51

(.47)

       

Males by age

     

3-5

65

(13)

.76

(.45)

.70

(.80)

.90

(.79)

.82

(.89)

.75

(.92)

.63

(1.00)

.83

(.81)

.72

(.96)

6-8

403

(60)

.48

(.32)

.53

(.43)

.75

(.60)

.74

(.65)

.70

(.76)

.60

(.74)

.64

(.58)

.61

(.61)

9-11

363

(59)

.38

(.50)

.48

(.66)

.54

(.70)

.62

(.78)

.67

(.85)

.55

(.73)

.51

(.67)

.56

(.65)

12-14

269

(46)

.62

(.23)

.60

(.38)

.74

(.41)

.73

(.49)

.88

(.71)

.59

(.63)

.72

(.44)

.64

(.43)

15-17

160

(30)

.66

(.22)

.72

(.37)

.74

(.34)

.80

(.44)

.92

(.68)

.73

(.67)

.76

(.41)

.76

(.45)

       

Females by age

     

3-5

55

(11)

.58

(.53)

.56

(.68)

.76

(.69)

.75

(.56)

.58

(.72)

.58

(.71)

.68

(.74)

.64

(.67)

6-8

348

(42)

.40

(.28)

.47

(.37)

.56

(.28)

.66

(.38)

.65

(.47)

.62

(.64)

.50

(.36)

.54

(.45)

9-11

336

(49)

.27

(.28)

.38

(.49)

.34

(.38)

.45

(.51)

.53

(.49)

.49

(.53)

.32

(.38)

.41

(.48)

12-14

282

(48)

.41

(.15)

.51

(.23)

.42

(.19)

.58

(.27)

.66

(.32)

.62

(.42)

.44

(.18)

.55

(.24)

15-17

133

(25)

.31

(.33)

.34

(.68)

.28

(.32)

.36

(.63)

.54

(.45)

.49

(.47)

.32

(.36)

.37

(.62)

Table 21. Factor Means for Teacher (Comparison between the Portuguese and Anglo-American results)

Note. In parentheses Anglo-American results by Goyette, Conners, and Ulrich (1978)


Discussion and Conclusion

As a final conclusion for this work, it is important to call attention to two aspects related to its main objectives. On the one hand, focusing on the process of adaptation of the scale, one must conclude that, in general, the proposed adaptation fits, in terms of content and psychometric indicators analyzed, to the results originally proposed by Conners. The reliability of the scale as well as that of the different dimensions assessed by analysis of internal consistency are very high, obtaining even higher rates than those originally proposed by Conners. The study of validity conducted by an Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed that, in general, the results can be comparable to those obtained by Conners; although data presented here reveals more clearly the presence of a final unidimensional structure which leads to the suggestion, for future work, for the elimination of the subscale D proposed by Conners and replace it with total scores obtained from the values of the three original dimensions (A, B, and C). In addition, it makes little sense to speak of the dimension D (Hyperactivity Index) as a result of considering the 10 items with greater factorial weight in the three established dimensions since those factorial weights are fluid and can change from one data analysis to another. In short, although in this first approach it was scrupulously respected the solutions proposed by Conners, and from this perspective there was a contribution, it may be considered that in the future this solution could be improved in order to offer a unidimensional scale of hyperactivity with a total score and three particular scores in the three subdimensions proposed. In fact, Appendix B, presenting the scales for the Portuguese population, besides the presented data for the three dimensions A, B, and C, together with index D proposed by Conners, it has been we formulated a single total score for the 28 items of the scale so as a Hyperactivity overall index. In order to comply with the format proposed by Conners, it was included in this total score the 5 items that Conners dismissed as part of any of its proposed dimensions. In fact, the proposal here is that the total score (with the 28 items) should replace the Hyperactivity Index (dimension D) proposed by Conners. Not in vain, the correlation between both measures is 0.95 and the advantage of this proposal is that it takes the scale as a unidimensional whole of Hyperactivity and the measure is not restricted to a limited set of items that can change from one study to another from the moment that, as proposed by Conners, it is based on choosing those items which factorial weight in the dimensions A, B, and C are larger. Secondly, it is important to highlight, as a general conclusion, the importance of this work by presenting a final product that we consider very necessary for the use of Portuguese professionals working in this field and use this scale in a systematic way to evaluate Hyperactivity. As demonstrated, it seems clear that the Anglo-American scales are not applicable to the Portuguese population. In fact, if one continues to use these scales, it might appear, in a systematic way, an overestimation of the Hyperactivity indicators that can, in many cases, distort a possible diagnosis of this problem in the population of Portuguese children and adolescents. In this sense, results presented here are more real and adapted to the peculiarities of the particular population in question. On the other hand, these results are backed up by the large number of protocols collected. The sample size studied ensures a sufficient external validity and ensures a very high representation of the surveyed population. The CTRS-28 appears most useful as a quick screening measure for Conduct Problems and Hyperactivity but not especially useful for evaluating internalizing, neurotic, depressive, and anxious symptoms. It is therefore not recommended for use in the initial assessment or diagnosis of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) children because of the limited number of items dealing with hyperactive and inattentive behavior, and the lack of items pertaining to internalizing symptoms. The CTRS-28 is likely to find its greatest value in assessing stimulant drug effects, or other treatment effects, where the convenience of teacher completion of the scale is paramount. The CTRS-28 has excellent clinical utility and provides reliable, valid, and convenient means or measuring teacher perceptions of classroom misbehavior. However, a comprehensive assessment should usually include other data, such as the clinical interview, a medical examination, and objective data regarding school functioning such as test scores, grades, and longitudinal school progress (Barkley,1990).



