Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The development of two instruments designed to assess person and thing orientation in children Holzmuller, Ana Luisa 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 H64.pdf [ 9.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093834.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093834-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093834-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093834-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093834-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093834-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093834-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093834-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093834.ris

Full Text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO INSTRUMENTS DESIGNED TO ASSESS PERSON AND THING ORIENTATION IN CHILDREN by ANA LUISA HOLZMULLER B.A., Western Washington State College, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976 (cy Ana Luisa Holzmuller, 1976 In p r e s e n t i n g th i s thes is in pa r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced deg ree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of th is thesis f o r s c h o l a r l y pu rpo se s may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t copying or pub l i ca t ion of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n sha l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co l umb i a 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date QchlWx h| lV(0 ABSTRACT The purpose of the research reported here was the development of two paper-and-pencil instruments for the assessment of person-thing o r i e n t a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n . Interviews were conducted with 82 c h i l d r e n who ranged i n age from eight to 12 years. The interviews yielded two sets of d e s c r i p t i v e statements, one set which pertained to the person domain and one set which pertained to the thing domain. The statements were r a t i o n a l l y c l a s s i f i e d into content categories by three judges. The r a t i o n a l categories s p e c i f i e d the universe of content to be sampled by the instruments and provided a quasi-empirical basis f or item construction. Two p a r a l l e l pools of items were written for the preliminary forms of the s e l f - r e p o r t measure. Half of these items were considered to be appropriate for grade four subjects i n the i n t e r e s t s and behaviors that were depicted, and the other ha l f were considered to be appropriate for grade s i x subjects. A preliminary form which consisted of both pools was administered to a sample of grade four c h i l d r e n . A preliminary form which consisted of the items prepared for the older group and the items from L i t t l e ' s (1972a) Thing Person Interest Questionnaire designed for adults was administered to a sample of grade s i x subjects. The itemmetric properties of the items were analyzed, and a sequen-t i a l s e l e c t i o n procedure was devised to permittthe s e l e c t i o n of items which exhibited the best properties. These procedures resulted i n two, age-related versions of the Person Thing Self Report. Both instruments are comprised of a 12-item person scale and a 14-item thing scale. The construction of items for a peer nomination measure was s i m i l a r l y based on the category sampling strategy. Two comparable preliminary forms i i were prepared and administered to samples of t h i r d , fourth, f i f t h and s i x t h grade subjects. V a l i d i t y r atings from classroom teachers were also obtained. The item-analytic and s e l e c t i o n procedures of Wiggins and Winder (1961) were followed, with modification, for the evaluation of the properties of the peer-report items. These procedures resulted i n the development of the Person Thing Peer Report which i s comprised of a 12-item person scale and a 14-item thing scale. The t h e o r e t i c a l foundations for the development of s p e c i a l i z e d i n t e r e s t s i n the person domain and i n the thing domain were discussed. A research pro-gram was outlined which concerned the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the development of sp e c i a l i z e d i n t e r e s t s and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among these v a r i a b l e s and the a c q u i s i t i o n of cognitive and behavioral s k i l l s , temperament and personality v a r i a b l e s . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Prerequisites f o r Personality Models 1 The S p e c i a l i z a t i o n Model 2 Person Thing Interest Questionnaire 5 Orthogonality of Person and Thing Orientation 6 Specialized Loops 8 Developmental Progressions 10 Other Studies of Person and Thing Orientation i n Children 17 The Contribution of Temperament 23 Other Theoretical Concerns 28 Proposed Research Program 32 CHAPTER 2: METHODS AND PROCEDURES Methodology of Test Construction 35 Generation of the Item Pool 39 The Person Thing Self Report 48 The Person Thing Peer Report 53 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS Person Thing Self Report 56 Person Thing Peer Report 92 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION Interview Observations 133 Instrument Gharacfeerdisfcics 137 Implications of the Present Research 142 Person Thing P i c t u r e Test 148 REFERENCES 150 FOOTNOTES 154 APPENDICES Appendix A l : TP Interest Questionnaire ' 155 Appendix A2: Scoring Key for the TPIQ Scales 157 i v Page Appendix B : Interview Script 158 Appendix CI: Person Items Not Selected for the Preliminary Forms of PTSR 160 Appendix C2: Thing Items Not Selected f o r the Preliminary Forms of PTSR 161 Appendix DI: PTSR-4 Preliminary Form 162 Appendix D2: Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTSR-4 Preliminary Form 164 Appendix E l : PTSR-6 Preliminary Form 165 Appendix E2: Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTSR-6 Preliminary Form 168 Appendix F : Instructions for PTSR 169 Appendix G l : PTPR Preliminary Form A 170 Appendix G2: Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTPR-A Preliminary Form 173 Appendix HI: PTPR Preliminary Form B 174 Appendix H2: Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTPR-B Preliminary Form 176 Appendix I : Instructions for PTPR 177 Appendix J : Person and Thing Items from the Preliminary Forms of PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 which were Eliminated 178 Appendix KI: F i n a l Form of PTSR-4 181 Appendix K2: F i n a l Form of PTSR-6 183 Appendix K3: Scoring Keys for PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 F i n a l Forms 185 Appendex L •: Person and Thing Items Selected f o r the F i n a l Form of PTPR 186 Appendix M : Person and Thing Items from the Preliminary Forms of PTPR which were Eliminated 188 Appendix N : Rational Categories f o r Person and Thing Items Selected for PTPR F i n a l Form and the number of items retained from each category 190 Appendix 0 : Rational Categories for Person and Thing Items Selected for PTSR F i n a l Forms, number retained from each and number of items f or Person Thing Pi c t u r e Test constructed from each category 191 Appendix P : Description of Person Thing Picture Test 192 V LIST OF TABLES Sample Design for Interviews, Person Thing Peer Report, and Person Thing Self Report I n i t i a l Classifications of Person Statements with number which appeared in each I n i t i a l Classifications of Thing Statements with number which appeared in each Rational Categories for Person Statements, number assigned to each, and number of items for Person Thing Peer Report constructed from each category Rational Categories for Thing Statements, number assigned to each, and number of items for Person Thing Peer Report constructed from each category Category Proportionality for Person Thing Self Report with B.R. L i t t l e ' s Proportions and Interview Statement Proportions Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Grade 4 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade (T6), Person-Grade 4 (P4), and Person-Grade 6 (E6) Scales: Self Report Grade 4 Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Person-Grade (P4), and Person-Grade 6 (P6) Scales: Self Report. Grade 4 Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Grade 4 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Person-Grade 4 (P4), and Person-Grade 6 (P6) Scales: Self Report Grade 4 Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Person-Grade 4 (P4), and Person-Grade 6 (P6) Scales: Self Report Grade 4 Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6), and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 v i Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Adult with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6), and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6), and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Adultswithh Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6), and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Ca l c u l a t i o n of the C o r r e l a t i o n Index for Person Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Ca l c u l a t i o n of the Co r r e l a t i o n Index for Person Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 6 Ca l c u l a t i o n of the Co r r e l a t i o n Index for Thing Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Ca l c u l a t i o n of the Correlation Index for Thing Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 6 P r i n c i p a l Components Analysis of Person Thing Self Report Form 4: Loading of Items on Unrotated Factors I, I I , I I I and IV and Communalities P r i n c i p a l Components Analysis of Person Thing Self Report Form 6: Loading of Items on Unrotated Factors I, I I , I I I and Iv and Communalities Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Person Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Person Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Thing Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Thing Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 for Grade 4 Classes Pooled (n=55) a v i i Page Table XXVI In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 for Grade 4 Classes Pooled (ri=55.)a 89 Table XXVII Table XXVIII In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 for Grade 6 Classes Pooled (n=54) a I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 for Grade 6 Classes Pooled (n=54) a 90 91 Table XXIX Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A 95 Table XXX Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A 96 Table XXXI Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A 97 Table XXXII Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A 98 Table XXXIII Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A 99 Table XXXIV Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A 100 Table XXXV Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B 101 Table XXXVI Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B 102 Table XXXVII Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B 103 Table XXXVIII Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B 104 v i i i Page Table XXXIX Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B 105 Table XL Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B 106 Table XLI Ca l c u l a t i o n of the Co r r e l a t i o n Index f o r Person Items From the Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B 107 Table XLII C a l c u l a t i o n of the Co r r e l a t i o n Index for Thing Items From the Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B 110 Table XLIII Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B 112 Table XLIV Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B 114 Table XLV V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form A 118 Table XLVI V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form B 119 Table XLVII V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form A 120 Table-XLVIII V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form B 121 Table XLIX V a l i d i t y Between Scales of Children's Ratings and Teachers' Ratings on Person Thing Report Forms A and B 122 Table L Correlations of I n i t i a l l y Selected Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report with L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scale i n Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled 126 Table LI Correlations of Selected Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report with L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scale i n Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled 127 Table.LII I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report Form A for Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled 128 Table LIII I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report Form B f o r Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled 129 i x Page Table LIV In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report Form A for Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled 130 Table LV In t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report Form B for Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled 131 x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to express my appreciation to my committee chairman, Dr. Jerry S. Wiggins, for h i s w i l l i n g sharing of knowledge, constructive c r i t i c i s m and encouragement throughout the development and completion of th i s thesis. I am g r a t e f u l to Drs. Thomas Storm and Robert Frender for agreeing to serve on my committee and s p e c i f i c a l l y , to Dr. Storm for suggesting that a d i s t i n c t i o n should be made between person o r i e n t a t i o n and extraversion and to Dr. Frender for introducing me to the l i t e r a t u r e and methodology of h e r i t a b i l i t y research. I also wish to thank Dr. Brian R. L i t t l e for i n s p i r i n g the s e l e c t i o n of the thesis topic, for h i s help i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of interview statements and for the i n t e l l e c t u a l stimulation he provided me and others during h i s associa-t i o n with U.B.C. My thanks i s extended to Frank Flynn for h i s expert computer programming s k i l l s and help with the data analyses. I would also l i k e to thank Frederick Claasen for h i s assistance with the interviews. x i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Given, then, that our scheme of things includes the scheme of a common spatio-temporal world of p a r t i c u l a r s , i t appears that a cen t r a l place among par-t i c u l a r s must be accorded to material bodies and to persons. These must be the primary p a r t i c u l a r s . Strawson Prerequisites for Personality Models In a recent paper, B.R. L i t t l e (1972b) sets f o r t h the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for his proposed a l t e r n a t i v e model for personality research and theory. Rejected are views of psychological humankind which regard the i n d i v i d u a l as passive, reactive or i r r a t i o n a l . Also rejected are models which are not r e f l e x i v e or assume "a basic d i s j u n c t i o n between the psychologist (Us) and h i s objects of enquiry (Them)" ( L i t t l e , 1972b, p. 97). The r e f l e x i v i t y of a model simply re f e r s to i t s c a p a b i l i t y for being s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l and i t s a b i l i t y to account for the behavior of the t h e o r i s t as well as the behavior of the object. L i t t l e points out that t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a model i s peculiar to the f i e l d of psychology and should be adopted as a highly desirable element but not a con-ceptual necessity. In h i s discussion of two e x p l i c i t l y r e f l e x i v e models, the humanist and the K e l l i a n (1955), L i t t l e claims that t h e i r primary and shared asset i s a stress on the a c t i v i t y of the human i n d i v i d u a l and the lack of distance between the "knower" and the "known". Their major shortcomings are the l i m i t a t i o n i n scope of the s c i e n t i s t model (Kelly, 1955) with i t s exclusive emphasis on cognitive assessment and the r e s t r i c t i o n of the humanist model to the e x p e r i e n t i a l analysis of a f f e c t . Both are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r amenability to assessment techniques..other than s e l f - r e p o r t . These models, 1 2 are, therefore, reflexive but incomplete. L i t t l e concludes that integrative research in the area of personality should be forthcoming i f models are devised which can retain the humanist model's focus on affect and the Kellian focus on cognitive systems, and combine these with the current emphasis on behavioral processes. An integration of the cognitive, affective and behavioral levels in personality research should result in a multi-method approach to assessment. The Specialization Model Li t t l e ' s alternative to construing humankind as machine (nonreflexive models tend to be mechanistic), or scientist or humanist is to introduce the concept of specialization. To view an individual as a specialist i s to acknowledge his or her active involvement with some aspect of l i f e , his or her self-direction and i n i t i a t i v e and possession of selective competencies. "To say that a person i s a specialist is to imply (a) that he i s interested in and positively oriented towards a set of objects or events (his speciality), (b) that he spends a comparatively large proportion of his available time in activities involving his speciality, and (c) that his way of thinking about these objects, ideas or events is comparatively advanced" (L i t t l e , 1972b, p. 111). It is apparent that cognitive, affective and behavioral ground i s covered by the above three implications, and that the specialist metaphor is compatible with a host of empirical methods. Furthermore, the concept of specialist implies a r e a l i s t i c view of human beings, in that the probability exists that an individual develops competencies in one area and leaves other areas unexplored. The model is uplifting, on the one hand, because i t salutes human competence and i n i t i a t i v e , but i t also connotes selectivity and the channeling of effort which may result in mediocrity, immaturity or clumsiness when an individual tries to cope with nonspecialty concerns. The model implies 3 that throughout development choices are made which serve to limit an i n d i v i -dual's i n i t i a l multi-potentiality. As interests narrow and behavior becomes more structured and goal-directed, there is increased sensitivity to those aspects of the environment which are related to the speciality interest and decreased sensitivity to those aspects which are not related to the specialty interest (Anderson, 1957). The question that immediately arises is one which personality research has largely ignored u n t i l very recently. What kinds of objects do human beings attend to in the environment and adopt as specialities? L i t t l e (1972a) has pointed out that dichotomies which contrast inner self with outer environ-ment are prevalent (e.g., introversion-extraversion, f i e l d independence-dependence, internal-external locus of control) but seem to be based on the questionable assumption of a global, homogeneous environment. Traditionally, the specification of particular kinds of external stimuli in which the i n d i v i -dual is interested or with which he or she prefers to interact has not been considered necessary. With the further development of person-environment interactional systems, such environmental globalism in untenable. It is apparent that the rationale for the specialization model over-viewed thus far would permit a potentially i n f i n i t e number of different types of specialities, as many specialities as there are environmental objects. However, L i t t l e asks whether there is a basic, primary way of partitioning the environment so that the largest and most substantive divisions can be studied systematically. The philosopher, Strawson (1959) has addressed him-self to the question of the ontological primacy of certain phenomena and argues that the categories of persons and material bodies are ontologically primitive and underived. L i t t l e accepts Strawson's argument and contends that persons and things are psychologically basic as well. Certainly the f i e l d of psychology has always recognized the salience of other persons as 4 environmental objects, and there i s evidence that nonhuman objects are f i n a l l y getting some attention for t h e i r psychological s i g n i f i c a n c e apart from th e i r p r a c t i c a l functions (Craik, 1970). The s e l e c t i v e orientations of i n d i v i d u a l s towards one or the other category of t h i s gross d i v i s i o n has been proposed as a useful s t a r t i n g point for the study of personality from a s p e c i a l i s t perspective ( L i t t l e , 1972a, 1972b, 1975). Two primary s p e c i a l i s t types have been distinguished, i . e . , person s p e c i a l i s t s and thing s p e c i a l i s t s , and i t has been posited that d i f f e r e n t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to a wide range of behaviors, at t i t u d e s and values. This assumption requires empirical v e r i f i c a t i o n of the hypothesis that the assessment of a person's o r i e n t a t i o n towards primary objects w i l l enable the assessor to make v e r i d i c a l predictions concerning the quantity and q u a l i t y of that person'.s encounters with both primary and nonprimary objects. I f , i n -deed, person o r i e n t a t i o n and thing o r i e n t a t i o n are shown to be independent dimensions of personality, then research and theorizing about person-environ-ment i n t e r a c t i o n using constructs such as extraversion, sensation-seeking, c u r i o s i t y , etc., are l i k e l y to be incomplete when the environment i s construed as homogeneous and u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ( L i t t l e , 1972a). Assuming that i t i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y meaningful and, therefore, t h e o r e t i c -a l l y legitimate to dichotomize the environment into two primary object classes, the following question can be addressed: Is external attending generalizable across soc i a l / n o n s o c i a l s t i m u l i or should the i n d i v i d u a l be assessed on two independent dimensions of personality, person o r i e n t a t i o n and thing o r i e n t a -tion? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the empirical question may be phrased i n these ways: "When in d i v i d u a l s are asked to report on a c t i v i t i e s that deal with p r i m a r i l y s o c i a l objects or p r i m a r i l y nonsocial objects, do they (1) show a consistent preference for encounters within a domain, and (2) show a consistent p r e f e r -ence for encounters across the two primary domains?" ( L i t t l e , 1975, p. 87). 5 The above contrast suggests three testable hypotheses. If, as assessment instruments for introversion-extraversion assume, there is a general orien-tation towards or away from the environment, then there should be a positive correlation between person orientation and thing orientation. If, as the fi e l d of vocational counselling assumes, person orientation and thing orien-tation represent the two poles of a single continuum, then there should be a significant negative correlation between them. The third alternative i s the independence hypothesis which predicts that there are reliable individual differences in person orientation and thing orientation, but that the two are unrelated, and the correlation between them should be zero. In other words, this hypothesis maintains that individuals may be highly interested or dis-interested in persons regardless of their degree of interest in things and vice versa ( L i t t l e , 1972a). In order to select among these hypothetical relationships and to map out the personality constellations subsumed by the specialist model, a measure of differential interest towards persons and things was developed. Person Thing Interest Questionnaire An i n i t i a l pool of 120 items were written, 60 of which dealt with inter-personal encounters and 60 of which pertained to encounters with the physical, nonhuman environment. The person items sampled a broad range of age groups (i.e., children, peers and old people), and the thing items sampled a broad range of physical objects (i.e., small and large, manipulable and nonmanipul-able and natural and man-made). An attempt was made to include items that were representative of both male and female sex roles, and a l l items expressed positive responses towards persons or towards things ( L i t t l e , 1972a). The 120 items were then administered to three groups of young adults for three successive item-reduction analyses. Orthodox item-analytic procedures were applied to the data, and the following c r i t e r i a were used to select items: 6 (1) significant discrimination between high and low scores on the total scale; (2) diversity of content; (3) approximately equal representation of male and female sex role appropriate items ( L i t t l e , 1972a). The f i n a l version of the Person Thing Interest Questionnaire (TPIQ) consists of two construct scales, a 12-item person orientation (P) scale and a 12-item thing orientation (T) scale. The TPIQ is shown in Appendix Al and the scoring key is shown in Appendix A2. The reader should refer to L i t t l e (1972a) for the details concerning the internal r e l i a b i l i t y , test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y , construct validity and converg-ent validity of the TPIQ. Suffice i t to say that split-half r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients have been reported which range from .73 to .82 for the P scale and from .81 to .84 for the T scale. The test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y is also acceptable with the Pearson correlation between testing sessions having a two-month interval, .85 for the P scale and .89 for the T scale. The validity of the TPIQ has been assessed by relating P and T scale scores to the academic majors and professional fields of the subjects and to vocational interests measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. The convergent validity of different measures of person and thing orientation has been evaluated by intercorrelating responses given to the TPIQ, of peer ratings and of self ratings. A l l of these evaluations of the scales present convincing evidence for the validity of the TPIQ. In addition, correlations between TPIQ scores and SCAT verbal and quantitative scores were computed in order to determine whether TPIQ scores were related to intelligence. None of the correlations among the scales were significant ( L i t t l e , 1972a; 1975). Orthogonality of Person and Thing Orientation The reader w i l l recall that the three hypotheses which can be formulated concerning interest in persons and things are the generality hypothesis (pre-dicting a significant positive correlation between P and T orientation), the 7 bipblarity hypothesis (predicting a significant negative correlation), and the independent hypothesis (predicting zero correlation). Five separate studies were conducted by L i t t l e (1972a) in which the relationship between P scores and T scores were analyzed. For a sample of 244 females (the normative group on which the conversion tables from raw scores to standard scores and percentiles are based, see L i t t l e , 1972a), the Pearson correlation between P scores and T scores was .02. For a sample of 284 males (the norm group for conversion of raw scores for males) the Pearson correlation was .07. Correlations between P scores and T scores of -.10, .11 and .04 were obtained for samples of 37 British undergraduates, 43 British occupational therapists and 40 Canadian grade 12 students, respectively. These data provide clear evidence that the independence hypothesis is more strongly supported than either the generality or bipolarity hypotheses. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the T and P scales of the TPIQ, which were discussed earlier, suggest that the near-zero correlations between P and T orientation are not due to random variations, but that person orientation and thing orientation are two orthogonal dimensions of personality. Although one of the c r i t e r i a for selecting items for the TPIQ was that both scales should have equal representation of sex-role items, the means for the two gender norm groups show the presence of sex differences. Males score higher on T orientation with a mean of 22.90 (the standard deviation = 7.57) as compared with the female mean of 20.11 (the standard deviation = 7.19). Females are favored on P orientation with a mean of 29.31 (standard devia-r:. tion = 6.72) as compared with a mean of 24.71 (standard deviation = 7.30) for males (L i t t l e , 1972a). For this reason, separate male and female norms should be used for data analyses. Because P and T scores are orthogonal, i t is possible to construct a four-fold typology of specialists by forming two axes which represent per-8 centile scores on the P scale and on the T scale and dichotomizing P and T at the 50th centile. This procedure yields four quadrants of approximately equal sized n's. Individuals who score below the 50th centile on both P and T, L i t t l e calls Non-Specialists; those who score above on P and below on T are called Person Specialists; those above on T and below on P are called Thing Specialists; and those who score above the 50th centile on both P and T are called Generalists. Of course, more stringent c r i t e r i a for specialized orientation can be set. Specialization Loops One of the prerequisites for L i t t l e ' s alternative approach to the system-atic study of personality is the integration of the levels of cognition, affect and behavior. The specialist model attempts to integrate the thoughts, fe e l -ings and behaviors of individuals by way of the concept of the specialization loop. A specialization loop is a set of links between the affective, cogni-tive and behavioral components of an individual and predicts relationships among these components. L i t t l e theorizes that out of an enormous and varied set of potential f o c i , the individual, in the course of development, begins the selective channeling of interest and a b i l i t y that w i l l , at some point, constitute specialization. "Behaviorally, specialization involves greater frequency and/or intensity of encounters with the speciality; cognitively, i t involves the development of highly interrelated constructs subsuming the domain; affectively, specialization is characterized by interest in and plea-sure with the specialized domain" ( L i t t l e , 1975, p. 95). Theoretically, an increase in any component w i l l result in bidirectional influence, or in ad-jacent components (the other two components) taking on higher values. For example, an increase in the affective component of a domain w i l l increase the frequency of behavioral encounters within that domain and w i l l also cause changes in the cognitive functioning in the domain. To be more specific, 9 following an experience of increased positive affect towards persons, there should be a..rise in the frequency of interpersonal .interactions and an increase in the number of psychological c r i t e r i a (as opposed to role con-structs and physicalistic constructs) used to evaluate others. Furthermore, L i t t l e predicts that a more intense, highly interrelated cognitive construct system w i l l be used for anticipating and reacting to the behavior of others (L i t t l e , 1975). The effects among components within a domain are reciprocal. Studies have been conducted for the purpose of examining the relation-ships that have been hypothesized to exist among the three components of a specialization loop. One such study reported by L i t t l e (1975) explored the relationship between the affective and cognitive components in the person domain. Eighty-seven Oxford undergraduates were administered the TPIQ (the measure of differential interest or affect) and a standard repertory grid (Kelley, 1955) made up of personally-known people (e.g., your mother, your boss, etc.). The repertory grid was the measure for the cognitive component, and the subjects' responses were classified as role, physicalistic or.psycho-logical constructs. These data yielded a significant, positive correlation between P scores and the number of psychological constructs used on the grid. The interpretation of these results is that subjects who scored high on the P scale tended to construe familiar others in terms of needs, desires and motives, while subjects who expressed low interest in persons tended to use more role and physicalistic constructs. These results were found for both males and females although there is support for sex-role mediation. For the 46 male subjects the correlation between P scores and the frequency of psychological constructs was significant but low (r = .27, p < .05), but for the 39 females the correlation was much stronger (r ;= .72, p < .001) ( L i t t l e , 1975). 