The researcher explains to them briefly the objective of the research. The test kits were distributed to them, they read the direction and completed a profile sheet; TEI was used to rate the intervention. The test takes 15 minutes to finish. The scores of the test were examined using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent t test. Based on the result, there were significant differences between the teachers and students overall acceptability rating.
The teachers rated the jargon description of time-out as significantly more acceptable than the no jargon description, while the result of the test of the undergraduates revealed that there were no significant differences between the jargons versus the no jargon intervention description The result of this result thus contradicted some of the former researchers. Some of them were as follows: 1. Significant higher ratings of teachers for the jargon versus non jargon.
It was mentioned in the review some former researchers from Hall & Didier, Kazdin and Cole, and Watt et. al. (as cited in Hyatt, Tingstrom & Edwards, 1991) regarding the difficulty and negative influence encountered by third party (parents, teachers and ward personnel) in using jargon intervention description. Outcome of this research was reverse because the teachers favor more using jargons and it has positive influence on them. 2. No difference in judgment between low experienced teachers and high experience teachers.
The difference between the result of the test and the research of Witt and company (as cited in Hyatt, Tingstrom & Edwards, 1991) and the researcher said that this maybe due to the difference in the method they use in treating the variables understudy. Other result of the test revealed that: 3. For undergraduates on this study they have found out that jargon versus no jargon description in intevention is not an issue for the undergraduates. It doe not matter to them whether which of the two approach is use in the intervention description.
The acceptability ratings also revealed that both upperclassmen and underclassmen favored both intervention descriptions. It also revealed that they respect the intervention description whether it uses technical or non-technical language and the outcome of the intevention is still the same for their opinion. The researchers of these study pointed out that their research has its limitations that might one way or the other affect the result of the test and they were as follows: 1. Generalizability to classroom interventions other that time-out (Hyatt, Tingstrom & Edwards, 1991)
2. Jargons other than behavioral (Hyatt, Tingstrom & Edwards, 1991) 3. Teachers not seeking additional educational past the bachelors degree. (Hyatt, Tingstrom & Edwards, 1991) 4. Relative Effect of jargons versus other variables like teachers time expenditure, theoretical orientation and intervention agent on intervention acceptance (Hyatt, Tingstrom & Edwards, 1991) The researchers recommended further additional studies to support this study. The use of variables is recommended a. Regular and special education teachers in school setting
b. Jargons influence on acceptability to a behavioral assessment c. Design, evaluation and acceptance of behavioral intervention for Children.
Hall, C. W. , & Didier E. (1987) Acceptability and Behavioral Treatment: Review of Variables that influence treatment selection. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. In Hyatt, S. P, Tingstrom, D. H, and Edwards, R (1991) Jargon Usage in Intervention During Consultation: Demonstration of a Facilitative Effect. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation. 2(1) 49-56