UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of the California test of personality; intermediate series, form A Kenny, Douglas Timothy 1947

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1947_A8 K3 A4.pdf [ 7.71MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107085.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107085-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107085-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107085-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107085-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107085-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107085-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107085-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107085.ris

Full Text

.<5 M . An Analysis Of The C a l i f o r n i a Of Personality; Intermediate Series, Form A i a Test JY**^f "by DOUGLAS TIMOTHY KENNY A Thesis submitted in P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of The Requirements f o r the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of' Psychology -The University of B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l , 1947. ACKNOWLEDGMENT S The author is grateful for the f a c i l i t i e s made possible by the authorities at Kitsilano Junior High School for the study of the California Test of Personality. He gratefully acknowledges his indebtedness to his advisor, Professor P.T. Tyler, for guidance during the course of this study. He wishes to express his appreciation to Professor E.S.W. Belyea for the benefit of individual discussions on varied aspects of the general f i e l d of personality. Although these acknowledgments relieve the conscience rather than repay the debt, the author wishes to state these individuals are in no way to blame for any mistakes', biases or astigmatisms that may unwittingly have entered into the author's approach to this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. The. Problem Under Investigation 1 I I . The Problem of Personality-Measurement 6 Meaning of Measurement f o r Personality Questionnaires 6 Concept of R e l i a b i l i t y . . . ; 9 Concept of V a l i d i t y 9 I I I . H i s t o r i c a l Review of the Problem 12 R e l i a b i l i t i e s of Representative Person-a l i t y Questionnaires ; 14 Item V a l i d i t y Studies 14 Val i d a t i o n by Teacher Rating 17 Val i d a t i o n According to Test Intercorrelat-ions 19 Intercorrelat ions of Sub-tests 2o Factor Analysis Studies on Personality Questionnaires 21 The General Case For and Against Person-a l i t y Questionnaires...- 24 IV. The Testing and Rating Procedure 31 Subjects 31 Nature of California. Test of Personality and Detroit Adjustment Inventory 32 Teacher Ratings 34 V. D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of Students 36 Differences between Grade V I I I . and X. Students ; 36 Comparative Data on Personality Scores of Canadian and American Students 40 Sex Differences 40 R e l i a b i l i t e s of Means and Skewness of Distributions 50 VI. R e l i a b i l i t y of Measures 54 V I I . Item Analysis 59 V I I I . V a l i d a t i o n by Outside C r i t e r i a . . . 67 Validation by Test Intercorrelat ion 67 Val i d a t i o n by Teacher Rating 68 IX. Intercorrelations and Interpretation of the Relationships among the Test Variables ....72 Correlation Cluster Analysis 74 Cor r e l a t i o n - P r o f i l e Analysis 76 Pact or Analysis of Sub-Tests 77 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Factors 81 X. Summary and Conclusions 85 Appendices: A. Copy of C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality Intermediate Series, Form A Copy of Detroit Adjustment Inventory, Alpha Form 92 B. Specimen of Rating Scale and i n s t r u c t -ions 93 • C. Phi Coefficients f o r Each Item Accord-ing to Each of Three C r i t e r i a 94 Bibliography , . .107 TABLE LI9r QP TABLES PAGE I. R e l i a b i l i t i e s of Representative Personality Questionnaires 14a I I . V a l i d i t y C oefficients of Representative Personality Questionnaires Based on Teacher Ratings 18a I I I . V a l i d i t y C oefficients of Representative Questionnaires Based on Test Correlations. 19a IV. Contents'of C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality.. 33 V. Comparison of Sub-Tests and T o t a l Scores of Grade V I I I . and X 37 VI. Comparative Data on Personality Scores of Canadian and American Students 39 VII." .Mean Scores and the Extent of Sex Differences f o r Grade V I I I . Students 42 V I I I . Mean Scores and the Extent of Sex Differences f o r Grade X. Students 43 IX. Mean Differences and T Ratios f o r Grade VIII. G i r l s and Grade X. G i r l s 45 X. Mean Differences and T Ratios f o r Grade V I I I . Boys and Grade X. Boys 46 XI. Mean Differences and T Ratios f o r Grade V I I I . G i r l s and Grade X. Boys 48 XII . Mean Differences and T Ratios for' Grade VIII . Boys and Grade X. G i r l s 49 XII I . Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors of Means and Skewness f o r the Test V a r i -ables of Grade V I I I . Students 51 XIV. Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Errors of Means and Skewness f o r the T est V a r i -ables of Grade X. Students 52 XV. Richardson-Kuder R e l i a b i l i t y and Test-Ret est Correlations f o r Grade VIII. and X. 55 XVI. Comparison's of R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s 58 XVII. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Item V a l i d i t i e s According to Bach of Three C r i t e r i a 62 XVIII. Mean Phi Coefficients by Grades and C r i t e r i a . 