10 A similar study was conducted using a grid of familiar places rather than people as the elements to be compared and contrasted. The hypothesis tested in this study was that there should be a significant positive correlation between interest in things (T score) and the use of physicalistic constructs used to describe places. The subjects were 75 Canadian students, and their data yielded a signfleant correlation between the two measures (r = .41, p < .01). However, when the sexes were analyzed separately, a marginally significant correlation was found for the 40 females (r = .30, p < .05), and a very substantial correlation was found for the 35 males (r = .68, p < .001) (Lit t l e , 1975). The predicted relationships between the affective and the cognitive com-ponents were confirmed by these two studies, but in interpreting the d i f f e r -ences between the sexes, L i t t l e speculates that links within a domain w i l l be weakened i f the domain runs counter to sex-role norms. For example, fe-males are probably socialized to be person oriented, but a female with inter-ests in physical objects may be impeded in her attempts to enter behavioral settings where encounters with such objects may be enjoyed and knowledge about them may be acquired (e.g., enrolling in a home-repairs course or apprentic-ing as an electrician). Any barriers placed between the affective and behavioral components w i l l weaken the bidirectional links, thus lowering the correlation among components for a speciality that i s not sex-role appropriate. The same d i f f i c u l t i e s may arise for males who are positively oriented towards other persons but who are, relative to females, impeded in gaining access to situations where this interest can be appropriately expressed. In other words, for the f u l l bidirectional influence of a specialization loop to occur, no barriers due to sex-role expectations can be placed between component links. Developmental Progressions The selective channelization of interest and a b i l i t y that constitutes 11 specialization should be viewed, according to L i t t l e , as a developmental pro-gression in the same way that organismic theory regards development (Werner, 1948). That i s , the progression applies to the development of systems of knowledge in general as well as to ontogenesis. This progression is f e l t to be characterized by ontological transposition: in the person domain physicalistic c r i t e r i a , then role c r i t e r i a , and f i n a l l y psychological c r i t e r i a are used as the bases for differentiating people. In the thing domain, per-sonalistic, functionalistic and f i n a l l y physicalistic constructs are used. L i t t l e apparently believes that in the early experiencing of the environment, persons are construed as things, and things are construed as people. He goes on to elaborate this counter-intuitive theory by saying that the transposition w i l l occur whenever there has been "insufficient behavioral interaction with a primary domain and/or insufficient affective involvement in i t " ( L i t t l e , 1975, p. 99). This transposition can be thought of as stimulus-inappropriate construing and is manifested in adults as well as children i f , relative to others, there has not been affective and behavioral investment in a domain. Two studies have been conducted that address the general question of whether in the early experiencing of the environment, persons are construed as things and things are construed as persons. In the f i r s t study, 86 young Canadian students served as subjects. The pre-adolescent group was comprised of 12 males and 16 females whose mean age was 11 years, 10 months. The adolescent group had 13 males and. 10!.females (mean age was 13 years, 7 months), and the post-adolescent group was made up of 18 males and 17 females (mean age was 16 years, 8 months). The subjects were administered a variant of the Repertory Test which called for the subject to write the name of a person who f i l l e d the prescribed r o l e - t i t l e (e.g., a boy in your room, a g i r l in your room, last year's teacher). Each construct supplied by the subjects was classified as either psycho-12 logical (any statement about personality characteristics), role (primarily statements about socio-economic distinctions or vocations), or physicalistic (physical descriptions or situational observations). Eight scores for each subject were calculated including both total number and proportion of psycho-logical, role and physicalistic constructs, a total construct score and psychocentricity score. The latter is a global measure of relative psycho-logical versus physicalistic construing and consists of the weights of the proportions of constructs from each class type (proportion of psychological constructs = 3 points, role = 2 and physicalistic =1). The two hypotheses which were formulated are based on the psychocentric scores and are: "(1) There w i l l be significant increases in psychocentric construing with age" and "(2) Females w i l l construe in a more psychocentric manner than males" ( L i t t l e , 1967, p. 6). Highly significant age differences were found on psychocentric construing (p < .001). While females showed a gradual increase with age, the pattern for males was rather bizarre with the youngest group giving the highest psycho-centricity scores of any of the six sex X age groups, followed by a marked decrement in adolescence and then a rise during post-adolescence to a near equalling of the same-age female subjects. The second hypothesis concerning sex differences was not supported. Contrary to prediction, males were more psychocentric than females (p < .001); however, this effect is due entirely to the high scores achieved by pre-adolescent males. The female subjects were more psychocentric than the males at adolescence while their scores were nearly identical at post-adolescence. The results for the proportional use of construct categories can be sum-marized this way. Pre-adolescent g i r l s tended to use predominantly physical-i s t i c constructs (e.g., height, hair color), while the same-age boys tended to use predominantly role constructs (e.g., professions, club a c t i v i t i e s ) . Both 13 - groups used very few psychological constructs. The combined adolescent gender groups used significantly more physicalis-tic constructs than were used by any other age group. This is particularly true for males who showed a marked peak in the proportional use of physical-i s t i c constructs at this time. No increases in the use of psychological con-structs were evident in this age group. In post-adolescence there was a tendency for a proportional increase in psychological construct useage, but both sexes used predominantly role con-structs ( L i t t l e , 1967). It i s clearly evident that the hypothesis concerning sex differences was disconfirmed. In fact, the data reversed this expectation and yielded a sig-nificant main effect for gender entirely attributable to the precocious psycho-centric construing of pre-adolescent males. The data confirmed the hypothesis that psychocentric construing increases with age for females, but not for males. However, i f one focuses only on the analyses of the number of psychological constructs used at the three age levels (as L i t t l e , (1975) does in a later paper), there is evidence that indeed useage of this construct category .'. increases with age (p < .01 with neither sex nor interaction significant). Moreover, L i t t l e presents data in this later paper that the number of physical-i s t i c constructs increases with age when everyday physical objects comprise the elements of the repertory grid (p < .001 with neither sex nor interaction significant). The important point is that these data cannot be considered supportive of the hypothesized developmental progressions in the two domains. At a l l of the ages tested, psychological constructs for construing people were sig-ficantly less often applied than either role or physicalistic constructs. When the global measure of psychocentric construing is assessed, we. are l e f t with the puzzling conclusion that the pre-adolescent male is the most psycho-14 c e n t r i c of any gender or age group and furthermore, that t h i s i s due l a r g e l y to the weighting of his s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number of r o l e constructs, not psychological constructs. In f a c t , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study are not at a l l convincing support of the developmental progression i n the person domain when one considers that there i s a main e f f e c t (p < .001) for age found for the t o t a l number of constructs e l i c i t e d (with increasing age more constructs are used), but the main e f f e c t f or age on proportion of psychological constructs i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . A second study having a s i m i l a r design and r a t i o n a l e was conducted to test the same hypotheses. In addition, i t was predicted that r o l e construct useage would peak between p h y s i c a l i s t i c and psychological construing, and that males would use more r o l e constructs ( r e f l e c t e d i n number and proportion) than females at a l l age l e v e l s ( B a l l , 1975). The sample was comprised of 120 Canadian c h i l d r e n and young adults. Four groups were distinguished on the basis of age. These were: ch i l d r e n , mean age of eight years, three months; pre-adolescents, 11 years, s i x months; adolescents, 14 years, 11 months; and young adults, 19 years, four months. Each of the four groups contained equal numbers of males and females. A l l subjects were administered a modification of the g r i d form of the repertory test on an i n d i v i d u a l basis. Each subject named known persons corresponding to r o l e descriptions provided by the experimenter, and these persons served as the elements of the g r i d which were compared and contrasted. The scoring of constructs was done i n the same manner as previously described ( L i t t l e , 1967) and included the global psychocentricity scoring. The r e s u l t s for psychocentric construing were as predicted with both males and females showing a l i n e a r increase with age (p < .001). There were no sex differences and no age X sex i n t e r a c t i o n . Both the number and proportion of p h y s i c a l i s t i c constructs decreased 15 significantly with age for both males and females. Furthermore, the predic-tion concerning role construct useage was confirmed. Both the number and proportion of role constructs peaked at 11 years, and this was preceded by a larger proportion of physicalistic construing at age nine and followed by a larger proportion of psychological construing at 14 years for females and at 16 years for males. The hypothesized sex difference for role construing was supported with consistently higher scores obtained for males than for females at a l l ages except 11 years when the mean numbers of role constructs were virtually identical. Finally, as predicted, there was a significant linear increase in the use of psychological constructs (both number and pro-portion) as a function of age for both gender groups. The one exception to this trend was that eight-year-old males used a higher proportion than 11 year old males. A significant main effect for sex was found, reflecting the tend-ency for females to construe psychologically more than males overall. The highly significant developmental trend found in this study lends further support to the hypothesis of a gradual progression from concrete to inferential construing that has been confirmed by other research in person perception (e.g., Gollin, 1958; Livesley and Bromley, 1973; Peevers and Secord, 1973; Scarlett, Press and Crockett, 1971). Ball (1975) believes that :the comparatively small or erratic age-related trends found in the above studies and others (e.g., L i t t l e , 1967; Payne, 1968) were due to the more limited age ranges sampled. This interpretation probably has merit, but i t s t i l l does not explain the chaotic results of the L i t t l e (1967) investigation which used an almost identical experimental design. One would expect, for example, more similarities between the two middle-age-range groups of the Ball study and the three age-groups of the Little sstudy than have been reported. Certainly, the fact that Ball-included both a younger group (eight year olds) and an older group (19 year olds) than L i t t l e ' s age-groups would contribute to a' more 16 clearly delineated developmental picture. It must be concluded that these two studies which were designed specifically to test L i t t l e ' s model of develop-mental cognitive progression have generated equivocal support for the notion of ontological transposition in the person domain. In discussing the results of her investigation, Ball speculates within a Kellian framework that young children are faced with the problem of how to elaborate a set of constructs that have predictive validity when applied to others' behaviors. It may be that children construe persons in predominantly physicalistic terms because they "learn concepts about the structures, func-tions and powers in the thing domain earlier than they learn about the struc-tures, functions and powers of elements in the person domain" (Ball, 1975, p. 47). Persons .are probably characterized by a greater degree of complexity than things and during early experience children spend a great deal of time acting upon a diversity of objects, but are comparatively restricted in the variety of persons with whom they interact. The increase in psychocentric construing with age is presumably adaptive because i t would allow for ver i d i -cal predictions about persons as compared with noting physical attributes only. However, this capacity must await the appearance of inferential thinking which has been shown to develop at a later age than the a b i l i t y to describe in con-crete terms (e.g., Livesley and Bromley, 1973; Brener, 1974; Piaget, 1950; Werner, 1948). In conclusion, i t is interesting to note that the proportions of categories sampled were virtua l l y identical for males and females of eight years of age (physicalistic constructs were used most often, then role and f i n a l l y very few psychological constructs). This finding gives some support to the notion that later sex differences in the relative proportion of role constructs favoring males and the greater proportion of psychological con-structs used by females are a result of intentional sex-role socialization or observational learning. The reader w i l l recall that adult females tend to 17 score higher on the P scale from the TPIQ, requiring separate gender norms, while males tend to be more thing oriented than females. Other Studies of Person and Thing Orientation in Children An early study of sex differences in interest in persons was conducted by Goodenough (1957). It was hypothesized that (a) nursery school g i r l s would show a greater interest in persons than peer-age boys; (b) boys define their sex roles more sharply than g i r l s ; (c) parents believe that their boys and g i r l s differ in their interest in persons, and (d) fathers have a more circumscribed conception of sex-role appropriate behavior than do mothers. The above hypotheses were tested by administering projective tests to a sample of nursery school children and by analyzing interview responses from their parents. A l l of the predictions were confirmed which led Goodenough to con-clude that "children between the ages of two and five already have different degrees of interest in persons or objects..." (Goodenough, 1957, p. 317-318). The sex differences in interest in the two domains were attributed to identi-fication with and modeling of the same-gender parent and to the intentional and unintentional reinforcement patterns of the parents, particularly the father. Of particular interest to the present purpose is the very young age at which Goodenough claims that differential orientations occur (between two and five years). If future research can replicate this finding by systematic assessment, then i t appears that the links between the affective component and the cognitive component of L i t t l e ' s specialization loop is in need of revision. The two investigations of childrens' cognitive constructs reviewed earlier ( L i t t l e , 1967; Ball, 1975) indicate that children as old as 11 years do not use to any important degree constructs which can be classified as psycho-logical when describing persons. Even though L i t t l e has proposed a transposi-tion of appropriate construing in the two domains, the bidirectional influence on the behavioral and cognitive components following an affective investment 18 i n either persons or things would lead to the p r e d i c t i o n that some chi l d r e n at an unspecified but early age should demonstrate appropriate cognitive con-s t r u a l . The pre-experimental c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n on the independent v a r i a b l e of a f f e c t i v e involvement i n either persons or things, followed by a contrasted group assessment on the dependent v a r i a b l e of appropriate versus inappropriate constructs could well lead to a more precise modification of the now extremely generalized model of transposed progressions. Occassionally one finds i n t h e ^ l i t e r a t u r e (Jennings, 1975) references to more recent studies which are purported to document person versus object o r i e n t a t i o n as a stable and s a l i e n t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e i n nursery school-aged chi l d r e n . However, i t i s important to note that most of these studies (e.g., Emmerich, 1964; Schaefer, 1971) are not making the conceptual d i s t i n c -t i o n that L i t t l e (1972) implies between thing o r i e n t a t i o n and impersonal o r i e n -t a t i o n . One of the basic objections to t r a d i t i o n a l personality research that prompted L i t t l e to investigate i n d i v i d u a l differences i n the two primary domains of the environment was the g l o b a l i t y of the environment as construed ; by personality research and theory, which cannot specify what kind of environ-ment toward which extroverts extrovert themselves or externals l o c a l i z e t h e i r c o n t r o l . C l e a r l y he i s not equating thing o r i e n t a t i o n with i n t r o v e r s i o n per se, because things are environmental objects and the thing s p e c i a l i s t must be oriented outward, away from s e l f i n order to manifest the behaviors of h i s or her s p e c i a l i t y . Probably the i n t r o v e r t as t r a d i t i o n a l l y conceived comes closest to L i t t l e ' s group of non-specialists or as he has l a t e r c a l l e d them, s e l f - s p e c i a l i s t s ( L i t t l e , 1975). The stable dimensions of early childhood that have been mistakenly labeled as thing versus person o r i e n t a t i o n by others and that Emmerich (1964) and Schaefer (1971) have i s o l a t e d are prob-ably more aptly labeled introversion-extraversion, or at l e a s t they represent a precursor of a developmental dimension which l a t e r can be c a l l e d i n t r o v e r s i o n -19 extraversion. Other aspects of this issue w i l l be raised in the discussion of temperament and heritability. An important study which focuses on infants and the development of what may be the f i r s t behavioral signs indicating correspondence between two parallel cognitive processes is Sylvia Bell's (1970) exploration of person permanence and object permanence. According to Piaget, during the last four of the six main stages of the sensorimotor period the concept of object is gradually acquired. Object constancy is said to be present when the child can conceive of something as having substance, independent of him/herself, and as existing in a context of spatial and causal relations even when the object i s not present to perception (Bell, 1970). The focus of Bell's study is the relation between the development of object and person permanence, and the rationale is based on Piaget's suggestion that the acquisition of the concept of person permanence i s homologous with the development of the object concept in reference to inanimate objects, but that the former follows a more accelerated process. It is supposedly the importance of the mother as a human environmental object that stimulates the beginning of the'process and accounts for i t being completed before the concept of the inanimate object. Thus, we have an instance of horizontal decalage of the performance of tasks requiring the same mental operations but applied in different contexts. Bell reasoned that the variable responsible for a few exceptions found in a study which generally confirmed Piaget's hypothesis (Saint-Pierre, 1962) is the quality of mother-infant interaction in the f i r s t two years of l i f e . The proposal of this variable to account for individual differences in the acquisition of permanence in the two domains of persons and inanimate objects i s consistent with Piaget's person-environment interactionist position. The aims and hypo-theses advanced by Bell were: (a) to further investigate the hypothesis that infants are generally more advanced in the development of person permanence 20 as compared with inanimate object permanence (she refers to this as a positive decalage); (b) to determine whether discrepancies between the object- and person-permanence scores for each baby (whether a baby scored higher or lower on person permanence than object permanence) is related to the attachment behavior the infant directs toward the mother; and (c) to determine i f the direction of the discrepancies is related to the speed with which the acqui-sition of the object concept is f i n a l l y attained (Bell, 1970). Two 11-step "hiding tests", one with an interesting inanimate object and one with the mother (in a few cases the experimenter) as stimuli, were given to 33 infants between the ages of eight and a half to 11 months old. Each subject received two scores indicating the most advanced substages that had been mastered for the two different types of stimuli. After three testing sessions, three distinct groups could be identified. These were: the posi-tive decalage group (n = 23) composed of babies who showed significant dis-crepancies in favor of person permanence, the negative decalage group (n = 7) which showed significant discrepancies favoring inanimate object .permanence, and the no decalage group (n = 3) which did not show significant discrepancies. The "strange situation" devised by Ainsworth and Wittig (1969)' was the c r i -terion of attachment. The prevalence of discrepancies in favor of person permanence confirmed Piaget's speculation. Furthermore, the positive decalage appears to be more consistent over time than the negative, and the babies in the former group take less time to complete even the object-permanence scale when tested again at 13*2 months. For Bell, the most significant finding to emerge from the study was the nearly perfect correspondence between type of decalage and the quality of attachment of a baby towards i t s mother. Positive decalage babies were ac-tive in their efforts to establish and maintain contact with or proximity to 21 t h e i r mothers. Negative decalage babies, on the other hand, showed l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n i n t e r a c t i n g with the mother, or were highly ambivalent toward her. B e l l concluded that "... a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher percentage of the babies i n the present sample ... had a p o s i t i v e decalage — thus i n d i c a t i n g a norma-t i v e tendency for babies to experience circumstances which are s u f f i c i e n t l y favorable to allow for an accelerated development of person permanence" ( B e l l , 1970, p. 309). Of course i t i s not known whether the negative decalage babies were more thing oriented than person orineted, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e possibly having a genetic base. I t seems more l i k e l y , as B e l l emphasizes, that the development of object constancy favoring person permanence i s the more normative course, and a nega-t i v e decalage indicates a disturbance i n the caretaker-infant r e l a t i o n s h i p . This disturbance impedes the a c q u i s i t i o n of the concept of the object i n both domains. Thus, i t i s reasonable that B e l l ' s negative decalage infants are Emmerich's (1964) and Schaefer's (1971) "impersonal" or "int r o v e r t e d " nursery chil d r e n . At l a t e r ages of the developing organism, i t has been hypothesized that the greater complexity of persons as compared with inanimate objects as i n t e r -a c t i o n a l s t i m u l i w i l l be r e f l e c t e d i n the increased complexity of the code by which such objects are construed (Zinn, 1974). Zinn has devised a systems theory-type model on the basis of which he argues that, unlike i n t e r a c t i o n s with inanimate objects, human int e r a c t i o n s are characterized by b i d i r e c t i o n a l flow wherein each p a r t i c i p a n t may be simultaneously acting on and reacting to the other. The consequence of t h i s heightened complexity i s l e s s control over experience i n the interpersonal case. In addition, there are more l e v e l s of experience to contend with ( i . e . , sensory-motor, perceptual, and conceptual). In the case of the inanimate object there i s only a unitary set of physical laws a f f e c t i n g the feedback to the i n d i v i d u a l , but i n interpersonal i n t e r a c -22 tions, the feedback from multiple l e v e l s of experience are flowing i n both d i r e c t i o n s a f f e c t i n g the behavior, cognitions and perceptions of a l l p a r t i -cipants. With two goal-directed systems using multiple means and multiple l e v e l s of experience to achieve t h e i r goals, complexity r e s u l t s . The r a t i o n a l e for Zinn's study was the organismic p r i n c i p l e that with development comes increasing d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , a r t i c u l a t i o n and h i e r a r c h i c organization (Werner, 1948). The degree of subject (person doing the con-struing) object (person or thing being constructed) d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and the degree of p r e d i c t i v e effectiveness for constructions were the two dimensions along which constructs can be ordered that were selected f o r hypothesis t e s t i n g . The subjects were an equal number of t h i r d , s i x t h , tenth graders and adult college students, t o t a l N = 88. The sampling, of constructs was achieved by asking each subject to provide the names of four d i f f e r e n t people and four d i f f e r e n t things, a l l of which were f a m i l i a r to the subject. The subject was then asked to provide d e s c r i p t i v e statements about each of the persons and each of the objects. Of these, the f i r s t 10 constructs from each domain were scored i n the following way: a zero was given for each un d i f f e r e n t i a t e d con-s t r u c t i o n (no information about the object as a d i s t i n c t e n t i t y ) ; a one was assigned to a construct which was too general or too s p e c i f i c to allow gene r a l i z a t i o n beyond the immediate s i t u a t i o n or physical feature; a two was given for each functional d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g construction (these constructions indicate d i s t i n c t i v e properties or uses and functions, but they are t i e d to d i r e c t l y observable q u a l i t i e s ) ; and a three was assigned to any abstract d i f -f e r e n t i a t i n g construction (these provide considerable information about the object and could have s i g n i f i c a n c e for pr e d i c t i n g and a n t i c i p a t i n g events). The analysis of the t o t a l scores achieved by the subjects f o r person con-structs and thing constructs confirmed the p r e d i c t i o n that a higher l e v e l of 23 constructs was used in describing persons than in describing things. This finding was significant (p < .05) for a l l of the age groups, even the young-est whose average age was eight and a half years. This evidence for d i f f e r -entiation was more marked for older subjects than for younger subjects. The developmental trend appears to be that differentiation at a representational level between persons and things continues to increase as subjects grow older, and does not level off u n t i l adulthood (Zinn, 1974). As Zinn (1974) points out, this, finding raises the question as to when in the course of ontogenesis persons and things are differentiated at a representational level. The study by Bell which was previously discussed indicated that differentiation of ob-jects from the two domains occurs during the f i r s t year of l i f e as evidenced by differential action patterns. The Contribution of Temperament The question was raised earlier as to whether person orientation and thing orientation may be related to gentically determined individual differences in temperament. The developmental literature abounds with examples of early i n -fant behaviors which may be indicators of sociability, which in turn may be partly responsible for adult person specialization. A s t r i c t l y rational grouping of behaviors that could be subsumed under sociability probably would include early interpersonal dimensions such as cuddling (Schaefer and Emerson, 1964), social extraversion (e.g., Emmerich, 1964; Scarr, 1969; Schaefer, 1971), attachment (e.g., Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth and Bell, 1970) and smiling (e.g., Freedman, 1964, 1965, 1974). It is conceivable that person specialization is to some extent dependent on the inheritance of high sociability. However, i t is not apparent which temperament or temperaments might be related to thing specialization. Some predictions are forthcoming from Buss and Plomin's (1975) temperament theory of personality development. 24 An interaction theory of personality development has recently been pro-posed by Arnold H. Buss and Richard Plomin (1975). Evidence for the herit-a b i l i t y of temperaments and their factorial unity form the bases for concept-ualization of the domain and for selection of the four specific dimensions .. of activity, emotionality, sociability and impulsivity. The fundamental objective of the theory is to present a model of development that endows an individual, at birth with certain inherited broad tendencies toward classes of behavior that account for individual differences in the personalities of i n -fants, children and adults. Given the genetically-determined broad tendencies at birth, the theory u t i l i z e s explanatory devices such as child-rearing prac-tices, social-role expectations and combinations of temperaments to trace the development of recognized personality types and psychopathologies (e.g., introversion-extraversion, hyperkinesis, schizophrenia, etc.). In addition, gender differences are identified and discussed as resulting from differen-t i a l socialization rather than from temperamental determination. According to Buss and Plomin, sociability consists mainly of a f f i l i a t i v e -ness, and i t is the only temperament with a directional component. The sociable person has a strong desire to be with others, tends to participate in work and play groups, and is probably more responsive to others than the nonsociable individual. In the adult, individual differences in sociability can be expected to account for such things as career choices, preferences for types of sports (team versus individual) and choices of hobbies or other leisure activity pursuits. Buss and Plomin identify two reciprocal dimensions of sociability which they expect are highly correlated, although they present no data as evidence for this. The f i r s t i s the directional component, or the tendency to seek out others, and i t may be recognized as the traditional conception of soci-a b i l i t y . The second component is warmth, or social responsivity. Warmth is 25 defined as "... responding to others with precisely the attributes that meet their social needs, such as attention and affection" (Buss and Plomin, 1975, p. 91). They argue that sociability i s the temperament which is most central to masculine and feminine roles Differential socialization practices are said to be responsible for sex differences on the dimension, not "innate wiring". They conclude that gender differences in sociability appear during later child-hood and that the frequently obtained pattern of women being more sociable than men is firmly established by adulthood. Buss and Plomin point out that a hormonal-based hypothesis stemming from biological theory is not ruled out by the mere observation of an increment in gender differences over age. How-ever, they opt for an explanation based on sex-role training and their reason-ing is congruent with that presented by L i t t l e (1975) in accounting for gender differences in person orientation. Is the temperament of sociability a bipolar continuum with person orien-tation related to the positive pole and thing orientation related to the nega-tive pole? Since Buss and Plomin do not raise this question, only their .... indirect speculations apply. When discussing individual differences in soci-a b i l i t y with respect to soothing and arousal of the infant they state that: "When the nonsociable child needs to be soothed, he prefers asocial means. He can be warmed by blankets, rocked in a rocker, or calmed by diminishing the level of visual, auditory and tactile stimulation; none of these requires the intimate presence of a caretaker.... When the nonsociable child craves excitement he prefers to be aroused by objects and events: television, phono-graph, toys and solitary games. He may tolerate others i f they are part of the stimulation, but he can take them or leave them" (Buss and Plomin, 1975, p. 97). In contrast, the sociable child prefers social soothing and social excitement. It would seem then that the reasoning of Buss and Plomin would lead to the following predictions: (a) person orientation i s a manifestation 26 of the genetically-based temperament of s o c i a b i l i t y and (b) thing o r i e n t a t i o n may be the r e s u l t of n o n s o c i a b i l i t y (the negative end of the s o c i a b i l i t y con-tinuum) or, commensurate with a "take them or leave them" at t i t u d e , i s ortho-gonal to s o c i a b i l i t y . Thus, person o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l have a high and p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with s o c i a b i l i t y , and thing o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l have a negative or zero c o r r e l a t i o n with s o c i a b i l i t y . Given that L i t t l e has already found person and thing o r i e n t a t i o n to be orthogonal, i t i s probably the case that i f person o r i e n t a t i o n i s p o s i t i v e l y correlated with s o c i a b i l i t y then thing o r i e n t a t i o n w i l l have zero c o r r e l a t i o n with the same dimension. However, developmental o r i g i n s are unclear, and i t may be that thing o r i e n t a t i o n and s o c i a l i n t r o -version may be two d i f f e r e n t manifestations of low s o c i a b i l i t y which make t h e i r appearance sometime during childhood. The well-researched personality dimension of introversion-extraversion i s , according to Buss and Plomin, a combination of two temperaments, i . e . , s o c i - -a b i l i t y and impul s i v i t y . In t h e i r discussion of introversion-extraversion scales (Eysenck, 1959; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1963), they point out that not only are there s o c i a b i l i t y and impulsivity subscales i n these instruments but that many i n d i v i d u a l items contain elements of both (e.g., "Do you l i k e to play pranks on others?") (Buss and Plomin, 1975). These items, they claim, account for the high c o r r e l a t i o n s reported between the highest-loading s o c i a b i l i t y :'. items and the highest-loading i m p u l s i v i t y items when the scales are factor analyzed (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1963). When unconfounded items are written, the c o r r e l a t i o n i s said to drop to zero (Buss and Plomin, 1975). L i t t l e (1972a) reports data that shed more l i g h t on the issue of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among extraversion, s o c i a b i l i t y and person o r i e n t a t i o n . Person o r i e n t a t i o n , measured by the TPIQ, has been found to corr e l a t e s l i g h t l y but s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p < .05) with Eysenck's (1968) extraversion measure. Furthermore, when separate c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between the impulsivity and s o c i a b i l i t y 27 subscales and person-orientation scores, P scores were found to be positively correlated (r = .23) with sociability but unrelated to impulsivity (r = .05) ( L i t t l e , 1972). It is probably the case then that the overlap between extra-version and person orientation is due to the temperament of sociability, but that person orientation, unlike either of the former, can also validly des-cribe the more socially reticent individual who is an "observer of others". It i s not clear, however, how thing orientation might relate to the temperaments of activity, sociability, emotionality and impulsivity or to a combination of them. It certainly reflects responsivity to the environment, albeit the nonhuman environment. T scores on the TPIQ probably would show a low to moderate correlation with introversion, but not because the thing specialist's attention is turned inward rather than outward, nor because he/ she withdraws from