View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Penguin Is Not a Giraffe: Categorizing Preschool Children According to Temperament

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Penguin Is Not a Giraffe: Categorizing Preschool Children According to Temperament
Language: English
Authors: Jana Maine, Timothy J. Huelsman, Sandra Glover Gagnon (ORCID 0000-0003-3753-7509), Rose Mary Webb, Pamela Kidder-Ashley
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(5):1807-1821.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Preschool Children, Classification, Personality Traits, Grouping (Instructional Purposes), Multivariate Analysis
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01696-8
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Temperament is a widely researched trait that significantly influences children's lives. Still, theorists differ in their perspectives on the construct. With their nine dimensions of temperament and three "categories" of children--"easy," "difficult," or "slow to warm up"--Thomas and colleagues (1968) laid the foundation for future temperament research. Subsequent researchers have identified temperament profiles that are similar to but not completely consistent with Thomas and colleagues' model. Still, most conceptualizations exist primarily for researchers and may be challenging to translate for educators who work directly with children and their caregivers. Therefore, this study had two aims. First, we used cluster analysis to corroborate and extend research that categorized children into temperament groups. We identified four groups that converge and one group that diverges from previous findings. Our second, more important purpose was to strengthen the link between research and practice by conceptualizing our results in a way that is understandable to educators and caregivers. The challenging task of capturing the nature of each cluster in one or even a few words led us to adopt a zoomorphic approach in which we assigned nonhuman animal names to each group: koalas, penguins, dogs, bobcats, and giraffes. Our findings support previous groupings of children by temperament and provide a consumer-friendly model that facilitates communication between caregivers and educators.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1470659
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHRD1LNTG5ZAdjIv56FSuQTAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAYMTJxfYQJcbOl3AAIBEICBmluCLsl8Wm22-TYxqdiJQgNpDoDERKsN6G1OHsoJhRvZaaLF3UN7S1uTmXBIYbTeOprKimQIf7l1E_guSXtGbvvxdS6s8hPR_CTPCdG_TmFxI-yE1_1NpKx7t_qjDOepWaxhPTPVO-A3P1D0npF60BOU6G1bL5yIzMIGhqBnACE2g0Axeh-Oqkis2VyanwVdms5w-cM2JxI3wnI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185036402;5mx01jun.25;2025May12.06:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185036402-1">A Penguin is Not a Giraffe: Categorizing Preschool Children According to Temperament </title> <p>Temperament is a widely researched trait that significantly influences children's lives. Still, theorists differ in their perspectives on the construct. With their nine dimensions of temperament and three "categories" of children—easy, difficult, or slow to warm up—Thomas and colleagues (1968) laid the foundation for future temperament research. Subsequent researchers have identified temperament profiles that are similar to but not completely consistent with Thomas and colleagues' model. Still, most conceptualizations exist primarily for researchers and may be challenging to translate for educators who work directly with children and their caregivers. Therefore, this study had two aims. First, we used cluster analysis to corroborate and extend research that categorized children into temperament groups. We identified four groups that converge and one group that diverges from previous findings. Our second, more important purpose was to strengthen the link between research and practice by conceptualizing our results in a way that is understandable to educators and caregivers. The challenging task of capturing the nature of each cluster in one or even a few words led us to adopt a zoomorphic approach in which we assigned nonhuman animal names to each group: koalas, penguins, dogs, bobcats, and giraffes. Our findings support previous groupings of children by temperament and provide a consumer-friendly model that facilitates communication between caregivers and educators.</p> <p>Keywords: Temperament; Cluster analysis; Preschool children; Early childhood; Childcare; Caregivers</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Temperament plays an important role in numerous childhood academic, social, and behavioral outcomes. A well-established body of literature attests to its important role in young children's development. Children's temperaments are linked to their academic performance (Dare et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; Nasvytienė et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]) and skill development (Viljaranta et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref3">56</reflink>]), social competence (Veziroglu-Celik, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref4">55</reflink>]), understanding of emotions (Longobardi et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]), and relationships with teachers (Acar et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]), peers (Magdalena, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]), and parents (Fleck et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]; Walsh & Zadurian, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref9">57</reflink>]). Of particular concern are findings indicating that temperament predicts externalizing (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref10">6</reflink>]) and internalizing (Buzzell et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref11">7</reflink>]) disorders and increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood (Brannigan et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]). Of specific relevance for preschool children is Bair and Raver's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>]) contention that temperament—in terms of reactivity and self-regulation—forms the foundation for school readiness.</p> <p>Preschool children are in a developmentally "busy" stage, as many aspects of school readiness—cognitive, social, and behavioral competencies—must be mastered for a successful transition to school. This transition can be challenging for children, many of whom must adjust to being away from home and familiar people for the first time. The requirements of school are typically "tighter" than those for home, as children must learn to sit quietly for periods of time and interact with unfamiliar peers. Temperament plays an important role in the quality of children's relationships with adults (Bair & Raver, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]; Zee & Roorda, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref15">61</reflink>]) and peers (Magdalena, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]); those relationships are critical for children's adjustment to school. With that in mind, it becomes evident that caregivers, educators, and children would benefit from knowing what temperament is, why it is important, and how understanding it can be helpful. Indeed, knowledge of temperament helps teachers (McClowry et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>]; Sealy et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref18">51</reflink>]) and parents (O'Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>]) respond more effectively to children's behaviors and better understand their needs (Sealy et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]). Interventions for parents, children, and teachers that incorporate temperament have proven effective. For example, INSIGHTS Into Children's Temperaments (McClowry, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]) is an evidence-based program that informs parents, teachers, and children about temperament and teaches optimal responses to children's behaviors. Multiple studies have demonstrated the program's success in improving children's behaviors (Cappella et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]; McClowry et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref23">34</reflink>]) and teachers' classroom management skills (McClowry et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]; McCormick et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]). This evidence clearly illustrates the possibility that temperament can and should guide educational efforts with children.</p> <p>Early childhood educators recognize the importance of considering temperament in teaching (National Association for the Education of Young Children, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref26">38</reflink>]). The most recent National Association for the Education of Young Children ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]) position statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice for Young Children includes among its guidelines that, in addition to individual characteristics such as age and ability, teachers should consider temperament when deciding on learning approaches for children. Years ago, Pullis and Cadwell ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref28">42</reflink>]) argued that temperament should be included in school-based, early childhood assessments. Keough ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref29">25</reflink>]) also emphasized the value of including temperament data for teachers and clinical and school-based practitioners, noting that knowledge of temperament can help teachers improve their interactions with students, which may consequently reduce stress. This consequence is promising, as teachers experience approximately twice the rate of stress as other working adults (RAND, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref30">43</reflink>]) and many exit the profession early, citing stress as one of the top reasons for leaving (Doan et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]). Practitioners that would benefit from temperament knowledge, such as mental health counselors, child and family social workers, marriage and family therapists, have also been rated in the top 20 most stressful occupations in the United States (Ingram & Barbera, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]). A more promising statistic from Doan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref33">14</reflink>]) is that teachers who intend to continue teaching noted opportunities to positively impact students and develop positive relationships with them as reasons to continue teaching. Existing research suggests that temperament knowledge could help teachers and other early childhood practitioners successfully accomplish those things (McClowry et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]; McCormick et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref35">35</reflink>]), so calling for increased applications of temperament-informed classroom interactions is warranted.</p> <p>Despite the acknowledged importance of understanding temperament in classroom interactions with children, there are still practical limitations to fully realizing these benefits. For example, one study found that parents, as assessed via semi-structured interviews, had little to no knowledge or accurate understandings of temperament and did not consider it in their parenting (Jansen van Rensburg et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]), suggesting that current models of temperament may not be accessible to families and caregivers, leading to a communication gap between educators and caregivers. Although effective temperament-based interventions do exist (McClowry, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]), additional models that provides accessible language and easily understandable imagery for conveying information to caregivers are needed. A common conceptualization of temperament could facilitate communication between researchers, educators, and caregivers and could strengthen the research-practice link.