63 XIX. Number of Items in Self-Adjustment S u b t e s t s V a l i d at \% and o% Levels 65 XX. Number of Items in S o c i a l Adjustment Sub-T ests V a l i d at 1$ and b% Levels 66 XXI. Correlation Between T eacher Ratings and .Five Measures in the C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l t y £ 69 XXII. Intercorrelations of Grade X. Students 250 Students 73 XXIII. Sub-Tests P a l l i n g in Similar Correlation Clusters 75 XXIV. Factor Loadings,' Communalit ies , R e l i a b i l i t i e s , S p e c i f i c i t i e s and the Variances Attributable to Uniqueness and to Sampling Errors f o r the Sub-Tests - 250 Students in Grade V I I I . -O r i g i n a l T est 78 & & & AN ANALYSIS of the CALIFORNIA TEST OP PERSONALITY; INIERMEDIATE SERIES, FORM A. by DOUGLAS T IMOT HY KENNY ABSTRACT. OF A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT of T HE REQUIREMENTS FOR T HE DEGREE of MASTER OF ARTS IN THE DEPARTMENT of PSYCHOLOGY THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA APRIL, 1947. -1-An Analysis Of The C a l i f o r n i a Test Of Personality; Intermediate Series. Form A ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s thesis was to make a comprehensive s t a t i s t i c a l evaluation of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, Intermediate Series, Form A. This test was given to^IT3--hpys and 155 g i r l s in ten classes in "*s. Grade VIII, and 125 boys and 125 g i r l s in eight classes i n Grade X. A l l subjects were tested as a group i n t h e i r respective classes at the K i t s i l a n o Junior-Senior High School, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Of the students o r i g i n a l l y tested, 100 students in each of the two grades were retested approximately six and one half months l a t e r . In resume of the r e s u l t s , one may say that with-in the l i m i t s of th i s study the following general conclusions appear, 1. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the meam ec ores at the T$ l e v e l between Grade VIII and X students on s e l f adjustment, sense of personal worth, s o c i a l adjustment, freedom from a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies, school relations and t o t a l adjustment. S i g n i f i c a n t sex differences exist on various measures, both within grades and between grades. Where s i g n i f i c a n t grade and sex differences exist, a separate set of norms should be used in scoring such groups. 2. The manual norms would appear to be of -2-l i t t l e value in the school system where t h i s study took place. 3. Because of the.high average scores on the various measures and the extreme negative skewness on many of the subtests, these measures probably do not discriminate between those students who are exceptionally well adjusted from those who are w e l l adjusted. 4. The Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the subtests indicate that they are not high enough fo r i n d i v i d u a l diagnosis. The t o t a l adjustment score f o r Grade VTII pupils is the only measure s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e f o r i n d i v i d u a l diagnosis. The t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s indicate that what i s being measured i s perhaps something t r a n s i t o r y , rather than the fundamental pattern or organization of personality. 5. According to an item analysis, the test appears to be more v a l i d or i n t e r n a l l y consistent f o r Grade VIII students than f o r Grade X students. 6. Because items are more v a l i d when correlated i B i t h subtest score than when correlated with s e l f or s o c i a l or t o t a l adjustment score, i t is suggested that the scores on the subtests may be more meaningful than those on s e l f or s o c i a l or t o t a l adjustment. 7. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the Detroit Adjustment Inventory and the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality is .51, and when corrected f o r attenuation i t becomes .65. -3-8. Correlations between f i v e measures on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality and teacher ratings of adjustment vary from -,145 to*.223. 9. In the maito. there are s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -ships between the various subtests. The subtests are probably not measuring uncorrelated unique t r a i t s . 10. The findings of co r r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r analysis, c o r r e l a t i o n p r o f i l e analysis and f a c t o r analysis tend to corroborate one another. Three factors or clusters of t r a i t s w i l l account f o r most of the relationships among the subtests. Factor one was named a general adjustment factor, factor two was described as a sense of personal security or s e l f assurance, and factor three was related primarily to c o r d i a l relations with people and respect f o r s o c i a l standards. -1-An Analysis Of The C a l i f o r n i a Test  Of Personality: Intermediate Series*. Form A Chapter I The Problem Under Investigation The s p e c i a l demands of a school program have led school counsellors to place emphasis on the diagnostic functions of the counselling interview. It i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important f o r school morale, student adjustment, and administrative reasons, that those students who are f a i l i n g to make an adequate adjustment to l i f e "be detected and remedial treatment applied. This often means that a counselling evaluation of adjustment must "be made of students about whom r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known. If w e l l - s t a f f e d teams of school counsellors were able to make a study of each individual student, i t is quite l i k e l y that most student adjustment problems would be discovered. Unfortunately, the trained personnel charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of detecting student adjustment problems are very few in number, and the demands upon t h e i r judgment tremendous. The time a v a i l -able f o r each student interview is to be counted in minutes. Hence, any instrument which enables the school •counsellor to give more time to those students w.no have d i f f i c u l t i e s in adjusting to l i f e by separating them from .those who are adjusting adequately i s worth serious study i n a school counselling program. The C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, Inter-mediate Series, was developed with these considerations in mind. This test i s being used extensively i n the Vancouver schools in the guidance of students. At present, however, very l i t t l e published research concerning t h i s t e s t has appeared. The purpose of t h i s thesis i s to produce empirical evidence as to the possible worth of this t e s t . The f i r s t aim of t h i s thesis is to make a short analysis of the main problems involved in measuring personality by means of the questionnaire technique. Only by so doing can the inherent limitations of personality questionnaires, such as the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, be made r e a l l y c l e a r . For analyzing these problems of personality