the environment. It can be assumed that thing orientation reflects an approach tendency toward the environment but, more specifically, to that aspect which is populated by inanimate objects rather than people. Another line of research which bears upon the issue of whether d i f f e r -ential orientation is in part under genetic control is the work of D. Freedman (1964, 1965, 1974). In one study (Freedman,;.1965;;.1974) , twenty pairs of same-sexed twins, nine monozygotic pairs and 11 dizygotic pairs, were administered developmental tests and videotaped on a regular basis throughout the f i r s t year of l i f e . Within pair differences were found to be consistently greater among the fraternal pairs as compared with the identical pairs on the Bayley Mental and Motor Scales (p < .01) and on the Bayley Infant Behavior Profile (p < .001). Two scales of the Infant Behavior Profile are of particular interest. One is called Social orientation: responsiveness to persons and the other is Object orientation: responsiveness to toys and other objects. The monozygotic twin pairs exhibited significantly greater concordance than the dizygotic pairs on both of these scales (p < .005 for social orientation 28 and p < .02 for object o r i e n t a t i o n ) . Thus, there i s some evidence that here-d i t y plays a r o l e i n the d i f f e r e n t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n patterns of i n f a n t s . Un-fortunately, further analyses of these data, which would be relevant to the current topic, have not been reported. Other Theoretical Concerns My own t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t s would favor extending the range of a p p l i c a -t i o n of the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n model beyond the study of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of adults and children. One focus of a p p l i c a t i o n which might prove to be enlightening i s the process and stage developmental l i t e r a -ture on decentration. The work of Piaget has been almost e x c l u s i v e l y devoted to questions about the stage-developmental sequences of i n t e l l e c t u a l opera-tions on impersonal categories such as number, quantity, etc. He states, however, that with the a c q u i s i t i o n of language: "... the universe to be represented i s no longer formed e x c l u s i v e l y of objects (or of persons as objects) ... but contains also subjects who have t h e i r own views of the s i t u a t i o n that must be reconciled with that of the c h i l d , with a l l that t h i s s i t u a t i o n involves i n terms of separate and multiple perspectives to be d i f f e r -entiated and coordinated.... Decentering (prerequisite for formation of opera-tions) applies not only to the p h y s i c a l universe but to an interpersonal or s o c i a l universe" (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969, p. 95). Piaget apparently be-l i e v e s that the decentering of cognitive constructions i s inseparable from the decentering of s o c i a l constructions. In other words, the developmental progression from the preoperational stage through the end of the concrete operational stage can be characterized as an integrated process of t r a n s i t i o n from subjective centering to decentering that i s at once cognitive, s o c i a l and moral (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). Piaget's speculative p r e d i l e c t i o n s appear to be committed to an integrated process; however, the question of whether impersonal decentration and interpersonal decentration are a unitary process, 29 summary variable, or whether they are more validly depicted as parallel and multidimensional processes has not been determined. The latter interpreta-tion i s amenable to hypothesizing a mediating role for person orientation and thing orientation in the acquisition of differential equilibrating opera-tions in the two domains. A recent theoretical contribution (Feffer, 1970) has attempted to inte-grate Asch's (1952) formulation of the reciprocal relationship which exists between the individual and the group with Piagetian terminology that was formulated to account for intellectual development. Feffer has been, at least, somewhat successful in the adaptation of constructs such as conserva-tion and equilibration to the problem of social development. Social role-taking tasks have been devised with the explicit intention of providing decen-tration measures of the social interaction domain (Feffer, 1959; Fla v e l l , 1968). The evidence stemming from the social role-taking literature appears to be unequivocal in the compatability of i t s findings with that '-.of perceptual perspective-taking and the acquisition of cognitive operations, in that older children show a greater degree of balanced decentering than do younger children. To my knowledge, however, there have not been longitudinal studies conducted which assess the acquisiton of the various types of decentering operations over time in the same sample of children. Probably the most clearly inter-pretable trends, either confirming a sequential process (a horizontal decalage) of the application of decentration in differing contexts, or identifying some other developmental process, would have to be investigated in this manner. The means by which the question of whether we are to consider decentration as a unitary process or separate processes has typically been investigated by administering a battery of Piagetian tasks, social role-taking and perspective-taking tasks to a sample of subjects and then intercorrelating 30 the scores or analyzing their factorial structure. The results of this line of research are at best inconclusive. For example, the findings of several studies have offered support for the stage-dependent, integrative relationship between role-taking and Piagetian tasks (Feffer and Gourevitch, 1960; Rubin, 1973). Other studies have not found significant relationships among different kinds of tasks (Turnure, 1975; Sullivan and Hunt, 1967; Kurdek and Rodgon, 1975). Of course, there are severe methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s with studies such as these, not the least of which are wide-ranging intertask demands. One might expect that i f Feffer's analysis is correct, and the same principles and operations apply to both the impersonal and interpersonal domains, that at least a horizontal decalage in application of decentering s k i l l s would be apparent across the different contexts. If one adopts the view that a hori-zontal decalage is a worthy hypothesis for investigation of this topic, and also accepts Piaget's contention that interest and affectivity do not cause the formation of cognitive structures but may accelerate or retard their formation (Piaget, 1962), i t can by hypothesized that individual differences in person and thing orientation could predict the sequence of decentration conquests in a similar manner to Bell's finding of positive and negative decalages in infants' acquisition of the concept of the object. Both the normative developmental pattern and specific types of departures from i t might be isolated in this manner. Only one study that I know of has addressed i t s e l f to a variant of this question (Jennings, 1975). In this study, 38 children with the mean age of four years and 10 months (22 males and 16 females) were observed during their nursery-school-free-play hour. The children were rated on behavioral indices of person and object orientation on a time-sampling method of observation. The rationale for the study was that children having different activity preferences (for persons or for things) may create functionally different environments for themselves 31 and, hence, develop d i f f e r e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s . The expectations were that c h i l d r e n with high object o r i e n t a t i o n would be r e l a t i v e l y advanced i n organizing and c l a s s i f y i n g physical objects, and c h i l d r e n who were high i n person o r i e n t a t i o n would be advanced i n s o c i a l kinds of knowledge ( i . e . , r ole-taking, moral judgement, knowledge of sex-role norms, e t c . ) . As expected, object o r i e n t a t i o n was found to c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with scores on the physical tests (p < .01). However, contrary to predictions, c h i l d r e n who spent more of t h e i r play time with other people did not perform better on tests of s o c i a l knowledge. The person-oriented children were found to be more popular with t h e i r peers and were rated higher on items such as "functions as a peer leader", "gets along well with others", " i s s e l f - s t a r t i n g " , etc. It i s also i n t e r e s t i n g that Jennings found person-oriented c h i l d r e n to i n t e r -act more with peers, while object-oriented c h i l d r e n interacted more with adults. It could be argued that Jenning's f a i l u r e to f i n d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between person o r i e n t a t i o n and s o c i a l knowledge (including a role-taking measure) was due to insurmountable methodological d i f f i c u l t i e s . For example, passive obser-vation of others was not scored, and we have already argued that person o r i e n -t a t i o n i s a broader personality dimension than s o c i a l extraversion. An addi-t i o n a l consideration i s the f a c t that s i x s o c i a l knowledge tests as compared with four tests of p h y s i c a l knowledge were administered to each c h i l d . The author states that the reason for more s o c i a l tests was because "... test development i n the area of s o c i a l knowledge seemed les s advanced " (Jennings, 1975, p. 514). No doubt t h i s i s true, but the p o s s i b i l i t y s t i l l remains that the within-subject variance on these tests was comparatively high, and that t h i s accounted for the lack of c o r r e l a t i o n between person o r i e n t a t i o n and s o c i a l knowledge. No data are reported about the r e l i a b i l i t y of the tests i n toto, for the dimensions they are said to measure. F i n a l l y , decentration 32 in the social realm, rather than a relatively globally-assessed "social know-ledge" variable, would probably have been more directly related to the issue at hand; theoretically, i f not empirically. Proposed Research Program The following section outlines a research program designed to: (a) devise assessment instruments for measuring person and thing orientation in children, (b) f i l l in some of the gaps in the literature concerned with the development of person and thing orientation, (c) relate person and thing orientation to temperament variables, and (d) relate person and thing orientation to decentra-tion stages and processes. The research to be reported here is concerned p r i -marily with the f i r s t stage of the larger program or steps one and two that are listed below. 1. A peer-nomination measure of person and thing orientation w i l l be developed following the procedures of Wiggins and Winder (1961) and using a variant of the sequential system for item selection elaborated by Jackson (1970). This instrument w i l l be appropriate for research with both boys and gi r l s in the eight to 12 years of age range. 2. A self-report measure of person and thing orientation w i l l be v developed which is consistent with L i t t l e ' s theory and the testing format of the adult TPIQ. Again, a sequential strategy for the evaluation of psycho-metric and itemmetric properties w i l l be utilized for the selection of items. It i s anticipated that two versions of the self-report measure w i l l result from an experimental design allowing for the evaluation of cross-sectionally consistent items, i.e., one version appropriate for research with boys and gi r l s of the eight through 10 years of age range and the other version appropriate for boys and g i r l s of the 10 through 12 years of age range. 3. A picture test measure of person and thing orientation w i l l be developed which is appropriate for use with children seven years of age and 33 younger. Children who are high and low in person and thing orientation w i l l be identified on the basis of the self-report and peer-report measures (1 and 2 above) and they w i l l be administered pic t o r i a l material which has been pre-calibrated for person and thing relevance, attractiveness, sex role appropriate-ness, and social desirability by 12 year old raters. A contrasted group anlaysis of the interest ratings given by high P children and high T children w i l l constitute the basis for the selection of picture-items. 4. Further validity and r e l i a b i l i t y analyses (other than those used in test construction) w i l l be conducted for a l l three instruments. Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y w i l l be assessed (using a one-month interval between testing ses-sions) by administering the self-report measure and the peer-report measure to children in grades one through six and by administering the picture test to children in grades kindergarten through three. Convergent validity w i l l be evaluated by administering the self-report and peer-report measures to children in grades three through six and the self-report and picture measures to children in grades two and three. The validity of the measures with an external criterion w i l l be assessed by correlating P and T scores (using a l l three instruments in their appropriate age groups) with classifications based on a time-sampling behavioral method obtained during free-play, similar to that used by Jennings (1975). 5. To test the hypothesis that specialization increases with age, P and T measures appropriate for the various age groups w i l l be administered to samples of subjects in grades kindergarten, two, four, six, eight, 10 and 12. A s t a t i s t i c which indicates degree of specialized interest, possibly difference scores between P and T scale scores, w i l l be computed0for each subject. The hypothesis of a linear trend of increasing degree of specializa-tion across the age groups w i l l then be assessed. At this time i t would also be desirable to conduct a multitrait-multimethod study for the dual purpose 34 of identifying other personality correlates of specialized interests and for the further assessment of the construct validity of person and thing orienta-tion. 6. To determine whether there are genetically-based temperament pre-cursors to person and thing orientation, a study w i l l be conducted for the purpose of examining the relationships among P and T scores and Buss and Plomin's temperament survey (EASI, 1973) scores. Also, the relationships between parents' and their children's P and T scores should be examined. The specific design for this study has not been determined. 7. To investigate the hypothesis that person and thing orientation serve as mediating variables in the acquisition or application of decentering opera-tions in a social context or in a nonsocial context, a Piagetian test packet for concrete operations, social role-taking tasks, and perceptual perspective-taking tasks w i l l be administered to a sample of children along with P and T measures. Again, the experimental design has not been determined. If warranted, a longitudinal study of the above variables w i l l be conducted. This thesis describes the procedure by which two measures of person and thing orientation in children were developed. These are a peer nomination instrument and a self-report instrument, steps one and two of the research program outlined above. CHAPTER 2 METHODS AND PROCEDURES Methodology of Test Construction The present and following chapters (Chapters 2 and 3) describe the con-struction of two paper-and-pencil instruments for the assessment of person and thing orientation in children. A self-report measure was modeled after L i t t l e ' s self-report questionnaire for adults (Appendix A) in i t s theoretical rationale and testing format. A peer-report measure was developed using the same theoretical rationale but, in addition, the testing format and some of the procedures described by Wiggins and Winder (1961) in their construction of the Peer Nomination Inventory. The program adopted for item generation and selection has been influenced by the monograph on construct validity by Loevinger (1957), the arguments of Jackson (1970) concerning the advantages of following a sequential system for scale construction and the integrative methodological suggestions of the construct point of view offered by Wiggins (1973). The primary requirement for the items of the present instruments was that they "be sampled systematically from a specified universe of content on the basis of their judged relevance to the theory" (Wiggins, 1973, p. 402). Those familiar with the history of test theory w i l l recognize this requirement as the overriding tenet of the construct point of view. Oddly enough, an explicit reliance on psychological theory and an explicit definition of the universe of content is s t i l l a rather novel procedure. As Jackson (1970) succinctly points out i t is no longer desirable for psychologists to take refuge from their ignorance by relying on external criterion and empirical item selection alone. One of the advantages of assembling an item pool that i s representative 35 36 of the substantive domain delineated by a theory i s that the constructs can be s p e c i f i e d and distinguished from other seemingly related constructs, and the i n v e s t i g a t o r , i n knowing what t h e o r e t i c a l l y relevant scales are supposed to measure, i s i n a better p o s i t i o n to i n t e r p r e t empirical data bearing on the v a l i d i t y of the construct i n general. For example, the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween constructs and methods of measurement, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between theoret-i c a l predictions and empirical r e s u l t s , or the r e l a t i o n s h i p between scores on the assessment instrument and an external c r i t e r i o n can be interpreted i n ways that r e f l e c t on the t e s t , the constructs measured and the underlying theory. In a sense, the whole of the enterprise of psychology as a s o c i a l science i s contained i n each of i t s parts when the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among theory, methods of measuring and empirical expectations for the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s are s p e c i f i e d from the outset (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955). The desire to implement the above preferences led to the acceptance of L i t t l e ' s d e f i n i t i o n s of the constructs of person o r i e n t a t i o n and thing o r i e n -t a t i o n (see pg. 2 of Chapter 1). These construct d e f i n i t i o n s were translated into descriptions of two hypothetical persons for the purpose of enabling a sample of c h i l d r e n to name a peer whom they thought t y p i f i e d the construct d e s c r i p t i o n . In t h i s manner, behavioral and i n t e r e s t statements pertaining to the constructs were e l i c i t e d , and the universe of content for c h i l d r e n regarding person o r i e n t a t i o n and thing o r i e n t a t i o n was s p e c i f i e d . This strategy permitted the creation of items which represented c e r t a i n sub-areas of content i n proportion to t h e i r estimated life-importance (Loevinger, 1957). The second aspect of the methodology of t e s t construction that was employed was the formulation of a sequential system for evaluating the empir-i c a l data obtained for the preliminary forms of the s e l f - r e p o r t and peer-report measures. I t was decided a p r i o r i that convergent and discriminant construct v a l i d i t y (Campbell and Fiske, 1959) of the person and thing items would be 37 "built in" from the outset by defining an item-total scale score correlation index as the primary criterion for selection of items. This index allowed the retention of only those items whose s t a t i s t i c a l properties demonstrated an appropriate content saturation and a lack of inappropriate content satura-tion. It is important to note that i f an item displayed excellent itemmetric characteristics for the scale other than the one for which i t was written, the item was not rekeyed. This decision was made because an item such as this had failed to provide evidence of i t s substantive validity (Jackson, 1970). The step-by-step procedure for the selection of items for the two instru-ments w i l l be explained later in this chapter. Either one or both of these selection procedures took into consideration the evaluation of the following itemmetric and psychometric properties. After the evaluation of substantive validity, the structural component of construct validity was considered. According to Loevinger (1957), the structural relations of the items shall be consistent with the structural relations of non-test manifestations of the same t r a i t . . . . " (p. 686). The above quotation refers to the structural f i d e l i t y between the measurement instrument and the "natural" clusterings of behaviors which are representative of a particular domain. However, at this point in time no data have been collected which would allow an analysis of the structure of non-test behaviors for person orientation and thing orientation. The emphasis had to be placed on the inter-item structural characteristics which is the second aspect of Loevinger's (1957) structural component. The models preferred for the present assessment of the structural component were those of homogeneity and principal components analysis. It was hoped that internally consistent or reliable scales could be developed by combining the correlational data obtained for an item with i t s appropriate total scale scores in a simple algebraic way to 38 yield a homogeneity index for that item. Another method of ensuring the r e l i -a b i l i t y of the resultant scales was a principal component analysis of the response data for a form which permitted the computation of a component loading index. These two methods for "building in" r e l i a b i l i t y were evaluated as the second step in the sequential operation for selection of items. A last indicant of r e l i a b i l i t y , alpha coefficients, were computed for the self-report measures as a method of determining the optimal number of items which should comprise the f i n a l person and thing scales. A third consideration for the peer-report measures was the desire to select items which exhibited a relation to a validity criterion (in this case, teacher ratings). Wiggins and Winder (1961) have pointed out that teacher ratings employed for this purpose are an approximation to a validity criterion but do not, in themselves, define the constructs. A convergent validity index was defined for the teacher rating data which provided a basis for retention or elimination of remaining items. The fourth criterion for item inclusion for both instruments was the d i f f i c u l t y level of the item. This criterion was not deemed as important as the preceeding c r i t e r i a but was included for the potential instance of an item which has passed the rational and empirical hurdles but which was found to have a very high or very low endorsement frequency. Efficiency of the resultant scales was the goal in reference to the d i f f i c u l t y levels of the individual items, so a comparatively loosely defined acceptable range for endorsement was adopted. This provided a p r i o r i j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the inspec-tion of the d i f f i c u l t y levels of items which had not been eliminated at this stage in the selection procedure. The f i n a l criterion for the peer-report measure was an evaluation of the construct "purity" of person items. It was anticipated that the construct of person orientation might suffer contamination with perceived popularity using 39 peer nomination measurement methods. For t h i s reason, two l i k e a b i l i t y items developed by Wiggins and Winder (1961) were included i n the preliminary peer-report forms, and an analysis of the l i k e a b i l i t y saturation of person items was conducted. In conclusion, i t must be stated that Loevinger's (1957) external component of construct v a l i d i t y was not assessed by the present procedures other than by teacher r a t i n g s . L i t t l e (1972a) has shown that external cor-r e l a t i o n s of the test score as measured by h i s instrument designed for adults o f f e r o p t i m i s t i c evidence for construct v a l i d i t y and for c e r t a i n predicted correspondences between theory and the measured presence or absence of one of the two postualted personality dimensions. The evaluation of the external components of construct v a l i d i t y with respect to c h i l d r e n awaits further research programs. Generation of the Item Pool Substantive considerations. The proposed instruments required a pool of behavioral statements which pertained to i n t e r e s t i n persons or i n t e r e s t i n nonhuman objects. It was necessary that these behavioral descriptions be written i n such a way as to be e a s i l y comprehended by c h i l d r e n and sample a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s which are, at l e a s t p o t e n t i a l l y , a v a i l a b l e to them. The assumption was made that a human/nonhuman dichotomy of the environment i s con-ceptually meaningful to school-age c h i l d r e n , but i t i s not known at what age constructs such as person s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and thing s p e c i a l i z a t i o n can be under-stood and v a l i d l y a t t r i b u t e d to others. Even with the l i m i t s to our knowledge of the appropriateness of the task, i t was f e l t that better instruments could be developed i f c h i l d r e n were allowed to define the universe of content. Once thi s was done, r a t i o n a l methods could be used to organize the content for item construction, and f i n a l l y empirical methods could permit the development of psychometrically sound scales. With the above goals and considerations i n mind, an interview s c r i p t was prepared for the purpose of e l i c i t i n g d e s c r i p t i v e statements from c h i l d r e n concerning th e i r peers whom'they bel i e v e d i t o be either more interested i n persons than things ox more'interested i n things than persons. Interview sample and procedure. Interviews of 82 children were conducted by myself and a male assistant using a sex of experimenter by sex of subject balanced design. The subjects ranged i n age from eight to 12 years of age and were randomly selected from t h i r d , fourth, f i f t h and s i x t h grade classes i n several small to moderately populated, northwestern Washington towns. School a u t h o r i t i e s supplied the informa-t i o n that the classes from which subjects were selected were heterogeneous as to a b i l i t y . The sample was predominantly Caucasian, approximately 85%, while the remainder was comprised of Amerindians and Chicanos. Table I i l l u s t r a t e s the sample designs and gender compositions for the present and for the following procedures. The interview s c r i p t was pretested on four c h i l d r e n , one c h i l d from each of the four grade l e v e l s . The pretesting sessions indicated the s c r i p t was adequate for e l i c i t i n g behavioral statements from the interviewee, but that some of the younger subjects might require i n t e r -vention beyond the i n i t i a l establishment of rapport. I t was decided that the interviewer could intervene for the purposes of (a) r e c a p i t u l a t i o n of paragraphs two and three i f the c h i l d did not appear to understand the defining explanations given for a person who i s interested i n things or who i s interested i n other persons (Appendix B contains the interview s c r i p t ) , (b) a probe f o r a d d i t i o n a l or more s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i v e statements. The interviews were conducted i n an open-ended, nondirective manner, and they t y p i c a l l y l a s t e d about 15 minutes. A l l interviews were audiotape-Table I Sample Design for Interviews, Person Thing Peer Report, and Person Thing Self Report Grades and Number in Class Total N Interviews Fisher Elementary School, Lynden, Wa. (10 boys, 10 girls) PTPR-A PTPR-B PTSR-4 PTSR-6 Fisher Elementary School, Lynden, Wa. (10 boys, 12 g i r l s Blaine Middle School, Blaine, Wa. (10 boys, 10 girls) Blaine Middle School, Blaine, Wa. (10 boys, 10 girls) Roosevelt, Elementary Roosevelt Elementary Shuksan Middle School, Bellingham, School, Bellingham, School, Wa. (14 boys, 15 girls) Wa. (15 boys, 8 girls) Shuksan Middle School, Bellingham, Wa. Bellingham, Wa. (15 boys, 12 girls) Roosevelt Elementary School, Bellingham, Wa. (13 boys, 10 girls) Roosevelt Elementary Shuksan Middle School, Bellingham, School, Wa. (14 boys, 13 girls) Bellingham, Wa. (10 boys, 16 girls) Sunnyland Elementary School Bellingham, Wa. (30 boys, 25 girls) (12 boys, 12 girls) Shuksan Middle School, Bellingham, Wa. (10 boys, 12 girls) Shuksan Middle School, Bellingham, Wa. (27 boys, 28 girls) 82 Ss (40 boys 42 girls) 103 Ss (56 boys, 47 girls) 98 Ss (47 boys, 51 girls) 55 Ss (30 boys, 25 girls) 55 Ss (27 boys, 28 girls) 42 recorded following the granting of permission of each c h i l d . C l a s s i f i c a t i b r i of Statements. A pool of statements was created by t r a n s c r i b i n g verbatim from the interview tapes. A rough d i v i s i o n of the statements was made during t r a n s c r i p t i o n into four categories: (a) person behavior statements (e.g., "He's always with people, t a l k i n g to them"), (b) person i n t e r e s t statements (e.g., "She watches a l l the biographies on T.V."'), Ce) thing behavior statements (e.g., "He f i x e d the s t a p l e r " ) , (d) thing i n t e r e s t statements (e.g., "Her f a v o r i t e subject i s science"). A f t e r a l l of the relevant statements from the tapes had been transcribed onto forms containing the four categories, each statement was typed onto a separate 3 x 5" card, color-coded for person (P) and thing (T). At the top of each card an alpha-numerical code was typed for the following information: the sex and grade of the respondent, the sex of the person to which the statement referred, and whether the statement had been categorized as dealing with i n t e r e s t s or behavior. This procedure resulted i n 413 cards which constituted the raw data of the item pool. At t h i s juncture, i t was evident that nearly a l l of the c h i l d r e n who had been interviewed mentioned popular sports such as basketball, baseball, f o o t b a l l , etc. while answering one or more of the interview questions. Tabulation of these sports-related descriptions recorded i n the four categories indicated that f o r c h i l d r e n within t h i s age range of eight to 12 years, i n t e r e s t or involvement i n sports i s probably not associated with either P or T s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . In the schools from which the interview sample was drawn, apparently every 43 c h i l d who i s able i s , to some degree, a p a r t i c i p a n t i n team sports. For the above reasons, i t was decided that sports-related utterances were not relevant to the present purpose, so only one d e s c r i p t i v e statement pertaining to each sport was retained. Three judges, Jerry S. Wiggins, Brian R. L i t t l e and -If, r a t i o n a l l y , c l a s s i f i e d the statements i n each of the two domains. The procedure that was followed i n the i n i t i a l s o r t i n g of items was an informal one which involved discussing the content of each statement and giving the content a conceptual l a b e l (e.g., altruism, nurturance and empathy i n the case of P statements). Fine discriminations among classes of content were made, and Table II reports the 22 i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of P statements with the number of statements which appeared i n each. The same procedure was followed for the i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of T statements and Table III gives the 31 classes and the number of state-ments which appeared i n each. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of construct domains were regrouped into large categories by the same three judges, which resulted i n s i x major groupings for P statements and s i x for T statements. As can be seen i n Table IV, the categories f or P statements are: helpfulness, considerateness, s o c i a b i l i t y , play, i n t e r e s t and sentience. The s i x T categories, and the number of statements appearing i n each are shown i n Table V and are: animals, p h y s i c a l science, mechanical a c t i v i t i e s , b i o l o g i c a l science, outdoor a c t i v i t i e s , and c r a f t s , hobbies and games. It should be mentioned that throughout the r a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure, statements were eliminated from consideration. The c r i t e r i a Table II I n i t i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of Person Statements with number which appeared i n each No. i n No. i n Class Class Class Class 1. Altruism 7 12. Exhibitionism 3 2. Nurturance 16 13. Maturity 6 3. Empathy 1 14. Psychological-mindedness 3 4. S o c i a b i l i t y 14 15. Adult modeling 3 5. Fri e n d l i n e s s 7 16. Dependency 3 6. I n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t 11 17. One to one in t e r a c t i o n s ;M 7. Play 13 18. S e n s i t i v i t y 1 8. S o c i a l S k i l l s 5 19. Popularity 1 9. Writing, drawing, c r a f t s 5 20. Adjustment 2 10. Interest 8 21. S o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n 2 11. Heterosexual i n t e r e s t 5 22. Helpfulness 1 23. U n c l a s s i f i e d 55 Tot a l 118 45 Table I I I I n i t i a l C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of Thing Statements with number which appeared i n each No. i n No. i n Class Class Class Class 1. Things botanical 4 17. Aggression 3 2. Construction 12 18. Acting 1 3. Repair 11 19. Transportation 7. 4. Writing 2 20. Laboratory 7 5. Pictures clipped 1 21. Games 4 6. Research reports 7 22. Fishing & hunting 2 7. Reading . 18 23. C u r i o s i t y 1 8. Vocational i n t e r e s t s 7 24. Taking apart, putting together 4 9. Crafts 9 25. Employment & chores 4 10. Drawing 11 26. Camping 2 11. Exploration 1 27. Birds 2 12. Sports 10 28. Cooking 2 13. Movies 2 29. Explosives 1 14. C o l l e c t i n g 13 30. T e l e v i s i o n 1 15. Interests 19 31. Play 3 16. Animals 8 32. U n c l a s s i f i e d 61 Tot a l 179 Table IV Rational Categories f o r Person Statements, number assigned to each, and number of items for Person Thing Peer Report constructed from each category No. of No. of items Category Statements constructed I. Helpfulness 18 4 I I . Considerateness 10 2 I I I . S o c i a b i l i t y 42 10 IV. Play 14 4 V. Interest 8 2 VI. Sentience 23 6 VII. U n c l a s s i f i e d 3 Totals 115 28 Table V Rational Categories for Thing Statements, number assigned to each, and number of items f o r Person Thing Peer Report constructed from each category No. of No. of items Category Statements constructed I. Animals 18 4 I I . P h ysical science 23 6 I I I . Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s 23 6 IV. B i o l o g i c a l science 14 2 V. Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s 17 4 VI. C r a f t s , hobbies and games 27 6 VII. U n c l a s s i f i e d 57 Totals 122 28 48 f o r elimination were: (a) the statement could not be r a t i o n a l l y grouped with any other statement, (b) the statement was not generalizable (e.g., statements which referred to farming equipment, to i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s such as "she f i n i s h e s math the f a s t e s t " , or to i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n t e r e s t s such as " l i k e s to t a l k funny l i k e Donald Duck" or " i s interested i n General Custer"), (c) statements pertaining to sports or very common childrens' a c t i v i t i e s and games, (d) statements which were not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to person or thing o r i e n t a t i o n or were not p o s i t i v e i n the a f f e c t they r e f l e c t e d (e.g., "He l i k e s to tease other kids". "He wants to be mature"). A t o t a l of 116 statements or 28% were eliminated from consideration by employing these c r i t e r i a . The r a t i o n a l s o r t i n g of verbatim statements provided a quasi-empirical basis f or the determination of the types of a c t i v i t i e s which are meaningful to c h i l d r e n eight to 12 years of age, and the proportion of items from each category of the s p e c i f i e d domain which should appear on the preliminary test forms. The Person Thing S e l f Report Item Construction. The Person Thing Self Report for c h i l d r e n (PTSR) i s modeled a f t e r Brian R. L i t t l e ' s TP Interest Questionnaire (see Introduction, part C) i n i t s r a t i o n a l e and t e s t i n g format. L i t t l e has reported information such as the t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y , homogeneity of the P and T scales and the construct v a l i d i t y of the TP Interest Questionnaire (TPIQ) which has been administered to i n d i v i d u a l s as young as 14 years of age ( L i t t l e , 1972a). In l i g h t of the promising nature of the above information, i t was decided that the development of the preliminary forms of the PTSR should take advantage of the successful item construction of the TPIQ as well as the category proportionality of the interview data. To accomplish the strategy of combining a l l sources of information, the items which appear on Lit t l e ' s TPIQ were rationally placed in the six P and six T categories derived from the interview statements. The mean percentage of items per category for L i t t l e ' s items and the interview statements were computed, and this constituted the method for determining the number of items from each category which should be written for inclusion in the PTSR.. A total of 20 items from each of the two domains were desired, so each of the mean percentages was multiplied by 20, and the category proportions reported in Table VI were obtained. The next step was to write items which corresponded in their content to the category proportions. Half of the items, ten from each domain, were written with special attention given to choice of wording and phrasing which would be easily comprehended by fourth graders. Parallel items were then created for sixth graders with the same considerations applying. An attempt was made to write items which were not gender specific in the activities or interests they depicted. The verbatim statements of the children who had been interviewed were helpful in this regard, because we could refer to the information typed on each card regarding sex of the respondent and sex of the target peer. Furthermore, i t seemed important that the P items reflect group activites, one-to-one interactions and passive observation of people. The T items should focus on involvement with nonhuman objects, but some of these 50 Table VI Category P r o p o r t i o n a l i t y f o r Person Thing Self Report with B. R. L i t t l e ' s Proportions and Interview Statement Proportions L i t t l e ' s Holzmuller's Mean No. of Person Categories Percentages Percentages Percentages items I. Helpfulness 33.33% 15.65% 24.49% 6 I I . Considerateness 25.0% 8.70% 16.85% 4 I I I . S o c i a b i l i t y 16.67% 36.52% 26.60% 6 IV. Play " 0 12.17% 6.08% 0 V. Interest 16.67% 6.96% 11.81% 2 VI. Sentience 8.33% 20.0% 14.17% 2 L i t t l e ' s Holzmuller's Mean No. of Thing,Categories Percentages Percentages Percentages items I. Animals 8.33% 14.75% 11.54% 2 I I . P h ysical science 8.33% 18.85% 13.59% 4 I I I . Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s 41.67% 18.85% 30.26% 6 IV. B i o l o g i c a l science 16.67% 11.48% 14.07% 4 V. Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s 16.67% 13.93% 15.30% 2 VI. C r a f t s , hobbies, games 8.33% 22.13% 15.23% 2 51 activities should include the presence of other people to guard against the tapping of introversion only. As an aid to item writing, content matrices which were based on the verbatim statements were constructed. For example, inspection of the cards subsumed under the category of mechanical activities yielded the matrix of: (a) takes apart and puts together, (b) repairs, (c) builds, (d) watches or observes, and (e) vocational. For some categories, i t was possible to construct matrices for subjects of sentences and for the objects of verbs, as well as for verbs. The item matrices permitted f l e x i b i l i t y (usually there were more choices of noun/verb/object permuta-tions than the number of items needed from the category), while ensuring a close correspondence between the actual verbalizations of the children who were interviewed and the items which were written. The f i n a l step in item construction for the PTSR was to select 20 of the items written for fourth graders (ten P and ten T items) and 20 of the items written for sixth graders for inclusion in the two preliminary forms, one to be administered to grade four subjects and the other to be administered to grade six subjects. Without changing the proportionality of categories sampled, items were rationally selected using the following c r i t e r i a : (a) the items which appeared to be generalizable, and (b) those that were syntactically appropriate for the target age group. Appendix C l i s t s the P and T items that were eliminated by application of the above c r i t e r i a . It has already been reported that items parallel in content were constructed for two age levels. Since i t was not apparent at this stage of the research whether P and T orientation would be manifested in 52 different behaviors and interests for children nine to ten years of age than for children eleven to twelve years of age, i t was decided that the best procedure to follow was a conservative one. That i s , items differing in their syntactical and conceptual complexity and in their s k i l l requirements would be prepared, so that the advantages of or lack of necessity for two forms of the PTSR could be determined empirically. An experimental design for the administration of the preliminary forms was adopted that would allow for the empirical assessment of cross-sectional consistency (across age groups) for one set of items, i.e., those written for the grade six subjects. Thus, the preliminary form for nine to ten year olds, PTSR-4, consisted of the ten P and ten T items written specifically for this age group and the ten P and ten T items written for the 11 and 12 year olds and the 12 P and 12 T items from Li t t l e ' s adult TPIQ (Appendix A)..- It should be noted that the category proportions reported i n Table VI have been changed somewhat for the PTSR-6 with the addition of the TPIQ items. The order in which the items appeared on the two forms was randomly determined. A five-place Likert scale response format was used, where "0" indicated "would really like to do i t . " Appendixes D and E contain the preliminary forms of PTSR-4 and PTSR-6, respectively. Administration of preliminary forms of the PTSR. The PTSR-4 was administered to two fourth grade classes, and the PTSR-6 was administered to two sixth grade classes. Refer to Table I for sample designs and to Appendix F for the instructions which were recited to the subjects. A total of 55 fourth graders, 30 males and 25 females, completed the PTSR-4, 53 and a total of 55 sixth graders, 27 males and 28 females? completed the PTSR-6. A l l subjects were tested in their classrooms as a group. The experimenter, myself, read aloud each of the f i r s t four items of the PTSR-6 to the sixth graders, followed by the reading aloud of the response choices. After the fourth item was completed, the subjects were allowed to proceed at their own individual paces. The administration of the PTSR-4 to fourth graders was slightly different in that the experimenter read aloud each of the items and the response options. Observations made by the classroom teachers and the experimenter during testing sessions indicated that very few, i f any, of the children experienced d i f f i c u l t y in understanding the items or using the Likert scale. The children were free to ask questions or to have words defined during testing. The Person Thing Peer Report Item construction. For the Person Thing Peer Report for children (PTPR), 28 P items were written sampling from the six P categories as indicated in Table IV and with the benefit of items matrices which were described in reference to the PTSR item construction. Half of the items from each category were randomly assigned to Form A, and half were assigned to Form B. The reasons for using two comparable forms w i l l be explained in the next section. Again, an attempt was made to create items that were not gender specific and which sampled a variety of P orientation behaviors. In addition to the 14 P items which appeared on each form, two li k e a b i l i t y items from the Peer Nomination Inventory (Wiggins and Winder, 1961) were included (i.e., " A l l the kids lik e him/her" and "He/she has lots of friends"). It was anticipated that the inter-54 correlations among the li k e a b i l i t y (L) items and the P items would permit the identification of "pure" P orientation items from those of perceived popularity. The direct statement, "He/she is more interested in persons than things," was also included. The same procedure as described above for sampling from rational categories (see Table V) and assignment to forms was followed for T items. Again, a direct statement about T specialization was included, i.e., "He/she is more interested in things than person." Each of the two forms began with a practice item that was not scored, followed by a random assortment of 14 P and 14 T items, two lik e a b i l i t y items and the two direct statements of specialization. This made a total of 33 items per form. Appendixes G and H contain Form A and Form B of PTPR, respectively. Administration of preliminary forms of the PTPR. The PTPR was modeled after the Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) developed by Wiggins and Winder (1961). The sociometric response format of the PNI was used for the present instrument. This format consists of an item by peer matrix in which the statements or items appear as rows down the lef t side of the page, and the names of the children in the class are printed as columns along the top of the page. The subject i s asked to put a check mark under the names of those classmates to whom each of the items apply. Obviously, this type of format restricts the number of items which can be administered to any one subject. For this reason, two comparable forms of the PTPR were developed. To further minimize administration time and loss of interest or fatigue on the part of subjects, i t was decided that the children would nominate their same-gender peers only. Thus, i f a female were completing Form A, a l l of the items would begin with or contain the pronoun, "she", and across the top of the page would be written the names of a l l of her female classmates. Class l i s t s were obtained several days before t e s t i n g so that the names of the chi l d r e n could be printed i n the columns of the appropriate forms. Each of the two preliminary forms was administered to one class of t h i r d , fourth, f i f t h and s i x t h graders (see Table I for sample designs). School a u t h o r i t i e s reported that a l l of these classes were heterogenous with respect to the a b i l i t y of the chil d r e n . A t o t a l of 103 subjects completed form A, 56 males and 47 females. Form B was administered to a t o t a l of 98 subjects, 47 males and 51 females. The appropriate forms f o r both boys and g i r l s i n each class were also f i l l e d out by the teacher of the class for the purpose of nomination v a l i d a t i o n . The i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the PTPR (Appendix I) were r e c i t e d by me to each c l a s s . To make the task as simple as possible, the ch i l d r e n were asked to place a r u l e r or a sheet of paper beneath the item under consideration. In a l l of the classes each item was read aloud, and time was allowed f o r the subjects to make t h e i r decisions and record t h e i r check marks before the next item was read. Chapter 3 RESULTS Person Thing Self Report Rationale of item analysis. The goal set for the item analysis of PTSR was the selection of the 10 "best" P items and the 10 "best" T items for the two f i n a l forms, one designed for use with children eight to nine years of age and one for 11 and 12 years olds. If cross-sectional consistency was found for the two sets of items i n i t i a l l y written for grade six subjects (P6 and T6 items) which were included on both the PTSR-4 and the PTSR-6 preliminary forms, then one f i n a l form would result. This form would be appropriate for use with subjects in the eight to 12 years of age range. However, i t was unlikely that the items with the best properties for both age groups would be the P6 and T6 items, so the analysis was directed toward the development of two P scales and two T scales by the selection of items which were (a) internally consistent, (b) of demonstrated discriminant validity, and (c) representative of the middle range of d i f f i c u l t y level. Scoring. Four scale scores were computed for each subject who completed the preliminary form of PTSR-4 or PTSR-6. A l l subjects in grade four received a total scale score for P6 items, T6 items, for P items written for fourth graders (p4) and for T items written for fourth graders (4). Each scale was scored by summing the numerical responses from the Likert scale that the child gave to each item in that scale. Scale scores computed for grade six subjects were P6, T6, the P items from the TPIQ (PA) and the T items from the TPIQ (TA). The responses of one subject who completed PTSR-6 were not scored, making the total N for that form = 54. 56 57 The c o r r e l a t i o n Index, In order to obtain the f i r s t measure of convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y , Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between each item and the t o t a l scale scores for each of the scales which appeared on the preliminary form. These item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed f o r each class and for the two classes at each grade l e v e l pooled. For example, the f i r s t item which appears on Table VII, P4-3,* correlates .480 with the P4 scale i n cl a s s 1, .166 with the P4 scale i n class 2 and .344 with the P4 scale when the classes are pooled. Table VII reports the item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s of P4 items with the scale scores of T4, T6, P4 and P6 for each of the two classes of grade four subjects and f o r t h e i r data pooled. Tables VIII, IX and X give the same data f o r P6 items, T4 and T6 items, a l l of which appeared on the PTSR-4 preliminary form. The item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s between each item that appeared on PTSR-6 preliminary form and the appropriate scales ( i . e . , P6, PA, T6, TA) are reported i n Tables XI, XII, XIII and XIV. To compare the c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e s u l t s of an item that appeared on both the PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 preliminary forms (P6 and T6 items), one should r e f e r to Appendexes and and then to Appendexes and to i d e n t i f y the item statement common to both forms. Taking as our example the statement, "cheer up an old person who i s lonely", we f i n d that i t i s item P6-2 on PTSR-4 and item P6-14 on PTSR-6. Looking at Table VIII i t can be seen that t h i s item correlates .589 with P6 when the data from the two fourth grade classes are pooled. Table XI indicates that t h i s same item (now P6-14) correlates .812 with P6 when the data from the two grade s i x classes are pooled. Table VII Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Grade 4 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Person-Grade 4 (P4), and Person-Grade 6 (P6) Scales: Self Report Grade 4 Class l a Class 2 b Pooled 0 (n=25) (n=30) (n=55) Item T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 P4-3 .199 -.019 .480 -.098 .330 .010 .166 -.020 .221 -.057 .344 .082 P4-8 -.024 -.205 .496 .374 .456 .486 .632 .629 .184 .105 .638 .600 P4-10 -.247 -.252 .069 .261 .358 .478 .643 .649 .067 .102 .617 .628 P4-13 .270 .188 .690 .523 .580 .539 .507 .588 .364 .284 .606 .631 P4-17 .337 .458 .237 -.158 .155 .132 .635 .350 .235 .271 .474 .149 P4-19 .260 .367 .138 .035 .130 .236 .533 .317 .159 .239 .459 .286 P4-20 .089 -.019 .359 .453 .270 .436 .706 .562 .173 .. .219 .598 .471 P4-24 -.138 -.072 .440 .396 .273 .252 .586 .661 .073 .071 .583 .601 P4-30 .479 .210 .459 .405 .027 .385 .574 .250 .204 .251 .559 .338 P4-37 .288 .113 .728 .272 .416 .477 .664 .51'5 .270 , .204 .736 .511 For- n=25, r=.396 is significant at .05. k For n=30, r=.361 is significant at .05. c For n=55, r=.257 is significant at .05. OO Table VI.II Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6);, Person-Grade 4 (P4), and Person--Grade 6 (P6) Scales : Self Repor.t Grade 4 Class l a (n=25) Class 2 b (n=30) Pooled 0 (n=55) Item T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 P6-2 -.139 -.065 .310 .504 .366 . 100 .248 .552 .097 -.029 .353 .589 P6-6 .127 .274 .138 .646 .193 -.009. .180 .468 .152 , .128 .159 .508 P6-12 -.253 -.295 .130 .476 .106 .415 .500 .510 -.085 .044 .418 .517 P6-16 .423 .217 .272 .240 .419 .511 .656 .706 .393 .346 .536 .412 P6-26 .123 .237 .566 .563 .119 .125 .426 .471 .112 .163 .432 .479 P6-27 .087 -.168 .172 .446 .394 .186 .480 .533 .139 -.084 .549 .626 P6-29 .254 .231 .142 .275 .396 .319 .270 .434 .294 .229 .279 .419 P6-32 -.108 -.072 .250 .556 .427 .320 .583 .630 .132 .074 .551 .671 P6-34 .005 .001 .397 .497 .355 .446 .583 .727 .136 , .152 .608 .717 P6-39 .241 .344 .277 .401 .471 .375 .608 .745 .311 .275 .580 .688 9. For n=25, r=.396 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. k For n=30, r=.361 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. For n=55, r=.257 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. VO Table IX Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Grade 4 with Thing Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6)_, Person-Grade 4 (P4)_, and Person-Grade 6 (P6) Scales: Self Report Grade 4 Class l a . Class 2 b Pooled 0 (n=25) (n=30) (n=55) litem T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 T4-1 .483 .634 .074 -.110 .474 .381 .394 .460 .476 .501 .236 .205 T4-4 .359 .028 -.058 -.396 .113 -.184 -.059 .095 .260 -.010 -.194 -.263 T4-5 .368 .258 .271 .085 .357 .139 .127 .172 .364 .207 .110 .067 T4-7 .434 .338 .259 .225 .491 .062 .225 .255 " .465 .220 .159 .160 T4-11 .307 .097 .047 ,.204 .261 .145 .209 .141 .253 .089 .215 .195 T4-14 .514 .436 .203 -.009 .322 .104 .223 .395 .442 .367 -.052 -.072 T4-18 .582 .563 .208 .084 .377 .259 .177 .279 .492 .426 .119 .102 T4-21 .636 .359 .362 .369 .516 .082 .328 .082 .571 .215 .292 .149 T4-33 .544 .349 .388 .298 .538 .458 .348 .557 .489 .351 .397 .474 T4-40 .480 .244 .419 .181 .361 -.029 -.021 -.153 .361 .037 .198 .071 a For n=25, r= .396 is significant at .05. b For n=30, r= .361 is sij >nificant at .05. ° For n=55, r= .257 is significant at .05. o Table X Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 4 (T4), Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Person-Grade 4 (P4), and Person-Grade 6 (P6) Scales: Self Report Grade 4 Class l a Class 2° Pooled 0 (n=25) (n=30) (n=55) Item T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 T4 T6 P4 P6 T6-9 .528 .663 .403 .213 .263 .403 .098 .135 .403 .538 .119 .079 T6-15 .394 .464 .045 -.086 .212 .226 .125 .030 .330 .381 .008 -.127 T6-22 .432 .567 .001 .027 .159 .433 .034 .004 .304 .505 -.022 -.066 T6-23 .361 .334 .150 .227 .050 .558 .240 .085 .222 .475 -.057 -.166 T6-25 .495 .601 .377 -.026 .393 .552 .431 .513 .446 .575 .327 .252 T6-28 .295 .593 .092 .102 .197 .277 .417 .337 .232 .400 .307 .215 T6-31 .523 .543 .405 .176 .196 .704 .382 .326 .367 .626 .288 .159 T6-35 .031 .352 -.203 .067 .331 .547 .614 .429 .182 .448 .299 .256 T6-36 .391 .683 .096 .035 -.106 .297 -.021 -.235 .161 .494 .002 -.106 T6-38 .300 .409 .078 .182 -.048 .332 .203 .354 .113 .340 .188 .296 a For n=15, r= .396 is significant at .05. b For n=30, r= .361 is significant at .05. ° For n=55, r= .257 is significant at .05. Table XI Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6), and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Class l a Class 2 b Pooled 0 (n=28) (n=26) (n=54) Item T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA P6-4 .227 .115 .484 .387 .457 .507 .658 .395 .243 .196 .657 .461 P6-10 .519 .569 .739 .319 .216 .183 .572 .241 .357 .361 .577 .275 P6-14 .410 .300 .760 .300 .385 .474 .759 .510 .250 .189 .812 .510 P6-18 .569 .430 .736 " .169 .629 .529 .528 .306 .585 .419 .592 .257 P6-24 .276 .115 .377 .576 .438 .464 .599 .523 .259 .144 .579 .609 P6-28 .331 .384 .741 .190 .264 .315 .747 .591 .237 .222 .766 .451 P6-32 .297 .356 .508 .319 .381 .309 .575 .573 .200 .117 .660 .549 P6-34 .473 .286 .545 .301 .440 .454 .553 .470 .354 .225 .623 .470 P6-38 -.020 -.020 .021 .194 -.208 -.143 .132 .088 -.189 -.185 .243 .236 P6-40 .240 .269 .273 .247 -.013 .180 .574 .455 .059 .183 .411 .351 a For n=28, r= .374 i s : s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=26, r= .388 i s : s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ° For n=54, r= .255 i s : s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XII. Item-Total Correlations of Person Items-Adult with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6)_, and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Class l a Class 2 b Pooled 0 (n=28) (n=26) (n=54) Item T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA PA-1 .256 .436 .352 .529 .343 .331 .350 .387 .255 .344 .335 .463 PA-5 .181 .120 .362 .533 .065 .082 .081 .415 .002 .016 .308 .524 PA-17 -.204 .175 -.137 .203 .092 .192 .450 .671 -.104 .101 .246 .459 PA-21 .108 .276 .148 .522 .137 .300 .291 .615 .073 .228 .263 .575 PA-2 5 .245 .164 .078 .422 -.128 .254 .204 .484 .063 .156 .177 .457 PA-31 .318 .474 .401 .570 -.018 .017 .270 .411 .163 .244 .308 .479 PA-3 3 .292 .404 .502 .670 .001 .012 .545 .730 .107 .144 .540 .708 PA-35 .506 .368 .510 .400 .365 .333 .406 .287 .355 .251 .500 .404 PA-3 7 .350 .128 .195 .603 .166 .203 .398 .560 .221 .123 .315 .578 PA-3 9 .163 .326 .284 .619 .380 .468 .589 .657 .214 .275 .516 .673 PA-4 2 .136 .092 .323 .500 .021 .190 .547 .557 -.046 .027 .536 .585 PA-4 4 .510 .322 .462 .536 .189 .374 .510 .513 .247 .228 .550 .573 a For n=28, r= .374 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. For n=26, r= .388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ° For n=54, r= .255 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XIII Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Grade 6 with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6), and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Class l a Class 2 b Pooled 0 (n=28) (n=26). (n=54) Item T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA T6-2 .345 .323 .296 -.083 .598 .339 .193 -.004 .527 .342 .161 -.076 T6-6 .003 -.010 .098 .158 .660 .703 .337 .186 .354 .356 .142 .119 T6-8 .384 .245 .175 .015 .394 .395 .256 .060 .404 .416 -.078 -.149 T6-12 .336 .238 .211 .164 .366 .394 .339 .125 .342 .348 .113 .051 T6-16 .524 .143 .153 .166 .403 .379 .399 .458 .181 .092 .429 .410 T6-20 .472 .445 .253 .284 .579 .479 .184 .006 .519 .384 .264 .201 T6-22 .753 .613 .616 .337 .464 .188 .321 .403 .610 .408 .394 .335 T6-26 .710 .358 .423 .352 .670 .539 .356 .257 .720 .475 .245 .215 T6-30 .626 .479 .309 .313 .496 .238 .203 -.004 .522 .298 .295 .213 T6-36 .759 .576 .644 .484 .522 .311 .088 -.203 .649 .455 .269 .128 3 For n=28, r= .374 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=26, r= .388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ° For n=54, r= .255 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ON Table XIV Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items-Adult with Thing-Grade 6 (T6), Thing-Adult (TA), Person-Grade 6 (P6)_, and Person-Adult (PA) Scales: Self Report Grade 6 Class l a Class 2 b Pooled 0 (n=28) (n=26) (n=54) Item T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA T6 TA P6 PA TA-3 .062 .441 .073 .296 .283 .465 .164 .022 .230 .512 -.100 .013 TA-7 .140 .474 -.066 .384 .574 .774 .334 .141 .357 .640 -.029 .144 TA-9 .427 .388 .403 .348 .172 .301 .362 .609 .233 .269 .410 .504 TA-11 .328 .265 .296 .190 .696 .715 .388 .201 .507 .464 .296 .179 TA-13 .075 .407 .095 .212 .369 .543 .088 .039 .208 .470 .031 .091 TA-15 .607 .367 .601 .137 .315 .441 .191 .091 .489 .452 .175 .005 TA-19 .416 .497 .160 .230 .021 .213 .108 .063 .175 .222 .265 .244 TA-23 .474. .505 .371 .060 .563 .729 .226 .070 .580 .644 .116 -.092 TA-27 .722 .736 .612 .274 .615 .671 .616 .434 .674 .722 . .406 .238 TA-29 .380 .466 .381 .252 .574 .540 .251 .067 .433 .542 .120 .047 TA-41 -.163 .248 -.099 .186 -.173 .080 -.003 .314 -.126 .231 -.155 .135 TA-43 .650 .567 .482 .409 .213 .075 .310 .263 .415 " .333 .313 .298 3 For n=28, r= .374 i s : s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=26, r= .388 i s ; s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ° For n=54, r= .255 i s : s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. U l 66 A correlation index for a l l P and T items was defined by combining the correlational information for an individual item shown in Tables VII through XIV. This was accomplished by summing the correlations of the item with the appropriate scales (the two P scales or the two T scales) and then subtracting the correlations with the inappropriate scales. Only the item-total correlations computed for the pooled classes at each grade level were used in the calculation of the EP-ET index for P items or the E T - E P index for T items. Any minus signs for a correlation between an item and i t s inappropriate scale were dropped because theoretically, these correlations should be around zero; but i f they are not, the direction of relationship is not important. Table XV gives the correlation index and the correlational data that went into i t s calculation for each of the P items from PTSR-4. Looking at the f i r s t item reported on Table XV, P6-2, i t can be seen that the correlation index of 1.378 was obtained by calculation of the EP-ET or .353 + .589 + .812 - .097 -.029 -.250 = 1.378. For the next item, P4-3, we have the pooled correlational data from the fourth grade classes only, since this item did not appear in PTSR-6. Its correlation index was calculated in the same way, EP-ET, using the item-total correlations for appropriate and inappropriate scales reported in the table. Table XVI shows the correlation indexes for P items from the PTSR-6. It w i l l be recalled that item, P6-2, of the PTSR-4 is item P6-14 of the PTSR-6. Table XVI reports that this item has a slightly better correlation index (1.443) than that obtained on PTSR-4 (1.378). Table XV Calculation of the Correlation Index for Person Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Correlation of Item with Person Scales Correlation of Item with Thing Scales Grade 4 (P4) and Grade 6 (P6) Grade 4 (T4) and Grade 6 (T6) Correl P4 Scale r P6 Scale r P6 Scale r T4 Scale r T6 Scale r T6 Scale r Index Item Gr.4 a Gr.4 a Gr.6 b Gr.4 a Gr.4 a Gr.6 b EP-ET P6-2 .353 .589 .812 .097 -.029 .250 1.378 P4-3 • .344 .082 .221 -.057 .148 P6-6 .508 .159 .577 .152 .128 .357 .607 P4-8 .638 .600 .184 .105 .949 P4-10 .617 .628 .067 .102 1.076 P6-12 .418 .517 .579 -.085 .044 .259 1.126 P4-13 .606 .631 .364 .284 .589 P6-16 .536 .412 .592 .393 ,346 .585 ,216 P4-17 .474 .149 .235 .271 .117 P4-19 .459 .286 .159 .239 .347 P4-20 .598 .471 .173 .219 , 677 P4-24 .583 .601 .073 .071 1.040 P6-26 .432 .479 .411 .112 .163 .059 .988 P6-27 .549 .626 .660 .139 -.084 .200 1.412 P6-29 .279 .419 .243 ,294 .229 -.189 .229 P4-30 .559 .338 .204 .251 .442 P6-32 .551 .671 .657 .132 .074 .243 1.430 P6-34 .608 .717 .766 .136 .152 .237 1.566 P4-37 .736 .511 .270 .204 .773 P6-39 .580 .688 .623 .311 .275 .354 .951 a F o r n=55, r=.257 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b F o r n=54, r= .255 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XVI Calcul a t i o n of the Correlation Index for Person Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 6 Correlation of Item with Person Scales C o r r e l a t i o n of Item with Thing Scales Grade 6 (P6) and Adult (PA) Grade 6 (T6) and Adult (TA) Co r r e l P6 Scale r PA Scale r P6 Scale r T6 Scale r TA Scale r T6 Scale r Index Item Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 b Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 b EP-ET PA-3 5 .500 .404 .355 .251 .298 P6-34 .623 .470 .688 .354 .225 .275 .927 P6-28 .766 .451 .717 .237 .222 .152 1.322 P6-14 .812 .510 .589 .250 .189 -.029 1.443 PA-1 .335 .463 .255 .344 .199 PA-39 .516 .673 .214 .275 .700 P6-10 .577 .275 .508 .357 .361 .128 .514 P6-4 .657 .461 .671 .243 .196 .074 1.276 P6-24 .579 .609 .517 .259 .144 .044 1.258 P6-18 .592 .257 .412 .585 .419 .346 -.089 PA-44 .550 .573 .247 .228 .648 P6-32 .660 .549 .626 .200 .117 -.084 1.434 PA-3 7 .315 .578 .221 .123 .549 PA-31 .308 .479 .163 .244 .380 PA-3 3 .540 .708 .107 .144 .997 PA-21 .263 .575 .073 .228 .537 PA-42 .536 .585 -.046 .027 1.048 P6-40 .411 .351 .479 .059 .183 .163 .836 PA-2 5 .177 .457 .063 .156 .415 PA-5 .308 .524 .002 .016 .814 Correlatioi Grade P6 Scale r Item Gr.6 a PA-17 .246 P6.-38 .243 a For n=54, r=.255 Is b For n=55, 4=.257 Is of Item with Person Scales 6 (P6) and Adult (PA) PA Scale r P6 Scale r Gr.6 a Gr.4 b . 459. .236 .419 s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Correlation of Item with Thing Scales Grade 6 (T6) and Adult (TA) Correl T6 Scale r TA Scale r T6 Scale r Index Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 b EP-ET -.104 .101 .500 -.189. -.185 ,229 .295 70 This index was based on the item-total correlations of the appropriate and inappropriate scales given to grade six subjects CP6, PA and T6, TA) and the one appropriate and one inappropriate item-total correlations of grade four subjects (P6 and T6). In other words, the P6 and T6 items each received two correlation indexes, one for each of the two grade levels. Furthermore, the indexes were based on the two appropriate and two inappropriate item-total correlations for that grade level and the same-scale appropriate and inappropriate correlations in the other grade level. Tables XVII and XVIII show the correlation indexes and the data that were combined for their calculation for the T items of PTSR-4 and PTSR-6, respectively. The component loading index. The second item selection index was that of factorial structure, the characteristics of which were determined by performing a principal components analysis of the pooled responses for each item for each grade level. The principal components analysis of the 40 items of the PTSR-4 yielded 13 components with eigenvalues greater than one, which accounted for 75% of the variance. An attempt was made to cl a r i f y the component structure by rotation to a varimax solution, but this procedure did not change appreciably the component solution. The f i r s t four components of the unrotated matrix accounted for 41% of the variance and were the most clearly interpretable. The f i r s t principal component for PTSR-4 items appeared to be a P component with 17 P items and five T items loading on i t equal to or above .33, the arbitrarily set criterion for interpretation of a loading. Table XIX reports the loadings of a l l of the PTSR-4 items on the f i r s t four unrotated components. The second principal component appeared to be Table XVII. Calculation of the. Correlation Index for Thing Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Correlation of Items with Thing Scales Correlation of Item with Person Scales Grades 4 (T4) and Grade 6 (T6) Grade 4 (P4) and Grade 6 (P6) Correl T4 Scale r T6 Scale r T6 Scale r P4 Scale r P6 Scale r P6 Scale r Index Item Gr.4 a Gr.4 a Gr.6 b Gr.4 a Gr.4 a Gr.6 b ET-EP T4-1 .476 .501 .236 .205 .536 T4-4 .260 -.010 -.194 -.263 -.207 T4-5 .364 .207 .110 .067 .394 T4-7 .465 .220 .159 .160 .366 T6-9 .403 .538 .354 .119 .079 .142 .955 T4-11 .253 .089 .215 .195 -.068 T4-14 .442 .367 -.052 -.072 .685 T6-15 .330 .381 .519 .008 -.127 .264 .831 T4-18 .492 .426 .119 .102 • 697 T4-21 .571 .215 .292 .149 .345 T6-22 .304 .505 .342 -.022 -.066 .113 .950 T6-23 .222 .475 .404 -.057 -.166 -.078 .800 T6-25 .446 .575 .522 .327 .252 .295 .669 T6-28 .232 .400 .610 .307 .215 .394 .326 T6-31 .367 .626 .720 .288 .159 .245 1.021 T4-33 .489 .351 .397 .474 -.031 T6-35 .182 .448 .181 .299 .256 .429 -.173 T6-36 .161 .494 .527 .002 -.106 .161 .913 T6-38 .113 .340 .649 .188 .296 .269 .349 T4-40 .361 .037 .198 .071 .129 a For n=55, r=.257 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=54, r=.255 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XVIII Calculation of the Correlation Index f or Thing Items From the Person Thing Self Report Form 6 Correlation of Item with Thing Scales Co r r e l a t i o n of Item with Person Scales Grade 6 (T6) and Adult (TA) Grade t ) (P6) and Adult (PA) Correl T6 Scale r TA Scale r T6 Scale r P6 Scale r PA Scale r P6 Scale r Index Item Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 S Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 b ZT-ZP T6-2 .527 .342 .494 .161 -.076 -.106 1.020 T6-6 .354 .356 .538 .142 .119 .079 .908 T6-8 .404 .416 .475 -.078 -.149 -.166 .902 T6-12 .342 .348 .505 .113 .051 -.066 .965 T6-16 .181 .092 .448 .429 .410 .256 -.374 T6-20 .519 .384 .381 .264 .201 -.127 .692 T6-22 .610 .408 .400 .394 .335 .215 .474 T6-26 .720 .475 .626 .245 .215 .159 1.202 T6-30 .522 .298 .575 .295 .213 .252 .635 T6-36 .649 .455 .340 .269 .128 .296 .751 TA-3 .230 .512 -.100 .013 .629 TA-7 .357 .640 -.029 .144 .824 TA-9 .233 .269 .410 .504 -.412 TA-11 .507 .464 .296 .179 .496 TA-13 .208 .470 .031 .091 .556 TA-15 .489 .452 .175 .005 . 