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-3">Temperament Models</hd> <p>Researchers generally agree that temperament reflects differences in behavioral styles that are observable early in life and relatively stable throughout the lifespan (Sanson et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref38">49</reflink>]). Despite that agreement, conceptualizations of temperament vary, with established models comprising three (Rothbart & Derryberry, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref39">47</reflink>]; Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref40">54</reflink>]), four (McClowry, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]), and five (Caspi & Silva, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref42">11</reflink>]) "types" of children, each with different labels. Prokasky and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref43">41</reflink>]) identified six clusters and used different labels than previous researchers. The use of different methodological approaches (e.g., factor analysis vs. cluster analysis; rating scales vs. observations) certainly contributes to the varying groupings. These inconsistencies and insufficient replication studies have been described as problematic (Prokasky et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref44">41</reflink>]); the literature would benefit from additional studies using the most promising methods and analyses.</p> <p>The models and methods used to conceptualize temperament described here differ, but each has strengths. Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref45">54</reflink>]) New York Longitudinal Study served as the foundation for future investigations of temperament. They observed commonalities among children's temperament dimensions and identified nine dimensions and three "types" of children—<emph>Easy</emph>, <emph>Difficult, and Slow-to-Warm-Up</emph>. Caspi and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]) differentiated groups of children based on observations of their behaviors during cognitive and motor tasks. Using a cluster-analytic technique followed by a one-way ANOVA, they identified 5 groups—<emph>inhibited</emph>, <emph>reserved, undercontrolled, confident, and well-adjusted</emph>. McClowry ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref47">31</reflink>]) used parent ratings and higher-order factor analysis and identified four groups—<emph>High Maintenance</emph>, <emph>Industrious, Social/Eager to Try</emph>, and <emph>Cautious/Slow to Warm Up</emph>. Rothbart's theory extended temperament beyond the innate indicators of behavioral style and emotional reaction to include biological components, viewing temperament as an interplay between reactivity and self-regulation (Rothbart & Derryberry, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref48">47</reflink>]). Rothbart ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref49">45</reflink>]) factor analyzed questionnaire ratings and identified 15 dimensions that combined into three broad types—<emph>Surgency, Negative affectivity, and Effortful control</emph>. In more recent work, Prokasky and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref50">41</reflink>]) used a cluster analysis of parent ratings with three large samples. They derived a six-cluster model with the following types of children—<emph>Unregulated, High Reactive</emph>, <emph>Well-Adjusted, Regulated, Bold, and Average</emph>.</p> <p>Despite those differences, there are parallels between the models presented here. Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref51">54</reflink>]) conceptualization, which served as the springboard for subsequent temperament research, included one Easy, one Difficult, and one Slow-to-Warm group. Each of the subsequent models can be mapped onto Thomas et al.'s groups, and there is consensus that all of the models include at least one Easy and one Difficult group; all but Rothbart and Derryberry's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref52">47</reflink>]) models include a Slow-to-Warm group. Rothbart and Derryberry ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref53">47</reflink>]), Caspi and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]), McClowry ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]), and Prokasky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref56">41</reflink>]) identified two Easy groups; we contend that Prokasky's Average group may also be considered easy. With the exception of Prokasky et al., each model includes one group of Difficult children; Prokasky and colleagues identified two Difficult groups. McClowry's and Prokaski et al.'s models included one Slow-to-Warm group; Caspi and Silva identified two. It appears that across the models, we might expect two to three Easy groups and one to two Difficult and Slow-to-Warm groups. Table 1 presents each model described here and illustrates the parallels between the groups.</p> <p>Table 1 Temperament Groups by Researcher, Including Current Study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Thomas et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">1968</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Rothbart and Derryberry (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">1981</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Caspi and Silva (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">1995</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>McClowry (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2002a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2002b</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Prokasky et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2017</xref>)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Current Study</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p><bold>Easy</bold></p><p>● Regular</p><p>● Approaching</p><p>● Adaptable</p><p>● Mild reacting</p><p>● Positive mood</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Surgency</bold></p><p>● Active, impulsive</p><p>● Positive affect and approach</p><p>● High intensity-pleasure</p><p>● Low shyness</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Confident</bold></p><p>● Eager, exploring, interpersonally responsive</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Social/Eager to Try</bold></p><p>● Low negative reactivity</p><p>● High approach</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Bold*</bold></p><p>● High activity and approach</p><p>● Low fear and shyness</p><p>● Average anger, attentional focusing, and inhibitory control</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Penguins</bold></p><p>● Positive mood</p><p>● Adaptable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold>Giraffes</bold></p><p>● Positive mood</p><p>● More sensitive to stimuli (i.e., high threshold)</p><p>● Mild intensity</p><p>● Low persistence</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Effortful Control</bold></p><p>● High attention and inhibitory control</p><p>● High perceptual sensitivity</p><p>● Enjoys low intensity pleasure</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Well-adjusted</bold></p><p>● Average, capable of control, adequate confidence, some caution, not unduly frustrated</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Industrious</bold></p><p>● Low negative reactivity</p><p>● High task persistence</p><p>● Low activity</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Well-Adjusted*</bold></p><p>● High attentional focusing and inhibitory control</p><p>● Average on all other dimensions</p><p><bold>Average*</bold></p><p>● Average on all temperament variables</p><p>● Low approach</p><p>● High shyness in Sample 1</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Koalas</bold></p><p>● Positive mood</p><p>● More sensitive to stimuli (i.e., high threshold)</p><p>● Mild intensity</p><p>● Low distractibility</p><p>● Low activity</p><p><bold>Dogs</bold></p><p>● Average (between ± 1 SD) on all scales</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Difficult</bold></p><p>● Irregular</p><p>● Withdrawing</p><p>● Non-adaptable</p><p>● Intense reacting</p><p>● Negative mood</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Negative Affectivity</bold></p><p>● Angry/frustrated, high discomfort</p><p>● Fearful and sad</p><p>Slow recovery /soothability</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Undercontrolled</bold></p><p>● Irritable, distractible, uncontrolled behavior, emotional lability</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>High Maintenance</bold></p><p>● High negative reactivity</p><p>● Low task persistence</p><p>● High activity</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Unregulated*</bold></p><p>● High activity, anger, approach</p><p>● Low attentional focusing and inhibitory control</p><p>● Average fear and shyness</p><p><bold>High Reactive</bold></p><p>● High anger and fear</p><p>● Average activity and inhibitory control</p><p>● Average to high approach and shyness</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Bobcats</bold></p><p>● Negative mood</p><p>● Low adaptability</p><p>● Arrhythmic</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p><bold>Slow-To-Warm-Up</bold></p><p>● Slow adaptability</p><p>● Mild intensity</p><p>● Regular</p><p>● Negative reactions to new stimuli</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold>Inhibited</bold></p><p>● Shy, quiet, upset by strangers, distractible</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Cautious/Slow to Warm</bold></p><p>● High negative reactivity</p><p>● High withdrawal</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold>Reserved</bold></p><p>● Shy, uncomfortable, timid, able to attend to tasks</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p><bold>Regulated*</bold></p><p>● Low activity, anger, approach</p><p>● Average fear and shyness</p><p>● Very high attention and inhibitory control</p></td><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For the current study, descriptors are listed in order of decreasing magnitude (see Table 6).</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-4">Temperament Terminology</hd> <p>In addition to the various numbers of groupings of children, some of the nomenclature may be difficult for some caregivers to comprehend. For example, though Rothbart and Derryberry's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref57">47</reflink>]) is one of the most well-known, widely accepted, and studied temperament models, some terms, such as <emph>surgency</emph> and <emph>affectivity</emph>, may be unfamiliar and consequently not as useful in conveying meaning to parents as simpler labels, such as McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref58">31</reflink>]) <emph>social/eager to try</emph> or Caspi and Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]) <emph>confident</emph>. A trend in some child-focused professions (e.g., school psychologists) is to improve communication with caregivers by increasing the readability of written communication by using "consumer-friendly" language (Lichtenstein & Ecker, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]). Readability is often calculated using the Flesch Reading Ease statistic (0 = very difficult; 60 = easy; Flesch, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref61">16</reflink>]) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Kincaid et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref62">26</reflink>]). Each of the terms <emph>surgency</emph> and <emph>affectivity</emph> demonstrated their complexity on both indicators, with a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score of 0 (<emph>Very Difficult</emph>) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12 (https://originality.ai/readability-checker). Rothbart's model has undeniably had a positive and robust impact on subsequent temperament research; however, the terminology may not be accessible to parents and caregivers, limiting its potential impact on practice.</p> <p>Additionally, some existing labels may carry negative connotations. While Thomas et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref63">54</reflink>]) <emph>easy</emph> and <emph>slow-to-warm</emph> are neutral and easy to understand, their <emph>difficult</emph>, and Caspi and Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]) <emph>undercontrolled</emph>, may be perceived by caregivers as negative. Chess and Thomas ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]) acknowledged that "difficult" may be perceived as negative and might leave unnoticed a difficult child's positive characteristics. Although we acknowledge the usefulness of and strong evidence base for Thomas and colleagues' and Caspi and Silva's temperament models, we wonder if there may be other, more positive ways to refer to children who are considered difficult.