PARENT CHILD RELATIONSHIP SCALE (PCRS)

Experimenter: UHM Subject: T

ExperimentNo:2 Date:16/04/25

AIM

To assess the relationship between parents and children using the parent child
relationship scale.

MATERIALS REQUIRED

1. Parent child relationship scale (PCRS)

2. Norms for interpretation

3. Writing materials

PLAN:

Administer the parent child relationship scale and obtain the score for mother and
father separately categorize them into 10 dimensions and find out the degree of relationship
on these dimensions.

PROCEDURE:

Seat the subject comfortably and instruct the subject thus, “Here are a few statements
regarding the way father and mother act towards you. Read each statement carefully and
think how it will describe the behaviour of your father and mother towards you. Apply the
statements to your father and answer all the statements. Answer the same statements in
relation to your mother. Write your response in the columns under father and mother
separately. Depending on your perception of your relationship with either your father or
mother, rate the statement on a 5-point scale ranging from always to very rarely with the
score of 5,4,3,2 and 1”. There is no time limit. With these instructions administer the
questionnaire and obtain the result.
SCORING:

Sum the scores of the ratings for each item on the subscale. Then calculate the scores
for each parent separately. Obtain ten scores for the father form and ten scores for the mother
form, corresponding to the ten dimensions of the scale. Finally, combine the scores for both
the father and mother to get the overall score.

Norms for Interpretation (Mother and Father):

Raw score Interpretation

0 - 10 Very low

11 - 20 Low

21 - 30 Average

31 - 40 High

41 - 60 Very high

Norms for Overall Interpretation:

Raw score Interpretation

0 - 20 Very low

21 - 40 Low

41 - 60 Average

61 - 80 High

81 - 100 Very High

Table 1 showing the scores and interpretation given by subject towards her father on PCRS

DIMENSIONS SCORE INTERPRETATION

Protective 30 Average

Symbolic Punishment 18 Low

Rejection 12 Low

Objective Punishment 10 Very Low

Demanding 26 Average

Indifferent 16 Low

Symbolic Reward 23 Average

Loving 23 Average

Objective Reward 20 Low

Neglecting 11 Low
Table 2 showing the scores and interpretation given by the subject towards her mother on
PCRS.

DIMENSIONS SCORE INTERPRETATION

Protective 24 Average

Symbolic Punishment 14 Low

Rejection 11 Low

Objective Punishment 10 Very Low

Demanding 22 Average

Indifferent 22 Average

Symbolic Reward 23 Average

Loving 30 Average

Objective Reward 21 Average

Neglecting 11 Low
Table 3 showing the scores and interpretation given by the subject towards her parents on
PCRS.

DIMENSIONS SCORE INTERPRETATION

Protective 54 Average

Symbolic Punishment 32 Low

Rejection 23 Low

Objective Punishment 20 Very Low

Demanding 48 Average

Indifferent 39 Low

Symbolic Reward 46 Average

Loving 53 Average

Objective Reward 41 Average

Neglecting 22 Low

DISCUSSION:

Table 1 shows the kind of relationship the subject has with her father. The father is
seen as moderately protective (score: 30), meaning he shows care and concern for her safety
and well-being. He is also moderately loving (score: 23), suggesting he expresses warmth and
affection, though not very often. He gives average symbolic rewards (score: 23) like praise or
encouragement, and low objective rewards (score: 20), such as gifts or treats.
When it comes to discipline, the father uses low symbolic punishment (score: 18) and very
low objective punishment (score: 10), showing he does not rely much on punishment. The
subject sees low levels of rejection (score: 12), indifference (score: 16), and neglect (score:
11) from her father, meaning he is usually emotionally available and involved. His
demanding behavior (score: 26) is average, showing he has normal expectations from her.
Overall, the subject sees her father as caring, fair, and supportive.

Table 2 shows how the subject sees her mother. The mother is also moderately protective
(score: 24), showing concern for her child’s well-being. Her loving behavior (score: 30) is at
the higher end of average, which means she expresses love and affection fairly often. She
gives average symbolic (score: 23) and objective rewards (score: 21), showing a balanced
way of giving appreciation.

The mother uses low symbolic punishment (score: 14) and very low objective punishment
(score: 10), meaning she rarely uses harsh discipline. She is also seen as showing low
rejection (score: 11) and low neglect (score: 11), which means she is caring and emotionally
present. Her indifference (score: 22) and demanding behavior (score: 22) are both average,
suggesting that she sometimes seems emotionally distant but still has reasonable
expectations. Overall, the subject sees her mother as warm, involved, and fair in her
parenting.

Table 3 shows how the subject sees both parents together. The overall scores show that both
parents are moderately protective (score: 54) and loving (score: 53), creating a caring and
supportive home. They give average symbolic (score: 46) and objective rewards (score: 41),
which means they use both praise and material rewards to encourage good behavior.