measurement one w i l l be able to see c l e a r l y the main d i f f i c u l t i e s of measuring q u a n t i t a t i v e l y the personality of an individual by the questionnaire technique. A review of previous work on personality questionnaires, as i t relates to the aims of t h i s research, w i l l be presented. Such information, coupled with an analysis of the general case f o r and against personality -3-questionnaires, w i l l provide a sound "basis to evaluate . the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality and the findings of t h i s study. The C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality used i n t h i s study was Porra A of the Intermediate Series designed for--grades seven to ten. The f i r s t problem is to determine i f the set of test norms are suitable f o r such^age range. As only one set'of norms i s provided f o r an age range of - ---approximately thirteen to sixteen, i t would seem worthwhile to see i f there are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the ages f o r which the test i s designed. A secondary but • related problem i s to determine i f the test norms are s u i t -able f o r both sexes. Previous findings on other tests have shown that sex differences do sometimes e x i s t . In the study of the value of any measuring instrument, records of the skewness of the d i s t r i b u t i o n are important considerations. I f there are marked deviations from normality in this t e s t , t h i s skewing may repres-ent the effect of a defective measuring scale. Another problem i s to determine i f the personality test i s r e l i a b l e . This problem involves the r e l i a b i l i t y of the whole test and the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the separate sub-t e s t s . One of the primary considerations i n the -4-determining the worth of a test i s ' i t ' s v a l i d i t y . This v a l i d i t y problem i s s p l i t into three sub-problems in t h i s t h e s i s . The f i r s t problem i s to determine i f a given item is v a l i d f o r the t e s t . That i s , each item to be v a l i d must discriminate between individuals having much of the •tra i t in question and individuals having only a small amount of the t r a i t . In tes t i n g the v a l i d i t y of the items we are applying the test of in t e r n a l consistency to the questionnaire. A second problem of v a l i d i t y concerns v a l i d a t i o n of the test by corr e l a t i n g i t with some outside c r i t e r i o n . Objective v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are lacking f o r the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, therefore, such ones as are provided in thi s study should be useful i n determining the effectiveness of the test f o r ind i v i d u a l diagnosis. A f i n a l consideration is the question of the number of factors or clusters of t r a i t s involved in the sub-tests of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality. Correlation c l u s t e r analysis, c o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e analysis and multiple f a c t o r analysis w i l l be used because of t h e i r possible contribution to the understanding of the measured t r a i t s of this test, and not for any t h e o r e t i c a l considerations aimed -5-to substantiate the various theories of personality based on c l u s t e r or f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . • Chapter I I The Problem of Personality Measurement  Meaning of Measurement f o r Personality Questionnaires The aim of t h i s section i s to make an analysis of the main problems which have been encountered in attempts to measure personality by means of the questionnaire technique. To measure, in the sense of the physical s c i e n t i s t s are accumstomed to use the word, requires that the property under study vary on a continuum, describing how much. On such a continuum, fracti o n s of units as w e l l as whole units can be v e r i f i e d as equal, and submitted to addition and subtraction. To measure in t h i s sense would require personality questionnaires to have equal units throughout t h e i r scales. An analysis of existing personality question-naires shows that no such scale is a v a i l a b l e f o r the measurement of personality. S t r i c t l y speaking, then, the questionnaire does not measure personality, but only explores to see how people respond to various s i t u a t i o n s . Hence the scores of a l l i questionnaires are only the enumerations of correct responses' The t o t a l score represents the sura of unequal and incompa-rable samples of behavior. -7-Problems Involved in Personality Measurement by  Q.uest ionnaires D e f i n i t i o n of Personality. The prime condition of a l l q u a n t i f i c a t i o n i s -a d e f i n i t i o n of the property which i s to be subject matter of the quantifying process. Granting that measurement of personality i s the general purpose°robj ect of a personality questionnaire, j u s t what i s the particular property to be quantified and where is i t located? An adequate qual-i t a t i v e description of personality would seem to have to come before measurement. In common parlance and in psychology the term personality i s used in many diverse ways. A l l p o r t (1) has c i t e d f i f t y - t h r e e d e f i n i t i o n s of personality that are to be found in the l i t e r a t u r e . Por the purpose of t h i s analysis, these meanings may be conveniently c l a s s i f i e d under two concepts. One group of d e f i n i t i o n s may be c l a s s i f i e d from the peripheral viewpoint, the other the ce n t r a l viewpoint. According to the former, personality i s an individual's " s o c i a l stimulus value". The responses made by others to-an i n d i v i d u a l as the st i m u l i are what define his personal-i t y . According to the central d e f i n i t i o n , personality i s the organization within the ind i v i d u a l of those psycho-physical stystems that determine his unique adjustments to l i f e . It appears that personality questionnaires have adapted the central viewpoint of personality "because they attempt to obtain information about those inner experiences that determine unique adjustments to the environment. Assumption of Traits Generally speaking personality questionnaires have taken personality to be composed of t r a i t s . The