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-5">The Current Study</hd> <p>As described, there is a need for more consistency among temperament models (Prokasky et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref66">41</reflink>]). Each model described here is empirically supported, highly regarded, and among the most well-known conceptualizations of temperament, and each research group employed strong methodology to derive their models. Thomas et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref67">54</reflink>]) qualitatively analyzed information from interviews and observations, providing rich information gathered about the children and the resulting nine temperament dimensions. McClowry ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]), Rothbart and Derryberry ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref69">47</reflink>]), and Prokasky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref70">41</reflink>]) examined questionnaire ratings; McClowry ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]) used her School-Age Temperament Inventory (SATI), while Rothbart and Derryberry and Prokasky et al. used Rothbart's Children's Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Rothbart et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref72">46</reflink>]). Caspi and Silva's use of behavior observations during brief testing situations allowed them to gain valuable information, but the use of a testing situation may reduce reliability and fidelity to less contrived situations. McClowry and Rothbart and Derryberry used factor analysis to derive their groups, whereas Caspi and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>]) and Prokasky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref74">41</reflink>]) used cluster analysis. Some researchers argue for greater use of person-centered over variable-centered approaches, suggesting that cluster analysis may be preferable for grouping children according to temperament (Howard & Hoffman, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]). In comparison to variable-centered approaches, such as factor analysis, person-centered approaches are designed to categorize a sample into subpopulations and, in doing so, allow for more specificity and fine-grained detail about the groups (Howard & Hoffman).</p> <p>Sample characteristics also varied across some of the studies. For example, the majority of children in Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref76">54</reflink>]) sample were White, middle to upper-middle-class, with well-educated parents. In contrast, McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]) sample varied widely on race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Prokasky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]) replicated their results across three samples; the majority of children were White and well-educated, with middle to middle-high incomes.</p> <p>In order to identify a model that is consistent with any of the ones described here, it is important to intentionally select methods and analyses that can be more directly compared. We propose that Prokasky and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref79">41</reflink>]) approach, which combines a person-centered method and a psychometrically sound temperament questionnaire that measures seven dimensions of temperament, accomplishes that. The combination of cluster analysis and the CBQ, with its seven dimensions, provides a more granular taxonomy to emerge than has been captured by many researchers, which Prokasky et al. emphasize is needed.</p> <p>Our study has two aims. First, we attempt to corroborate and extend research that categorized children into temperament groups. We adopted Prokasky et al.'s methodology, using cluster analysis to examine parent ratings on a standardized, norm-referenced temperament rating scale comprising the nine temperament dimensions described by Thomas et al., ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref80">54</reflink>]; See Table 2). Unlike Prokasky et al., we examined a single and much smaller sample. We acknowledge cluster analysis's sensitivity to sample size and characteristics and the items upon which cases (children here) are clustered and recognize McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>]; citing York & John, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref82">60</reflink>]) criticism that cluster analysis results in exclusive groups and prohibits membership in multiple groups. However, the technique has the capacity to provide a conceptually clear solution in which all children are classified. Although cluster analysis is an exploratory technique, our expectations for the number of clusters we would find were based on the convergent findings from the research described here (Caspi & Silva, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref83">11</reflink>]; McClowry, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref84">31</reflink>]; Prokasky et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref85">41</reflink>]; Rothbart & Derryberry, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref86">47</reflink>]; Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref87">54</reflink>]). We anticipated finding at least one cluster representing each of the three groups identified by most other researchers—easy, difficult, and slow-to-warm.</p> <p>Table 2 Temperament Dimensions from Thomas, Chess, & Birch ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref88">54</reflink>])</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Dimension</p></th><th align="left"><p>Description</p></th><th align="left"><p>Higher BSQ Scores</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Activity Level</p></td><td align="left"><p>Level, tempo, and frequency of motor skills</p></td><td align="left"><p>More active</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rhythmicity</p></td><td align="left"><p>degree of regularity of body functions, which includes rest and activity, sleeping and waking, eating and appetite, and bowel and bladder functions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Less regular</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Approach or Withdrawal</p></td><td align="left"><p>Initial reaction to new stimulus</p></td><td align="left"><p>More withdrawing</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Adaptability</p></td><td align="left"><p>Responses to new or altered situations after time</p></td><td align="left"><p>Less adaptable</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intensity of Reaction</p></td><td align="left"><p>Energy in the response to stimuli such as hunger, diapering and social contact</p></td><td align="left"><p>More intense</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Threshold of Responsiveness</p></td><td align="left"><p>Level of extrinsic stimulation necessary to produce a response</p></td><td align="left"><p>Less stimulation needed</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quality of Mood</p></td><td align="left"><p>Amount of pleasant, joyful, friendly behavior versus unpleasant, crying, unfriendly behavior</p></td><td align="left"><p>More negative</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Distractibility</p></td><td align="left"><p>Effectiveness of environmental stimuli in interfering or altering ongoing behavior</p></td><td align="left"><p>More distractible</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Attention Span and Persistence</p></td><td align="left"><p>Length of time an activity is pursued and the maintenance of an activity in the presence of obstacles</p></td><td align="left"><p>Less persistent</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Our second aim was to develop a model of temperament that could promote communication between educators and caregivers by assigning user-friendly, positively worded labels for the resulting clusters. Keeping in mind current trends to increase the readability and user-friendliness of professional terminology used in schools (Lichtenstein & Ecker, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]), we hoped to establish language that would enhance educators' and caregivers' understanding of temperament, which may strengthen the research-to-practice link and increase the likelihood that the individuals who actually work with children will benefit from what researchers have long known and continue to demonstrate about the importance of temperament.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036402-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included parents of 85 children (46 female, 38 male, 1 not reported) ranging from 38 to 68 months (<emph>M</emph> = 51.5 months) attending preschools or daycare centers in urban and rural areas of North Carolina and Tennessee. The majority of children and parents were White (93%). Parents were generally well-educated: 38.8% reported their highest level of education was a graduate or professional degree, and 31.8% reported a bachelor's as their highest degree. Each family completed one questionnaire for each child; some parents completed them together, while for others, just one parent completed them.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-8">Measure</hd> <p>The <emph>Behavioral Style Questionnaire</emph> (BSQ; McDevitt & Carey, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref90">36</reflink>]), one of several age-specific questionnaires in the Carey Temperament Scales (Carey & McDevitt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref91">10</reflink>]), is a 100-item caregiver rating scale designed to assess the temperament of children 34 to 68 months of age. Caregivers respond to items describing their children's behaviors on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = <emph>Almost Never</emph> to 6 = <emph>Almost Always</emph>). The BSQ is based on the nine dimensions of temperament identified by Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref92">54</reflink>]). Table 2 provides descriptions of the dimensions and interpretations of what high and low scores reflect (e.g., high activity means very active; high mood means negative mood).</p> <p>The psychometric properties of the BSQ are generally satisfactory for research, with test–retest reliabilities ranging from 0.67 (Threshold) to 0.94 (Rhythmicity) and alpha reliabilities from 0.47 to 0.80 (Carey & McDevitt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref93">10</reflink>]). Substantial evidence for the validity of the BSQ has been provided by studies of the relationships between temperament and clinical diagnoses and other measures (Carey & McDevitt). Psychometric data for the current sample appears in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the BSQ Scales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>BSQ Scale</p></th><th align="left"><p>1. </p></th><th align="left"><p>2.</p></th><th align="left"><p>3.</p></th><th align="left"><p>4.</p></th><th align="left"><p>5.</p></th><th align="left"><p>6.</p></th><th align="left"><p>7.</p></th><th align="left"><p>8.</p></th><th align="left"><p>9.</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Activity</p></td><td align="left"><p>.70</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Rhythmicity</p></td><td align="left"><p>.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>.55</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Approach</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>.73</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Adaptability</p></td><td align="left"><p>.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>.83</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Intensity</p></td><td align="left"><p>.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>.66</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Mood</p></td><td align="left"><p>.46</p></td><td align="left"><p>.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>.75</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Persistence</p></td><td align="left"><p>.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>.28</p></td><td align="left"><p>.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>.66</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Distractibility</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.20</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>.68</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Threshold</p></td><td align="left"><p>.