They use low symbolic punishment (score: 32) and very low objective punishment (score:
20), showing that they do not often use punishment. The subject feels low rejection (score:
23) and low neglect (score: 22) from her parents, meaning they are emotionally present and
involved. However, the indifference score (39), though still low, is close to average, which
might mean that sometimes the subject feels emotionally overlooked. The demanding score
(48) is average, showing that both parents have fair expectations and rules.

Overall, the subject sees her parents as loving, caring, and mostly fair, with occasional
moments of emotional distance.
Conclusion:

• The subject sees her parents as protective and loving, giving her a sense of safety and
care.

• Both parents are fair in their discipline and show affection, with the father being a bit
more emotionally consistent and the mother a bit more expressive.

• There is very little rejection or neglect, but at times the subject may feel slightly
emotionally distant from them.

• Overall, the subject is growing up in a supportive and balanced home environment

Experimenter: UHM Subject: T

Experiment No:03 Date: 17/04/25

AIM:

To assess the presence and severity of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

MATERIALS REQUIRED:

1. ADHD 2 Questionnaire

2. Manual for scoring and interpretation

3. Writing materials

PLAN:

The questionnaire will be administered individually. The respondent

PROCEDURE:

Seat the respondent comfortably, build rapport and instruct them as follows: "Here are
a few statements regarding the behavior and attention patterns of the child. Read each
statement carefully and think about how often the behavior has occurred over the past six
months. Mark your response for each statement on a 5-point scale, ranging from 'Always' to
'Very Rarely,' with the scores of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. Answer all the statements
honestly and independently based on your observation. There is no right or wrong answers.
Complete all the items without skipping any. There is no time limit for completing the
questionnaire." After giving the instructions, administer the questionnaire. Allow the
respondent to work at their own pace without interruption. Clarify any doubts they have
about the meaning of items, but do not guide their answers. Once the form is completed,
collect it carefully and proceed to scoring according to the manual.

PRECAUTIONS

1. Make sure the respondent understands each item before responding.

2. Ensure a quiet and distraction-free environment.

3. No time pressure should be applied.

4. Avoid influencing the answers.

5. Maintain confidentiality of the responses and scores.

SCORING:

The scoring of the ADHDT-2 is done step by step for two main areas: Inattention and
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity. All the item scores related to each area are added to get the raw
scores, one for inattention and one for hyperactivity. These raw scores are then looked up in
the scoring manual to find out the percentile rank and the scaled score using the appropriate
table in Appendix A. Use the correct table from the manual, depending on whether the person
is male or female and also depending on the age, since the scores are different for each. The
percentile rank is found in the percentile column (left side of the raw score column) and the
scaled score in the scaled score column (right side of the raw score column). Once we have
the scaled score for both inattention and hyperactivity, we add them together to get the sum of
scaled scores. Then the ADHD index and percentile rank are determined by referring to the
sum of scaled scores in Appendix B. The probability of ADHD is determined by referring to
the ADHD index using the interpretation guide in Section 3 given in the response form.
NORMS FOR INTERPRETATION:

ADHD Index Probability of ADHD

≤ 54 Very Unlikely

55-70 Unlikely

71-79 Possible

80-89 Likely

≥ 90 Very Likely

RESULTS:

Table 1 shows the raw scores, percentile ranks, and scaled scores for the subscale Inattention
and Hyperactivity/ Impulsivity for the subject T.

Subscales Raw Scores Percentile Ranks Scaled Scores

Inattention 23 25 8

Hyperactivity/ Impulsivity 26 37 9

Table 2 shows the percentile rank, sum of scaled scores and interpretation of ADHD index for
subject T.

Interpretation

Sum of Scaled Score 17

Percentile Rank 23 Very Likely

ADHD Index 92
Discussion:

Table 1 shows that the subject, T, got a raw score of 23 on the Inattention scale and 26 on the
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity scale. These scores were converted into scaled scores of 8 for
inattention and 9 for hyperactivity/impulsivity. The percentile rank for inattention is 25,
which means T’s inattention behaviours are more frequent than those of 25% of individuals in
the same age and gender group. The percentile rank for hyperactivity/impulsivity is 37,
meaning these behaviours are more frequent than those of 37% of the comparison group.

Table 2 shows that the Sum of Scaled Scores is 17. The percentile rank for both inattention
and hyperactivity/impulsivity is 23, which means the subject showed more ADHD-related
behaviours than 23% of children in the normative group. When the sum of scaled scores is
converted into the ADHD Index, the score is 92. According to the ADHDT-2 manual, a score
of 92 falls in the "Very Likely" range. This means that T is very likely to show behaviours
related to ADHD.

Conclusion:

The subject shows mild difficulties with attention and activity based on subscale scores.
However, her ADHD Index score of 92 indicates that she is very likely to show behaviours
consistent with ADHD.