personality questionnaire attempts to measure some postulated common t r a i t which a l l people have. The assump-tion is that different individuals have more or less of the same t r a i t . If the trait which a personality questionnaire attempts to measure, is not of the same kind for different individuals, then such a tr a i t is not measureable on the same axis and in similar units. Even for personality questionnaires, directly added unit5must be of the same kind. Estimates of Common Traits Through Sampling of Responses  The personality questionnaire attempts to secure estimates of common tr a i t s through extensive sampling of a wide variety of particular responses. The sampling idea is based on the additive concept that the sura t o t a l of the sampling of responses constitutes an approximation to an individual's personality. The "basic l i m i t a t i o n of such a sampling notion i s that addition of s t a t i c s p e c i f i c s of test items may not represent an individual's t o t a l person-a l i t y . T r a i t s may not he s t a t i c aspects of the whole. Tr a i t s are modified "by the e f f e c t s of experience, and there-fore samplings which were at one time representative of- a given t r a i t may lose t h e i r meaning when the t r a i t has been modified by experience. . This problem i s d i r e c t l y related to the problem of r e l i a b i l i t y . Concept of R e l i a b i l i t y f o r Personality  Q.uest ionnaires. , The concept of r e l i a b i l i t y i s that there i s a consistency in the performance of an i n d i v i d u a l on two or •more occasions. As t r a i t s are never p e r f e c t l y integrated at any given time, i t i s not to be expected that they w i l l be p e r f e c t l y constant from time to time. The very process of adjusting to l i f e ' s problems w i l l ensure a c e r t a i n amount of change from week to week. Hence, we cannot expect person-a l i t y questionnaires to have retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s as high as i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . The Concept of V a l i d i t y f o r  Personality Questionnaires. The basic question of v a l i d i t y is stated thus: does the personality questionnaire measure what i t purports to measure? There are two general methods of v a l i d a t i n g -10-personality questionnaires. C&frbell (17, p.545)states every test has to be validated f i r s t as a true psychological functional entity, and secondly i t has to be validated and standardized as a predictor of perform-ance in various current real l i f e s ituations. Internal validation involves the development of a procf that a unitary trait exists to be measured and that the personality questionnaire partakes of this t r a i t . This validation is done either by factor or cluster analysis, or by a less basic approach such as item validation. The more traditional.method of validating a questionnaire is by correlating it with'some "outside" criterion. This means that personality questionnaires have to do the c l i n i c a l jobs they are supposed to do, that is,the , questionnaire must differentiate neurotics from non-neurotics and so on. The major problem is to obtain some reliable • objective criterion against which to validate the question-naire. As there appears to be no entirely satisfactory objective criterion against which to validate a questionnaire, most investigators resort to the consensus of judgment of supposedly competent individuals. Concluding Statement Our discussion, should serve to open up the state of uncertainty which obtains in the personality question-naire f i e l d . The inherent limitations of the personality-questionnaire technique have been found to he a result of the nonquanti'tative nature of personality, the d i f f i c u l t y of devising reliable units of measurement, the d i f f i c u l t y of securing adequate samples of a personality t r a i t , and 'the d i f f i c u l t i e s attendant upon the establishment of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Any empirical evaluation of a personality questionnaire, such as the one to be reported in this study, should also be viewed in the light of these inherent limitations of the questionnaire technique. -12-Chapter III Historical Review of the Problem Historically the measurement approach to person-a l i t y is traceable to the work of Galton, who proposed for the f i r s t time that the standards of experimentation be applied directly to the study of personality. In 1884 he (25, p.179) reached the conclusion that the character which shapes our conduct i s a definite and durable •something* and there-fore that i t is reasonable to attempt to measure i t . The spread of measurement techniques applied to personal-ity after Galton's time are scarcely yet matters of history. The f i r s t personality questionnaire for the measurement of psychoneurotic tendencies, devised by Woodworth (78) in 1917, has been the basis of a l l other personality questionnaires. A number of investigators have developed person-a l i t y questionnaires of varying worth since 1917. To the construction of new questionnaires there appears no end. In 1945 Traxler (90, p.99) estimated that there were at least 500 published personality questionnaires. The number of unpublished questionnaires is probably as great. One looks in vain through various new personality questionnaires to find some improvement of technique or -13-even some mere innovation over the o r i g i n a l and outstand-ing personality questionnaires of Woodworth, Thurstone, Bernreuter and Gu i l f o r d . In 1921 Mathews (78) adapted the o r i g i n a l Wood-worth questionnaire f o r use with c h i l d r e n . Cady (78), i n 1923, «ised a modified form of the Woodworth questionnaire in order to estimate juvenile i n c o r r i g i b i l i t y . In 1926, Heidbreder (41) attempted to measure introversion-extro-version by a questionnaire. In 1927, House (78) revised the Woodworth questionnaire. His one innovation was the inclusion of items dealing with childhood experiences. Also in 1927, Kohlstedt (83) formulated an introversion-extroversion questionnaire. Kohlstedt introduced a new feature in the form of v a l i d a t i o n based on the responses, of 100 manic-depressives and 100 schizophrenics. In 1928, the A l l p o r t s (2) devised the A l l p o r t ascendance-submission