761 TA-19 .175 .222 .265 .244 -.112 TA-23 .580 .644 .116 -.092 1.016 TA-27 .674 .722 .406 .238 .752 TA-29 .433 .542 .120 .047 .808 Correlation of Item with Thing Scales Grade 6 (T6) and Adult (TA) T6 Scale r TA Scale r T6 Scale r Item Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 b TA-41 -.126 .231 TA-43 .415 .333 3. For n=54, r=.255 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=55, r=.257 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Correlation of Item with Person Scales Grade 6 (P6) and Adult (PA) Correl P6 Scale r PA Scale r P6 Scale r Index Gr.6 a Gr.6 a Gr.4 b ET-EP -.155 .135 -.185 .313 .298 .137 Table XIX Principal Components Analysis of Person Thing Self Report Form 4: Loading of Items on Unrotated Factors I, II, III, and IV and Communalities Item Loading Factor I Loading Factor II Loading Factor III Loading Factor IV Communality P4-37 .700 .043 .285 -.308 .846 P4-13 .698 .035 -.121 .083 .738 P6-39 .689 -.081 -.246 -.166 .731 P6-34 .687 .248 .176 .026 .698 P4-8 .663 .216 -.111 .038 .811 P4-10 .661 .396 .004 .094 .716 P6-32 .618 .259 -.057 .033 .695 P4-24 .592 .270 -.136 .107 .805 P6-27 .592 .438 .207 .016 .800 P6-16 .584 -.159 .029 .179 .769 T4-33 .570 -.248 -.172 -.167 .742 P4-20 .558 -.039 .083 -.046 .649 P4-30 .500 -.003 .155 .057 .801 P6-2 .498 .356 .188 -.152 .825 P6-26 .441 .009 -.248 .254 .789 T6-25 .419 -.417 .280 -.108 .792 P6-12 .413 .224 -.248 .064 .737 P6-29 .361 -.271 -.471 -.165 .735 T6-28 .346 -.196 .187 .162 .725 P6-6 .340 .046 -.176 -.016 .566 Loading Loading Loading Loading Item Factor I Factor II Factor III Factor IV Communality PA-4 2 .445 .434 -.304 -.263 .794 PA-3 7 .441 .201 -.148 .252 .798 TA-11 .432 -.306 .313 .139 .688 T6-20 .420 -.266 -.018 .250 .758 PA-31 .371 .147 -.048 -.075 .882 PA-5 .361 .397 .156 .241 .812 PA-21 .352 .276 -.194 .035 .772 P6-40 .304 .094 -.152 -.296 .772 TA-19 .298 .133 .254 -.266 .802 TA-23 .255 -.694 -.236 -.154 .815 T6-8 .068 -.608 -.096 -.395 .823 TA-29 .269 -.517 -.034 .202 .816 TA-15 .283 -.503 .199 .040 .706 P6-38 .055 .475 .090 -.256 .681 T6-2 .237 -.443 .006 .368 .796 T6-36 .432 -.437 .134 -.305 .812 TA-3 .086 -.416 -.216 .245 .778 TA-41 -.097 .038 -.728 .031 .808 TA-13 .132 -.297 -.698 -.175 .808 PA-17 .205 .287 -.479 .176 .743 TA-7 .207 -.402 -.418 .092 .793 T6-12 .200 -.247 .028 .694 .782 T6-6 .255 -.238 -.041 .450 .777 PA-2 5 .258 .201 -.120 -.264 .745 76 a T component with 12 T items loading on i t equal to or above .33 and no P items loading in the same direction as the Titems. The third component is also T with five items meeting the loading criterion. The fourth component is primarily a T component; four T items and two P items meet the loading criterion. The f i r s t principal component which was defined by P items accounted for 18.5% of the total variance, and components two, three and four which were primarily defined by T items accounted for 9%, 7.7% and 5.7% of the total variance. The f i r s t two principal components were the most clearly interpretable with respect to their substantive content, so a loading index was calculated for each item on the basis of i t s loadings on these two components. The component loading index was computed by subtracting the item's loading on the inappropriate component from i t s loading on the appropriate component. For example, the f i r s t item which appears on Table XIX, P4-37, loads .700 on the f i r s t component which has been identified as the appropriate P component and .043 on the second com-ponent which has been identified as the major T component. The loading index for this item i s .700 - .043 or .657. For the items given to both fourth and sixth grade subjects (P6 and T6 items), a loading index for the item was computed using the loading data for each grade level. In other words, two differences were calculated and recorded for these items. A principal components analysis was performed on the PTSR-6 items and resulted in a 14 component solution (eigenvalues > 1.0) which accounted for 78.3% of the total variance. Rotation of the component 77 matrix to varimax s o l u t i o n did not c l a r i f y the structure, Again, .33 was set as the loading c r i t e r i o n f o r the purpose of i n t e r p r e t i n g the unrotated components. The loadings of PTSFt-6 items on the f i r s t four components are reported i n Table XX. The table reveals that the f i r s t p r i n c i p a l component i s p r i m a r i l y a P component with 18 P items and nine T items meeting the loading c r i t e r i o n . This component accounted for 19% of the t o t a l variance. The second p r i n c i p a l component appeared to be a T component; 10 T items and no P items loaded on i t equal to or above .33 and i t accounted for 10.5% of the variance. Three T items and one P item met the loading c r i t e r i o n f o r the t h i r d component which accounted f o r 6.8% of the variance. S i m i l a r l y , three T and one P items loaded on the fourth component, and i t accounted for 6.2% of the variance. The cumulative proportion of the t o t a l variance accounted for by the f i r s t four p r i n c i p a l components was 42.4%. Component loading i n -dexes for the items were calculated i n the same manner as previously described; the loading on the second component was removed from the loading on the f i r s t component for P items, and the loading on the f i r s t component was removed from the loading on the second component f o r T items. D i f f i c u l t y l e v e l . The l a s t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r the PTSR was the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the item. The means and standard deviations for endorsement on each item (pooled by grade l e v e l ) were calcu l a t e d . The reasoning which guided the assessment of an item's d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l was that most of the items selected should be within the middle range of endorsement f o r the items comprising i t s scale. A few extreme departures from the mean could be tolerated i f the other Table XX Principal Components Analysis of Person Thing Self Report Form 6: Loading of Items on Unrotated Factors I, II, III, and IV and Communalities Item Loading Factor I Loading Factor II Loading Factor III Loading Factor IV Communality P6-14 .688 .216 -.052 -.105 .848 P6-28 .645 .155 .076 -.125 .783 P6-18 .632 -.287 .250 .114 .772 P6-24 .626 .263 -.119 .335 .760 PA-4 4 .611 .267 .223 .011 .783 P6-34 .609 .104 .130 .283 .744 P6-32 .597 .328 .273 .056 .840 P6-4 .583 .216 -.123 -.261 .816 T6-22 .575 -.214 .025 -.016 .789 TA-27 .574 -.499 -.210 -.345 .847 PA-3 9 .571 .177 -.396 .106 .808 PA-35 .561 .032 .223 -.212 .683 PA-3 3 .533 .384 -.290 -.011 .810 P6-10 .522 -.148 -.157 -.257 .749 TA-9 .493 .178 -.117 .207 .805 T6-26 .488 -.437 .158 .351 .708 T6-16 .466 .267 .112 -.155 .740 TA-43 .457 -.101 .435 -.231 .861 PA-1 .456 .027 -.200 .287 .742 T6-30 .449 -.120 .332 .066 .826 Item Loading Factor I Loading Factor II Loading Factor III Loading Factor IV Communality T4-14 -.014 -.560 -.058 -.120 .824 T6-9 .256 -.545 .234 -.453 .786 T4-18 .259' -.540 -.134 -.476 .774 T4-1 .342 -.487 -.087 -.036 .686 T6-22 .046 -.454 .351 .050 .760 T6-31 .378 -.410 .014 -.ol4 .867 T4-4 -.269 -.395 -.255 .163 .794 T6-36 .006 -.380 .000 .164 .715 T4-40 .175 .103 .646 .179 .759 T6-38 .328 -.131 -.629 -.077 .691 T4-21 .312 -.199 .491 .034 .749 T4-5 .165 -.088 .491 .392 .768 T4-7 .238 -.196 .377 -.116 .806 T6-35 .323 -.330 -.374 .044 .761 P4-3 .174 -.029 .363 -.294 .699 T6-15 -.027 -.409 .269 .534 .728 T6-23 -.043 -.449 -.015 .483 .713 T4-11 .219 .070 -.301 .480 .730 P4-17 .294 .254 .083 .446 .703 P4-19 .302 -.156 -.290 .430 .706 properties of these items were p a r t i c u l a r l y excellent ( i . e . , c o r r e l a t i o n and component loading indexes). In p r a c t i c e , t h i s c r i t e r i o n was not heavily weighted, since the other two indexes were considered to be f a r more important. Selection of items. On Tables XXI, XXII, XXIII and XXIV are l i s t e d the data corresponding to the three s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a f o r each item. The items are l i s t e d i n descending order based on the most important c r i t e r i o n , the c o r r e l a t i o n index. Next i s the f a c t o r loading index for the item i n one or both grade l e v e l s (P6 and T6 items were included on both PTSR-4 and PTSR-6), and l a s t i s the endorsement data. On Table XXI the c r i t e r i a s t a t i s t i c s f o r P items from form PTSR-4 are reported. In Step 1 of the s e l e c t i o n procedure, f i v e items were eliminated from consideration because of t h e i r low c o r r e l a t i o n indexes. The c r i t e r i a f o r t h i s index was set at .350. The a s t e r i s k s i n column 2 of Table XXI reveal that these were items P6-16, P4-19, P6-29, P4-3 and P4-17. The second step resulted i n the elimination of three addi-• t i o n a l items which passed the f i r s t step but had low factor loading indexes. The c r i t e r i o n f o r t h i s index was that the item's loading on the index for the fourth grade had to equal or exceed .250 and had to be p o s i t i v e and approaching that cut-off i n the s i x t h grade group. The three items which were eliminated at t h i s step were P6-12, P6-27 and P6-2, as indicated by the double a s t e r i s t i k s i n the t h i r d column. The mean endorsements for the remaining 12 P items appeared to be wit h i n the middle ranges for t h e i r scales with two high exceptions and two low exceptions. The f i n a l two items, P4-13 and P4-30 were rejected on the basis of t h e i r having the lowest c o r r e l a t i o n indexes of 81 the 12 remaining items. I t could be argued that P4-13 i s a better item than P6-6 because of i t s high f a c t o r loading (.663), However, i t had o r i g i n a l l y been decided that the c o r r e l a t i o n index would be given the most weight i f a s i t u a t i o n such as t h i s arose. Also, f o r P6-6 an ad d i t i o n a l piece of information i s a v a i l a b l e f o r consideration and that i s the high f a c t o r loading f o r grade s i x (.374). The same s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a were followed f o r P items of PTSR-6 whose s e l e c t i o n data appear on Table XXII. Four items were deleted because t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n indexes were below .350. Eight more items were not retained, because they did not meet the component loading c r i t e r i a of .250. One item, P6-40, did not meet the component loading c r i t e r i a but was retained due to i t s high c o r r e l a t i o n index (.836) and i t s s u b s t a n t i a l loading index f o r grade 4 (.432). The endorse-ment c r i t e r i o n was not applied since the f i r s t two steps eliminated a l l but ten items. Examination of Tables XXIII and XXIV which give the s e l e c t i o n data f o r T items on PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 re s p e c t i v e l y , revealed that the itemmetric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these items were not nearly as optimal as those f o r the P items. The c r i t e r i o n for the c o r r e l a t i o n index remained the same at .350, and eight items were eliminated. However, the f a c t o r loading indexes tended to be quite low with only seven of the remaining items having indexes equal to or greater than .250. Two items, T6-25 and T4-5 were eliminated because t h e i r loading indexes were negative i n sign. Just one a d d i t i o n a l item was required to complete the set of 10 desired f o r the scale. Items T4-5 and T4-7 were comparable on each of the c r i t e r i a , s o the decision was made to r e t a i n T4-7 on a 82 Table XXI Itemmetric Characteristics of Person Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Factor Factor X a X a Loading Loading Endors Endors Endors Endors Index Index Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 4 Grade 6 (n=55) (n=55) (n=54) (n=54) Correl Item Index ZT-EP P6-34 1.566 .439 .490 P6-32 1.430 .359 .367 P6-27 1.412 .154** .269 P6-2 1.378 .141** .472 P6-12 1.126 .190** .363 P4-10 1.076 .265 P4-24 1.040 .322 P6-26 .988 .432 .210 P6-39 .951 .608 .505 P4-8 .949 .447 P4-37 .773 .657 P4-20 .677 .519 P6-6 .607 .294 .374 P4-13 .589*** .663 P4-30 .442*** .497 P4-19 .347* .146 P6-29 .229* .090 -.420 P6-16 .216* .425 .345 P4-3 .148* .145 P4-17 .117* .041 2.02 1.39 2.50 1.30 2.91 1.09 3.44 , .90 2.22 1.36 2.59 1.30 2.25 1.24 3.06 1.07 2.60 1.23 2.85 1.16 2.84 1.13 2.60 1.12 1.16 1.17 1.43 1.35 2.42 1.36 2.50 1.04 2.47 1.20 2.29 1.30 2.44 1.48 1.15 1.28 1.43 1.30 2.40 1.15 2.67 1.29 2.36 1.68 2.91 1.22 3.31 1.11 2.05 1.25 2.28 1.09 2.82 1.11 2.18 1.29 * Eliminated at Step 1. ** Eliminated at Step 2. *** Eliminated at Step 3. 83 Table XXII Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Person Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 Correl Factor Factor X a X a Item Index Loading Loading Endors Endors Endors Endors ET-EP Index Index Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 4 Grade 6 (n=55) (n=55) (n=54) (n=54) P6-14 1.443 .472 .141 P6-32 1.434 .269 .154 P6-28 1.322 .490 .439 P6-4 1.276 .367 .323 P6-24 1.258 .363 .190 PA-42 1.048 .011** PA-3 3 .997 .149** P6-34 .927 .505 .608 P6-40 .836 .210 .432 PA-5 .814 -.036** PA-3 9 .700 .394 PA-44 .648 .344 PA-3 7 .549 .240** PA-21 .537 .076** P6-10 .514 .374 .294 PA-17 .500 -.083** PA-2 5 .415 .057** PA-31 .380 .244** PA-35 .298* .529 P6-38 .295* -.420 .090 PA-1 .199* .429 P6-18 -.089* .345 .425 3.06 1.07 2.25 1.24 2.59 1.30 2.22 1.36 2.50 1.30 2.02 1.39 3.44 .90 2.91 1.09 2.85 1.16 2.60 1.23 2.35 1.25 1.83 1.31 2.50 1.04 2.42 1.36 1.43 1.35 1.16 1.17 1.52 1.37 2.30 1.27 2.67 1.32 1.56 1.19 1.35 1.35 1.43 1.30 1.15 1.28 1.83 1.44 .94 1.12 1.98 1.35 2.78 1.11 3.31 1.11 2.91 1.22 1.63 1.05 2.28 1.09 2.05 1.25 * Eliminated at Step 1. ** Eliminated at Step 2. 84 Table XXIII Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Thing Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 Item Correl ET-EP Index Factor Loading Index Grade 4 Factor Loading Index Grade 6 X Endors Grade 4 (n=55) a Endors Grade 4 (n=55) X Endors Grade 6 (n=54) 0 Endors Grade 1 (n=54) T6-31 1.021 .032 -.051 2.64 1.44 1.69 1.13 T6-9 .955 .289 -.017 2.33 1.48 2.46 1.33 T6-22 .950 .408 .047 2.42 1.36 1.83 1.21 T6-36 .913 .374 .206 2.56 1.32 1.26 1.29 T6-15 .831 .382 -.154 2.80 1.24 1.65 1.36 T6-23 .800 .406 .540 2.04 1.43 1.74 1.18 T4-18 .697 .281 2.51 1.57 T4-14 .685 .546 3.42 1.23 T6-25 .669 -.002** -.329 2.45 1.44 1.72 1.35 T4-1 .536 .145 2.18 1.38 T4-5 .394 -.077** 2.56 1.38 T4-7 .366 -.042 2.56 1.29 T6-38 .349* -.197 .005 2.31 1.57 1.78 1.33 T4-21 .345* -.113 2.44 1.42 T6-28 .326* -.150 -.361 2.40 1.40 1.48 1.19 T4-40 .129* -.278 2.53 1.40 T4-33 -.031* -.322 2.25 1.28 T4-11 -.068* -.149 2.07 1.23 T6-35 -.173* .007 -.733 2.55 1.50 1.61 1.41 T4-4 -.207* .126 2.20 1.47 * Eliminated at Step 1. ** Eliminated at Step 2. 85 Table XXIV Itemmetric Characteristics of Thing Items From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 Correl Factor Factor X CT x a Item Index Loading Loading Endors Endors Endors Endors ZT-ZP Index Index Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 6 Grade 4 (n=54) (n=54) (n-55) (n=55) T6-26 1.202 -.051 .032 1.69 1.13 2.64 1.44 T6-2 1.020 .206 .374 1.26 1.29 2.56 1.32 TA-23 1.016 .439 2.04 1.29 T6-12 .965 .047 .408 1.83 1.21 2.42 1.36 T6-6 .908 -.017** .289 2.46 1.33 2.33 1.48 T6-8 .902 .540 .406 1.74 1.18 2.04 1.43 TA-7 .827 .195 2.54 1.46 TA-29 .808 .248 2.52 1.38 TA-15 .761 .220 1.76 1.16 TA-27 .752 -.075** 1.72 1.51 T6-36 .751 .005 -.197** 1.78 1.33 2.31 1.57 T6-20 .692 -.154** .382 1.65 1.36 2.80 1.24 T6-30 .635 -.329** -.002 1.72 1.35 2.45 1.44 TA-3 .629 .330 1.96 1.74 TA-13 .556 .165 2.41 1.35 TA-11 .496 -.126** 1.83 1.51 T6-22 .474 -.361** -.150 1.48 1.19 2.40 1.40 TA-43 .137 -.356** 2.39 1.41 TA-19 -.112* -.431 2.30 1.37 TA-41 -.185* -.135 2.81 1.45 T6-16 -.374* -.733 .007 1.61 1.41 2.55 1.50 TA-9 -.412* -.671 1.83 1.22 * Eliminated at Step 1. ** Eliminated at Step 2. r a t i o n a l basis i n that i t appeared to depict an a c t i v i t y that was 2 p o t e n t i a l l y accessible to more children than item T4-5. Three of the selected items, T6-31, T6-9, and T6-15 had minimal negative loading indexes i n the grade s i x analysis, but since a l l three had very high c o r r e l a t i o n indexes t h i s f a c t was not considered detrimental. The s e l e c t i o n of the T items f o r PTSR-6 proceeded i n the same manner. Four items were eliminated whose c o r r e l a t i o n indexes were below .350. Seven more items were eliminated because of t h e i r negative loading indexes. Item T6-26 was retained even though i t has a s l i g h t l y negative loading index of -.051. This was f e l t j u s t i f i e d because of i t s extremely high c o r r e l a t i o n index of 1.202, the highest f o r any T item. Item T6-36 was rejected because of i t s negative loading index for grade 6. The wordings of the items which were eliminated appear i n Appendix J . As a f i n a l i n d i c a t i o n of the i n t e r n a l consistencies of the four scales, c o e f f i c i e n t alpha Clow-bound estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y ) was calculated f o r the four 10 item scales and f o r the same four scales with the data f o r the next two "best" items considered as w e l l . That i s , c o e f f i c i e n t alpha was computed for four 10 -item scales and for four 12-item scales. The alphas were: .831 f o r the PTSR-4 P scale (10 items), .844 for the PTSR-4 P scale (12 items), .694 for the PTSR-4 T scale (10 items),.723 f o r the PTSR-4 T scale (12 items), .829 f o r the PTSR-6 P scale (10 items), .835 f o r the PTSR-6 P scale (12 items), .496 for the PTSR-6 T scale (10 items), and .522 for the PTSR-6 T scale (12 items), The T scales were les s i n t e r n a l l y homo-geneous than the P scales, p a r t i c u l a r l y the T scale of PTSR-6. For t h i s reason, i t was decided that two a d d i t i o n a l items would be added to each of the T scales (making them 12 item scales) i n order to improve t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y . Items T4-5 and T6-25 were added to the f i n a l form of PTSR-4, and items T6-6 and T6-36 were placed on the f i n a l form of PTSR-6. Appendix K contains the f i n a l versions of PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 along with t h e i r scoring keys. For the interested reader, Tables XXV and XXVI report the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the selected P items and the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the selected T items f o r the PTSR-4 f i n a l form. Tables XXVII and XXVIII report comparable data for the P and T items selected f o r the PTSR-6 f i n a l form. The items selected f o r the f i n a l P and T scales of PTSR-4 sample the r a t i o n a l categories i n the following manner: I. Helpfulness (H), three items; I I . Considerateness (C), two items; I I I . S o c i a b i l i t y (So), two items; IV. Play (P), zero items; V. Interest ( I ) , one item: VI. Sentience (S), two items; VII. Animals (A), one item; VIII. P h y s i c a l science (Ps), three items; IX. Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s (Ma), four items: X. B i o l o g i c a l science (Bs), two items; XI. Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s (Oa), one item; and XII. C r a f t s , Hobbies and Games (Cr), one item. The items selected for the P and T scales of PTSR-6 sample the r a t i o n a l categories i n t h i s manner: I. H, four items; I I . C, one item, I I I . So, three items; IV. P, zero items; V. I, one item; VI. S, one item; VII. A, zero items; VIII. Ps, three items; IX. Ma, s i x items; X. Bs, one item; XI. Oa, two items; and XII. Cr, zero items. Five P6 and f i v e T6 items were among those selected f o r the two f i n a l versions of PTSR. The P items which appear on both f i n a l Table XXV Intercorrelations Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 for Grade 4 Classes Pooled (n=55)a Item P6-6 P4-8 P4-10 P4-20 P4-24 P6-26 P6-32 P6-34 P4-37 P6-39 P6-6 1.00 .099 .271 .201 .249 .244 .261 .247 -.015 .252 P4-8 .099 1.00 .425 .268 .269 .208 .641 .427 .468 .400 P4-10 .271 .425 1.00 .276 .503 .244 .451 .529 .372 .358 P4-20 .201 .268 .276 1.00 .356 .281 .278 .329 .425 .314 P4-24 .249 .269 .503 .356 1.00 .279 .364 .469 .363 .382 P6-26 .244 .208 .244 .281 .279 1.00 .288 .317 .237 .319 P6-32 .261 .641 .461 .278 .364 .288 1.00 .414 .319 .351 P6-34 .247 .427 .529 .329 .469 .317 .414 1.00 .518 .368 P4-37 -.015 .468 .372 .425 .363 .237 .319 .518 1.00 .423 P6-39 .252 .400 .358 .314 .382 .319 .351 .368 .423 1.00 For n = 55, r = .257, .is s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 0 0 oo Table XXVI Intercorrelations Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 4 for Grade 4 Classes Pooled (n=55) a Item T4-1 T4-5 T4-7 T6-9 T4-14 T6-15 T4-18 T6-22 T6-23 T6-25 T6-31 T6-36 T4-1 1.00 .023 .213 .271 .141 .141 .170 .286 -.013 .416 .258 .208 T4-5 .023 1.00 .026 .134 -.021 .294 -.211 .148 .177 .260 .067 .117 T4-7 .213 .026 1.00 .251 .247 .211 .112 .329 -.032 .219 .172 -.060 T6-9 .271 .134 .251 1.00 .250 -.004 .484 .254 .082 .347 .343 .151 T4-14 .141 -.021 .247 .250 1.00 .105 .271 .104 .192 .321 .286 .096 T6-15 .141 .294 .211 -.004 .105 l.QO -.099 .304 .308 .229 .052 .059 T4-18 .170 -.211 .112 .484 .271 -.099 1.00 .081 .091 .272 .335 .145 T6-22 .286 .148 .329 .254 .104 .304 .081 1.00 ..203 .233 .306 .270 T6-23 -.013 .177 -.032 .082 .192 .308 .091 .203 l.QO .001 .240 .166 T6-25 .416 .260 .219 .347 .321 .229 .272 .233 .001 1.00 .277 .175 T6-31 .258 .067 .172 .343 .286 .052 .335 .306 .240 .277 1.00 .285 T6-36 .208 .117 -.060 .151 .092 .059 .145 .270 .166 .175 .285 1.00 For n=55, r=.257 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. CO Table XXVII Intercorrelations Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 for Grade 6 Classes Pooled (n=54) Item P6-4 P'6-10 P6-14 P6-24 P6-28 P6-32 P6-34 PA-3 9 P6-40 PA-4 4 P6-4 1.00 .399 .656 .479 .466 .222 .220 .294 .151 .507 P6-10 .399 1.00 .539 .169 .386 .060 .300 .232 .314 .151 P6-14 .656 .539 1.00 .540 .644 .451 .414 .377 .205 .428 P6-24 .479 .169 .540 1.00 .389 .312 .439 .584 .005 .401 P6-28 .466 .386 .644 .389 1.00 .538 .314 .367 .156 .518 P6-32 .222 .060 .451 .312 .538 1.00 .461 .408 .122 .394 P6-34 .220 .300 .414 .439 .314 .461 1.00 .314 .074 .426 PA-3 9 .294 .232 .377 .584 .367 .408 .314 1.00 .222 .196 P6-40 .151 .314 .205 .005 .156 .122 .074 .222 1.00 .092 PA-4 4 .507 .151 .428 .401 .518 .394 .426 .196 .092 1.00 3 For n = 54, r = .255, is significant at .05. VO o Table XXVIII Intercorrelations Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Self Report Form 6 for Grade 6 Classes Pooled (n=54) a Item T6-2 TA-3 T6-6 TA-7 T6-8 T6-12 TA-13 TA-15 TA-23 T6-26 TA-29 T6-36 T6-2 1.00 .164 .094 .095 .094 .028 .036 .306 .346 .367 .240 .155 TA-3 .164 1.00 .245 .372 11188 -.012 .175 .070 .119 .109 .495 .144 T6-6 .094 .245 1.00 .355 -.054 -.174 .145 .147 .277 .338 .360 .049 TA-7 .095 .372 .355 1.00 .191 .137 .526 -.022 .360 .241 .354 .140 T6-8 .094 .188 -.054 .191 1.00 .417 .197 .378 .489 .192 .245 .275 T6-12 .028 -.012 -.174 .137 .417 1.00 .215 .199 .258 -.067 .019 .329 TA-13 .036 .175 .145 .526 .197 .215 1.00 .004 .403 -.026 .208 .146 TA-15 .306 .070 .147 -.022 .378 . 199 .004 1.00 .421 .472 .313 .258 TA-23 .346 .119 .277 .360 .489 .258 .403 .421 1.00 .384 .275 .380 T6-26 .367 .109 .338 .241 .192 -.067 -.026 .472 .384 1.0.0 .384 .343 TA-29 .240 .495 .360 .354 .245 .019 .208 .313 .275 .348 1.00 .228 T6-26 .155 .144 .049 .140 .275 .329 .146 .258 .380 .343 .228 1.00 a For n=54, r=.255 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. forms (see Appendix K) are: (a) Think about the reasons why people do things, (b) Watch other people at a public gathering, (c) Be known by others as a friendly person, Cd) Help someone who is having trouble with their studies, and (e) Include someone in a conversation who has not had a chance to talk. The T items which are common to both f i n a l forms are: (a) Observe the eclipse of the sun through smoked glass, (b) Learn to run a printing press, (c) Repair the brake of your bicycle, (d) Look at a drop of pond water under a microscope, and (e) Watch a jeweller repair a wristwatch. Person Thing Peer Report Rationale of item analysis. The objective for the item analysis of PTPR was the development of two construct scales (P scale and T scale) containing items that were: (a) internally consistent, (b) of demonstrated discriminant validity, (c) related to independent teacher judgment, and (d) of an acceptable level of d i f f i c u l t y . For the reasons discussed in the Methods and Procedures section (Chapter 2), two comparable preliminary forms, A and B, of PTPR were developed. The strategy consisted of the administration of these preliminary forms to one class each of third, fourth, f i f t h and sixth grade subjects, and then the application of selection indexes which took into account the data for each grade level for each predetermined selection criterion. Unlike the analytic procedure and experimental design utilized in the development of the two versions of PTSR, no attempt was made to determine empirically the j u s t i f i a b i l i t y of one fi n a l version of PTPR to be used in research with children in the eight to 12 year age-range. Instead, each of the indexes and c r i t e r i a used 93 i n the s e l e c t i o n of items combined the data obtained f o r each grade i n an equitable manner, so that the appropriateness of the resultant instrument for the above-stated age range would be assured. Scoring. A cumulative procedure f o r scoring the nominations given to a p a r t i c u l a r subject was adopted (see Wiggins and Winder, 1961, pp. 659-660). This involved the tabulation of the number of raters who nominated a subject on a given item. The raw scores could range from zero to one le s s than the number of rat e r s ( i f a subject nominated him/herself for a p a r t i c u l a r item, one point was subtracted from the frequency of nominations for that subject on that item). Because the classrooms which were tested were of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s , the frequency of nominations was converted into a percentage of the t o t a l number of same-gender raters present. The t o t a l scale scores f o r the P, T and l i k e a b i l i t y (L) items were calculated by combining the percentages f o r i n d i v i d u a l items of the scale i n a cumulative fashion within gender groups. Some analyses were performed on the data f o r each grade l e v e l separately, and some were performed on the pooled data for t h i r d and fourth grade subjects and for the pooled data f o r f i f t h and s i x t h grade subjects. I t should be mentioned that i f a subject did not appear to understand the requirements of the task or i f the subject tended: (a) to nominate almost everybody for every item, (b) to nominate the same group of peers for every item or (c) to make very few nominations on the e n t i r e form, then h i s or her data were discarded. On the bases of the above considera-tions , the data of three t h i r d grade subjects who completed Form A and one subject from each of grades four and f i v e who completed Form B 94 were not included i n the following analyses. The c o r r e l a t i o n index. The f i r s t measure of i n t e r n a l consistency and discriminant power consisted of the c a l c u l a t i o n of p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between each item and the T, P and L scales. These item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s were found f o r each of the four classes which were administered Form A or Form B and f o r the t h i r d and fourth grades pooled (for each form) and the f i f t h and s i x t h grades pooled (for each form). Tables XXIX and XXX report the p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s of each of the P and T items from Form A (PTPR-A) with the T and P t o t a l scales f o r grade three and grade four, and with the P, T and L t o t a l scales f o r the two classes pooled. Table XXXI shows the p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s of the two L items with the T, P and L t o t a l scales. 3 For example, Table XXXI indicates that item LA-27 correlated .407 with the T scale, .692 with the P scale and .791 with the L scale when the t h i r d and fourth grade subjects' responses were pooled. Tables XXXII, XXXIII andXXXIV report comparable data f o r the same items (Form A) given to f i f t h and s i x t h grade subjects. Tables XXXV through XL report the item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s calculated from the responses of subjects who were administered PTPR form B (PTPR-B). A c o r r e l a t i o n index f o r each item was defined by summing the item-t o t a l c o r r e l a t i o n s with the appropriate scale f o r the two pooled groups and then subtracting the item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s with the inappropriate scale. Thus, the c o r r e l a t i o n index for P items i s EP-ET, and for T items i t i s ET-EP. Table XLI gives the c o r r e l a t i o n indexes and the data that were used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r a l l of the P items i n 95 Table XXIX Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and Likeability (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A Grade 3 a (n=20) Grade 4 (n=29) b Pooled 0 (n=49) Item T P T P 1 P L PA-2 .558 .450 .270 .038 .340 .395 .154 PA-3 .509 .686 .544 .844 .524 .836 .547 PA-6 .786 .614 .265 .574 .476 .630 .530 PA-8 .848 .603 -.027 .074 .370 .273 .345 PA-11 .460 .838 .456 .612 .459 .654 .631 PA-12 .316 .503 .359 .697 .355 .673 .170 PA-14 .607 .815 .489 .671 .538 .719 .534 PA-16 .040 .514 .674 .905 .484 .840 .483 PA-17 .524 .551 .637 .800 .584 .616 .477 PA-19 .705 .720 .472 .583 .554 .648 .293 PA-21 .209 .516 .556 .806 .463 .787 .592 PA-24 -.218 .145 .312 .518 .180 .532 -.106 PA-25 -.096 .168 .633 .584 .325 .337 .363 PA-2 6 .059 .424 .700 .685 .515 .646 .213 PA-2 9 -.695 -.172 .340 .315 -.081 .147 -.059 3 For n=20, r=.444 is significant at . 05. b For n=29, 4=.367 is significant at . 05. C For n=49, r=.282 is significant at . 05. 96 Table XXX Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and Likeability (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A Grade 3 a (n=20) Grade 4 (n=29) b Pooled 0 (n=49) Item T P T P T P L TA-1 .475 .438 412 .082 .435 .244 -.121 TA-4 .869 .499 686 .311 .732 .279 .525 TA-5 .705 .570 768 .732 .730 .734 .350 TA-7 .515 .349 427 .707 .455 .572 .267 TA-9 .599 .192 223 .139 .371 .192 -.198 TA-10 .629 .620 756 .437 .712 .442 .440 TA-13 .513 .603 800 .620 .709 .580 .438 TA-15 .864 .486 387 .110 .448 -.047 .167 TA-18 .699 .411 606 .621 .610 .390 .289 TA-20 .767 .441 737 .560 .729 .576 .364 TA-22 .797 .579 394 .277 .517 .460 .518 TA-23 - .118 -.068 774 .696 .554 .554 .327 TA-28 .746 .330 785 .527 .771 .503 .528 TA-30 .711 .668 585 .503 .619 .488 .046 TA-31 .873 .495 819 .652 .730 .319 .281 For n=20, r=.444 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at . 05. b For n=29, 4=.367 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at . 05. ° For n=49, 4=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at . 05. 97 Table XXXI Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A Grade 3 a (n=20) Grade 4 (n=29) b Pooled 0 (n=49) Item T P T P T P L LA-27 .378 .685 .434 .599 .407 .692 .791 LA-3 2 .867 .688 .258 .404 .415 .324 .855 For n=20, r=.444 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=29, r=.267 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. For n=49, 4=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 98 Table XXXII Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A Grade 5 a (n=27) Grade 6 (n=24) b Pooled^ (n=51) Item T P T P T P L PA-2 .468 .505 .188 .613 .245 .416 .168 PA-3 .035 .591 .675 .628 .287 .610 .432 PA-6 .578 .683 -.042 .435 .296 .569 .651 PA-8 .466 .577 .305 .604 .349 .543 .230 PA-11 .345 .869 .696 .582 .433 .751 .358 PA-12 .554 .091 .347 .650 .503 .306 .390 PA-14 .535 .761 .312 .676 .484 .727 .728 PA-16 .508 .838 .502 .825 .452 .773 .486 PA-17 -.152 .484 .658 .612 .254 .523 .475 PA-19 .422 .722 .183 .595 .225 .565 .259 PA-21 .429 .762 .468 .485 .472 .663 .753 PA-24 .167 .673 .040 .601 .078 .596 .397 PA-2 5 .420 .834 .850 .551 .524 .748 .371 PA-2 6 .348 .779 .626 .584 .492 .702 .406 PA-2 9 .279 .820 .383 .358 .351 .675 .542 For n=27, r=.381 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=24, 4=.404 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. c For n=51, r=.276 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 99 Table XXXIII Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A Grade 5 a Grade 6 b Pooled 0 (n=27) (n=24) (n=51) Item T P_ T P T P L TA-1 .311 -.157 .148 -.166 .242 -.164 -.066 TA-4 .552 -.046 .229 .418 .417 .081 .050 TA-5 .655 .369 .558 .218 .631 .332 .164 TA-7 .547 .725 .429 .734 .504 .727 .715 TA-9 .451 -.079 .313 .251 .336 -.043 .088 TA-10 .591 .428 .826 .504 .690 .456 .203 TA-13 .592 .704 .898 .551 .666 .627 .304 TA-15 .457 -.021 .574 .158 .531 .098 .193 TA-18 .725 .397 .382 .325 .590 .364 .408 TA-20 .399 -.026 .815 .446 .609 .210 .290 TA-22 .534 .034 .282 .436 .455 .194 .457 TA-23 .407 .725 .713 .419 .501 .606 .288 TA-28 .665 .238 .838 .421 .745 .322 .258 TA-30 .543 .064 .697 .461 .624 .251 .233 TA-31 .293 -.196 .225 .030 .049 -.188 -.408 For n=27, r=.381 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=24, r=.404 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. c For n=51, r=.276 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 100 Table XXXIV Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T) Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form A Grade 5 a (n=27) Grade 6 b (n=24) Pooled 0 (n=51) Item T P 1 p T P L LA-2 7 .555 624 .185 .537 .447 .575 .938 LA-3 2 .511 856 .355 .760 .482 .820 .868 For n=27, r=.381 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=24, r=.404 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. For n=51, r=.276 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 101 Table XXXV Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and Likeability (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B Grade 3 a (n=23) Grade 4 (n=26) b Pooled c (n=49) Item T P T P T P L PB-2 .113 .047 .326 .611 .295 .398 .332 PB-4 .355 .811 .722 .847 .616 .791 .531 PB-6 .013 .120 .615 .852 .312 .691 .242 PB-7 -.152 .315 .754 .891 .534 .765 .537 PB-10 -.159 .344 .569 .855 .349 .762 .439 PB-13 .489 .587 .811 .891 .636 .780 .354 PB-14 .415 .583 .700 .868 .508 .816 .237 PB-15 .503 .459 .081 .066 .236 .126 -.122 PB-18 .681 .610 .699 .853 .664 .800 .385 PB-20 .376 .447 .742 .869 .526 .748 .257 PB-22 .548 .481 .709 .730 .620 .586 .358 PB-24 .313 .690 .727 .905 .627 .852 .551 PB-2 5 .026 .486 .639 .910 .458 .836 .592 PB-28 .203 .714 .382 .547 .275 .582 .507 PB-29 .526 .430 .586 .850 .510 .749 .298 For n=23, r=.413 i s significant at .05. b For n=26, r=.388 is significant at .05. For n=49, r=.282 is significant at .05. 102 Table XXXVI Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and Likeability (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B Grade 3 a Grade 4 b Pooled 0 (n=23) (n=26) (n=49) Item T P T P T_ P L TB-1 .442 .386 -.114 -.364 .160 -.261 .098 TB-3 .381 .111 .693 .826 .410 .605 .106 TB-5 .568 .029 .516 .165 .508 .119 .078 TB-8 .631 .184 .186 -.130 .361 -.139 .137 TB-9 .479 .259 .512 .574 .532 .460 .269 TB-11 .603 .273 .756 .743 .722 .561 .316 TB-12 .475 -.006 .687 .447 .627 .339 .243 TB-16 .416 .414 .406 .200 .351 .258 .064 TB-17 .693 .434 .780 .372 .626 .409 .138 TB-19 .786 .479 .632 .211 .663 .170 .265 TB-21 -.016 .435 .885 .667 .464 .580 .372 TB-23 .555 .323 .773 .749 .724 .508 .559 TB-26 .494 .341 .762 .889 .577 .793 .388 TB-30 -.140 .126 .688 .756 .418 .510 .467 TB-32 .140 -.125 .570 .714 .460 .443 .355 For n=23, r=.413 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. k For n=26, r=.388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. C For n=49, r=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 103 Table XXXVII Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B Grade 3 a (n=23) Grade 4 b (n=26) Pooled c (n=49) Item T p T P 1 P L LB-2 7 -.022 • 235 .731 .811 .510 .685 .781 LB-31 -.130 • 242 .588 .717 .399 .331 .916 a For n=23, r=.413 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=26, r=.388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. C For n=49, r=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. 