NUMBER 550 • 16 JULY • ASSESSMENTS
INDEX

	The meaning that an observer places on a child’s behaviour enables him to make sense of that behaviour, and thus some interpretation is involved in all observation. The observer’s own predispositions and expectations through training and role perception are the major determinants of what interpretation he will place on the observed behaviour. These expectations provide the structure and format of his observations. Who observes the behaviour is determined by considerations of economy, efficiency, involvement, reliability and validity of the outcome; A person who knows the child has obvious advantages in the ease with which he can observe familiar behavior which might possibly change in reaction to an unfamiliar observer. But the c1oseness of an observer to a child does not necessarily increase the reliability or validity of his observations. Indeed, particularly in the case of problem children, those who are most familiar with them (such as parents) provoke and perceive behaviours which are part of a continuing interaction and do not make much sense other than in relation to them, even though the information they give is an essential part of the total assessment. It is useful to remain aware of the effects of interpersonal perception on behaviour and its observation and arrive at an acceptable balance of familiarity and distance. The observer is like a measuring instrument, liable to make either constant or variable error. As such, the observer is likely to interpret a child’s behaviour too leniently where ‘bullying and intimidation’ are described as ‘teasing’ or too strictly where a mild scrap is described as an ‘act of violence’. One way of overcoming this is through the use of non-interpretive, micro-descriptions of behaviours as well as a wide range of observers. An extension of observer error is termed the ‘halo effect’. The behaviour of a child who is said to be ‘aggressive’, ‘depressed’, or ‘attention seeking’ is more likely to be interpreted as falling into these categories than if he Were not so labeled. The ‘halo effect’ cannot be eliminated, though it can be much reduced by having multiple observers, because most professionals take Their interpretive cues from one another. The only satisfactory solution is to be aware of the force of such haloes and be ready to counteract them through seeking independent corroboration. The point has already been Made that every observation mast be placed in a frame of reference of the assessor’ who is operating against a disciplined background. Physical signs such as seizures and dilation of pupils unusual because they are often involuntary and unpurposive and, therefore; their interpretation is relatively straightforward. In social behaviour, on the other hand, there is little that is unpurposive and even less that is ‘irrational’. What may be regarded as such by the observer may have a perfectly sound explanation, if the subject could or would give it. Further more, perceptions of intention, purpose and outcome of the same behaviour can be dramatically different according to who is the observer and who the observed. All these factors are part of the complexity of human behaviour, which, though inconvenient from the viewpoint of scientific rigour, give it its unique fascination and flavour. The difficulties in categorising behaviour cannot be logically overcome. However, the use of uniform frames of reference by groups of observer with uniform training, frequent cross-checking of the frames of reference, and shared cultural values by the observer and the observed can reduce the divergence to acceptable levels.
	MASUD HOGHUGHI Hoghughi, M. Assessing Problem Children, Issues and Practice. CT: Burnett Books, National Association of Child Care Workers Cape Town  p 56-58