scale. The Thurstones (86f) in 1930, devised t h e i r "Person-' a l i t y Schedule 1'. This questionnaire i s based on the work of Woodworth, A l l p o r t and others. An integration of several questionnaires was effected by Bernreuter (6) in 1931. ' The interest in and the construction of person-a l i t y questionnaires has continued since 1917 and a great deal- of s t a t i s t i c a l evidence has been produced as to t h e i r worth. Before reporting the findings of t h i s study, a -14-.carefully selected review of the findings of other re-search, relating to th i s study, w i l l he examined. The R e l i a b i l i t i e s of Representative Personality Questionnaires The problem of r e l i a b i l i t y in personality measurement comes down to the simple matter of noting differences between test-retest scores. We have already noted certain factors assuming p a r t i c u l a r importance in determining the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of personality question-naires. Typical r e l i a b i l i t i e s c o e f f i c i e n t s are sum-marized in Table I« Prom an examination of Table I, i t i s seen that r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of sub-tests of various questionnaires range between .61 and .85. The question is whether these r e l i a b i l i t i e s are high enough to locate r e s t r i c t e d areas of personality d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r i n d i v i d -uals. Such r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are probably too low f o r individual prediction. R e l i a b i l i t i e s under .90 are too low to j u s t i f y much f a i t h in the meaning of a score. Item V a l i d i t y Studies The purpose of item analysis is merely to re-ta i n diagnostic items and reject irrelevant or ambiguous items. Item Analysis i s the problem of i n t e r n a l consist-TABLE I. RELIABILITIES OF REPRESENTATIVE PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES Personality Questionnaire Coefficient of Reliability Investigator Group Tested Method of Deter-mining Reliability Bell Adjustment Inventory Total Score .823 Turney, Austin and Fee (91) • 78 High School Students Retest (6^ months later). Aspects of Personality Asc endance-Submiss i o n . . . . . .61 Introversion-Extroversion. .54 Pintner and Forlano (66) 100 Grade V pupils Split-half > Personal Index .885 Loofbourow and Keys (52) 637 Junior High School Boys Split-half Brown Personality for Children... . . . .84 Brown (11) 74 Boys aged 8 - 1 5 years Split-half Mathews (78) 280 Boys 12, 13, 14 years. Split-half -15-ency of the questionnaire. Test items must-adequately d i f f e r e n t i a t e those possessing much of a given t r a i t from those possessing l i t t l e of i t . The f i r s t personality questionnaires, such as Woodworth'S Personal Data Sheet, contained items based on a p r i o r i assumptions of the test maker. These questions were assumed to deal with symptoms found generally to antedate emotional breakdowns. The more modem approach is toyalidate empirically items selected by r a t i o n a l methods. Among these empirical attempts are studies by Garrett and Schneck (28), Heid-breder (41), Thurstone (84), Stagner and Pessin (74), Remmers, Whisler and Duvald (67), Sletto (71). and Lay-man (50}. Two general methods of determining item v a l i d -i t y are in common use. The f i r s t requires the computat-ion of the c o r r e l a t i o n , frequently b i s e r i a l r, of each item with t o t a l score. Items with correlations less than some a r b i t r a r y standard are discarded. The second pro-cedure involves the selection of two c r i t e r i o n groups from the students at the two extremes of test scores. The significance of the difference between the percentages of students "passing" each item in each c r i t e r i o n group is c a l c u l a t e d . Items which f a i l to meet the desired degree of significance are eliminated. -16-Remmers, Whisler and Duttald (67, p .2o) examined responses of 300 subjects to a l l items on the Thurstone- -Personality Schedule, finding the median b i s e r i a l r to be plus .42. Layman (50), in preparing a t y p i c a l adjustment inventory, required that each item to enter the revised-questionnaire must have a b i s e r i a l r greater than plus .39. layman (50, p. 1-6) concluded , very few personality test items are such-that they w i l l present an adequately d i s -criminative picture of an individual's behavior tendencies or personality t r a i t s . Stagner and Pessin (74, p.323), using the second method f o r determining item v a l i d i t y , found that only 25 of 70 items on a questionnaire dealing with personal habits had c r i t i c a l r a t i o s that were s i g n i f i c a n t . A major problem of the second method i s to determine the proportion of cases to be used in selecting the c r i t e r i o n groups.' The Thurstones (84) chose 50 subjects, approximately eight per cent, of the sample, f o r each c r i t e r i o n group. Liickert (53) and H a l l (39) chose the highest and lowest nine per cent, f o r each c r i t e r i o n group. Stagner and Pessin (74) chose the highest and lowest twenty per cent, f o r each c r i t e r i o n group. Heidbreder (41), Rundquist and Sletto (76) and Vernon and A l l p o r t (93) employed quarters f o r each c r i t e r i o n group. Various proportions have been used by -17-other investigators. Sletto (76) found, however, that the use of smaller proportions than quarters inevitably increases the average between item means for extreme segments where there are five alternative responses provided for each item, while the use of larger proportions decreases the average difference between item means. Hence the use of small proportions such as extreme deciles involves the hazard that on a t y p i c a l paper may seriously disturb the results. Sletto (76, p.82) has shown that i f the person-a l i t y questionnaire scale actually measures several t r a i t s "purification" of the scale by item analysis w i l l not result in a questionnaire which is a measure of a single t r a i t . Whether items are measuring a single common tr a i t cannot be ascertained from item analysis. S t a t i s t i c a l l y significant b i s e r i a l r's or s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant c r i t i c a l ratios on every item w i l l not assure measurement of