[1] A correspondência relativa a este artigo deverá ser enviada para: Eduardo Chaves Cruz, Departamento de Educação e Psicologia da Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Complexo Pedagógico, Quinta dos Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Submissão: 30.10.2014                                                                                             Aceitação: 5.1.2015


 

References

Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: The Guilford Press. Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford Press. Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36 (1), 111-150. Castro, A., Ferreira, J. A., Simões, A., Rebelo J. A., & Cardoso, F. (1996). A Escala Revista de Conners para Professores (Conners-28): Dados normativos para a população portuguesa, Revista Portuguesa de Pedagogia, Ano XXX(3), 83-107. Conners, C. K. (1994). Conners’ Rating Scales. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 550-578). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Conners, C. K. (1999). Clinical use of rating scales in diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 46, 857-870. Conners, C. K., Sitarenios, G., Parker, D. A., & Epstein, J. N. (1998). Revision and restandardization of the Conners Teacher Rating Scale (CTRS-R): Factor Structure, Reliability, and Criterion Validity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 279-291. Goyette, C. H., Conners, C. K., & Ulrich, R. F. (1978). Normative data on revised Conners Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 221-236. Hair, J. K., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Resnick, R. J., & McEvoy, K. (1994). Attention-deficit Hyperactivity disorder. Abstract of the psychological and behavioral literature, 1971-1994. Washington: American Psychological Corporation.    

Appendix A

CTRS-28 Portuguese version

Descrição dos itens Nada Um Pouco Bastante Muito
01 É um aluno desassossegado, agitado (B) (D) 0 1 2 3
02 Faz barulho quando não deve (B) 0 1 2 3
03 Exige respostas imediatas às suas solicitações (B) 0 1 2 3
04 Comporta-se como "espertalhão" é descarado (A) 0 1 2 3
05 Temperamento explosivo e comportamento imprevisível (A) (D) 0 1 2 3
06 Demasiado sensível às criticas (A) 0 1 2 3
07 Distraído ou com problemas de atenção (C) (D) 0 1 2 3
08 Perturba outros colegas (B) (D) 0 1 2 3
09 Parece na "Lua", "aéreo", desconcentrado (C) 0 1 2 3
10 Amua (A) (D) 0 1 2 3
11 Muda brusca e acentuadamente de humor (A) (D) 0 1 2 3
12 Conflituoso (A) 0 1 2 3
13 Submisso perante a autoridade do professor 0 1 2 3
14 Irrequieto, sempre de pé e a mexer-se (B) (D) 0 1 2 3
15 Excitado, impulsivo (reage sem pensar) (B) (D) 0 1 2 3
16 Solicita excessivamente a atenção do professor (B) 0 1 2 3
17 Parece rejeitado pelo grupo 0 1 2 3
18 Parece facilmente influenciável pelos colegas (C) 0 1 2 3
19 Sem "capacidade de encaixe" reage mal quando o contrariam 0 1 2 3
20 Parece com falta de liderança (C) 0 1 2 3
21 Deixa incompletos os trabalhos que começa (C) (D) 0 1 2 3
22 Infantil e imaturo (C) 0 1 2 3
23 Nega os seus erros, culpa os outros (A) 0 1 2 3
24 Relaciona-se mal com os colegas 0 1 2 3
25 Mostra falta de cooperação com os colegas da turma 0 1 2 3
26 Facilmente frustrado com o esforço (C) (D) 0 1 2 3
27 Mostra falta de cooperação com o professor (A) 0 1 2 3
28 Tem dificuldades de aprendizagem (C) 0 1 2 3