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>.45</p></td><td align="left"><p>.23</p></td><td align="left"><p>-.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>.51</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Mean</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.70</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>.58</p></td><td align="left"><p>.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>.65</p></td><td align="left"><p>.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>.55</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Entries on the main diagonal are Cronbach's internal consistency reliability estimates. Correlations greater than approximately.18 are statistically significant, <emph>p</emph> ≤.05</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-9">Procedure</hd> <p>Twelve preschool center directors in urban and rural North Carolina and Tennessee were solicited for participation; eleven consented. Centers were identified from the childcare directory search provided by the North Carolina Division of Child Development (https://ncchildcare.ncdhhs.gov/) and by a research team member who had relationships with directors in Tennessee. Teachers distributed packets to parents that contained information about the study, informed consent forms, and stamped envelopes addressed to the researchers. Parents who agreed to participate provided written informed consent on the forms and returned them directly to the researchers via mail. Questionnaires were grouped in counterbalanced order and mailed to participants, who returned the forms to the researchers in self-addressed, stamped envelopes. Participants received monetary compensation ($10 per child) from funds granted by Appalachian State University's Research Council. This study was approved by the University's Institutional Review Board and was conducted in a manner consistent with its guidelines for research with human subjects.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref94">58</reflink>]) method with a squared Euclidean distance measure was conducted on the BSQ scale scores. We examined the schedule coefficients to identify likely solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036402-12">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and Cronbach's alphas for the BSQ scales are presented in Table 3. The current data are largely consistent with those previously reported (Carey & McDevitt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref95">10</reflink>]). The internal consistency reliability coefficients in the current data ranged from 0.51 to 0.83 (see Table 3) and were consistent with those presented in the test manual (Carey & McDevitt; ranging from 0.47 to 0.80) and observed by previous authors (e.g., Gibbs et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref96">17</reflink>]; Hubert et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref97">21</reflink>]; Scheier et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref98">50</reflink>]). Alpha reliabilities were below 0.60 for the Rhythmicity (0.55) and Threshold (0.51) subscales. In light of these low alphas, results from these scales should be interpreted cautiously.</p> <p>Using a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.006 (α = 0.05 / 9 tests), the current sample is higher in Rhythmicity (i.e., more regular; current <emph>M</emph> = 3.04, normative <emph>M</emph> = 2.75; <emph>t</emph> = 4.311, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and lower in Intensity (i.e., less intense; current <emph>M</emph> = 4.25, normative <emph>M</emph> = 4.52; <emph>t</emph> = -4.802, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), Mood (i.e., more positive; current <emph>M</emph> = 3.05, normative <emph>M</emph> = 3.31; <emph>t</emph> = -3.669, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and Threshold (i.e., needs more stimulation to prompt a response; current <emph>M</emph> = 3.70, normative <emph>M</emph> = 3.85; <emph>t</emph> = -4.64, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) than the normative sample. No other statistically significant mean differences were found between the normative and current samples for any other BSQ scales.</p> <p>With the exception of Activity, girls' and boys' BSQ subscale scores were similar. Using a Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.006 (α = 0.05 / 9 tests), girls were less active (<emph>M</emph> = 3.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.54) than boys (<emph>M</emph> = 3.74, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.56), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref99">82</reflink>) = -3.38, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001. Because only one scale demonstrated sex differences in the current sample, data were collapsed across gender for all analyses.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-13">Cluster Analysis</hd> <p>A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref100">58</reflink>]) method with a squared Euclidean distance measure was conducted on the BSQ scale scores. The agglomeration schedule coefficients (see Table 4) revealed that, as the initial clusters were separated into additional clusters, the coefficient for Stage 7 was considerably larger than in previous stages, suggesting that the best solution would comprise fewer than 7 clusters. Interpretation of the dendrogram (see Fig. 1) indicated that either 4 or 5 clusters were most appropriate. The steps between 1 and 2 clusters, 2 and 3 clusters, 3 and 4 clusters, and 4 and 5 clusters were all noticeably larger than the step between 5 and 6 clusters. After qualitatively examining the data, it was determined that the 5-cluster solution better fit the data than the 4-cluster solution. First, by examining the sample sizes from the 4 and 5 cluster solutions, it was determined that Cluster 1 from the 4-cluster solution was split into two clusters to form Cluster 5. We examined the means and standard errors of the BSQ subscales for meaningful differences (see Table 5). The 5-cluster solution had many notable differences (using a > 1 SD criterion) between the first and fifth clusters and thus appeared to be the better option.</p> <p>Table 4 Agglomeration Schedule of Clusters 1–7</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Stage</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cluster 1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cluster 2</p></th><th align="left"><p>Coefficients</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p></td><td align="left"><p>68</p></td><td align="left"><p>.254</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>72</p></td><td align="left"><p>.528</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>79</p></td><td align="left"><p>.809</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p></td><td align="left"><p>80</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.104</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.415</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>58</p></td><td align="left"><p>75</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.732</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>57</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.079</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 Cluster Comparisons Between Mean BSQ Scales</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Act</p></th><th align="left"><p>Rhy</p></th><th align="left"><p>App</p></th><th align="left"><p>Ada</p></th><th align="left"><p>Int</p></th><th align="left"><p>Moo</p></th><th align="left"><p>Pers</p></th><th align="left"><p>Dist</p></th><th align="left"><p>Thr</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Cluster 1</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean</p><p><italic>N</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.85</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.27</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>.60</p></td><td align="left"><p>.24</p></td><td align="left"><p>.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>.33</p></td><td align="left"><p>.40</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Std. Error</p></td><td align="left"><p>.15</p></td><td align="left"><p>.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Cluster 5</bold></p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.66</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.48</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.25</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>.73</p></td><td align="left"><p>.47</p></td><td align="left"><p>.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>.36</p></td><td align="left"><p>.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>.45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Std. Error</p></td><td align="left"><p>.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>.09</p></td><td align="left"><p>.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>.11</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Act = Activity; Rhy = Rhymicity; App = Approach; Ada = Adaptability; Int = Intensity; Moo = Mood; Per = Persistence; Dis = Distractibility; Thr = Threshold</p> <p>Table 6 Descriptives of Mean BSQ Scales by Cluster</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Cluster</p><p>(%)</p></th><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Act</p></th><th align="left"><p>Rhy</p></th><th align="left"><p>App</p></th><th align="left"><p>Ada</p></th><th align="left"><p>Int</p></th><th align="left"><p>Moo</p></th><th align="left"><p>Per</p></th><th align="left"><p>Dis</p></th><th align="left"><p>Thr</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Koalas</p><p>(9%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mean</p><p>SD</p><p><italic>z</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>2.88</p><p>.43</p><p>-.91</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.72</p><p>.44</p><p>-.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.37</p><p>.60</p><p>.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.00</p><p>.24</p><p>-.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.85</p><p>.27</p><p>-1.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.59</p><p>.54</p><p>-1.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.44</p><p>.32</p><p>-.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.19</p><p>.33</p><p>-.95</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.27</p><p>.40</p><p>-1.18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Penguins</p><p>(19%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mean</p><p>SD</p><p><italic>z</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.16</p><p>.48</p><p>-.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.64</p><p>.70</p><p>-.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.50</p><p>.51</p><p>-.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.79</p><p>.33</p><p>-1.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.25</p><p>.38</p><p>-.42</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.53</p><p>.42</p><p>-2.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.61</p><p>.53</p><p>-.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.43</p><p>.40</p><p>.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.91</p><p>.43</p><p>-.12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Dogs</p><p>(40%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mean</p><p>SD</p><p><italic>z</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.62</p><p>.38</p><p>.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.02</p><p>.50</p><p>.38</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.52</p><p>.58</p><p>.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.86</p><p>.47</p><p>.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.43</p><p>.33</p><p>-.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.36</p><p>.40</p><p>.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.02</p><p>.42</p><p>.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.75</p><p>.54</p><p>-.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.92</p><p>.49</p><p>-.10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Bobcats</p><p>(12%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mean</p><p>SD</p><p><italic>z</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>4.19</p><p>.70</p><p>.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.64</p><p>.69</p><p>1.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.46</p><p>.54</p><p>.