a common t r a i t . Item analysis only permits the elifflin at ion of irrelevant or ambiguous items and the construct-ion of an abridged questionnaire which has" properties very similar to the original-questionnaire. Validation by Teacher Rating Although there are several outside criterion against which a personality questionnaire may be validated -18-only the attempts t o v a l i d a t e them against teacher r a t i n g s w i l l he considered i n t h i s study. Teacher r a t i n g s do provide an estimate of the v a l i d i t y of que s t i o n n a i r e s i n so f a r as they attempt to i s o l a t e . p e r s o n a l i t y maladjustments p e c u l i a r to most educational s i t u a t i o n s . As we i n d i c a t e d i n the previous chapter, the attempted v a l i d a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s "by r a t i n g s i s fraught w i t h many d i f f i c u l t i e s . A review of the experiments which have attempted t o v a l i d a t e person-a l i t y q uestionnaires by teacher r a t i n g s shows that there i s only a s l i g h t r e l a t i o n between the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the c r i t e r i o n o f teacher's estimate of student a d j u s t -ment. Seven reported s t u d i e s of teacher r a t i n g v a l i d -a t i o n are reported i n Table I I . I t can be seen from examination of Table I I . that of seven attempts to v a l i d a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s by teacher r a t i n g s only Jasper's D e p r e s s i o n - l l a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e has obtained a f a i r l y h i g h p o s i t i v e v a l i d i t y . A l l of the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t -ions are so low as to i n v a l i d a t e most q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i a g n o s t i c purposes. P e r s o n a l i t y ques-t i o n n a i r e s would seem to o f f e r l i t t l e advantage i n the i s o l a t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y problems p e c u l i a r t o most educational s i t u a t i o n s . I t would seem f a i r t o conclude TABLE II. VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS OF REPRESENTATIVE PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES . BASED ON TEACHER RATINGS Personality Questionnaire Correlation Investigator Number Rated Bell Adjustment Inventory -.115 - .085 - .003 Clark and Smith (18) 183 Freshmen Bell Adjustment Inventory .318 .463 Trailer (87) 33 High School Students Bernreuter Personality Inventory .21 Burks (13) 50 Girls •71 Jasper (43) 34 College Seniors .55 Cady (78) 150 Boys - . 148 Fleming and Fleming (24) 88 Girls Washburne Social Adjustment .051 Clark and Smith (18) 183 Freshmen that either the personality questionnaires used do not hear any esse n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to the personality t r a i t s rated by the teachers, or that the personality t r a i t s have not afforded well-defined t r a i t s which are open f o r experimental c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , o r the c r i t e r i a f o r measur-ing the v a l i d i t i e s of these questionnaires are not very r e l i a b l e and v a l i d . V a l i d a t i o n According to Test Intercorrelations It i s often stated that i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s be-tween personality questionnaires may a f f o r d us an i n f e r -e n t i a l estimate of t h e i r v a l i d i t y . Such i n t e r c o r r e l a -tions may be suspect because some of the items may be i d e n t i c a l in both questionnaires . It i s assumed that i f both questionnaires attempt to measure the same t r a i t and i f they correlate highly, we have some proof that they measure the same t r a i t . In Table III . we have brought together observed intercorrelations f o r a number of t y p i c a l questionnaires on personality . It i s c l e a r from a consideration of these co-e f f i c i e n t s that only a few' questionnaires do correlate highly, that i s , only a few questionnaires appear to be' measuring the same t r a i t . Of p a r t i c u l a r interest i s the finding that none of the relationships between scores on the Multip l e VISI-TABLE I I I V a l i d i t y Coefficients of Representative Questionnaires based on Test Correlations Personality Questionnaires Investigator Intercorralat ion Bernreuter and Laird Bernreuter (7) .84 to 1.00 Bernreuter and Willoughby Bernreuter (7) .646 Mailer and Rogers Boyten and . Walsworth (9) .12 B e l l and Washburne Clark and Smith (18) .288 B e l l and Willoughby Greene and Staton (18) .55 Laird and Mars ton G i l l i l a n d (30) .30 Thurstone and Ueyraan Stagner (73) -.340 Root and Neyman-Kohlstedt Root (70) .831 Mul t i p l e Choice" Rorshack and C a l i f o r n i a Test of Pers onality B l a i r and Clark (8) Self Adjustment .22 S o c i a l Adjustment .20 Total Adjustment .19 -20-Choice RoTshack Test and scores on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality can he termed even reasonably high. The two tests apparently measure only to a very s l i g h t extent the same aspects of personality. Prom such correlations between personality questionnaires, i t is impossible to say which of any two tests gives -a most v a l i d measure of any given personality t r a i t . Many individuals who would be rated maladjusted on one of the tests would obviously not be so rated on the other t e s t . In such studies as these, where low intercorrelations are obtained, one would be forced to conclude that perhaps one of the tests possesses a high degree of v a l i d i t y and the other does not, or perhaps neither does. The Intercorrelation of Sub-tests The intercorrelations between the various questionnaires and subdivisions of questionnaires tends to show the a r b i t r a r y character of .the named t r a i t s . We have already seen that some personality questionnaires purporting to measure the same t r a i t s do not correlate highly. The categories or subdiv-isions of various personality questionnaires tend to show low i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . Such low i n t e r c o r r e l a -tions would appear to indicate they are measuring separate t r a i t B . -21-Clark and Smith (18,p.87) found the three separate sections of the B e l l Adjustment Inventory have intercorrelations ranging from plus 0.026 to plus 