 

Appendix B

Normative data for the Portuguese population

Boys A. Conduct Problem Boys B. Hyperactivity
T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
100     23+     100          
99     22     99          
98           98          
97   24 21     97          
96           96          
95   23       95          
94     20     94          
93   22       93          
92           92          
91     19     91          
90   21       90          
89     18 24   89     21    
88   20       88          
87       23   87     20    
86   19 17     86          
85       22   85     19    
84           84          
83   18 16 21   83     18    
82         24 82          
81 24 17 15 20   81       21  
80 23       23 80   21 17    
79       19 22 79       20  
78 22 16 14     78   20 16   21
77       18 21 77       19  
76 21 15       76   19 15   20
75     13 17 20 75 21     18 19
74 20 14       74 20 18      
73 19   12 16 19 73     14 17 18
72         18 72 19 17      
71 18 13   15   71   16 13 16 17
70     11   17 70 18        
69 17 12       69   15 12 15 16
68     10 14 16 68 17       15
67 16 11     15 67 16 14   14  
66 15     13   66     11   14
65     9   14 65 15 13   13  
64 14 10   12   64 14   10   13
63     8   13 63   12   12  
62 13 9   11   62 13   9   12
61         12 61   11   11  
60 12 8 7 10 11 60 12   8   11
59 11         59   10   10 10
58     6 9 10 58 11        
57 10 7       57   9 7 9 9
56       8 9 56 10        
55 9 6 5   8 55 9 8 6 8 8
54       7   54          
53 8 5     7 53 8 7 5 7 7
52 7   4 6   52          
51         6 51 7 6   6 6
50 6 4 3 5   50     4   5
49         5 49 6 5   5  
48 5 3   4 4 48 5 4 3 4 4
47     2     47          
46 4 2   3 3 46 4 3 2 3 3
45     1     45          
44 3     2 2 44 3 2 1 2 2
43 2 1     1 43          
42     0 1   42 2 1   1 1
41 1 0     0 41 1   0   0
40       0   40   0   0  
39 0         39 0        
Boys C. Inattentive-Passive Boys D. Hyperactivity Index
T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17  
94           94     30      
93           93            
92     24     92     29      
91           91            
90     23     90     28      
89           89   30        
88   24       88     27      
87     22     87   29 26      
86   23   24   86   28        
85 24   21     85     25      
84   22       84   27 24 30    
83 23   20 23   83       29    
82   21       82   26 23      
81 22   19 22   81   25   28    
80   20       80 30   22 27    
79 21     21   79 29 24   26 30  
78   19 18   24 78     21   29  
77 20     20   77 28 23   25 28  
76 19 18 17   23 76 27 22 20 24    
75       19 22 75     19   27  
74 18 17 16     74 26 21   23 26  
73       18 21 73 25   18 22 25  
72 17 16 15     72 24 20        
71       17 20 71   19 17 21 24  
70 16       19 70 23     20 23  
69   15 14 16   69 22 18 16   22  
68 15       18 68     15 19    
67   14 13 15   67 21 17   18 21  
66 14       17 66 20 16 14   20  
65   13 12 14 16 65 19     17 19  
64 13         64   15 13 16 18  
63   12 11   15 63 18          
62 12     13   62 17 14 12 15 17  
61   11     14 61 16 13     16  
60 11   10 12 13 60     11 14 15  
59   10       59 15 12 10 13    
58 10   9 11 12 58 14 11     14  
57   9       57     9 12 13  
56 9   8 10 11 56 13 10   11 12  
55   8       55 12   8      
54 8   7 9 10 54 11 9   10 11  
53   7     9 53   8 7 9 10  
52 7     8   52 10   6   9  
51   6 6   8 51 9 7   8    
50 6     7   50 8   5 7 8  
49   5 5   7 49   6     7  
48 5     6 6 48 7 5 4 6 6  
47   4 4     47 6     5 5  
46 4     5 5 46   4 3      
45   3 3     45 5     4 4  
44 3     4 4 44 4 3 2   3  
43         3 43 3 2 1 3 2  
42 2 2 2 3   42       2    
41         2 41 2 1 0   1  
40 1 1 1     40 1     1 0  
39       2 1 39   0   0    
38 0 0 0     38 0          
37       1 0 37            
36       0   36            
 