104 Table XXXVIII Item-Total Correlations of Person Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and Likeability (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B Grade 5 a (n=25) Grade 6 b (n-22) Pooled 0 (n=47) Item T P T P T P L PB-2 .527 .812 .458 .364 .453 .598 .096 PB-4 .714 .715 .511 .883 .620 .789 .193 PB-6 .371 .855 .433 .571 .318 .650 .194 PB-7 .453 .725 .667 .950 .552 .821 .091 PB-10 .489 .859 .267 .835 .382 .842 .280 PB-13 .485 .778 .441 .691 .459 .728 .390 PB-14 .319 .184 .722 .682 .521 .454 .077 PB-15 .875 .757 .777 .815 .797 .786 .409 PB-18 .257 .557 .748 .645 .471 .599 .288 PB-20 .608 .820 .624 .826 .600 .821 .373 PB-22 .694 .682 .663 .943 .669 .830 .277 PB-24 .591 .820 .475 .871 .530 .818 .348 PB-25 .481 .410 .560 .926 .499 .725 .583 PB-28 .471 .584 .303 .789 .324 .606 .117 PB-29 .248 .664 .556 .826 .381 .746 .170 a For n=25, r=.396 is significant at .05. b For n=22, r=.423 i s significant at .05. ° For n=47, r=.288 is significant at .05. 105 Table XXXIX Item-Total Correlations of Thing Items with Thing (T), Person (P) and Likeability (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B Grade 5 a (n=25) Grade 6 b (n=22) Pooled 0 (n=47) Item T P T P T P L TB-1 .466 .372 .472 .083 .467 .208 .063 TB-3 .406 .351 .873 .730 .617 .541 .437 TB-5 .658 .495 .879 .569 .759 .525 .391 TB-8 .696 .381 .535 .067 .552 .153 .042 TB-9 .535 .819 .384 .487 .415 .618 -.027 TB-11 .587 .474 .470 .460 .539 .454 -.078 TB-12 .626 .172 .449 .469 .528 .320 -.055 TB-16 .786 .624 .811 .721 .786 .663 .395 TB-17 .376 .082 .624 .172 .463 .143 .287 TB-19 .771 .581 .533 .577 .630 .538 -.047 TB-21 .786 .672 .703 .512 .729 .557 .093 TB-23 .525 -.040 .648 .396 .508 .109 .086 TB-26 .201 .038 .681 .315 .388 .131 .298 TB=30 .590 .381 .483 .613 .534 .507 -.034 TB-32 .381 .073 -.302 -.408 -,017 -.217 -.324 a For n=25, r=.396 is significant at .05. b For n=22, r=.423 is significant at .05. C For n=47, r=.288 is significant at .05. 106 Table XL Item-Total Correlations of L i k e a b i l i t y Items with Thing (T) Person (P) and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales: Peer Report Form B Grade 5 a (n=25) Grade 6 b (n=22) Pooled 0 (n=47) Item T p I . P T P L LB-2 7 -.012 021 .323 .316 .143 .178 .916 LB-31 -.020 145 .535 .772 .247 .491 .902 3 For n=25, r=.396 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=22, r=.423 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. C For n=47, r=.288 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XLI Calcul a t i o n of the Correlation Index for Person Items From the Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B Correlation of Item with Person (P) Correlation of Item with Person (P) Correl and Thing (T) Scales i n Grades 3 and 4 and Thing (T) Scales i n Grades 5 and 6 Index Item P scale r a T scale r a P scale r b T scale r b EP-ET PA-2 .395 .340 .416 .245 .226 PA-3 .836 .524 .610 .287 .635 PA-6 .630 .476 .569 .296 .427 PA-8 .273 .370 .543 .349 .097 PA-11 .654 .459 .751 .433 .513 PA-12 .673 .355 .306 .503 .121 PA-14 .719 .538 .727 .484 .424 PA-16 .840 .484 .773 .452 .677 PA-17 .616 .584 .523 .254 .301 PA-19 .648 .554 .565 .225 .434 PA-21 .787 .463 .663 .472 .514 PA-2 4 .532 .180 .596 .078 .870 PA-2 5 .137 .325 .748 .524 .236 PA-2 6 .646 .515 .702 .492 .341 PA-2 9 .147 -.081 .675 .351 .400 a For n=49, r=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=51, r=.276 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. o Correlation of Item with Person (P) and Thing (T) Scales i n Grades 3 and 4 Item P scale r a T scale r' PB-2 .398 .295 PB-4 .791 .616 PB-6 .691 .312 PB-7 .765 .534 PB-10 .762 .349 PB-13 .780 .636 PB-14 .816 .508 PB-15 .126 .236 PB-18 .800 .664 PB-20 .748 .526 PB-22 .586 .620 PB-24 .852 .627 PB-25 .836 .458 PB-28 .582 .275 PB-29 .749 .510 For n=49, r=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=47, r=.288 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Correlation of Item with Person (P) Correl and Thing (T) Scales i n Grades 5 and 6 Index P scale r b T scale r EP-ET .598 .453 .248 .789 .620 .344 .650 .318 .711 .821 .552 .500 .842 .382 .873 .728 .459 .413 .454 .521 .241 .786 .797 -.121 .599 .471 .264 .821 .600 .443 .830 .669 .127 .818 .530 .513 .725 .499 .604 .606 .324 .589 .746 .381 .604 o CO 109 the two preliminary forms. Reference to Table XLII, which gives the correlation indexes for T items, indicates that item TA-1 correlated .435 with the T scale for the third and fourth grade classes pooled and .242 with the T scale for the f i f t h and sixth grade classes pooled. The two correlations of this item with the P scale are .244 and -.164. The correlation index is .435 + .242 - .244 - .164 which i s .269. The reader w i l l r e c a l l from the discussion of the calculation of correlation indexes for PTSR items that the minus signs of item-total correlations with inappropriate scales are ignored. The homogeneity index. The second item selection index for the PTPR scales was a homogeneity index. The homogeneity values reported in Tables XLIII and XLIV were obtained by summing the correlations between each item and the appropriate total scale scores across ratees within grade levels (or classes). Thus, the homogeneity index is defined by EP (item-total correlations) for P items and ET (item-total correlations) for T items. For example, the homogeneity index of 2.89 for item PB-10 (Table XLIII) was obtained by adding the item-total correlations with the P scale for grade three and grade four (Table XXXV) and for grade five and grade six (Table XXXVIII), or .344 + .835 + .859 + .853 = 2.89. A homogeneity index for each item was calculated because the items' correlation indexes could be achieved in more than one way. If the correlation of an item with the inappropriate scale was approximating zero, then the sum of the item-total correlations with the appropriate scale would not have to be large in order to obtain a substantial correlation index. If on the other hand, the correlation of an item Table XLII Calc u l a t i o n of the Correlation Index f or Thing Items From the Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B Item Correlation of Item and Thing (T) Scales T scale r a with Person i n Grades 3 P scale r CP) and 4 .a Correlation of Item and Thing (T) gcales T scale r with Person (P) i n Grades 5 and 6 P scale r b C o r r e l Index ET-EP TA-1 .435 .244 .242 -.164 .269 TA-4 .732 .279 .417 .081 .789 TA-5 .730 .734 .631 .332 .295 TA-7 .455 .572 .504 .727 -.340 TA-9 .371 .192 .336 -.043 .472 TA-10 .712 .442 .690 .456 .504 TA-13 .709 .580 .666 .627 .168 TA-15 .448 -.047 .531 .098 .834 TA-18 .610 .390 .590 .364 .446 TA-20 .729 .576 .609 .210 .552 TA-22 .517 .460 .455 .194 .318 TA-23 .554 .554 .501 .606 -.105 TA-28 .771 .503 .745 .322 .691 TA-30 .619 .448 .624 .251 .544 TA-31 .730 .319 .049 -.188 .272 0 For n=49, r=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=51, r=.276 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Correlation of Item with Person (P) and Thing (T) Scales i n Grades 3 and Item T scale a r r I ' scale ra TB-1 .160 -.261 TB-3 .410 .605 TB-5 .508 .119 TB-8 .361 -.139 TB-9 .532 .460 TB-11 .722 .561 TB-12 .627 .339 TB-16 .351 .258 TB-17 .626 .409 TB-19 .663 .170 TB-21 .464 .580 TB-23 .724 .508 TB-26 .577 .793 TB-30 .418 .510 TB-32 .460 .443 3 For n=49, r=.282 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n=47, r=.288 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Correlation of Item with Person (P) Co r r e l and Thing (T) Scales i n Grades 5 and 6 Index T scale r b P scale r b ET-EP .467 .208 .158 .617 .541 -.119 .759 .525 .623 .552 .153 .621 .415 .618 -.131 .539 .454 .246 .528 .320 .496 .786 .663 .216 .463 .143 .537 .630 .538 .585 .729 .557 .056 .508 .109 .615 .388 .131 .041 .534 .507 -.065 -.017 -.217 -.217 Itemmetric C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Person Correlation Homogeneity Index Index Item £p_Ex EP PB-10 .873 2.89 PA-24 .870 1.94 PB-6 .711 2.40 PA-16 .677 3.08 PA-3 .635 2.75 PB-25 .604 2.73 PB-29 .604 2.77 PB-28 .589 2.63 PA-21 .514 2.57 PA-11 .513 2.90 PB-24 .513 3.29 PB-7 .500 1.59 PB-20 .443 2.96 PA-19 .434 2.62 PA-6 .427 2.31 PA-14 .424 2.92 Table XLIII Items From Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B Percentage Endorsement V a l i d i t y i n Grades 3-6 Index Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 1.13 44.81 46.47 37.90 49.08 > 9 5 * * * 4 7 > 8 6 4 3 > 7 3 5 1 > 1 8 54.17 .79*** 61.84 71.79 62.93 52.89 1.87 35.45 39.05 31.17 28.41 1.43 48.64 50.06 41.13 61.36 1.53 39.73 41.35 39.47 36.64 .62*** 26.45 28.85 26.37 25.94 .58*** 54.35 54.17 37.60 62.26 1.67 54.42 50.00 50.12 70.83 1.40 39.68 31.39 28.91 28.79 1.89 48.31 41.99 33.97 51.88 1.41 42.87 37.50 28.23 45.13 1.35 37.80 44.23 26.20 29.84 1.11 54.35 46.55 33.31 26.52 1.62 70.52 60.12 61.23 70.08 1.54 44.42 38.06 26.53 46.59 Correlation Homogeneity Index Index V a l i d i t y Item EP-ET EP Index PB-13 .413 2.95 1.46 PA-29 .400 1.32** 1.11 PB-4 .344 3.26 2.04 PA-26 .341 2.47 1.18 PA-17 .301 2.45 .85*** PB-18 .264* 2.67 1.47 PB-2 .248* 1.83 .36 PB-14 .241* 2.32 1.22 PA-25 .236* 2.14 1.37 PA-2 .226* 1.61 .40 PB-22 .127* 2.84 1.52 PA-12 .121* 1.94 .53 PA-8 .097* 1.86 .72 PB-15 -.121* 2.10 1.03 * Eliminated at Step 1. ** Eliminated at Step 2. *** Eliminated at Step 3. Percentage Endorsement i n Grades 3-6 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 44.08 34.05 39.73 39.16 44.09 46.86 43.36 58.45 33.31 31.17 55.31 54.42 53.83 20.89 47.12 21.52 32.05 31.66 26.56 43.27 28.85 63.78 18.95 48.26 47.76 45.59 42.48 14.42 40.23 12.87 30.23 16.69 21.67 34.53 27.30 47.47 15.78 28.86 45.87 22.51 23.38 22.50 48.83 25.00 41.74 26.89 43.18 38.61 21.44 63.22 19.70 17.42 51.93 39.39 21.97 19.15 Table XLIV Itemmetric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B Correlation Homogeneity Percentage Endorsement Index Index V a l i d i t y i n Grades 3-6 Item ET-EP ET Index Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 TA-15 .834 2.28 .22 52.66 38.06 9.26 20.08 TA-4 .789 2.34 .35 36.95 23.93 8.66 8.33 TA-28 .691 3.03 .84 17.40 18.15 9.60 15.53 TB-5 .623 2.62 1.31 49.40 43.91 34.73 44.72 TB-8 .621 2.05 1.30 55.43 31.41 21.17 43.57 TB-23 .615 2.50 1.10 72.34 48.40 23.97 48.26 TB-19 .585 2.72 1.32 42.63 22.44 22.97 14.74 TA-20 .552 2.72 .44 46.17 43.58 17.46 23.86 TA-30 .544 2.54 ,39 36.36 24.88 11.14 20.83 TB-17 .537 2.47 1.61 41.91 50.00 37.53 30.49 TA-10 .504 2.80 .38 20,45 15.61 8.63 12.50 TB-12 .496 2.24 ,98 21.14 17.31 16.47 12.90 TA-9 .472 1.59** .47 31.82 26.75 16.67 11.74 TA-18 .446 2.41 .40 61.30 38.95 27.68 31.06 TA-22 .318 2.01 .28 68.33 58.53 29.15 67.80 Correlation Homogeneity Index Index V a l i d i t y Item ET-EP _ET Index TA-5 .295 2.69 .06*** TA-31 .272 2.21 -.28*** TA-1 .269 1.35** -.43 TB-11 .246* 2.42 .25 TB-16 .216* 2.42 1.23 TA-13 .168* 2.80 .71 TB-1 .158* 1.27 .33 TB-21 .056* 2.36 .48 TB-26 .041* 2.14 .90 TB-30 -.965* 1.62 -.155 TA-23 -.195* 1.78 .51 TB-3 -.199* 2.35 .35 TB-9 0.131* 1.91 -1.05 TB-32 -.217* .79 .10 TA-7 0.340* 1.92 -.25 * Eliminated at Step 1 ** Eliminated at Step 2 *** Eliminated at Step 3 Percentage Endorsement In Grades 3-6 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 53.05 48.94 41.30 21.54 42.34 39.07 46.38 34.94 20.29 22.44 40.00 30.48 55.19 17.62 43.24 47.12 38.41 45.19 39.61 27.56 45.65 35.41 60.02 69.23 72.10 53.21 43.84 33.33 78.25 53.83 17.72 27.27 27.22 15.53 17.94 18.94 33.73 41.74 14.90 12.64 27.92 27.65 12.50 17.36 31.67 46.05 31.87 57.62 19.13 22.31 26.65 29.17 45.27 52.25 56.53 46.10 33.00 33.06 38.72 48.86 U l 116 with the inappropriate scale was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than zero, then the c o r r e l a t i o n of the item with the appropriate scale would have to be p a r t i c u l a r l y large i n order to obtain an acceptable c o r r e l a t i o n index. After ordering the items from each domain on the basis of t h e i r c o r r e l a -t i o n indexes, attention was focused on the indexes of homogeneity. The l a t t e r indexes were derived from the item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s at each grade l e v e l , so that the s e l e c t i o n procedure took into consideration both the discriminant v a l i d i t y of the item (£P-£T or IT-EP) and the convergent v a l i d i t y of the item (£P or ET). Since the homogeneity index f o r the relevant scale was computed across four grade l e v e l s , i t was possible f o r t h i s index to range from 0.00 to 4.00. The ranges f o r P items are from a low of 1.32 (PA-29) to a high of 3.29 (PB-24). The homogeneity indexes f o r T items range from .79 (TB-32) to 3.03 (TA-28). In addition to reporting the c o r r e l a t i o n and homogeneity indexes, Tables XLIII and XLIV report the v a l i d i t y indexes and the percentages of endorsement f or the item i n each grade l e v e l . These l a t t e r two indices of the merit of an i n d i v i d u a l item w i l l be discussed i n the next two sections. V a l i d i t y index. The reader w i l l r e c a l l from the Methods and Procedures section (Chapter 2) that at the same time that the PTPR was administered to a c l a s s , the teacher f o r the class was asked to f i l l out the same form f o r both boys and g i r l s . The teachers f o r the eight classes complied with t h i s request ei t h e r at the time of t e s t i n g of t h e i r c l a s s or at t h e i r convenience. The correspondence between teacher ratings and peer ratings constituted as assessment of con-117 current validity. Since, by necessity, only one teacher rated each class, the teacher ratings of each child on each item were not sufficiently stable to serve as a validity criterion. Instead, the teacher's total scale ratings for each child were summed across the 15 P items, 15 T items, and two L items to yield overall indexes against which the convergent validity, discriminant validity and desirability saturation of each child's peer scores for each item could be assessed. For each of the 32 items in a given class, product-moment correlations were computed between children's peer ratings and teacher total scale ratings on the appropriate, inappropriate, and desirability variables. Tables XLV and XLVI display the validity values for P items, and Tables XLVII and XLVIII display the validity values for T items. A validity index was defined as the sum of the validity correlations of a particular item with i t s appropriate scale at each grade level. For example, Table XLV shows that for the item PA-24, the validity of peer ratings with teacher ratings for the P scale i s .26 for grade three, .03 for grade four, .37 for grade five and .29 for grade six. The sum of these values yields the validity index of .95 for item PA-24. Since there were four appropriate scale values to be summed for each item, i t was possible for the validity indexes to range from 0.00 (zero correlation in each of the four classes) to 4.00 (perfect correlation in a l l four classes). In fact, the indexes ranged from .36 to 2.04 for P items and from -1.05 to 1.61 for T items. Table XLIX shows the validity for the three total scales (P, T and L) obtained between children's total scale ratings and teachers' ratings for Form A and B in grades Table XLV V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form A V a l i d i t y with Teacher Ratings for Thing (T),-Person (P), Item T Grade P 3 a L and L i k e a b i l i t y Grade 4 b T P CL) L Scales i n T Grades Grade 5° P 3 and 6 L T Grade P 6<* L V a l i d i t y Index PA-2 4 .34 .26 -.07 -.23 .03 -.31 -.26 .37 .46 .11 .29 .16 .95 PA-16 -.05 .54 .43 -.02 .40 .46 -.16 .68 .69 .19 .25 .11 1.87 PA-3 .23 .35 .38 -.34 .36 .26 .06 .51 .41 .35 .21 .28 1.43 PA-21 .34 .34 .23 -.28 .57 .49 -.35 .43 .35 .39 .33 .47 1.67 PA-11 .04 .44 .30 .07 .30 .18 -.08 .57 .49 .09 .09 -.03 1.40 PA-19 -.48 .45 .57 .01 .17 .36 -.13 .48 .27 .07 .01 -.10 1.11 PA-6 -.21 .39 .36 -.24 .47 .22 -.43 .45 .09 .18 .31 .42 1.62 PA-14 -.30 .33 .41 -.18 .34 .37 -.07 .47 .25 .41 .40 .28 1.54 PA-29 .23 .34 -.06 .03 .20 .05 -.05 .46 .62 .08 .11 -.34 1.11 PA-2 6 .28 .29 .15 .05 .14 .12 .06 .53 .55 .16 .22 .06 1.18 PA-17 .16 .01 .00 -.05 .29 .34 .07 .36 .26 .12 .19 .25 .85 PA-2 5 .07 .28 .00 .21 .45 .60 -.04 .39 .51 .24 .25 -.11 1.37 PA-2 -.07 .21 .07 .24 -.22 .07 .17 .20 .22 .04 .21 .15 .40 PA-12 -.29 .04 -.02 -.27 .08 .05 .16 .25 .23 .10 .16 .02 .53 PA-8 -.69 -.01 .31 .28 .10 .13 .06 .55 .31 .08 .08 -.13 .72 3 For n= =23, r= .413 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n= =26, r= .388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. C For n= =25, r= .396 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. d For n= =22, r= .423 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XLVI V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form B V a l i d i t y with Teacher Ratings for Thing (T), Person (P), and L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scales i n Grades 3 and 6 Grade 3 a Grade 4 b Grade 5 C Grade 6 d V a l i d i t y Item T P L T P L T P L T_ P L Index PB-10 -.05 .18 .08 -.60 .57 .19 .13 .08 -.03 -.35 .30 .16 1.13 PB-6 -.27 .30 .23 -.39 .47 .18 -.49 -.13 -.06 -.20 .15 .49 .79 PB-25 -.11 .29 .14 -.43 .41 .05 .52 .35 .31 -.16 .48 .32 1.53 PB-28 -.18 .26 .30 -.45 .08 .09 .51 .17 -.39 -.35 .07 -.07 .58 PB-24 -.05 .44 .15 -.29 .67 .22 .42 .46 -.40 -.01 .32 .11 1.89 PB-7 -.29 .19 .01 -.38 .54 .15 -.03 .30 -.23 -.21 .38 .25 1.41 PB-29 -.05 -.16 .08 -.49 .46 -.01 -.34 .11 .23 -.26 .21 .34 .62 PB-20 .46 .43 .30 -.31 .34 .06 .05 .02 -.39 -.11 .56 .53 1.35 PB-13 .50 .52 .43 -.46 .42 .10 .17 .00 -.29 .07 .52 .49 1.46 PB-4 .00 .51 .18 -.29 .44 .18 .39 .48 -.12 -.05 .61 .41 2.04 PB-14 -.05 .08 .13 -.31 .39 .20 .56 .22 -.07 .18 .53 .33 1.22 PB-2 -.24 .17 .01 -.50 .35 .06 -.21 -.16 .00 .22, .00 .03 .36 PB-18 .21 .44 .03 -.30 .43 .14 .51 .24 -.37 .16 .36 .29 1.47 PB-22 .33 .05 .07 -.18 .44 .39 .71 .57 -.16 -.11 .46 .40 1.52 PB-15 .46 .25 .29 .38 .09 .02 .18 .10 -.02 .12 .59 .40 1.03 a For n= ^23, r= .413 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n= ^26, r= .388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ° For n= '25, r= .396 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. d For n= :22, r= .423 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XLVII V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form A V a l i d i t y with Teacher Ratings for Thing (T), Person (P), and L i k e a b i l i t y CL) Scales i n Grades 3 to 6 6d Grade 3 a Grade 4 b Grade 5 c Grade Val i d i t } Item T P L j*' P L T P L T P L Index TA-15 -.54 .04 .37 -.04 .08 .20 .47 .01 .05 .33 .01 .19 .22 TA-4 -.30 -.11 .18 .55 .28 .38 .01 -.06 .07 .09 .24 -.22 .35 TA-28 -.33 .07 .11 .33 .26 .52 .36 .12 .20 .48 .36 .15 .84 TA-20 -.48 .18 .26 .19 .18 .08 .09 .24 .10 .64 .38 .13 .44 TA-30 -.33 .16 .40 -.06 -.10 -.25 .46 .05 .00 .32 .34 .14 .39 TA-10 -.34 .22 .37 .44 .24 .48 -.03 .12 .30 .31 .03 -.18 .38 TA-9 -.10 -.29 -.24 .00 -.34 - .33 .08 .02 .03 .49 .28 .08 .47 TA-18 -.20 -.15 -.14 .27 .15 .15 .09 .21 .30 .24 .21 .20 .40 TA-22 -.09 .01 -.01 .14 .23 .41 .16 .16 .25 .07 .14 .17 .28 TA-5 -.23 .50 .48 .25 .25 .17 -.08 .29 .09 .12 -.05 -.08 .06 TA-31 -.42 -.18 .25 .24 .01 .04 .04 .05 .04 .14 -.19 -.21 -.28 TA-1 -.33 .28 .23 .26 -.14 -.40 -.31 .25 .04 .05 -.51 -.41 -.43 TA-13 .19 .23 .23 .13 .30 .49 -.01 .29 .38 .40 .24 .07 .71 TA-23 .30 -.15 -.23 •11 .36 .45 .00 .23 .35 .10 .20 -.05 .51 TA-7 .. .06 .17 -.07 -.49. .30. ,21 -.17 .52 .23 .35 ,40. ,36 -,25 k For n=23, r=.413 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. For n=26, r=.388 Is s i g n i f i c a n t at ,05. ^ For n=25, r=.396 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. For n=22, r=.423 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XLVIII V a l i d i t y of Children's Ratings with Teachers' Ratings of Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report Form B Item T Grade P V a l i d i t y with Teacher and L i k e a b i l i t 3 a Grade 4 L T P Ratings for g (L) Scales L T Thing (T), Person i n Grades 3 to 6 Grade 5 C P L CP)., T Grade P 6 d L V a l i d i t y Index TB-8 .12 -.05 .06 .41 -.05 .21 .41 .14 .15 .36 .37 .43 1.30 TB-19 .57 .11 .10 .50 .02 .26 .27 .09 -.21 .02 .06 .04 1.32 TB-23 .48 .31 -.03 -.31 .29 .08 .72 .41 .05 .21 .26 .37 1.10 TB-5 .03 .01 .08 .42 .17 .32 .46 .11 .09 .40 .59 .45 1.31 TB-12 .11 -.02 -.07 .30 .14 .41 .68 .22 -.30 .11 .23 .18 .98 TB-17 -.04 .43 .09 .34 .10 .28 .59 .52 -.21 .72 .52 .45 1.61 TB-11 .17 .11 .25 -.20 .48 .15 .35 .17 -.39 .07 .09 .09 .25 TB-32 -.38 .03 -.15 -.45 .33 .03 .58 .19 -.07 .35 -.09 -.43 .10 TB-16 .55 .18 .08 .19 -.07 .04 .22 .09 -.02 .27 .30 .21 1.23 TB-1 -.08 .49 .21 .09 -.18 -.22 .26 .00 -.12 .06 .14 .26 .33 TB-26 .09 .11 .16 -.32 .30 .07 .70 .27 -.12 .43 .47 .52 .90 TB-21 -.13 .45 .30 -.02 .34 .27 .44 .23 -.12 .19 .54 .38 .48 TB-30 -.25 .19 .06 -.30 .51 .02 .41 .22 .16 .41 -.17 -.22 -.55 TB-9 -.30 .33 .25 -.52 .30 -.07 .10 .08 -.34 .33 -.31 -.27 -1.05 TB-3 -.01 .17 .36 -.37 .43 .21 .58 .37 .34 .15 .53 .38 .35 a For n= =23, r= .413 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. b For n= =26, r= .388 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. C For n= =25, r= .396 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. d T7 For n= =22, r= .423 i s s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Table XLIX V a l i d i t y Between Scales of Children's Ratings and Teachers' Ratings on Person Thing Peer Report Forms A and B i n Grades 3-6 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Scale Form A Form B Form A Form B Form A Form B Form A Form B Thing -.53* .09 .29 -.04 .09 .77* .49* .34 Person .. ..; . .53* .52* .44* .53* .67* .40* .37 .51* L i k e a b i l i t y .45* .13 .59* .25 .40* .25 .43* .70* * S i g n i f i c a n t at p < .05. r-1 123 three through s i x . D i f f i c u l t y l e v e l . The fourth s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n f o r the PTPR was the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the item. The average percentage of endorsement for each item i n each of the grade l e v e l s was calculated and these data are displayed i n Tables XLIII and XLIV. • .The reasoning. which;guided the evaluation of t h i s c r i t e r i o n was s i m i l a r to that discussed f o r the PTSR. However, the same s i t u a t i o n arose f o r PTPR as f o r PTSR i n that the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of an item was not heavily weighted during the s e l e c t i o n process. In p r a c t i c e , no item was eliminated on t h i s basis since the three s e l e c t i o n indexes appeared adequate f o r the assessment of itemmetric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Selection of items. The data corresponding to the four s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a are reported on Tables XLIII (P items) and XLIV (T items). The items are l i s t e d i n descending order according to the most important c r i t e r i o n , the c o r r e l a t i o n index. The second column of the tables reports the homogeneity indexes, the t h i r d column gives the v a l i d i t y indexes and the l a s t , the percentages of endorsement for each of the items i n each of the grade l e v e l s . Reference to Table XLIII reveals that nine P items were eliminated during step 1 of the s e l e c t i o n procedure due to t h e i r low c o r r e l a t i o n indexes. The cut-off point f o r t h i s c r i t e r i o n was a c o r r e l a t i o n index equal to or greater than .300. The as t e r i s k s i n the second column in d i c a t e that the rejected items were PB-18, PB-2, PB-14, PA-25, PA-2, PB-22, PA-12, PA-8 and PB-15. The double a s t e r i s k s i n the t h i r d column of the table indicate that one a d d i t i o n a l item, PA-29 was e l i m i -nated at step 2. This item had an acceptable c o r r e l a t i o n 124 index, but i t s homogeneity index was below the criterion of 1.50. The relatively low homogeneity indexes of these items reflect the fact that their acceptable correlation indexes were achieved without consistently high item-total correlations with the appropriate scale. Step 3 resulted in the elimination of items PB-6, PB-29, PB-28, PA-24,and PA-17, a l l of which had succeeded in passing step 1 and step 2. These items, which are noted by t r i p l e asterisks, were rejected on the basis of their having validity indexes below 1.00. The completion of the three item-selection steps l e f t a total of 15 acceptable P items. Table XLIV reports the itemmetric characteristics of T items from PTPR. Similar to the comparable data presented for T items from PTSR, the T items do not meet the c r i t e r i a standards adopted for selection of P items. For this reason, the cut-off point for an acceptable correlation index was dropped to .250. However, as w i l l soon become apparent; the T items which remained after step 1 but which had correla-tion indexes below the criterion for P items (3.00) were rejected on the bases of the two remaining selection indexes. The single asterisks in the f i r s t column indicate that the last 12 items which appear on Table XLIV were eliminated at step 1. The criterion for the homogeneity index was set at 2.00 and two items, TA-9 and TA-1, were rejected at step 2. This l e f t a total of 16 items which had passed the f i r s t two selection c r i t e r i a . The itemmetric characteristics of the T items were considerably less optimal than those of the P items, as was the case with the P and T scales of PTSR where alpha coefficients indicated that the internal r e l i a b i l i t i e s of T scales were quite low and needed the assistance of additional items. It was therefore decided that a 125 12-item P scale and 14-dtem T scale were desirable f o r PTPR, Thus, only two T items could be eliminated from the pool of 16 which remained a f t e r step 2. Step 3, therefore, consisted of the r e j e c t i o n of items TA-5 and TA-31 which had the lowest v a l i d i t y indexes of the remaining items. As previously discussed (Chapter 2) two l i k e a b i l i t y items from the PNI (Wiggins and Winder, 1961) were included i n both forms of PTPR for the purpose of separating r e l a t i v e l y "pure" P o r i e n t a t i o n from perceived popularity. Tables L and LI give the item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s between the 15 i n i t i a l l y selected P items and the L scale and between the 14 selected T items and the L scale. Comparison of the l a s t columns of these two tables (the sums of item-total correlations) shows that o v e r a l l , P items are p u l l i n g substantially more popularity variance than T items. Since the objective was the development of a 12-item PTPR scale f o r P o r i e n t a t i o n , i t was possible to r e j e c t three items which had high l i k e a b i l i t y indexes. The as t e r i s k s i n d i c a t e that items PA-14, PA-21 and PA-6 were eliminated by t h i s c r i t e r i o n . One item, PB-25, was retained even though i t too has a su b s t a n t i a l l i k e a b i l i t y index (1.17) i n order to complete the 12-item P scale desired. Appendix L contains the wordings of the P and T items selected for the f i n a l version of PTPR and Appendix M contains the wordings of the rejected items. For the interested reader, Tables LII and LIII report the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the selected P items from the two preliminary forms,and Table LIV and LV report the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the selected T items. The items selected f o r the f i n a l P and T scales of PTPR sample the r a t i o n a l categories i n the following manner: I. Helpfulness, three Table L Correlations of I n i t i a l l y Selected Person Items From Person Thing Peer Report with L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scale i n Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled Item Correlation with L Scale Correlation with L Scale Sum of Correlations Gr. 3 and 4 Gr. 5 and 6 PA-3 .55 .43 .98 PA-11 .63 . 36 .99 PA-14* .53 .73 1.26 PA-16 .48 .49 .97 PA-21* .59 .75 1.34 PA-19 .29 .26** .55 PA-6* .53 .65 l.k8 PA-2 6 .21** .41 .62 PB-4 .53 .19** .72 PB-7 .54 .09** .63 PB-10 .44 .28** .72 PB-13 .35 .39 .74 PB-20 .26** .37 .63 PB-24 .55 .35 .90 PB-25 .59 .58 1.17 Note: Unless otherwise indicated a l l correlations s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. * These items were deleted from the f i n a l version of Person Thing Peer Report. ** Not s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. ro ON Table LI Correlations of Selected Thing Items From Person Thing Peer Report with L i k e a b i l i t y (L) Scale i n Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled Item Correlation with L Scale Correlation with L Scale Sum of Correlations Gr. 3 and 4 Gr. 5 and 6 TA-4 .52 .05* .57 TA-10 .44 .20* .64 TA-15 .17* .19* .36 TA-18 .29 .41 .70 TA-20 .36 .29 .65 TA-22 .52 .46 .98 TA-28 .53 .26* .79 TA-30 .05* .23* .28 TB-5 .08* .39 .47 TB-8 .14* .04* .18 TB-12 .24* -.05* .19 TB-17 .14* .29 .43 TB-19 .26* -.05* .21 TB-23 .56 .09* .65 Note: Unless otherwise indicated a l l correlations s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. * Not s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. N3 Table LII Intercorrelations Among Person Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report Form A for Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled PA-11 PA-16 PA-•19 PA-•26 Item Gr. 3 Gr. 5 and 4 and 6 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 and 4 and 6 Gr. 3 and 4 Gr. 5 and 6 Gr. 3 and 4 Gr. 5 and 6 PA-3 .604 .503 .767 .437 .507 .226* .487 .585 PA-11 .548 .599 .310 .406 .407 .614 PA-16 .582 .633 .611 .502 PA-19 .356 .256* Note: A l l c o rrelations are s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 unless otherwise indicated * Not s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 t-o co Table LIII Peer Report Form B for Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled Item PB-7 Gr.3 Gr. 5 and 4 and 6 PB-10 Gr.3 Gr. 5 and 4 and 6 PB-13 Gr.3 Gr.5 and 4 and 6 PB Gr.3 and 4 -20 Gr.5 and 6 PE Gr.3 and 4 i-24 Gr.5 and 6 Gr.3 and 4 PB-25 Gr.5 and PB-4 .710 .813 .587 .679 .553 .496 .547 .521 .709 .724 .601 .608 PB-7 .671 .681 .466 .503 .492 .588 .723 .726 .653 .527 PB-10 .557 .715 .584 .641 .551 .707 .725 .598 PB-13 .615 .675 .579 .543 .480 .399 PB-20 .544 .557 .586 .598 PB-24 .714 .605 Note: A l l co r r e l a t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 unless otherwise indicated H1 ho Table LIV Intercorrelations Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report From A for Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled TA-10 TA-15 TA-18 TA-20 TA-22 TA-28 TA-30 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Gr. 3 Gr. 5 Item and 4 and 6 and 4 and 6 and 4 and 6 and 4 and 6 and 4 and 6 and 4 and 6 and 4 and 6 TA-5 .623 .184* .497 .193* .343 .200* .457 .138* .381 .339 .700 .102* .221* .351 TA-10 .272* .083* .271* .256* .284 .291 .310 .091* .739 .556 .219* .327 TA-15 .397 .414 .274* .456 .226* .392 .302 .445 .371 .497 TA-18 .461 .429 .249* .171* .270* .414 .389 .247* TA-20 .492 .240* .522 .531 .493 .409 TA-22 .519 .289 .354 .573 TA-28 .255* .433 Note: A l l correlations are s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 unless otherwise indi c a t e d * Not s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 o Table LV Intercorrelations Among Thing Items Selected From Person Thing Peer Report Form B f o r Grades 3 and 4 Pooled and Grades 5 and 6 Pooled Item TB-8 Gr.3 Gr.5 and 4 and 6 TB-12 Gr.3 Gr.5 and 4 and 6 TB-Gr.3 and 4 -17 Gr.5 and 6 TB-Gr.3 and 4 -19 Gr.5 and 6 TB-Gr.3 and 4 -23 Gr.5 and 6 TB-5 .514 .445 .408 .216* .493 .293 .475 .360 .326 .352 TB-8 2.87 .162* .175* .189* .524 . 201* .353 .674 TB-12 .545 .270* .589 .364 .318 .324 TB-17 .318* .213* .222* .246* TB-19 .506 .117* Note: A l l correlations are s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 unless otherwise indicated * Not s i g n i f i c a n t at .05 items j I I , Considerateness f two itemsj I I I , S o c i a b i l i t y , two itemsj IV. Play, two items5"V. Interest, zero items; VI, Sentience, three items; VII. Animals, one item; "VIII. Physical science, four items; IX. Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s , four items; X. B i o l o g i c a l science, one item; XI. Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s , one item; and XII. Cr a f t s , hobbies and games, three .items (Appendix N). Chapter 4 Discussion Interview Observations A number of nonsystematic observations were recorded i n a notebook following each day of interview sessions. Some of these observations are relevant to issues that have been raised i n the present paper or by L i t t l e (1975). During the interview each c h i l d was asked to communicate his or her own i n t e r e s t s and to i d e n t i f y h i s or her personal s p e c i a l i t y (see Appendix B, interview s c r i p t ) . These were the l a s t questions asked of the interviewee, and the reasoning which led to t h e i r i n c l u s i o n was the desire to end each interview on a note of good rapport. In retrospect, the strategy was an excellent one. The children's voices became more animated, and they talked more f r e e l y about themselves than they had about t h e i r peers whom they had nominated f o r having s p e c i a l i t y i n t e r e s t s . It i s a somewhat curious event that the overwhelming majority of c h i l d r e n reported themselves to be thing oriented. This was p a r t i c u l a r l y true among the younger subjects, t h i r d and fourth graders. One might predict on t h i s basis that the P and T scale means on PTSR-4 would be widely discrepant. However, t h i s was not the case (P4 scale mean = 25.07; T4 scale mean = 24.73). Thus, i t appears that even though the younger subjects f e l t themselves to be thing oriented, a sample of same-age children were not reluctant to express i n t e r e s t i n s p e c i f i c P items. A tentative explanation f o r these f a c t s might posit that a conceptual dichotomy of environmental s t i m u l i into persons and things i s a foreign way of construing for c h i l d r e n of eight and nine years of age. Most of the c h i l d r e n were able to give reasonable d e s c r i p t i v e statements about a c h i l d 133 134 who was p r i m a r i l y interested i n persons or who w a s preiraarily interested i n things, hut the two domains of i n t e r e s t s were dealt with one at a time. Perhaps when the c h i l d was asked: "Which type of person do you think you are? Are you more interes t e d i n persons or things?", he or she experienced confusion i n making the d i s t i n c t i o n between classes. Semantically, "thing" i s i n c l u s i v e and can be "anything", even persons. Without command of the conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n regarding environmental objects, to say that one i s interested i n things may be saying that one i s generally curious about the world. Piaget (1927) has i s o l a t e d four stages i n the development of the concept of l i f e and notes that three-quarters of the c h i l d r e n that he has investigated do not reach the f i n a l stage u n t i l the ages of 11-12. Nearly a l l of the interviewees were younger than or equal to the age at which the concept of l i f e i s acquired. If should be r e c a l l e d that animals and b i o l o g i c a l science were two of the s i x r a t i o n a l categories for d e s c r i p t i v e statements pertaining to things (Table V). The task requirement for the interview subjects was the d i s t i n c t i o n between persons and "everything else", rather than the d i s t i n c t i o n between l i v i n g and nonliving or animate/inanimate. So, the categorization of l i v i n g objects among things i s i n keeping with the dichotomy imposed upon the children. This i s an i n t r i g u i n g point to consider because L i t t l e (personal communication) has expressed confusion as to where animals f i t into the p i c t u r e of developmental progressions. There i s a tendency f o r adults, at l e a s t , to a t t r i b u t e anthropomorphic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to pets and, presumably, for t h i s reason L i t t l e (1975) has situated animals i n a neutral 135 p o s i t i o n "between persons and things i n his model of developmental progressions. Apparently, the neutral p o s i t i o n implies that he i s not going to speculate as to whether animals are construed l i k e persons ( p h y s i c a l i s t i c a l l y ) at early developmental stages or l i k e things ( p e r s o n a l i s t i c a l l y ) . Zinn (1974) avoids t h i s problem by making a conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n between animate and inanimate objects. He discusses the various c r i t e r i a by which the d i s t i n c t i o n can be made. From a b i o l o g i c a l perspective, inanimate objects can be defined as "those objects not capable of growth, i r r i t a b i l i t y , metabolism or reproduc a b i l i t y , whereas persons may be considered as part of the class of animate objects possessing a l l of the above-noted capacities and belong to the subclass homo-sapiens which can be anatomically d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other species" (Zinn, 1974, p. 19). Furthermore, inanimate objects are passive and re a c t i v e , but persons react to the environment and are act i v e i n structuring t h e i r experience (Zinn, 1974). F i n a l l y , a common sense understanding of the d i s t i n c t i o n includes concepts such as action, i n t e n t i o n and w i l l as defining a t t r i b u t e s of persons (Zinn, 1974). The methodology which Zinn employed i n his study did not require that the c h i l d be able to grasp on a conceptual l e v e l any of the above c r i t e r i a . The subject was merely asked to name four f a m i l i a r people and four f a m i l i a r objects and then to generate d e s c r i p t i v e statements about them. In the present study, the task of circumscribing the universe of content was delegated to child r e n , and t h i s required them to have at lease a rudimentary understanding of the dichotomy. Piaget's (1927) 136 documentation of the r e l a t i v e l y long-term a c q u i s i t i o n of the concept of l i f e suggests that the person/thing d i s t i n c t i o n , while subject to lack of complete understanding by the younger subjects, was preferable to a l i v i n g / n o n l i v i n g or animate/inanimate dichotomy. Theory (e.g., Werner, 1948) as w e l l as empirical evidence (e.g., Goodenough, 1957; B e l l , 1970, Jennings, 1975) suggest that the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of persons from other s t i m u l i (including s e l f ) i s among the e a r l i e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s that are made. I t can be concluded that the interview technique was successful i n e l i c i t i n g meaningful d e s c r i p t i v e statements based on a person/thing dichotomy even though there i s nonsystematic evidence that the youngest interviewers were introduced to t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n f o r the f i r s t time by the interview s c r i p t . Considering the l i m i t a t i o n s discussed above, i t i s not apparent that a d i f f e r e n t type of d i s t i n c t i o n would have been more e f f e c t i v e . An observation recorded i n the interview notes suggests an unobtrusive means f o r determining person-thing o r i e n t a t i o n . Many t h i r d , fourth and f i f t h grade subjects mentioned that they enjoyed drawing and painting p i c t u r e s . It would not be d i f f i c u l t to devise a scoring procedure for person-thing focus and content of childrens' a r t i s t i c expressions for those occasions when they are free to choose t h e i r own subject matter. L i t t l e (personal communication) has p i l o t e d a s i m i l a r unobtrusive measure which consisted of equipping a group of c h i l d r e n with cameras and then taking them f o r a "photography walk." The route of the walk was mapped i n advance to assure a wide range of person and thing s t i m u l i . The photographs taken by each c h i l d were then scored f o r person-thing content 137 with particular attention given to the primary target of the picture. At times, i t was necessary to query a child about the intended primary target, since his or her novice s k i l l s could result in a photograph of someone's shoes. The evaluation of spontaneous art expression would be a less cumbersome (and probably less expensive) task and would make use of data collected regularly by classroom teachers. The idea is also appealing because i t suggests an additional external criterion that could serve as a validity check on paper-and-pencil measures of person-thing orientation. Instrument Characteristics A comparison of the items of the two versions of PTSR (Appendexes and K^) with the items of PTPR (Appendix L) indicates a difference in their degree of specificity. For example, "He/she likes to give people things to cheer them up" (PTPR) versus "Cheer up an old person who is lonely" (PTSR-6) or "He/she enjoys looking at things under the microscope" (PTPR) versus "Look at a drop of pond water under a microscope" (PTSR-4 and PTSP-6). The peer report requires the respondent to make inferences about his or her classmates' interests or, in some cases, make abstractions concerning their past behaviors. This is certainly a more cognitively complex re-quirement than reading a statement and indicating the degree of interest that the child him/herself may have in the activity. An attempt was made to keep the items of the peer-report at a slightly more general level for this reason. In other words, the peer-report items were prepared in such a way as to make them amenable to summary types of inferences, given the inferential nature of the task. The procedural and testing format pre-cendents which were followed in the development of this instrument were 138 those used by Wiggins and Winder (19.61}, They were able to show that a peer rating task was well within the capabilities of grade fonr subjects. However, the PNT was designed to measure adjustment (or rather, the lack of adjustment), and the items comprising the scales for aggression, dependency, withdrawal and depression are noteworthy for the extremeness and probable infrequency of the behaviors depicted. It is reasonable that a child who "acts as i f he's sort of a baby" (dependency item) or "likes to pick on l i t t l e kids" (aggression item) w i l l be remembered by his peers; whereas, remembering which of one's classmates "has a lot of hobbies" (PTPR) has no survival value or particular psychological saliency. It is true that very few of the youngest children appeared to experience d i f f i c u l t y in completing the PTPR preliminary forms, but perhaps they were merely complying with situational demands. The task of rating peers on these content categories may have been beyond their capabilities. The itemmetric and validity data for person items appear to indicate that the task requirements were not unusually d i f f i c u l t for children. However, the same data for thing items leave open this possibility as well as raise additional questions which w i l l be dealt with in a later section. Analyses of the internal r e l i a b i l i t i e s and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the P and T scales of PTPR are necessary in order to evaluate the extensiveness of this potential problem. The alpha coefficients for the scale could not be calculated for the data of the present design, because items from two preliminary forms (A and B) were selected for the f i n a l scales. The two preliminary forms were administered to different samples of subjects which meant that the internal r e l i a b i l i t y could not be computed 139 f o r any of the f i n a l scales i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y , I t i s apparent from examination of the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among thing items shown i n Tables LIV and LV that the i n t e r n a l consistency of the T scale w i l l not be as high as that of the P scale. For a d d i t i o n a l information concerning the appropriate-ness of the peer r a t i n g format for person-thing o r i e n t a t i o n content, the f i n a l form of the PTPR should be administered to adequate samples of subjects i n grades three, four, f i v e and s i x , and alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s should be c a l -culated compositely on the two scales and also within grades. This research could be incorporated under part four of the larger program (p. 34). At the same time the s u i t a b i l i t y of the PTSR could be evaluated f o r ch i l d r e n younger than eight and nine-year-olds. The promising alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s of the P and.T scales of PTSR (p.86 ) indicate that t h i s instrument represents a meaningful task f o r fourth and f i f t h graders. I t i s my opinion that the s e l f - r e p o r t measure may be s u i t a b l e for c h i l d r e n as young as s i x or seven years of age, but t h i s expectation needs to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y tested by comparing i n t e r n a l r e l i a b i l i t y and t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y against an a p r i o r i absolute standard among the various age groups. On the other hand, i t appears that the peer report measure i s probably s u i t a b l e for c h i l d r e n at least eight years and older but not s u i t a b l e for c h i l d r e n younger than eight years. Again, i t should be stated that the assessment of the appropriateness of the two types of instruments for the various age groups should be a f i r s t p r i o r i t y goal of the fourth stage of the research program. It i s an i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t that the items selected f o r the f i n a l form of PTSR-4 correspond so c l o s e l y to the mean proportions of r a t i o n a l 140 categories shown i n Tahle VI, The only exception was an a d d i t i o n a l sentience item and one l e s s s o c i a b i l i t y item (Appendix 0) selected f o r the P scale. The two extra T items (to make a 14-item scale) came from two of the largest T categories. The reader w i l l r e c a l l that mean sampling of r a t i o n a l categories shown i n Table VI re f e r s only to the P6 and T6 items of PTSR-6 preliminary form. L i t t l e ' s TPIQ items made up the remainder of the form and had been categorized i n the proportions indicated i n the second column of the table. S t i l l the proportions of items selected f o r the f i n a l form of PTSR-6 from each category do not vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y from the proportions selected f o r PTSR-4. There i s one more helpfulness item and one l e s s considerateness item on the f i n a l P scale of PTSR-6. No items from the animal and c r a f t s , hobbies and games were selected f o r the T scale (the predicted number was one item from each of these categories). One les s item from the b i o l o g i c a l science category appears on the f i n a l form than expected, and a d d i t i o n a l items were picked up from the categories of ph y s i c a l science (one item), outdoor a c t i v i t i e s (one item) and mechanical a c t i v i t i e s (three items). The i n c l u s i o n of two of these a d d i t i o n a l items was implied when the decision was made to construct a 14-item T scale. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that s i x of the 14 T scale items come from the category of mechanical a c t i v i t i e s , since nearly 42% of the T items from the TPIQ were c l a s s i f i e d as belonging to t h i s category. The fa c t that there are f i v e P items and f i v e T items which were selected f o r both the PTSR-4 and the PTSR-6 suggests that e i t h e r form can be administered with confidence to f i f t h grade c h i l d r e n . The 141 s e l e c t i o n of two P items and s i x T items from the adult TPIQ f o r PTSR-6 indicates the presence of c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l consistency for these items. The upper age-range appropriateness of the PTSR-6 and the lower age-range appropriateness of the TPIQ should be assessed. This would permit research to be conducted with children through adult subj ects on person and thing o r i e n t a t i o n , using comparable s e l f - r e p o r t measures. The sampling of r a t i o n a l categories f o r the construction of PTPR items was based on the proportionate' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of interview s t a t e -ments. Comparison of Tables IV and V with Appendix N reveals only one s u r p r i s i n g departure from the o r i g i n a l category proportions for selected items. Nearly a t h i r d of the children's d e s c r i p t i v e statements pertaining to person o r i e n t a t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d under s o c i a b i l i t y , so a t h i r d of the P items constructed f o r the preliminary forms were s o c i a b i l i t y items (10 out of 28 t o t a l ) . Since 12 of the 28 items were selected for the f i n a l scale, the p r e d i c t i o n would be that around four of these should be s o c i a b i l i t y items. However, as Appendix N shows only two s o c i a b i l i t y items were among those selected. For a l l other categories the proportion written as compared with the proportion selected d i f f e r e d maximally by plus or minus one item. I t was argued i n the introduction that the two components of the temperament of s o c i a b i l i t y , warmth and responsivity, probably contain the e s s e n t i a l content of person o r i e n t a t i o n . This apparently was the view of the c h i l d r e n who were interviewed because of the heavy representation of the s o c i a b i l i t y category i n the d e s c r i p t i v e statements they offered. However, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that the P items selected f o r the f i n a l form of PTPR are noteworthy for the preponderance of items which e x p l i c i t y describe one-to-one i n t e r a c t i o n s or the l e s s 142 gregarious and extraverted expression of i n t e r e s t i n others Csee Appendix L) . Given that extraversion has been distinguished t h e o r e t i c a l l y from person o r i e n t a t i o n , i t i s my opinion that the P scale properly corresponds to L i t t l e ' s theory and appears to be capable of i d e n t i f y i n g c h i l d r e n who are genuinely interested i n other persons but are not nec e s s a r i l y the "party-goer" types. It can be concluded on the basis of the above d i s -cussion that the proportionate sampling of r a t i o n a l categories by the selected items a t t e s t s to the worthiness of the interview technique f o r defining the universe of content. Implications of the Present Research The present research was not designed to test any s p e c i f i c hypotheses about the development of s p e c i a l i z e d i n t e r e s t s i n children. Nevertheless, there i s some developmental information which can be gleaned from these data and can be used to advance predictions and questions which w i l l be tested empirically at a l a t e r time. The s i n g u l a r l y poor i n t e r n a l consistency of the T scale from the PTSR-6 f i n a l form (alpha c o e f f i c i e n t = .522) may point to a problem i n the conceptualization of the thing domain. For example, i t can be argued that at least two of these items introduce the p o s s i b i l i t y of a confounding of thing o r i e n t a t i o n with a form of sensation-seeking. The items referred to are: TA-7, "Explore the ocean f l o o r i n a one-man sub" and TA-13, "Climb a mountain on your own." Examination of Table XXCIII, which shows the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the relevant T items, indicates that the two "adventurer" items c o r r e l a t e highly with each other (.526) but have low to moderate c o r r e l a t i o n s with the remaining T items. TA-7 and TA-13 143 are from L i t t l e ' s TPIQ, but t h e i r patterns of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s d i f f e r from those of other selected T items from t h i s instrument (I.e.', TA-15, TA-23, TA-29). These items should probably be rewritten with the goal of placing more emphasis on thing-related a c t i v i t i e s and l e s s emphasis on t h e i r appeal to the adventurer. There i s not much research to draw on f o r the needed c l a r i f i c a t i o n and circumscription of the thing domain. Apparently, the sensation-seeking component present i n these two items was not noted by L i t t l e to detract empirically from the i n t e r n a l consistency of the TPIQ t o t a l scale nor conceptually from the construct d e f i n i t i o n of thing o r i e n t a t i o n . Although t h e i r itemmetric properties were acceptable under the s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a , i t i s my opinion that the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l data as well as r a t i o n a l considerations j u s t i f y a s l i g h t rewording of these items. The reader may have noticed that the wording of some of L i t t l e ' s T items make a point of portraying s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . This lack of subtlety may confound i n t r o v e r s i o n and thing o r i e n t a t i o n which, t h e o r e t i -c a l l y , are not supposed to be the same dimension. It was mentioned i n the introduction that i n t r o v e r s i o n i s probably more re l a t e d to L i t t l e ' s S e l f - S p e c i a l i s t s than to any other quadrant of the f o u r - f o l d typology. The question a r i s e s : Does thing s p e c i a l i z a t i o n preclude thing-related behaviors that include the presence of other persons? L i t t l e , apparently, desired to keep the separation i n content between T items and P items e x p l i c i t by the incorporation of phrases such as: "Take upon yourself, the b u i l d i n g , etc.", "one-man sub", "on your own". The s o c i a l independence of the thing s p e c i a l i s t i s congruent with theory, but i t can be argued that many of the a c t i v i t i e s which might be a part of the behavioral 144 component of the specialization loop are not accomplished in solitude. Probably no one would quarrel with the contention that an automobile mechanic is a thing specialist, yet anyone who has taken a car to a garage for servicing realizes how "peopled" an environment the mechanic works in. In fact, most activities in an urban environment do not take place in solitude. The day of the basement inventor has probably passed! It seems to me that i t is inappropriate to include social isolation cues in the wording of T items and, moreover, the theoretical distinction between thing specialization and introversion should remain intact unless empirical evidence suggests otherwise. For the reasons discussed above, several of the T items which were originally constructed by L i t t l e for the TPIQ but have been selected for PTSR-6 w i l l be rewritten for the purposes of: (a) eliminating potential confounding between sensation-seeking and thing orientation and (b) eliminating potential confounding between introversion and thing orientation. It i s hoped that these measures w i l l improve the internal r e l i a b i l i t y of the T scale from PTSR-6 and bring i t up to the acceptable standards achieved by the other three PTSR scales. The issue of whether a person-thing dichotomy of environmental objects is understandable to children has been discussed with reference to the results of the i n i t i a l interviews. Additional data is available which pertains to this question in the form of the two direct statements contained in the PTPR preliminary forms. It w i l l be recalled that the subjects were asked to nominate peers whom they believed to be either "...more interested in persons than things" or ... !;more interested in 145 things than persons". Neither of these items displayed itemmetric c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that would warrant t h e i r s e l e c t i o n f o r the PTPR f i n a l form. The P scale d i r e c t statements, PA-29 and PB-29 (the same d i r e c t statement was i n each preliminary form), were eliminated at step 2 and step 3 of the s e l e c t i o n procedure, respectively (Table XLIII). The item from both forms had comparatively high c o r r e l a t i o n indexes but was rejected on the bases of a low homogeneity index (PA-29) and a low v a l i d i t y index (PB-29). I t should be noted that conversely, the v a l i d i t y index of PA-29 and the homogeneity index of PB-29 were above the cut-off points f o r these c r i t e r i a . The T scale d i r e c t statements, TA-31 and TB-32, were responded to i n a more equivocal manner. Although the c o r r e l a t i o n index f o r TA-31 was not high (.272) as compared with the P scale d i r e c t statements, i t was within the acceptable range f o r T items (Table XLIV). This item was not eliminated u n t i l step 3 of the s e l e c t i o n procedure where i t s negative v a l i d i t y index authorized i t s r e j e c t i o n . TB-32, on the other hand, was eliminated at step 1 f o r having a negative c o r r e l a t i o n index. Since these data are only i n d i r e c t l y associated with the issue being discussed, extrapolations must be made with caution. Nevertheless, i t appears that the ch i l d r e n experienced d i f f i c u l t y i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the T scale d i r e c t statement. The fa c t that there was no correspondence between the teachers' ratings and the children's ratings on t h i s item further v e r i f i e s the above-stated conclusion. My i n c l i n a t i o n i s to consider these r e s u l t s as supportive of the speculation discussed e a r l i e r that the word, "thing", i s a semantically i n c l u s i v e term. A grouping/subgrouping problem may account for the d i f f i c u l t y i n a manner s i m i l a r to Piagetian (e.g., 1969) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n tasks. However, no semantic 146 solution comes to mind at this time ? particularly, when one considers the confusion inherent in living/nonliving or nonhuman but nonliving distinctions. The low endorsement rates of the direct statements when compared with those of the selected items also support the reasoning that the subjects experienced d i f f i c u l t y in attributing the abstracted or summary statements of specialization. The procedures which were formulated for the construction and itemmetric analyses of person orientation items benefited from a more completely de-fined theoretical construct. For example, i t was anticipated a p r i o r i that person orientation and extraversion are related constructs, and this prompted the desire to control for popularity variance in the attribution of person orientation. The inclusion of atxro-item l i k e a b i l i t y scale on the preliminary forms of PTPR permitted the elimination of three P items which had qualified at each previous step in the item selection procedure but which correlated highly with l i k e a b i l i t y (Table L). Some of the f i n a l P scale items (i.e., PA-3, PA-11, PA-16 and PB-25) and one T scale item (i.e., TA-22) may be too confounded with perceived popularity for some purist's tastes. However, i t is my opinion that the present development of scales to measure person orientation has benefited from theoretical notions that are sufficiently articulated to permit the specification of structural relationships between these variables. As was mentioned before, there are undoubtedly structural relationships which exist between thing orientation and other variables^but L i t t l e ' s theory and research conducted to date are not very enlightening in this regard. In the way of concluding comments concerning the importance of a well-articulated structural model, Loevinger's (1957) methodological 147 contribution to t h i s issue should be pointed out. She has made a d i s t i n c t i o n between the discovery of structure and the appropriateness of a p a r t i c u l a r s t r u c t u r a l model. In other words, the function of an objective test i s not to "discover" structure, but the re l a t i o n s h i p s among the items are, i n a sense, a test of theory. The empirical properties of the present instruments ind i c a t e that something systematic i s being measured and, furthermore, that c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s suggested by theory have been confirmed. Some of the research reviewed i n the introduction had obtained sex differences i n the use of construct categories ( L i t t l e , 1967; B a l l , 1975) or i n d i f f e r e n t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n (Goodenough, 1957; L i t t l e , 1972a). L i t t l e (1972a) a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t y i n the creation of items for the TPIQ that would not be sex-role biased. He dealt with t h i s problem by adopting the s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n of approximately equal representation of male and female sex-role appropriate items. Evaluation of a p o t e n t i a l item on t h i s c r i t e r i o n was accomplished empirically by carrying out separate analyses by gender. The success of t h i s attempt to develop scales that were not subject to sex-role bias was not discussed by L i t t l e (1972a) nor were itemmetric data pertaining to t h i s issue reported. The r a t i o n a l e underlying the procedure adopted i n the present scale constructions was d i f f e r e n t from L i t t l e ' s and perhaps not as j u s t i f i e d . I t had been decided that the interview statements would be informally assessed f o r the presence of sex differences i n the content topics, s p e c i f i c behaviors, etc., that the ch i l d r e n discussed. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d from Chapter 2 that a notation was made on each statement-card concerning the sex of the respondent and the sex of the target person 148 whose behaviors and interests were described. Although no s t a t i s t i c a l analyses were performed on data, there appeared to be somewhat surprising consistencies across genders in the content and behaviors described by the statements. The decision was made, at this point, to rationally control for sex-role biases during item construction and to pool the data from the preliminary forms across gender-groups for the item anlayses. The f i f t h stage of the larger research program (p. 33) would be the logical point at which to begin the assessment of the development of sex differences in person and thing orientation. Person Thing Picture Test Preliminary work has been done on step three of the research program, the construction of a Person Thing Picture Test (PTPT). The proportion sampling of rational categories by the items selected for the f i n a l form of PTSR-4 served as a rough guide for p i c t o r i a l content (see Appendix 0). Twelve person orientation "themes" and 12 thing orientation "themes" were then written for depiction. An ar t i s t has drawn each of the 24 themes on eight x 12 inch sheets of lightweight cardboard. These are simple line drawings executed in black India ink with a light tan-colored background. A target child who is identifiable by a darkened shirt appears in each picture, and the children who are administered the PTPT w i l l be instructed to pretend that the are the target child. Various models of the target child were pre-evaluated by two judges-for (a) undetermined but young age, (b) ambiguous gender, and (c) relatively consistent f a c i a l expression. Various versions of the pic t o r i a l themes were pre-evaluated by the same judges for constancy among the pictures in visual complexity. It is hoped that these procedures have ensured that the pictures do not vary i n aesthetic a t t r a c t i v e — ness nor i n b i a s i n g cues due to the depiction of the target c h i l d . However, as the research program outlines, the attractiveness, gender-appropriateness, etc. of the pictures w i l l be systematically c a l i b r a t e d by a sample of 12 year old r a t e r s . The objective i s to s e l e c t the f i v e "best" person pictures and the f i v e "best" thing pictures using a con-trasted group procedure. A 10-item Person Thing P i c t u r e Test w i l l then be a v a i l a b l e for research pruposes with c h i l d r e n of seven years of age and younger. Appendix P describes the 24 preliminary pictures from which the f i n a l 10-item PTPT w i l l be selected. REFERENCES Ainsworth, M.D.S. and Bell, S.M. Attachment, exploration and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 1970, 41, 49-67. Ainsworth, M.D.S. and Wittig, B.A. Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior, IV. London: Methuen, 1969, 111-136. Anderson, John E. Dynamics of development: System in process. In Dale B. Harris (Ed.), The Concept of Development. The University of Minnesota Press, 1957, 25-46. Asch, S. Social Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952. Ball, Louise. Age and sex differences in the use of three categories of personal constructs. Unpublished Honors Thesis, The University of British Columbia, 1975. Bell, Sylvia M. The development of the concept of object as related to infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 1970, 41, 291-311. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Bruner, J.S. Beyond the Information Given. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1974. Buss, A. and Plomin, R. A Temperament Theory of Personality Development. New York: Wiley, 1975. Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105. Craik, K.H. Environmental psychology. In New Directions in Psychology, ^ . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970, 1-121. Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 281-302. Emmerich, W. Continuity and sta b i l i t y in early social development. Child Development, 1964, 35, 311-332. Eysenck, H.J. The Maudsley Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press, 1959. Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, S.B.G. Manual for Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1968. 150 151 Eysenck, S.B.G. and Eysenck, H.J. On the dual nature of extraversion. British Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1963, 2^, 46-55. Feffer, M.H. The cognitive implications of role taking behavior. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27_, 152-168. Feffer, Melvin. Developmental analysis of interpersonal behavior. Psycho-logical Review, 1970, 77 (No. 3), 197-214. Feffer, M.H. and Gourevitch, V. Cognitive aspects role taking in children. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28, 383-396. Flavell, John. The Development of Role-Taking and Communication Skills in Children, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968. Freedman, D.G. Smiling in blind infants and the issue of innate vs. acquired. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1964, _5, 171-184. Freedman, D. Hereditary control of early social behavior. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior III. London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1965. Freedman, D. Human Infancy: An Evolutionary Perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974. Gollin, Eugene S. Organizational characteristics of social judgement: A developmental investigation. Journal of Personality, 1958, Z5, 139-154. Goodenough, Evelyn Wiltshire. Interest in persons as an aspect of sex difference in the early years. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1957, 55, 287-323. Jackson, Douglas N. A sequential system for personality scale development. In CD. Spielberger (Ed.), Current Topics in C l i n i c a l and Community Psychology, Volume 2. New York: Academic Press, 1970, 61-96. Jennings, Kay. People versus object orientation, social behavior and intellectual a b i l i t i e s in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 511-519. Kelly, G.A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton, 1955. Kurdek, Lawrence A. and Rodgon, Maris Monitz. Perceptual, cognitive and affective perspective taking in kindergarten through sixth-grade children, Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 643-650. L i t t l e , B.R. Age and sex differences in the use of psychological, role and physicalistic constructs. Mimeo. Oxford University, December, 1967. L i t t l e , Brian R. Person-thing orientation: A provisional manual for the T-P scale. Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, 1972. (a) 152 L i t t l e , Brian R. Psychological man as s c i e n t i s t , humanist and s p e c i a l i s t . Journal of Experimental Research i n Personality, 1972, 6^, (2-3), 95-118. (b) L i t t l e , Brian R. S p e c i a l i z a t i o n and the v a r i e t i e s of environmental experience: Empirical studies within the personality paradigm. Paper presented at Clark U n i v e r s i t y Conference: Experiencing the Environment. Hopkinton, Massachusetts, January 8, 1975. L i v e s l e y , W.J. and Bromley, D.B. Person Perception i n Childhood and Adolescence. New York: Wiley, 1973. Loevinger, J . Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 1957, 3^, 635-694. (Monograph Supplement 9) Payne, K.A. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n into age and s o c i a l c l a s s differences i n the use of psychological, r o l e and p h y s i c a l i s t i c constructs by young adolescents. Unpublished Honors Thesis, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. Peevers, B.H. and Secord, P.F. Developmental changes i n a t t r i b u t i o n of d e s c r i p t i v e concepts to persons. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 27_, 120-128. Piaget, Jean. The Child's Conception of the World. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1929. Piaget, Jean. The r e l a t i o n of a f f e c t i v i t y to i n t e l l i g e n c e i n the mental development of the c h i l d . B u l l e t i n of the Menninger C l i n i c , 26^, 1962, 129-137. Piaget, Jean and Inhelder, Barbel. The Psychology of the C h i l d . New York: Basic Books, 1969. Rubin, Kenneth H. Egocentrism i n childhood: A unitary construct? Child Development, 1973, 44, 102-110. Saint-Pierre, J . Etude des differences entre l a recherche active de l a per-sonne humaine et c e l l e de l ' o b j e t inanime. Master's thes i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Montreal, 1962. S c a r l e t t , H.H., Press, A.N. and Crockett, W.H. Children's descriptions of peers: A Wernerian developmental a n a l y s i s . Child Development, 1971, 42, 439-453. Scarr, S. S o c i a l introversion-extraversion as a h e r i t a b l e response. C h i l d Development, 1969, 40, 823-832. Schaefer, E.S. Development of h i e r a r c h i c a l , c o n figurational models for parent behavior and c h i l d behavior. In J.P. H i l l (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 5), Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press, 1971. 153 Shaeffer, H.R. and Emerson, P. The development of s o c i a l attachments i n infancy. Monographs of the Society f or Research i n Child Development, 1964, 29 (3, Whole No. 94) Strawson, P.F. Individuals: An Essay i n Descriptive Metaphysics. Garden Ci t y , New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1959. S u l l i v a n , Edmund V. and Hunt, David E. Interpersonal and objective decentering as a function of age and s o c i a l c l a s s . The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1967, 110, 199-210. Turnure, Cynthia. Cognitive development and role-taking a b i l i t y i n boys and g i r l s from 7 to 12. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 202-209. Werner, H. The Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. Chicago: F o l l e t t , 1948. Wiggins, Jerry S. Personality and P r e d i c t i o n : P r i n c i p l e s of Personality Assessment. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1973. Wiggins, Jerry S. and Winder, C L . The peer nomination inventory: An empirically derived sociometric measure of adjustment i n preadolescent boys. Psychological Reports, 1961, 9_, 643-677 (Monograph Supplement 5 - V9) Zinn, V i c t o r . Constructions of objects and persons: A developmental study. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Clark U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Footnotes For the PTSR items, the l e t t e r s "P" or "T" i n d i c a t e which domain the item samples, person or thing. The M4" or "6" appearing a f t e r the l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s whether the item was i n i t i a l l y w r i t t e n f o r grade four subjects or grade s i x subjects. The second number indicates where the item appeared on the preliminary form. For example, item P4-3 i s a person scale item that was written f o r grade four subjects, and i t appeared as item number three on the PTSR-4 preliminary form. Item T4-7 i s : "Run a f i l m projector." Item T4-5 i s : "Learn how to set up camp and b u i l d a campfire." The l i k e a b i l i t y items are denotated by an "L" and the second l e t t e r , "A" or "B", indicates on which preliminary form of the PTPR they appeared. The number indicates where the item appeared on the form. Thus, item LA-27 i s an item from the l i k e a b i l i t y scale which was included on Form A of the PTPR as item number 27. Appendix A^ TP Interest Questionnaire In t h i s questionnaire, show how much you l i k e to be i n si t u a t i o n s where you might be doing the things l i s t e d . Use the following scale, and place the appropriate number i n the space next to the sentence. Try, i f possible, to use the f u l l range of the scale, from 1-5. 1 2 3 4 ' 5 Not at a l l S l i g h t l y Moderately so Quite a l o t Extremely so 1. Join i n and help out a disorganized children's game at a public park. 2. Take upon yourself the b u i l d i n g of a stereo set or a ham radio. 3. Interview people f o r employment i n a large h o s p i t a l . 4. Explore the ocean f l o o r i n a one-man sub. 5. Process computer cards i n a large i n d u s t r i a l center. 6. Breed rare forms of t r o p i c a l f i s h . 7. Climb a mountain on your own. 8. Stop to watch a piece of machinery at work on the s t r e e t . 9. L i s t e n i n on a conversation between two people i n a crowd. 10. Become p r o f i c i e n t i n the art of glass-blowing. 11. Interview people f o r a newspaper column. 12. Remove the back of a mechanical toy to see how i t worked. 13. S t r i k e up a conversation with a beggar on a street corner. 14. Attempt to f i x your own watch, toaster, etc. 15. Observe the path of a comet through a telescrope. 16. L i s t e n with empathic i n t e r e s t to an old-timer who s i t s next to you on a bus. 17. Note the idiosyncracies of people about you. 155 156 18. Make f i r s t attempts to get to know a new neighbor. 19. Attend an address given by a person whose character you admire without being aware of the topic of the address. 20. Attempt to comfort a t o t a l stranger who has j u s t met with tragedy. 21. Do sky-diving. 22. Gain a reputation f or giving good advice for personal problems. 23. Make a hobby of photographing nature scenes and developing and p r i n t i n g the pictures yourself. 24. Help a group of ch i l d r e n plan a Halloween (or Guy Fawkes) party. Appendix A^ Scoring Key for the TPIQ Scales 1. P 2. T 3. P 4. T 5. T 6. T 7. T 8. T 9. P 10. T 11. P 12. T 13. P 14. T 15. T 16. P 17. P 18. P 19. P 20. P 21. T 22. P 23. T 24. P 157 Appendix, B; Interview Script Hi, my name is _. I w i l l be talking to you today because.I am really interested in what people your age lik e to do. If you don't care, I would like to tape-record what you have to say because your thoughts and ideas w i l l be very important to me in my schoolwork. Would you mind talking to me for a few minutes? How old are you ? When w i l l you be • ? Listen carefully. Some children (persons) are interested in a l l sorts of other people, what they do and how they feel. They like to be with grownups (adults), play with other children, or get to know new kids in class. Some children (people) are more interested in things, how they work and how they can be fixed. These children may like to collect rocks or wildflowers, look through telescopes, or build playhouses. Do you understand what I mean when I say that some children are more interested in people, while some children are more interested in things? Can you t e l l me in your own words how children may be different from each other in what-: they are interested in? Now I want you to think of someone in your class who is more interested in things than people. (Can you think of someone?) What kinds of things does he/she do? (All right. Fine.) or (What else does he/she like to do?) What kinds of things is he/she interested in? 158 159 Now think of someone in your class who is more interested in people than things. What does he/she like to do? (Fine.) or (Can you t e l l me what else he/she likes to do?) What is he/she interested in? (O.K., good.) What do you like to do? Which type of person do you think you are? (Are you more interested in persons or things?) You have read about many people in books or have watched them in the movies or on television - i f you could do anything in the whole world that you wanted, what would you do? Thank you very much for talking to me. You have been very helpful. Appendix Person Items Not Selected f o r the Preliminary Forms of the PTSR Grade 4 Helpfulness Take toys and games to l i t t l e c h i ldren who are i n the h o s p i t a l Help the teacher plan the a c t i v i t i e s f or the l a s t day of school Considerateness T e l l the other kids to be nice to someone whose pet has j u s t died S o c i a b i l i t y I n v i t e kids from another school for a p i c n i c and games i n the park Stay overnight at d i f f e r e n t f r i e n d s ' houses Meet a friend's grandparents Play Talk to people about games that are fun Interest Learn how people i n other parts of the country l i v e Sentience Try to understand why two of your friends don't l i k e each other Understand my parents Grade 6 Helpfulness Go shopping for a neighbor who i s s i c k Help a f r i e n d prepare a t a l k f o r class Considerateness Change the topic of conversation when i t i s embarrassing to someone S o c i a b i l i t y Organize a new club i n your school Go to a party where there are l o t s of other kids Talk to people about things they are interested i n Play P a r t i c i p a t e i n team sports Interest .. Read biographies of great men and women Sentience Find out what makes people " t i c k " Be able to see things from the other person's point of view 160 Appendix Thing Items Not Selected for the Preliminary Forms of the PTSR Grade 4 Animal Watch a bird build a nest Physical science Learn what causes volcanoes to erupt Mechanical activities Watch a person tune a piano Build a birdhouse Frame my favorite picture Biological science Put together a skeleton of a raccoon Outdoor activities Explore a lake on a raft Discover a cave and explore i t Crafts, Hobbies, Games Collect rocks and fossils Make your own Christmas tree decorations Grade 6 Animal Watch a calf being born Physical science Draw a map of earthquake zones in North America Mechanical activities Hook up the speakers to a stereo Panel a wall in your home Take apart an old television set for the fun of i t Biological science Learn the names of the bones of the body Outdoor activities Learn how to steer a sailboat Mark a t r a i l through unexplored country Crafts, Hobbies, Games Collect records I really like Make things out of leather, like belts and sandals 161 Appendix D. PTSR-4 Preliminary Form 0 would not l i k e to do i t at a l l 1 would not l i k e to do i t very much 2 would l i k e to do i t 3 would l i k e to do i t quite a l o t 4 would r e a l l y l i k e to do i t 1. Teach a dog t r i c k s l i k e s i t up, r o l l over, or l i e down. 2. Cheer up an old person who i s lonely. 3. Give a birthday party-for a f r i e n d of yours. 4. Remove the cover from a phone and see what i s ins i d e . 5. Learn how to set up camp and b u i l d a campfire. 6. Think about the reasons why people do things. 7. Run a f i l m projector. 8. Be f r i e n d l y to everyone. 9. Observe the e c l i p s e of the sun through smoked glass. 10. Take a l o s t c h i l d to h i s home. 11. F i x a broken toy. 12. Get a chance to meet new people. 13. Ask someone to play a game with you who i s playing alone. 14. Do an experiment mixing chemicals. 15. Carve a f l u t e out of wood. 16. Give d i r e c t i o n s to someone who has j u s t moved to your town. 17. Be on the playground when there are a l o t of other kids around. 18. Learn to recognize c o n s t e l l a t i o n s of s t a r s , l i k e the Big Dipper. 19. L i s t e n to your parents and t h e i r friends t a l k . 162 163 0 would not l i k e to do i t at a l l 1 would not l i k e to dp i t very much 2 would l i k e to do i t 3 would l i k e to do i t quite a l o t 4 would r e a l l y l i k e to do i t 20. Understand myself. 21. Watch a tadpole turn into a frog. 22. Learn to run a p r i n t i n g press. 23. Repair the brake of your b i c y c l e . 24. Comfort a close f r i e n d who i s unhappy. 25. Do an experiment growing plants with d i f f e r e n t amounts of l i g h t and water. 26. Watch other people at a public gathering. 27. Agree to take your turn reading to a b l i n d c h i l d on Saturday mornings. 28. Use a compass to guide you i n the woods. 29. S i t around and chat with your f r i e n d s , j u s t f o r the fun of i t . 30. Help a f r i e n d with a paper route so that the f r i e n d w i l l not be l a t e to dinner. 31. Look at a drop of pond water under a microscope. 32. Be known by others as a f r i e n d l y person. 33. Learn the names of d i f f e r e n t kinds of trees. 34. Help someone who i s having trouble with t h e i r studies. 35. Attend obedience t r i a l s at a dog show. 36. Watch a jeweller repair a wristwatch. 37. Introduce a new classmate to your f r i e n d s . 38. Learn how to test drinking water to see i f i t i s safe. 39. Include someone i n a conversation who has not had a chance to t a l k . 40. Make your own k i t e and f l y i t . Appendix Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTSR-4 Preliminary Form Person Scale Items 2, * IQ, 24, 27,* 30, 34* 13, 16,* 37, 39* 3, 8, 12,* 17, 29,* 32* 19, 26* 6,* 20 Thing Scale Items 1, 35* 9,* 14, 18, 38* 4, 7, 11, 22,* 23,* 36* 21, 25,* 31,* 33 5, 28* 15,* 40 * These items also appear on Rational Category Helpfulness Considerateness S o c i a b i l i t y Play Interest Sentience Rational Category Animals Ph y s i c a l science Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s B i o l o g i c a l science Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s C r a f t s , Hobbies and Games PTSR-6 Preliminary Form 164 Appendix PTSR-6 Preliminary Form 0 would not l i k e to do i t at a l l 1 would not l i k e to do i t very much 2 would l i k e to do i t 3 would l i k e to do i t quite a l o t 4 would r e a l l y l i k e to do i t 1. J o i n i n and help out a disorganized children's game at a pu b l i c park. 2. Watch a jeweller repair a wristwatch. 3. Take upon yourself the b u i l d i n g of a stereo set or a ham radio. 4. Be known by others as a f r i e n d l y person. 5. Interview people f o r employment i n a large h o s p i t a l . 6. Observe the e c l i p s e of the sun through smoked glasses. 7. Explore the ocean f l o o r i n a one-man sub. 8. Repair the brake of your b i c y c l e . 9. Process computer cards i n a large i n d u s t r i a l center. 10. Think about the reasons why people do things. 11. Breed rare forms of t r o p i c a l f i s h . 12. Learn to run a p r i n t i n g press. 13. Climb a mountain on your own. 14. Cheer up an old person who i s lonely. 15. Stop to watch a piece of machinery at work on the s t r e e t . 16. Attend obedience t r i a l s at a dog show. 17. L i s t e n i n on a conversation between two people i n a crowd. 165 166 18. Give di r e c t i o n s to someone who has j u s t moved to your town, 19. Become p r o f i c i e n t i i i the art of glass-blowing, 20. Carve a f l u t e out of wood. 21. Interview people for a newspaper column. 22. Use a compass to guide you i n the woods. 23. Remove the back of a -mechanical toy to see how i t worked. 24. Get a chance to meet new people. 25. St r i k e up a conversation with a beggar on a street corner. 26. Look at a drop of pond water under a microscope. 27. Attempt to f i x your own watch, toaster, etc. 28. Help someone who i s having trouble with t h e i r studies. 29. Observe the path of a comet through a telescope.. 30. Do an experiment growing plants with d i f f e r e n t amounts of l i g h t and water. 31. L i s t e n with empathic i n t e r e s t to an old-timer who s i t s next to you on a bus. 32. Agree to take your turn reading to a b l i n d c h i l d on Saturday mornings. 33. Note the idiosyncracies of people about you. 34. Include someone i n a conversation who has not had a chance to t a l k . 35. Make f i r s t attempts to get to know a new neighbor. 36. Learn how to test drinking water to see i f i t i s safe. 37. Attend an address given by a person who character you admire, without being aware of the topic of the address. 38. S i t around and chat with your f r i e n d s , j u s t for the fun of i t . 39. Attempt to comfort a t o t a l stranger who had j u s t met with a tragedy. 167 40. Watch other people at a public gathering, 41. Do sky-diving. 42. Gain a reputation f or giving good advice for personal problems. 43. Make a hobby of photographing nature scenes and developing and p r i n t i n g the pictures yourself. 44. Help a group of ch i l d r e n plan a Halloween party. Appendix Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTSR-6 Preliminary Form Person Scale Items 14,* 28,* 32* 18,* 34* 4,* 24,* 38* 40* 10* 1, 5, 17, 21, 25, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, 44 Thing Scale Items 16* 6,* 36* 2, * 8,* 12* 26, * 30* 22* 20* 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 23, 27, 29, 41, 43 Rational Category Helpfulness Considerateness S o c i a b i l i t y Play Interest Sentience L i t t l e ' s TPIQ Rational Category Animals Ph y s i c a l science Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s B i o l o g i c a l science Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s C rafts, Hobbies and Games L i t t l e ' s TPIQ These items also appear on PTSR-4 Preliminary Form 168 Appendix F Instructions f o r PTSR Put gender, age, grade, teacher's name on paper. Below are l i s t e d some things that you might l i k e to do and some you might not l i k e to do. Beside the number of each thing l i s t e d there i s a space. In that space we would l i k e you to t e l l us how much you would l i k e to do that a c t i v i t i y by w r i t i n g i n a number. The numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4. If you would not l i k e to do the a c t i v i t y at a l l , write an 0 i n the space. I f you would l i k e to do the a c t i v i t y , or would not mind doing the a c t i v i t y write a 2 i n the space. I f you would l i k e to do the a c t i v i t y quite a l o t , write a 3 i n the space, and i f you r e a l l y l i k e to do the a c t i v i t y , write a 4 i n the space. Please put only one number i n each space and t r y not to use the same number again and again. Try to use a l l the numbers i f you can. I have written the numbers and what they stand for on the board; you also have them written on both pages of the forms before you on your desk. Let's look at item number 1. "Help the kindergarten teacher i n your school (or nearby school) i n a gym c l a s s for the small c h i l d r e n . " Now you must decide how much or how l i t t l e you would l i k e to do that a c t i v i t y . 0 would not l i k e to do i t at a l l 1 would not l i k e to do i t very much 2 would l i k e to do i t 3 would l i k e to i t quite a l o t 4 would r e a l l y l i k e to do i t Place the r i g h t number i n the space on the l e f t . Let's go on to the second item. 169 Appendix PTPR Preliminary Form A He l i k e s school a l o t 1. He plays with dogs a l o t 2. He l i k e d to act out characters from t e l e v i s i o n , movie or books 3. When someone gets hurt, he helps them 4. He i s interested i n insets 5. He would l i k e to watch bees make honey 6. He i s always around other people 7. He i s interested i n a l l sorts of games 8. He t r i e s to get conversations going 9. He l i k e s to work on his b i c y c l e 10. Maybe he w i l l be a s c i e n t i s t when he grows up 11. When the other kids don't want someone to play with them, he t e l l s them to give the person a chan ce 12. He l i k e s to be i n clubs 13. He would enjoy looking at the stars and planets through a telescrope 14. He l i k e s to get people together to play games 15. He l i k e s to watch houses being b u i l t 16. I t seems l i k e he knows a l o t about people and how they f e e l 17. He gives classmates part of h i s lunch when they forget t h e i r lunch or money 18. He l i k e s to v i s i t stores that s e l l games and hobby supplies. 19. When he meets someone new, he always has something to say 20. He l i k e s to bu i l d d i f f e r e n t kinds of things 21. He gets along well with other kids i n the classroom 22. He l i k e s to go on camping t r i p s 23. He often reads adventure stores 24. He doesn't l i k e to play alone 25. He reads a l o t of books about people's l i v e s 26. He would l i k e to have a v i s i t o r from a foreign country stay i n his home 27. He has a l o t of friends 28. He i s interested i n e l e c t r i c i t y and things l i k e that 29. He i s more interested i n persons than things 30. He l i k e s to carve things 31. He i s more interested i n things than persons 32. A l l the kids l i k e him Appendix Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of PTPR-A Preliminary Form Person Scale Items 3, 17 11 6, 8, 12, 19, 21 14, 24 2 16, 25, 26 29 27, 32 Thing Scale Items 1, 4 10, 13, 28 9, 13, 28 5 22, 23 7, 18, 30 31 Rational Category Helpfulness Considerateness Sociability Play Interest Sentience Direct statement Likeability Rational Category Animals Physical science Mechanical activities Biological science Outdoor activities Crafts, Hobbies and Games Direct statement 173 Appendix H-^  PTPR Preliminary Form B She l i k e s school a l o t 1. She l i k e s to learn about f i s h 2. She l i k e s to draw pictures of her friends 3. She l i k e s to go hiking i n the woods 4. She likes to teach younger kids to play games. 5. She has a l o t of hobbies 6. She l i k e s to have kids come over a f t e r school or i_. stay overnight 7. She l i k e s to give people things to cheer them up 8. She would l i k e to v i s i t a dam and see how i t works 9. She l i k e s to make things out of clay 10. She smiles at people a l o t 11. She c o l l e c t s things 12. She might be an inventor when she grows up 13. She plays with j u s t about everybody 14. She l i k e s to make new friends 15. She l i k e s to give book reports about famous people 16. She r e a l l y enjoys reading books about science 17. She l i k e s to take things apart and put them back together 18. She l i k e s to see what people do i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s 19. She would enjoy being a s c i e n t i s t who studies the stars and planets 20. She enjoys learning about people from other countries 21. She l i k e s to help her parents when they are f i x i n g things 22. She enjoys working on group projects 23. She l i k e s to look at things under the microscope 24. She l i k e s to show new kids around the school and playground 25. When other kids can't get t h e i r school work done, she helps them 26. She l i k e s to explore out of doors 27. She has a l o t of friends 28. She plays f a i r with the other kids on the playground 29. She i s more interested i n persons than things 30. She l i k e s to watch birds 31. A l l the kids l i k e her 32. She i s more interested i n things than persons Appendix Scoring Key and the Rational Categories Sampled by the Items of the PTPR-B Preliminary Form Person Scale Items 7, 25 24 6, 10, 14, 22, 28 4, 13 2 15, 18, 20 29 27, 31 Thing Scale Items 1, 30 8, 16, 19 12, 17, 21 23 3, 26 5, 9, 11 32 Rational Category Helpfulness Considerateness Sociability Play Interest Sentience Direct statement Likeability Rational Category Animals Physical science Mechanical activities Biological science Outdoor activities Crafts, Hobbies and Games Direct statement 176 Appendix I Instructions for PTPR Put your f i r s t name and the f i r s t letter of your last name on your form, also your grade and your teacher's name. Now pull apart your pages so you can see the names at the tops of both sheets of paper. If you are a boy, you should have the names of a l l the boys in the class on both sheets of paper. If you are a g i r l , you should have a l l the g i r l s ' names. I xvill read the l i s t s of names and you check both of your pages to see that they are a l l there. We have been having boys and gi r l s describe things they like to do, or would at some time like to do, or things they are interested in. Now we want to know how many boys and g i r l s here are interested in the same sorts of things. We have written down lots of things that kids might be interested in doing, and we want you to check which boys and gi r l s in your class you think are interested in these things. You just guess the best you can. Please take out a ruler or a piece of paper and put i t under the f i r s t sentence, "He likes school a lot" or "She likes school a lot". Now look at the names of your classmates. Which ones like school a lot? Place an X in the box under the name of everyone who likes school a lot. You may place an X under your own name i f you like school a lot. Now drop your ruler down to the next sentence. 177 Appendix J Person and Thing Items from the preliminary forms of PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 which were eliminated PTSR-4 Items P6-2 Cheer up an old person who i s lo n e l y . P4-3 Give a birthday party f o r a f r i e n d of yours. P6-12 Get a chance to meet new people. P4-13 Ask someone to play a game with you who i s playing alone. P6-16 Give d i r e c t i o n s to someone who has j u s t moved to your town. P4-17 Be on the playground when there are a l o t of other kids around. P4-19 L i s t e n to your parents and t h e i r friends t a l k . P6-27 Agree to take your turn reading to a b l i n d c h i l d on Saturday mornings. P6-29 S i t around and chat with your f r i e n d s , j u s t for the fun of i t . P4-30 Help a f r i e n d with a paper route so that the f r i e n d w i l l not be l a t e to dinner. T4-4 Remove the cover from a phone and see what i s ins i d e . T4-11 Fix a broken toy. T4-21 Watch a tadpole turn into a frog. T6-28 Use a compass to guide you i n the woods. T4-33 Learn the names of d i f f e r e n t kinds of trees. T6-35 Attend obedience t r i a l s at a dog show. T6-38 Learn how to test drinking water to see i f i t i s safe. T4-40 Make your own k i t e and f l y i t . 178 179 PTSR-6 Items PA-1 Join i n and help out a disorganized children's game at a public park. PA-5 Interview people for employment i n a large h o s p i t a l . PA-17 L i s t e n i n on a conversation between two people i n a crowd. PA-18 Give d i r e c t i o n s to someone who has j u s t moved to your town. PA-21 Interview people f o r a newspaper column. PA-25 Stri k e up a conversation with a beggar on a street corner. PA-31 L i s t e n with empathic i n t e r e s t to an old-timer who s i t s next to you on a bus. PA-33 Note the idiosyncrasies of people about you. PA-35 Make f i r s t attempts to get to know a new neighbor. PA-37 Attend an address given by a person whose character you admire, without being aware of the topic of the address. P6-38 S i t around and chat with your f r i e n d s , j u s t f o r the fun of i t . PA-42 Gain a reputation f or giving good advice for personal problems. TA-9 Process computer cards i n a large i n d u s t r i a l centre TA-11 Breed rare forms of t r o p i c a l f i s h . T6-16 Attend obedience t r i a l s at a dog show. TA-19 Become p r o f i c i e n t i n the art of glass-blowing. T6-20 Carve a fluteout of wood. T6-22 Use a compass to guide you i n the woods. TA-27 Attempt to f i x your own watch, toaster, etc. T6-30 Do an experiment growing plants with d i f f e r e n t amounts of l i g h t and water. TA-41 Do sky-diving. TA-43 Make a hobby of photographing nature scenes and developing and p r i n t i n g the pictures yourself. Appendix F i n a l Form of PTSR-4 Your name Grade Teacher's name Sex: M F Age: ' Birthdate: 0 would not l i k e to do i t at a l l 1 would not l i k e to do i t very much 2 would l i k e to do i t 3 would l i k e to do i t quite a l o t 4 would r e a l l y l i k e to do i t 1. Teach a dog t r i c k s l i k e s i t up, r o l l over, or l i e down. 2. Learn how to set up camp and b u i l d a campfire. 3. Think about the reasons why people do things 4. Run a f i l m projector. 5. Be f r i e n d l y to everyone. 6. Observe the e c l i p s e of the sun through smoked glass. 7. Take a l o s t c h i l d to h i s home. 8. Do an experiment mixing chemicals. 9. Carve a f l u t e out of wood. 10. Learn to recognize c o n s t e l l a t i o n s of st a r s , l i k e the Big Dipper, 11. Understand myself. 12. Include someone i n a conversation who has not had a chance to t a l k . 13. Learn to run a p r i n t i n g press. 14. Repair the brake of your b i c y c l e . 15. Comfort a close f r i e n d who i s unhappy. 181 182 16. Do an experiment growing plants with d i f f e r e n t amounts of l i g h t and water. _17. Watch other people at a public gathering. _18. Look at a drop of pond water under a microscope. _19. Be known by others as a f r i e n d l y person. _20. Help someone who i s having trouble with t h e i r studies. _21. Watch a jewe l l e r repair a wristwatch. _22. Introduce a new classmate to your f r i e n d s . Appendix K 2 F i n a l Form of PTSR-6 Your name Grade Teacher 1s name Sex: M F Age: ' " ' Birthdate 0 would not l i k e to do i t at a l l 1 would not l i k e to do i t very much 2 would l i k e to do i t 3 would l i k e to do i t quite a l o t 4 would r e a l l y l i k e to do i t 1. Watch a jeweller repair a wristwatch. 2. Take upon yourself the b u i l d i n g of a stereo set or a ham radio. 3. Be known by others as a f r i e n d l y person. 4. Watch other people at a public gathering. 5. Observe the e c l i p s e of the sun through smoked glasses. 6. Explore the ocean f l o o r i n a one-man sub. 7. Repair the brake of your b i c y c l e . 8. Think about the reasons why people do things. 9. Learn to run a p r i n t i n g press. 10. Climb a mountain on your own. _11. Cheer up an old person who i s lonely. _12. Stop to watch a piece of machinery at work on the s t r e e t . 13. Help a group of c h i l d r e n plan a Halloween party. _14. Remove the back of a mechnical toy to see how i t worked. 183 184 15. Get a chance to meet new people, 16. Look at a drop of pond water under a microscope. 17. Help someone who i s having trouble with t h e i r studies, 18. Observe the path of a comet through a telescope. 19. Agree to take your turn reading to a b l i n d c h i l d on Saturday mornings. 20. Include someone i n a conversation who has not had a chance to t a l k . _21. Learn how to t e s t drinking water to see i f i t i s safe. 22. Attempt to comfort a t o t a l stranger who had j u s t met with a tragedy. Appendix K3 Scoring Keys f or PTSR-4 and PTSR-6 F i n a l Forms NPTSR-4 Person Scale: Items 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22 Thing Scale: Items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21 PTSR-6 Person Scale: Items 3, 4, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22 Thing Scale: Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21 185 Appendix L Person and Thing Items Selected for the Final Form of the Person Thing Peer Report Person Items When someone gets hurt, he/she helps them. (PA-3) It seems like he/she knows a lot about people and how they feel. (PA-16) He/she would like to have a vi s i t o r from a foreign country stay in his/ her home. (PA-26) He/she likes to give people things to cheer them up. (PB-7) When the other kids don't want someone to play with them, he/she te l l s them to give the person a chance. (PA-11) He/she likes to teach younger kids how to play games. (PB-4) He/she enjoys learning about people from other countries. (PB-20) He/she likes to show new kids around the school and playground. (PB-24) He/she smiles at people a lot. (PB-10) When other kids can't get their school work done, he/she helps them. (PB-25) When he/she meets someone new, he/she always has something to say. (PA-19) He/she plays with just about everybody. (PB-13) Thing Items He/she would enjoy being a scientist who studies the stars and plants. (TB-19) He/she likes to take things apart and put them back together. (TB-17) He/she is interested in insects. (TA-4) He/she has a lot of hobbies. (TB-5) He/she likes to watch houses being built.(TA-15) Maybe he/she w i l l be a scientist when he/she grows up. (TA-10) 186 187 He/she i s interested i n e l e c t r i c i t y and things l i k e that. ClA-28) He/she l i k e s to carve things, (TA-30) He/she would l i k e to v i s i t a dam and see how i t works. (TB-8) He/she enjoys looking at things under the microscope. (TB-23) He/she might be an inventor when he/she grows up. (TB-12) He/she l i k e s to b u i l d d i f f e r e n t kinds of things. (TA-20) He/she l i k e s to v i s i t stores that s e l l games and hobby supplies. (TA-18) He/she l i k e s to go on camping t r i p s (TA-22) Note; The codes i n parentheses ind i c a t e which preliminary form the the item was i n and the order i n which i t appeared on the form. Appendix M Person and Thing Items From the Preliminary Forms of PTPR which were Eliminated Person Items He/she l i k e s to act out characters from t e l e v i s i o n , movies or books (PA-2) He/she i s always around other people (PA-6) He/she t r i e s to get conversations going (PA-8) He/she l i k e s to be i n clubs (PA-12) He/she l i k e s to get people together to play games (PA-14) He/she gives classmates part of his/her lunch when they forget t h e i r lunch or money (PA-17) He/she gets along w e l l with other kids i n the classroom (PA-21) He/she doesn't l i k e to play alone (PA-24) He/she reads a i o t of books about people's l i v e s (PA-25) He/she i s more interes t e d i n persons than things (PA-29) He/she l i k e s to draw pictures of his/her friends (PB-2) He/she l i k e s to have kids come over a f t e r school or stay overnight (PB-6) He/she l i k e s to make new friends (PB-14) He/she l i k e s to give book reports about famous people (PB-15) He/she l i k e s to see what people do i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s (PB-18) He/she enjoys working on group projects (PB-22) He/she plays f a i r with the other kids on the playground (PB-28) He/she i s more interested i n persons than things (PB-29) Thing Items He/she plays with dogs a l o t (TA-1) 188 189 He/she would like to watch bees make honey (TA-5) He/she is interested in a l l sorts of games (TA-7) He/she likes to work on his/her bicycle (TA-9) He/she would enjoy looking at the stars and planets through a telescope (TA-13) He/she often reads adventure stories (TA-23) He/she i s more interested in things than persons (TA-31) He/she likes to learn about fish (TB-1) He/she likes to go hiking in the woods (TB-3) He/she likes to make things out of clay (TB-9) He/she collects things (TB-11) He/she really enjoys reading books about science (TB-16) He/she likes to help his/her parents when they are fixing things (TB-21) He/she likes to explore out of doors (TB-26) He/she likes to watch birds (TB-30) He/she i s more interested in things than persons (TB-32) Appendix N Rational Categories f o r Person and Thing Items Selected f o r PTPR P i n a l Form and the number of items retained from each category Category No. of Items selected f o r PTPR I. Helpfulness 3 II . Considerateness 2 I I I . S o c i a b i l i t y 2 IV. Play 2 V. Interest 0 VI. Sentience 3 T o t a l 12 I. Animals 1 I I . P h y sical science 4 ,111. Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s 4 IV. B i o l o g i c a l science 1 V. Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s 1 VI. Crafts, hobbies and games 3 To t a l 14 Item Code PA-3, PB-7, PB-25 PA-11, PB-24 PA-19, PB-10 PB-4, PB-13 PA-16, PA-26, PB-20 TA-4 TA-10, TA-28, TB-8, TB-19 TA-15, TA-20, TB-12, TB-17 TB-23 TA-22 TA-18, TA-39, TB-5 190 Appendix 0 Rational Categories f o r Person and Thing Items selected f o r PTSR f i n a l forms, number retained from each and number of items f o r Person Thing P i c t u r e Test constructed from each category Category I. Helpfulness I I . Considerateness I I I . S o c i a b i l i t y IV. Play V. Interest VI. Sentience Totals for P items Number of items selected f o r PTSR 7 (3) 3 (2) 5 (2) 0 (0) 2 CD 3 (2) 20 No. of items constructed 3 2 3 2 1 1 12 I. Animals I I . P h ysical science I I I . Mechanical a c t i v i t i e s IV. B i o l o g i c a l science V. Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s VI. Crafts, Hobbies and Games Totals f o r T items 1 (1) 1 6 (3) 2 10 (4) 4 3 (2) 2 3 (1) 0 1 CD 3 24 12 Note: The numbers i n parentheses r e f e r to the number of items selected from each category f o r PTSR-4 f i n a l form 191 Appendix P Description of Person Thing Picture Test Person Pictures 1. Target c h i l d (TC) holding a newborn baby 2. TC giving a present to a c h i l d i n a h o s p i t a l bed 3. TC helping a c h i l d who has been hurt 4. TC pushing a wheelchair with c h i l d with leg i n a cast 5. TC holding an umbrella over c h i l d who i s carrying a stack of books 6. TC walking by a group of c h i l d r e n , everyone i s waving and smiling 7. TC p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the fun of a birthday party along with a group of c h i l d r e n 8. TC picking up items from the f l o o r that have s p i l l e d from an adult's grocery bag 9. TC showing a younger c h i l d how to hold a tennis racket 10. TC playing v o l l e y b a l l with a group of ch i l d r e n 11. TC shaking hands with a man who appears to be from a foreign country 12. TC chatting with two friends Thing Pictures 1. TC looking at something under a microscope 2. TC watching a jeweller repair a wristwatch 3. TC working on a b i c y c l e 4. TC playing with a chemistry set 5. TC observing heavy equipment (dump truck) at work 6. TC teaching a dog to jump through a hoop 7. TC threading a f i l m projector 8. TC observing the stars through a telescope 192 193 _2--9. TC carving a f l u t e 10. TC chasing a b u t t e r f l y with a net 11. TC photographing a spicier i n i t s web 12. TC Putting together a puzzle 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093834/manifest

Comment

Related Items