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.83</p><p>.27</p><p>1.78</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.78</p><p>.51</p><p>.40</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.03</p><p>.25</p><p>1.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.28</p><p>.97</p><p>.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.25</p><p>.39</p><p>-.79</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.73</p><p>.60</p><p>-.43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Giraffes</p><p>(20%)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Mean</p><p>SD</p><p><italic>z</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>3.54</p><p>.51</p><p>-.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.27</p><p>.50</p><p>.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.66</p><p>.73</p><p>-.35</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.53</p><p>.47</p><p>-.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.75</p><p>.56</p><p>-1.18</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.56</p><p>.36</p><p>-2.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.56</p><p>.49</p><p>1.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.48</p><p>.53</p><p>-.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.25</p><p>.45</p><p>-1.23</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Act = Activity; Rhy = Rhythmicity; App = Approach; Ada = Adaptability; Int = Intensity; Moo = Mood; Per = Persistence; Dis = Distractibility; Thr = Threshold</p> <p>After adopting the 5-cluster solution, the mean BSQ scale scores for each cluster were calculated, plotted—Fig. 2 presents "profiles" across the temperament dimensions for each cluster of children—and converted to <emph>z</emph>-scores, which can be more helpful than raw scores in the interpretation of BSQ scale scores (see Table 6). According to the Carey Temperament Scales Test Manual (Carey & McDevitt, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref101">10</reflink>]), scores greater than + 1.0 are considered <emph>high</emph>; <emph>average</emph> scores are those between + 1.0 and -1.0, and scores below -1.0 are <emph>low</emph>.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Dendogram of clusters</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Mean BSQ scale scores by cluster. This figure illustrates the mean ratings for each of the BSQ scale scores for children in each cluster</p> <p>Following these guidelines, <emph>z</emph>-scores greater than ± 1 were used to characterize children in the clusters. The following descriptions list temperament dimensions in rank order, starting with the strongest characteristic. Children in Cluster 1 (<emph>n</emph> = 8; approximately 9% of the current sample) are characterized by positive mood, high threshold, mild intensity, and—if the standard is relaxed slightly to 0.9 SD—low distractibility and low activity. Children in Cluster 2 (<emph>n</emph> = 16; approximately 19% of the current sample) displayed positive mood and high adaptability. Children in Cluster 3 (<emph>n</emph> = 34; approximately 40% of the current sample) did not have <emph>z</emph>-scores at (or approaching) ± 1 on any of the nine temperament dimensions. Children in Cluster 4 (<emph>n</emph> = 10; approximately 12% of the current sample) displayed negative mood, non-adaptability, and arrhythmicity. Children in Cluster 5 (<emph>n</emph> = 17; approximately 20% of the current sample) demonstrated positive mood, high threshold, mild intensity, and low persistence (See Fig. 2).</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-14">Labeling Identified Clusters</hd> <p>Following the statistical analyses described above that identified five distinct clusters of children characterized by their standing on temperament dimensions, we endeavored to create meaningful and accessible labels to capture the essence of each group. We chose to take a zoomorphic labeling approach informed by an artificial intelligence language model, ChatGPT. Using animal attributes as metaphors to characterize people has been a common practice for some time (Sommer, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref102">52</reflink>]). Examples of zoomorphism appear in popular publications (Herzog & Galvin, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref103">19</reflink>]) such as comic books and movies, perhaps reflecting children's inclination toward animals (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref104">59</reflink>]). Incorporating animals in instructional videos has demonstrated effectiveness in improving children's learning (Wu et al.). Moreover, researchers have examined perceptions of personality traits of animals (Sommer & Sommer, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref105">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>ChatGPT is a large-scale language model trained on expansive and diverse text data, providing common responses to natural language prompts. All defining temperament dimensions for each identified cluster (e.g., positive mood and high adaptability for Cluster 2) were entered simultaneously in the context of asking ChatGPT to identify animals associated with those particular descriptors, except for Cluster 3, for which there were no outstanding temperament dimensions (we used "average" for this category). For each cluster, ChatGPT suggested a list of potential animal species with those associations. From that list, we endeavored to choose distinct, non-overlapping species with neutral or positive perceptions, eschewing those with negative connotations (e.g., snake, skunk, sloth), resulting in selecting koala, penguin, dog, bobcat, and giraffe as labels for Categories 1–5. Our selections were informed by Sommer and Sommer's ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref106">53</reflink>]) examination of college students' perceptions of favorability of animal names of species that were most likely to be associated with human personality traits. Two of our animal names–penguins and bobcats—were rated as favorable, koalas were perceived as equally favorable and unfavorable; however, giraffes and dogs were not rated in Sommer and Sommer's study.</p> <p>To further examine the semantic accuracy of our labels, we subsequently used ChatGPT to identify which temperament dimensions were associated with each selected animal label to see if appropriate temperament dimensions were returned. When we were trying to decide between two or more potential animal labels for a category, this helped inform the selection of an appropriate animal label.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was twofold: to corroborate groups of children described by prominent temperament researchers (Caspi & Silva, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref107">11</reflink>]; McClowry, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref108">31</reflink>]; Prokasky et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref109">41</reflink>]; Rothbart & Derryberry, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref110">47</reflink>]; Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref111">54</reflink>]) and to use our results as a framework for a user-friendly model of temperament that can facilitate conversations among practitioners and caregivers. A careful review of previous research reveals substantial overlap in how children have been grouped—even though researchers differ on the number and names of the groups. Children generally can be placed into easy, difficult, and slow-to-warm groups, possibly with multiple groups in each category. Based on these commonalities, we anticipated finding at least one each of the following groups—easy, difficult, and slow-to-warm children.</p> <p>We identified a five-cluster model that included four easy groups and one difficult group; surprisingly, we did not find a slow-to-warm group. Even so, the groups are largely comparable to those identified by Thomas and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref112">54</reflink>]), Caspi and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref113">11</reflink>]), Prokasky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref114">41</reflink>]), Rothbart and Derryberry ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref115">47</reflink>]), and McClowry ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref116">31</reflink>]). In the following paragraphs, we carefully examine these five clusters identified through cluster analysis and labeled semantically and compare them to previous findings. Table 1 summarizes the similarities between the current study and previous research.</p> <p>Cluster 1 (approximately 9% of the current sample) represents an easy group of children that we labeled <emph>koalas</emph>. These children displayed positive mood, high threshold (i.e., sensitivity), mild intensity, low distractibility, and low activity, and could be considered easygoing. Based upon the item content caregivers used to describe them (McDevitt & Carey, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref117">37</reflink>]), children in this group tend to laugh and smile often and complain very little when tired, ill, or frustrated. They are not easily distracted by interruptions, such as parental requests or nearby conversations, and tend to sit calmly and quietly while engaging in activities or waiting for things. Their high sensitivity to events in their environments may leave them susceptible to mild approval and disapproval, noises, and injuries, and they may notice minor changes in the people or events around them (e.g., a parent's haircut, foods). This group of children is likely to respond mildly to their environments; despite their high sensitivity, they do not react overly intensely. In a classroom or group setting, our koalas would likely engage positively with other children and maintain focus on activities and interactions. When compared to previous studies, these children most resemble Thomas et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref118">54</reflink>]) Easy group, Caspi and Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref119">11</reflink>]) and Prokasky et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref120">41</reflink>]) Well-Adjusted groups, McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref121">31</reflink>]) Industrious, and Rothbart and Derryberry's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref122">47</reflink>]) Effortful Control groups.</p> <p>Cluster 2 (~ 19%) represents another easy group of children that we labeled <emph>penguins</emph>. These children displayed positive mood and high adaptability and may tend to "go with the flow" and be considered even-tempered. Based upon the BSQ item content, parents characterized these children as happy during play and when meeting new people. They adjust easily to changes in plans and routines at home and school, learn new things quickly and easily, and take setbacks in stride. In contrast to the koalas, penguins have average levels of intensity, distractibility, activity, and threshold, or sensitivity. Children in this group may be expected to interact easily with others in social situations, settle conflicts quickly, and readily change their behaviors in response to punishment. Based on this combination of traits, these children should be relatively easy for caregivers and teachers to manage. When compared to previous studies, our penguins resemble Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref123">54</reflink>]) Easy, McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref124">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref125">32</reflink>]) Social/Eager to Try, Caspi and Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref126">11</reflink>]) Confident, Prokaski and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref127">41</reflink>]) Bold, and Rothbart and Derryberry's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref128">47</reflink>]) Surgency groups.</p> <p>Cluster 3 (~ 40%) represents a group of children without notably high or low scores on any of the nine temperament dimensions and did not readily fit into easy, difficult, or slow-to-warm groups. Because of their ubiquitous nature and the large number of breeds, we labeled our largest category <emph>dogs.