Girls A. Conduct Problem Girls B. Hyperactivity
T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
100     18+     100          
99           99     18+   15+
98     17 23+   98          
97           97          
96   21+     15+ 96     17    
95     16 22   95         14
94           94       21  
93   20   21   93     16    
92     15   14 92         13
91 24         91       20  
90   19   20   90          
89 23   14     89     15 19 12
88   18   19 13 88          
87 22         87          
86       18   86   21 14 18  
85 21 17 13     85         11
84         12 84   20   17  
83 20 16   17   83     13    
82     12     82   19   16 10
81 19     16   81          
80   15     11 80 21 18 12    
79 18   11     79       15  
78   14   15   78 20 17     9
77 17       10 77     11 14  
76     10 14   76 19 16      
75 16 13       75          
74         9 74 18   10 13 8
73 15 12   13   73   15      
72     9     72 17     12  
71       12   71   14 9    
70 14 11     8 70 16       7
69     8 11   69   13   11  
68 13         68 15   8    
67   10       67   12   10  
66 12   7 10 7 66 14       6
65   9       65 13 11   9  
64 11     9   64     7    
63         6 63 12 10      
62 10 8 6     62       8 5
61       8   61 11 9 6    
60 9 7       60       7  
59     5 7 5 59 10 8      
58           58     5   4
57 8 6   6   57 9     6  
56     4     56   7      
55 7       4 55 8   4 5  
54   5   5   54   6     3
53 6   3     53 7        
52   4   4 3 52   5 3 4  
51 5         51 6        
50           50   4   3 2
49 4 3 2 3   49 5   2    
48         2 48   3   2  
47   2   2   47 4        
46 3   1     46 3 2 1   1
45           45       1  
44 2 1   1 1 44 2 1      
43     0     43       0  
42 1     0   42 1   0   0
41   0     0 41   0      
40 0         40 0        
   
