Rating scales have become the instrument of choice in labeling and assessing change in behavior of hyperactive children. However, several criticisms have recently have levied against their use. The present investigation examined the concurrent validity, and inter- and intrarater reliability for the Abbreviated Teacer Questionnaire (ATQ, Conners, 1973) and the Rating Scales for Hyperkinesis (Davids, 1971). Sixteen teachers from two special and two regular schools (grades 1-4) rated 211 normal and 49 special children using both scales. High correlations were found suggesting excellent predictability between scales and considerable stability across time and rater. Lower scores on a subsequent rating relative to an initial rating were demonstrated, dependent on time between ratings but independent of (a) teacher expectation of treatment gains, (b) bias produced by rating selected children, and (c) whether children were hyperactive or normal. Use of initial and infrequent rating scores versus subsequent, closely spaced ratings was related to the rater's objective (e.g., diagnosis, treatment, or assessment).

Children admitted to a psychiatric hospital were compared to emotionally disturbed children receiving services in special classes within the public schools. There were few differences found between the groups. The presence of a "critical event" leading to the need for hospitalization was explored. Implications for practice are discussed.