0.332. One may question such low in t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s as each of -the sections contains only t h i r t y - f i v e items. This f a c t , plus the fact that no item is scored f o r more than one category of adjustment, keeps the c o r r e l a t i o n among scores as low as possible. One would expect low r e l i a b i l i t i e s with these few items. So few items places a heavy burden of discrimination upon a r e l a t i v e l y small number of items. The intercorrelations of the four sections of the Bernreuter Personality Inventory (6) range from minus 0.73 to plus 0.93. Neurotic tendency and introversion were a c t u a l l y indistinguishable on t h i s s c a l e . The in t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the four sections of the Brown Personality Inventory f o r Children range from plus 0.07 to plus 0.42. These inte r c o r r e l a t i o n s may . indicate the separate categories are measuring separate t r a i t s . Prom the above t y p i c a l i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of separate sub-sections of personality questionnaires, i t can be seen that t r a i t s do have low i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . Factor Analysis Studies on Personality Questionnaires  As Ihwmsaji^indicatfia, the research data based -22-on f a c t o r i a l analysis studies may not reveal unitary t r a i t s of personality. The use of personality questionnaires i s not a perfect technique f o r analyzing personality into i t s underlying components. But assuming v a l i d measurements of a vari e t y of components of personality such as question-naire items imply, the use of f a c t o r i a l analysis of such measurements f o r t h e i r components appears to offer a f r u i t -f u l approach to a very i n t r i c a t e problem . In so f a r as the questionnaire items do y i e l d v a l i d measurements of d i f f e r -ent t r a i t s of personality, and in so f a r as present methods of factor analysis permit, the analysis of those aspects of personality represented in personality questionnaires has been accomplished. There have been some sixteen published f a c t o r i a l analysis studies on personality questionnaires, and pro-bably only three c l u s t e r analysis studies. The f i r s t attempt to apply the new fact o r analy-s i s methods to a questionnaire in order to f i n d out what common variables of personality might be represented there-in was reported by Gui l f o r d and Guilford (34) in 1934. A t y p i c a l l i s t of t h i r t y - s i x questions yielded four common f a c t o r s . They were i d e n t i f i e d as (a) s o c i a l introversion-extroversion, (b) emotional sensitiveness, (c) impulsive-ness, and (d) interest in s e l f . 23-Since t h i s preliminary study appeared, other f a c t o r i a l studies have "been made by Flannagan (23) , McCloy and Layman (60), Mosier (57) , Guilford and G u i l -ford (35), (36), (37), Reyburn and Taylor (68), Vernon (93), Whisler (94) Kling (47), Thomdike (82), Brogden (10), and Gibb (29) . Cluster analysis studies have been performed by Jasper (49), P a l l i s t e r (62) and Stagner and Krout (75) 4 The findingsof questionnaire analysis are not d e f i n i t e and w e l l confirmed. Fiannagan (23), t e s t i n g 305 grade eleven boys, analyzed the four Bernreuter sub-div i s i o n s and found three f a c t o r s . They were named s e l f -confidence, s o c i a b i l i t y , and dominance. The last-named fa c t o r was unimportant, as i t accounted f o r only four per cent, of the t o t a l test variance. Mosier (57), t e s t -ing 500 male college students on 39 discriminative items in the Thurstone schedule, obtained eight f a c t o r s . They were named as follows: c y c l o i d tendency, depressive tendency, hypersensitivity, i n f e r i o r i t y , s o c i a l i n t r o -version, platform self-consciousness, cognitive defect and a u t i s t i c tendency.Reyburn and Taylor (68), t e s t i n g 115 students on the f i r s t ten items from the Freyd-Heidbreder questionnaire, obtained four f a c t o r s . These factors were c a l l e d w i l l - c h a r a c t e r , surgenoy-desurgency, s o c i a b i l i t y , and perseveration.' Vernon (93), t e s t i n g 100 men and women teachers on the Boyd adjustment, obtained four f a c t o r s . He named them as follows: general factor, caref reeness, scupulousness, and neuroticism . Whisler (94) te s t i n g 126 male and female undergraduates with varied questions, obtained s i x factors. He named them as accept-ance of conventional e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s , enjoyment of momentary pleasures, interest in c o n f l i c t s and controversies, energetic, p a r t i c i p a t i o n in casual s o c i a l relationships, and c r i t i c a l n e s s and interest in "truth." These studies on the application of the f a c t i o n a l studies to personality show that there have not always been consistant and meaningful findings from analysis of questionnaires purporting to measure about the same t r a i t , that i s , neurotic tendencies. The two studies by Guilford and Guilford (36) and Hosier (37) do tend to agree in that they found aJmost the same f a c t o r s . Probably the most f r u i t f u l use of factor analysis f o r personality i s in test construction such as those attempted by Guilford and Guilford (35.) -24-The General Case Por and Against Personality Questionnaires The. purpose of this section is to investigate the literature of the questionnaire insofar as i t i s relevant to the points which have "been made in its fav-our and against i t . Among the many points that have "been raised in favour of personality questionnaires have been the following: 1. Very important information regarding an individual's personal and private dispositions and beliefs cannot be secured in any other way - especially i f the time is short (Traxler (90, p.108). Traxler maintains that questionnaires may be successful in discovering poorly adjusted individuals when they are so repressed that they give l i t t l e outward evidence of poor adjustment. As a c l i n i c a l instrument, the questionnaire may have proven valuable in specific instances, although Landis, Zubin and Katz (48) found that three different personal-it y questionnaires could not differentiate groups of normal college students from groups of hospitalized psy-chotic and psychoneurotic patients. Their conclusion concerning the val i d i t y of the three questionnaires, which they studied, probably offers a good guide to the use of such questionnaires. 