Girls C. Inattentive-Passive Girls D. Hyperactivity Index
T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
100     24     100     24+   22+
99         24 99          
98           98     23    
97     23   23 97         21
96           96       30  
95     22     95   30 22   20
94         22 94   29   29  
93           93     21    
92     21   21 92   28   28 19
91 24         91       27  
90     20     90   27 20    
89 23       20 89       26 18
88       24   88   26 19    
87 22 24 19   19 87       25 17
86       23   86 30 25 18    
85 21 23 18     85       24  
84       22 18 84 29 24     16
83 20 22       83 28 23 17 23  
82     17 21 17 82       22  
81 19 21       81 27 22 16   15
80     16 20   80 26     21  
79 18 20     16 79   21     14
78       19   78 25   15 20  
77   19 15   15 77 24 20      
76 17     18   76     14 19 13
75   18 14     75 23 19      
74 16     17 14 74 22 18 13 18  
73   17       73       17 12
72 15   13 16 13 72 21 17      
71   16       71     12 16 11
70 14     15   70 20 16      
69   15 12   12 69 19   11 15  
68 13     14   68   15     10
67   14 11   11 67 18     14  
66 12     13   66 17 14 10    
65   13       65       13 9
64 11   10   10 64 16 13 9 12  
63   12   12   63 15 12     8
62     9   9 62     8 11  
61 10 11   11   61 14 11      
60           60 13     10 7
59 9 10 8 10 8 59   10 7    
58           58 12     9  
57 8 9 7 9 7 57   9 6   6
56           56 11     8  
55 7 8   8   55 10 8   7 5
54     6   6 54   7 5    
53 6 7   7   53 9     6  
52     5   5 52 8 6 4   4
51 5 6   6   51       5  
50   5       50 7 5      
49 4   4 5 4 49 6   3 4 3
48   4       48   4      
47     3 4 3 47 5   2 3 2
46 3 3       46 4 3   2  
45       3   45     1    
44 2 2 2   2 44 3 2   1 1
43       2   43   1      
42 1 1 1     42 2   0 0  
41       1 1 41 1 0     0
40 0 0       40          
39     0 0 0 39 0        
Boys TOTAL 28 ITEMS Girls TOTAL 28 ITEMS
T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 T/Age 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
100     84     100     61+ 82+ 63+
99   84 83     99   84 60 81 62
98   83 81     98   81 59 80 60
97   81 79     97   78 58 78 59
96   79 77 84   96   75 57 77 57
95   77 75 83   95   72 56 75 55
94   75 73 82   94   71 55 74 53
93   73 71 80   93   70 54 72 52
92   72 69 78   92 84 69 53 70 51
91   71 67 77   91 83 68 52 68 50
90   70 66 76   90 81 67 51 67 48
89   69 65 74   89 79 65 50 65 46
88   67 64 72   88 77 64 49 64 45
87   65 63 70   87 75 63 48 62 44
86 84 64 61 69   86 73 62 47 61 43
85 82 63 59 68 84 85 71 60 46 60 42
84 80 62 57 67 83 84 69 58 45 59 41
83 78 61 56 66 82 83 67 57 44 57  
82 76 59 55 65 80 82 65 56 43 56 40
81 74 58 54 63 78 81 63 55 42 55 39
80 72 57 52 62 76 80 61 53 41 53 38
79 70 55 51 60 75 79 59 52 40 52 37
78 68 54 50 59 72 78 58 51 39 51 36
77 66 53 49 58 70 77 57 50 38 49 35
76 65 51 47 56 68 76 56 48 37 48 34
75 64 50 46 55 67 75 54 47 36 46  
74 63 49 45 54 65 74 53 46 35 45 33
73 61 47 44 52 63 73 51 45 34 44 32
72 59 46 43 51 62 72 49 43 33 43 31
71 57 45 41 50 59 71 48 42 32 42 30
70 55 43 40 49 57 70 47 41 31 40 29
69 54 42 39 47 56 69 45 40 30 39 28
68 52 41 38 46 55 68 43 38 29 38 27
67 50 39 36 44 53 67 42 37 28 36 26
66 48 38 35 43 50 66 40 36 27 35 25
65 46 37 34 42 48 65 39 34 26 34 24
64 44 36 32 40 47 64 37 33 25 33 23
63 43 34 31 39 45 63 36 32 24 31  
62 42 33 30 37 43 62 34 30 23 30 22
61 41 32 29 36 41 61 33 29 22 29 21
60 38 30 27 35 40 60 31 28 21 28 20
59 36 29 26 33 38 59 30 27 20 26 19
58 34 28 25 32 36 58 29 25 19 25 18
57 33 26 24 30 34 57 28 24 18 24 17
56 31 25 22 29 32 56 26 23 17 22 16
55 30 24 21 28 31 55 24 22 16 21  
54 27 22 20 26 29 54 23 20 15 20 15
53 26 21 19 25 27 53 21 19 14 18 14
52 25 20 17 24 25 52 20 18 13 17 13
51 22 19 16 22 23 51 19 17 12 16 12
50 21 17 15 21 21 50 17 15 11 15 11
49 20 16 14 19 20 49 16 14 10 13 10
48 18 15 12 18 18 48 14 13 9 12 9
47 16 13 11 17 16 47 13 11 8 11 8
46 14 12 10 15 14 46 12 10 7 9  
45 12 11 8 14 12 45 10 9 6 8 7
44 11 9 7 12 10 44 9 8 5 7 6
43 9 8 6 11 8 43 7 6 4 5 5
42 7 7 5 10 7 42 6 5   4 4
41 6 5 3 8 5 41 4 4 3 3 3
40 4 4 2 7 3 40 3 3 2 2 2
39 3 3 1 6 1 39 1 1 1 0 1
      (1) A correspondência relativa a este artigo deverá ser enviada para: Eduardo Chaves Cruz, Departamento de Educação e Psicologia da Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Complexo Pedagógico, Quinta dos Prados, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.    Submissão: 30.10.2014 Aceitação: 5.1.2015
pdf icon