</emph> These children could be considered moderate or neutral. According to their caregivers' ratings, these children display developmentally typical levels of all temperament dimensions. This category seems much like Caspi and Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref129">11</reflink>]) Well-Adjusted children, Rothbart and Derryberry's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref130">47</reflink>]) Effortful Control, and Prokaski and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref131">41</reflink>]) Average groups, but did not appear to fit with any of McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref132">31</reflink>]) groupings. McClowry et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref133">33</reflink>]) describe an "intermediate" group, but upon close inspection, only the name is comparable; intermediate children were described as displaying aggression, disruptive behaviors, and attentional difficulties. McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref134">31</reflink>]) study also found that most of the children did not fit into any of her four groups. Moreover, the largest group of children in our study and that of Caspi and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref135">11</reflink>])—40% of each sample—are children who are remarkable in their "average-ness." Since both Caspi and Silva and the current authors used cluster analysis, a process that forces every individual into a group, it is possible that we, McClowry, and Caspi and Silva identified the same kind of moderate children through different methods.</p> <p>Cluster 4 (~ 12%) represents a challenging group of children, which we labeled <emph>bobcats</emph>. These children displayed negative mood, low adaptability and rhythmicity, and might be described as difficult. Children in this group may be unpleasant, troubled by new situations or changes in routine, and unpredictable in their bodily functions (eating, sleeping, toileting). According to their parents, children in this group may request to eat at irregular times and have trouble falling asleep at the same time every day. These children may cry or whine when frustrated or sick, frown when asked to comply with chores, and become annoyed if others interrupt them during play. They are bothered by changes in plans or routines, slow to adapt, and need time to adjust. This combination of traits can make them challenging during interpersonal interactions and in group situations. Peers and caregivers may find it unpleasant to interact with them because of their negative and often unpredictable moods, which may cause them to sulk when corrected or to display anger toward peers. Planning activities for young children whose biological functions are unpredictable can be challenging for caregivers, as they may not be able to anticipate the need for restroom breaks or naps. To accommodate their low adaptability, caregivers must anticipate changes that may challenge these children and prepare them as early as possible. This combination of characteristics may require high levels of energy by parents and teachers to effectively respond to these children, often while they simultaneously care for multiple children. Our bobcats are very similar to Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref136">54</reflink>]) Difficult, Caspi and Silva's ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref137">11</reflink>]) Undercontrolled, Rothbart and Derryberry's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref138">47</reflink>]) Negative Affectivity, McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref139">31</reflink>]) High Maintenance, and Prokaski et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref140">41</reflink>]) Unregulated and High Reactive groups.</p> <p>Cluster 5 (~ 20%) shares three of the five "easy" traits that characterize the koalas group, including positive mood, high threshold of responsiveness, and mild intensity. Unlike the koalas, this group displays moderate activity and distractibility but low levels of persistence. We labeled this group <emph>giraffes</emph>. The combination of their positive mood, high sensitivity, mild intensity, and low persistence may characterize these children as "low-key" or "carefree." Like the koalas, children in this group are generally happy and laugh and smile often. Although they are highly sensitive to stimuli, such as noise, approval or disapproval by caregivers, and minor changes in familiar people or foods, their responses to positive or negative events are mild. Not only are these children relatively easy in terms of mood and intensity, but they also display low activity and distractibility, which promote success in learning and play activities. Our giraffes demonstrate low levels of persistence, which suggests they may become quickly bored or disinterested in new toys or activities and give up on activities prematurely. Their low persistence may make these otherwise easy children somewhat challenging in learning situations and play interactions. In group settings, they may be well-liked and easy to get along with because of their positive mood and low intensity, but caregivers may find it challenging to maintain their interest in tasks or activities. Our giraffes fit with Thomas and colleagues' (1978) Easy group but are unlike the easy groups described by Caspi and Silva ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref141">11</reflink>]), Rothbart and Derryberry ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref142">47</reflink>]), McClowry ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref143">31</reflink>]), or Prokasky et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref144">41</reflink>]). Thus, it represents a new group of easy children.</p> <p>It is noteworthy and unexpected that our data did not identify a slow-to-warm-up group. Previous temperament theorists have consistently observed variations in characteristics such as withdrawal (Thomas et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref145">54</reflink>]), social fearfulness (Goldsmith, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref146">18</reflink>]), and shyness (Rothbart & Derryberry, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref147">47</reflink>]) and identified groups of children who consistently display these traits. Although we do not have data to inform an explanation for the absence of a slow-to-warm category in our study, perhaps the high level of parental education allowing for higher familial resources could have provided a richer environment encouraging social-emotional development.</p> <p>Overall, our findings suggest that despite diverse conceptualizations of temperament and disparate methodologies, a remarkably consistent portrait of children and their temperaments has emerged across studies. The general consensus is that there is a group of easy children (with subtypes, perhaps), a group of difficult children, a group of children who are generally positive but shy and not so adaptable or persistent, and a large group of children who do not fit into these groups.</p> <p>One major strength of this study is that it confirms and integrates previous work. Our methodology and results align closely with Prokasky and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref148">41</reflink>]), albeit with a much smaller and single sample. We recognize and later describe aspects of our study that limit its generalizability, but we contend that the combination of measurement and analysis we used adds value to our findings and is different than most other approaches (Prokasky et al.'s aside). Person-centered approaches are considered more appropriate to use than variable-centered, and we considered cluster analysis to be the best method for discovering subgroups. Additionally, data from caregiver ratings on a standardized temperament questionnaire provides valuable information from caregivers about their children's behaviors across multiple settings and times, which can increase the ecological validity of findings. The BSQ provides information on nine dimensions of temperament, which responds to Prokasky et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref149">41</reflink>]) call for studies using more fine-grained measures.</p> <p>Another strength of our study is the novel approach to naming clusters. Those who work with young children and families can appreciate the difficulty in conveying assessment results to caregivers. While our study is limited and exploratory, we hope that our zoomorphic approach will spark interest in developing new nomenclatures for use in practice settings. McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref150">32</reflink>]) INSIGHTS program uses puppets with temperament-based names (e.g., Hillary the Hardworker), which has proven to be a very effective approach for improving child, parent, and teacher outcomes (Cappella et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref151">8</reflink>]; McClowry et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref152">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref153">33</reflink>]; O'Connor et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref154">40</reflink>]). An advantage of using animals is that it avoids gendering categories.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-16">Implications</hd> <p>Our findings have implications for caregivers and teachers of preschoolers. School-based early childhood assessments and interventions rarely formally measure temperament (Carey, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref155">9</reflink>]). In their recent report of the test use and assessment practices of school psychologists across the United States, Benson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref156">4</reflink>]) found that out of the 150 specific tests reportedly used, none were measures of temperament; three measures of personality were used, and two of these were rarely used in practice. Our findings bridge the research-to-practice gap by providing a common language for understanding and communicating information about child temperament. Early childhood educators receive little training in individual differences, such as temperament. Although they may learn about managing student behaviors, those who appreciate the importance of temperament recognize that behavior management is not a "one-size-fits-all" endeavor. Scholars understand what terms such as "surgency" and "rhythmicity" mean, but most parents and early childhood professionals do not. We know that when parents and educators understand temperament, they are better equipped to support children (McClowry et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref157">34</reflink>]; McCormick et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref158">35</reflink>]). Our use of animal names provides a starting point for conversations and professional development.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-17">Limitations</hd> <p>The current study has several limitations. Cluster analytic techniques are dependent on the characteristics and size of the sample. Our sample's small size (<emph>N</emph> = 85), small number of children in each cluster, and homogeneity (primarily White children with well-educated parents) limit the generalizability of our results. We note that, although Prokasky et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref159">41</reflink>]) study involved three much larger samples and their replication across the samples makes their results quite robust, the demographic characteristics of their samples are similar to ours. Additionally, direct comparisons of the current clusters to previous categories may not be appropriate because of age differences in the samples examined and the data collection methods and measures. For example, McClowry's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref160">31</reflink>]) sample consisted of kindergarten and primary school-aged children, whose temperaments tend to be more stable than younger children. Children in our sample were similar in age to Prokaski and colleagues' samples (range = 37 to 68 months). Additionally, the BSQ is based on Thomas and colleagues' ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref161">54</reflink>]) nine dimensions of temperament. Even though we discovered commonalities across existing temperament theories, we acknowledge that using a specific theory-driven measurement tool may have influenced our findings. However, as with the sample characteristics, our use of a fine-grained questionnaire with research support is consistent with Prokasky et al. Despite the limitations we describe here, the similarity of our results to others may speak to the robustness of the findings.</p> <p>An additional methodological concern is the low reliabilities observed on some BSQ scales. Although we acknowledge that alpha values below 0.60 may impact the interpretation of the results, this issue is not uncommon in research examining the BSQ and has been addressed by other researchers. For example, Barger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref162">3</reflink>]) found alphas of 0.57, 0.59, and 0.37 on the Persistence, Rhythmicity, and Threshold scales, respectively. Moreover, Huelsman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref163">22</reflink>]) proposed that some scales are developed to produce a set of divergent items to assess the breadth of the constructs, as opposed to a more homogeneous set of items to measure a particular characteristic. Behavioral manifestations of temperament may vary across time, context, and development. As such, the individual items on the BSQ temperament scales address the variety of behaviors that are reflected in each temperamental trait. For example, Huelsman and colleagues noted that while children may demonstrate consistent eating and sleeping patterns, their bowel and bladder functions might be less consistent, yielding a lower index of internal consistency reliability for the Rhythmicity scale. Still, results from scales with low reliabilities are a concern. To address this problem, Rothbart and Mauro ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref164">48</reflink>]) emphasize the importance of examining both a scale's definition and its items in order to understand what is being assessed.</p> <p>Though we consider the use of animal names for our clusters to be a strength and the innovative contribution of our study, we recognize that this approach may engender questions from temperament researchers and practitioners. Several equity-related issues influenced our decision to use animal names. There is evidence that both African American and White individuals report similar levels of animal-liking and preferences (Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref165">44</reflink>]). Although that study only included one underrepresented group, we carefully considered and selected animals that would not carry a negative stigma (Sommer & Sommer, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref166">52</reflink>]). Although some research suggests that different animals connote different genders (Sommer & Sommer), the use of animal labels does not exclude individuals of any gender identity. Our study is exploratory, and our model should not be generalized to other populations or applied in practice. However, as with any model, well-trained practitioners who convey information about temperament to caregivers do so ethically, sensitively, and with consideration for family characteristics. In other words, we suggest that the quality of the interactions between practitioners and consumers is as, if not more, important than the labels applied to the children.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-18">Future Directions</hd> <p>To further support our categories, which we argue are consistent with previous studies, future researchers might conduct replications with larger, more representative samples of preschool and school-aged children. Additionally, longitudinal studies would advance our understanding of temperament categories and developmental trajectories by providing information about stability and change in children in each group. As temperament is influential throughout our lives, future research should continue previous research efforts by examining academic, behavioral, and social outcomes for specific clusters of children. Findings from such studies would aid child practitioners in identifying and treating students at risk for academic problems, delinquency, mental health issues, and poor interpersonal relationships.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-19">Conclusions</hd> <p>In conclusion, our research contributes to the temperament literature by supporting the trends in previous attempts to group children by temperament. By integrating our findings with previous theoretically and empirically supported models, we provide a basis for furthering temperament research. Practitioners who work with young children certainly appreciate the importance of using "real-world" language with caregivers. We hope that the labels we assigned to our groups—koalas, penguins, dogs, bobcats, and giraffes—will serve as a starting point for linking temperament research, school-based practice, and family interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-20">Authors Contributions</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Sandra Gagnon performed material preparation and data collection; Jana Maine and Timothy Huelsman performed data analysis. Jana Maine wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on and edited previous versions of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-21">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by the Carolinas Consortium. This research was approved by Appalachian State University's Institutional Review Board (IRB Reference #05–40) and was conducted in a manner consistent with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors have no relevant financial, non-financial, or competing interests to disclose. The research leading to these results received funding from Appalachian State University's University Research Council (IRB Reference #05–40).</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-22">Declaration</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036402-23">Consent</hd> <p>Written informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0185036402-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185036402-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Acar IH, Torquati JC, Raikes H, Rudasill KM. Pathways to low-income children's self-regulation: Child temperament and the qualities of teacher–child relationships. Early Education and Development. 2021; 32; 8: 1103-1121. 10.1080/10409289.2020.1830465</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bair C, Raver CC. School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology. 2015; 66; 1: 711-731. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref162" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barger B, Moody EJ, Ledbetter C, D'Abreu L, Hepburn S, Rosenberg SA. Temperament similarities and differences: A comparison of factor structures from the Behavioral Style Questionnaire in children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2019; 49; 5: 1749-1762. 10.1007/s10803-018-03866-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref156" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Benson NF, Floyd RG, Kranzler JH, Eckert TL, Fefer SA, Morgan GB. Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 National Survey. Journal of School Psychology. 2019; 72: 29-48. 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brannigan R, Cannon M, Tanskanen A, Huttunen MO, Leacy FP, Clarke MC. Childhood temperament and its association with adult psychiatric disorders in a prospective cohort study. Schizophrenia Research. 2020; 216: 229-234. 10.1016/j.schres.2019.11.055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref10" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brown KM, Perez-Edgar K, Lunkenheimer E. Understanding how child temperament, negative parenting, and dyadic parent-child behavioral variability interact to influence externalizing problems. Social Development. 2022; 31: 1020-1041. 10.1111/sode.12601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref11" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buzzell GA, Troller-Renfree SV, Barker TV, Bowman LC, Chronis-Tuscano A, Henderson HA, Kagan J, Pine DS, Fox NA. A neurobehavioral mechanism linking behaviorally inhibited temperament and later adolescent social anxiety. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2017; 56: 1097-1105. 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cappella E, O'Connor EE, McCormick M, Turbeville A, Collins A, McClowry SG. Classwide efficacy of INSIGHTS: Observed student behaviors and teacher practices in kindergarten and first grade. Elementary School Journal. 2015; 116; 2: 217-241. 10.1086/683983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref155" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carey WB. Temperament and behavior problems in the classroom. School Psychology Review. 1998; 27: 522-533. 10.1080/02796015.1998.12085935</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carey, W. B, & McDevitt, S. C. (1995). The Carey Temperament Scales. Behavioral-Developmental Initiatives</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caspi A, Silva PA. Temperamental qualities at age three predict personality traits in young adulthood: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Child Development. 1995; 66: 486-498. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00885.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chess, S, & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament: Theory and practice. Brunner/Mazel</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dare SP, Owusu R, Asante O. Child temperament and academic performances among kindergarteners. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review. 2021; 4; 5: 333-338. 10.47191/ijcsrr/V4-i5-02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doan, S, Steiner, E. D, Pandey, R, & Woo, A. (2023). Teacher well-being and intentions to leave: Findings from the 2023 State of the American Teacher Survey. RAND Corporation https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RRA1108-8.html">www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RRA1108-8.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleck L, Fuchs A, Williams K, Moehler E, Resch F, Koenig J, Kaess M. Child temperament as a longitudinal predictor of mother–adolescent interaction quality: Are effects independent of child and maternal mental health?. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2024. 10.1007/s00787-023-02359-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flesch R. A new reliability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1948; 32: 221-233. 10.1037/h0057532</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs MV, Reeves D, Cunningham CC. The application of temperament questionnaires to a British sample: Issues of reliability and validity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1987; 28: 61-77. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1987.tb00652.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldsmith HH. Studying temperament via construction of the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire. Child Development. 1996; 67: 218-235. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01730.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Herzog HA, Galvin SL. Animals, archetypes, and popular culture: Tales from the tabloid press. Anthrozoos. 1992; 5: 77-92. 10.2752/089279392787011494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard MC, Hoffman ME. Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods. 2018; 21; 4: 846-876. 10.1177/1094428117744021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hubert NC, Wachs TD, Peters-Martin P, Gandour MJ. The study of temperament: Measurement and conceptual issues. Child Development. 1982; 53: 571-600. 10.2307/1129176</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huelsman TJ, Gagnon SG, Kidder-Ashley P, Griggs MS. Preschool temperament assessment: A quantitative assessment of the validity of Behavioral Style Questionnaire data. Early Education and Development. 2013; 25: 71-92. 10.1080/10409289.2013.770636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingram, J. & Barbera, A. (2023, February 3). The 20 most stressful jobs. US News and World Report. https://money.usnews.com/careers/company-culture/slideshows/the-most-stressful-jobs?onepage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jansen van Rensburg B, Stydom C, Grobler H. Parents' understanding of temperament and preference functions of their children. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk. 2016; 52; 3: 332-349. 10.15270/52-3-513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keough BK. Temperament in the classroom: Understanding individual differences. 2003; Paul H Brookes</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kincaid, P, Fishburne, R. P, Rogers, R. L, & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lichtenstein, R, & Ecker, B. (2019). High assessment reports for children and adolescents: A consumer-responsive approach. Guilford</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longobardi E, Spataro P, D'Alessandro M, Cerutti R. Temperament dimensions in preschool children: Links with cognitive and affective theory of mind. Early Education and Development. 2017; 28: 377-395. 10.1080/10409289.2016.1238673</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magdalena SM. Study on the temperament as a predictor of peer interactions at preschool ages. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 187; 1: 663-667. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClowry SG. The Development of the School-Age Temperament Inventory. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1995; 41; 3: 271-285<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087890">http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087890</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClowry SG. The temperament profiles of school-age children. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2002; 17: 3-10. 10.1053/jpdn.2002.30929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClowry SG. Transforming temperament profile statistics into puppets and other visual media. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2002; 17: 11-17. 10.1053/jpdn.2002.30933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClowry S, Rodriguez ET, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Spellmann ME, Carlson A, Snow DL. Teacher/student interactions and classroom behavior: The role of student temperament and gender. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 2013; 27: 283-301. 10.1080/02568543.2013.796330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClowry SG, Snow DL, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Rodriguez ET. Testing the efficacy of INSIGHTS on student disruptive behavior, classroom management, and student competence in inner city primary grades. School Mental Health. 2010; 2: 23-35. 10.1007/s12310-009-9023-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick MP, O'Connor EE, Cappella E, McClowry SG. Getting a good start in school: Effects of INSIGHTS on children with high maintenance temperaments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015; 30: 128-139. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDevitt, S. C, & Carey. W. B. (1996). Manual for the Behavioral Style Questionnaire. Behavioral-Developmental Initiatives</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDevitt SC, Carey WB. The measurement of temperament in 3–7 year old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1978; 19: 245-254. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1978.tb00467.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice: A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. https://<ulink href="http://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap/enhance-development">www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap/enhance-development</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nasvytienė D, Lazdauskas T. Temperament and academic achievement in children: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology, & Education. 2021; 11: 736-757. 10.3390/ejihpe11030053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Connor E, Rodriguez E, Cappella E, Morris J, McClowry S. Child disruptive behavior and parenting efficacy: A comparison of the effects of two models of INSIGHTS. Journal of Community Psychology. 2012; 40; 5: 555-572. 10.1002/jcop.21482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prokasky A, Rudasill K, Molfese VJ, Putnam S, Garstein M, Rothbart M. Identifying child temperament types using cluster analysis in three samples. Journal of Research in Personality. 2017; 67: 90-201. 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pullis M, Cadwell J. Temperament as a factor in the assessment of children educationally at risk. The Journal of Special Education. 1985; 19; 1: 91-102. 10.1177/002246698501900107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RAND Corporation. (2022). Teacher and principle stress running at twice the rate of general working public, hindering pandemic recovery. [Press release]. https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/news/press/2022/06/15.html">www.rand.org/news/press/2022/06/15.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson KS, Burke KC, Brazley KN, Jones TM, Bottoms BL. Understanding African Americans' attitudes toward nonhuman animals: Historical and psychological perspectives. Society & Animals. 2020; 31; 2: 159-177. 10.1163/15685306-BJA10013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming who we are: Temperament and personality in development. Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey KL, Fisher P. Investigations of temperament at 3–7 years: The Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development. 2001; 72: 1394-1408. 10.1111/1467-8624.00355<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654394">http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654394</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothbart MK, Derryberry DLamb ME, Brown AL. Development of individual differences in temperament. Advances in developmental psychology. 1981; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 37-86</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothbart MK, Mauro JAFagen JW, Colombo J. Questionnaire approaches to the study of infant temperament. Individual differences in infancy: Reliability, stability, and prediction. 1990; Erlbaum: 411-429</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanson A, Hemphill SA, Smart D. Connections between temperament and social development: A review. Social Development. 2004; 13: 142-170. 10.1046/j.1467-9507.2004.00261.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scheier LM, Casten RJ, Fullard W. Latent-variable confirmatory factor analysis of the Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire. Journal of Adolescent Research. 1995; 10: 246-277. 10.1177/0743554895102004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MA Sealy KM Rudasill JS Barrett J Eum N Adams A Hinrichs S McClowry 2021 Temperament in the early elementary classroom: Implications for practice IntechOpen https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommer R. Semantic profiles of zoos and their animals. Anthrozoös. 2008; 21; 3: 237-244. 10.2752/175303708X332044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommer R, Sommer BA. Zoomorphy: Animal metaphors for human personality. Anthrozoös. 2011; 24; 3: 237-248. 10.2752/175303711X13045914865024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas, A, Chess, S, & Birch, H. G. (1968). Temperament and behavior disorders in children. New York University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veziroglu-Celik M. The moderating effect of parenting stress on temperament and social competence in early childhood. Current Psychology. 2023; 42: 27874-27887. 10.1007/s12144-022-03802-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viljaranta J, Aunola K, Mullola S, Virkkala J, Hirvonen R, Pakarinen E, Nurmi J-E. Children's temperament and academic skill development during first grade: Teachers' interaction styles as mediators. Child Development. 2015; 86: 1191-1209. 10.1111/cdev.12379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh G, Zadurian N. Exploring the links between parental attachment style, child temperament and parent-child relationship quality during adolescence. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2023; 32: 2721-2736. 10.1007/s10826-022-02447-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1963; 58: 236-244. 10.2307/2282967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu C, Jing B, Gong X, Ma X. The zoomorphic effect: A contribution to the study of images of pedagogical agents for children's learning in instructional videos. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2023; 39; 5: 1620-1635. 10.1111/jcal.12822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York KL, John OP. The four faces of Eve: A typological analysis of women's personality at midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992; 63: 494-508. 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zee M, Roorda DL. Student–teacher relationships in elementary school: The unique role of shyness, anxiety, and emotional problems. Learning and Individual Differences. 2018; 67: 156-166. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.006</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jana Maine; Timothy J. Huelsman; Sandra Glover Gagnon; Rose Mary Webb and Pamela Kidder-Ashley</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref165"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1470659
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Penguin Is Not a Giraffe: Categorizing Preschool Children According to Temperament
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jana+Maine%22">Jana Maine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Timothy+J%2E+Huelsman%22">Timothy J. Huelsman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sandra+Glover+Gagnon%22">Sandra Glover Gagnon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3753-7509">0000-0003-3753-7509</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rose+Mary+Webb%22">Rose Mary Webb</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pamela+Kidder-Ashley%22">Pamela Kidder-Ashley</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(5):1807-1821.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classification%22">Classification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grouping+%28Instructional+Purposes%29%22">Grouping (Instructional Purposes)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multivariate+Analysis%22">Multivariate Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01696-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Temperament is a widely researched trait that significantly influences children's lives. Still, theorists differ in their perspectives on the construct. With their nine dimensions of temperament and three "categories" of children--"easy," "difficult," or "slow to warm up"--Thomas and colleagues (1968) laid the foundation for future temperament research. Subsequent researchers have identified temperament profiles that are similar to but not completely consistent with Thomas and colleagues' model. Still, most conceptualizations exist primarily for researchers and may be challenging to translate for educators who work directly with children and their caregivers. Therefore, this study had two aims. First, we used cluster analysis to corroborate and extend research that categorized children into temperament groups. We identified four groups that converge and one group that diverges from previous findings. Our second, more important purpose was to strengthen the link between research and practice by conceptualizing our results in a way that is understandable to educators and caregivers. The challenging task of capturing the nature of each cluster in one or even a few words led us to adopt a zoomorphic approach in which we assigned nonhuman animal names to each group: koalas, penguins, dogs, bobcats, and giraffes. Our findings support previous groupings of children by temperament and provide a consumer-friendly model that facilitates communication between caregivers and educators.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1470659
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1470659
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01696-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 1807
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grouping (Instructional Purposes)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multivariate Analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Penguin Is Not a Giraffe: Categorizing Preschool Children According to Temperament
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jana Maine
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Timothy J. Huelsman
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sandra Glover Gagnon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rose Mary Webb
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pamela Kidder-Ashley
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1