2. Questionnaires may have value when a com--25-petent individual ie sufficiently motivated to give his replies honestly and carefully (Thorpe 83, p.553). If a person had f u l l self-knowledge and complete integrity, then his responses would probably be v a l i d . But such an individual would hardly need a personality questionnaire. 3. Questionnaires have the merit of sampling a wide range of behaviour through the medium of the individ-ual's reports on his customary conduct and feelings in a wide variety of situations (Allport 1, p.448) . This would assume that each individual was a good judge of his own conduct and feelings, that he was not self-deceiv-ed by any desire of self defense or of wish fulfillment, and further that i f these two conditions were satisfied he would t e l l the truth about himself. 4. Teachers and school administrators can draw conclusions from questionnaires concerning the trend of traits measured in their classes and school systems and can plan group treatment accordingly (Clark, Tiegs, and Thorpe 18, p.13). As a rough c l i n i c a l technique, or as a means of detecting some of the cases which are in need of counselling advice, i t may have value. As a means of building up a scientific measuring instrument designed for individuals, or as a means of describing the com-plexities of individual behaviour, i t would seem that the method leaves much to be desired. -26-5. Personality questionnaires may-be helpful i f they are supplemented by intimate interviews and used in conjunction with other examinations (Landis, 49) '. Eersonality questionnaire results probably can be used very successfully as the basis for discussion in an interview. 6. Personality questionnaire data have consider-able value for the appreciation of the introspected side of human l i f e generally. The data may show how a well-known behaviour syndrome "feels" from the inside (Cattell 17, p.343) . Special diagnostic value may be in the dis-« crepancies between the questionnaire responses and l i f e -outside responses. The fact that an individual states that he acts in such a manner is an important one for the understanding of his personality. The examination of individual responses may prove valuable c l i n i c a l material in the appreciation of the introspective side of an indiv-idual. This last mentioned procedure would require a reliable test for, i f the whole.test is not very reliable, a particular item may also not be reliable. 7. Standardized personality questionnaires yield objective scores and they are easy to administer and simple to score (Thorpe 83, p.554) . Since the personality questionnaires in current use have not been adequately validated, the derived objective scores cannot be corisid--27-ered as p a r t i c u l a r l y meaningful. As can be seen, from the above b r i e f a n a l y s i s , p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s have c e r t a i n p o i n t s i n t h e i r f a vour. Most i n v e s t i g a t o r s would agree, however, that p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e scores are at best coarse approximations, and should not be given over-precise i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . When employed c a u t i o u s l y , the b e t t e r p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s probably j u s t i f y themselves both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a l l y i n much the same way as psychometric s c a l e s f o r measuring mental a b i l i t y have done . As a serious approach t o the measuring of per-s o n a l i t y , however, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e measurements can only be accepted as gross approximations, v i t i a t e d by both systematic and chance e r r o r s of unknown extent. Except i n the h i g h l y a r t i f i c i a l sense of the word measure can these be thought of as t r u e measures Some of the more s p e c i f i c reasons advanced against q u e s t i o n n a i r e s have been these: 1. Each s i n g l e question i n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e may cut across s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t tendencies w i t h i n an i n d i v -i d u a l (Murphy and Newcomb 59," p.871) . The h i g h i n t e r n a l consistency of a' q u e s t i o n n a i r e shows nothing about the composition of the t r a i t which the whole s c a l e i s sup-posed t o measure. As already pointed out, t r a i t s of the -28-type studied by questionnaires exist only as more or less useful abstractions. 2. The method of administering the questionnaire does not provide any helpful cues as to the individual's veracity (Murray 58, p.440) . Individuals may intention-a l l y misrepresent themselves. It is for this reason that the practical use of questionnaires in personnel work is limited. 3. Lack of self-knowledge on the part of the subjects, that i s , lack of correct appreciation of their own behaviour, may invalidate their scores (Cattell 17, p.342) . Individuals d i f f e r markedly in insight. Symohds (78, p.185) has stated that children are not used to examining their own states and asjutments, and consequent-ly flucuate and give unreliable answers on questionnaires. People differ in respect to depth of knowledge and in respect to their a b i l i t y to recall and to appraise their personal and social adjustments. 4. Another limitation to questionnaires is the fact that in testing traits attention is diverted from the individual to his mere rank within a population (Allport -3 , p.449) . Every individual tested receives a score whether or not the variable applies to him. 5. Some individuals do not understand the questions (Thorpe 83, p.553). In cases where individu--29-a l s do not understand these items, chance becomes the supreme f a c t o r i n determining the s c o r e . ..... 9 6. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s l i m i t e d t o few among the many modes or s i t u a t i o n s i n which a t r a i t may ex-h i b i t i t s e l f (Murray 58, p.439) . There may be i n d i v i d u -a l s who get a low score because, though they possess the t r a i t , t h e y e x h i b i t i t i n s i t u a t i o n s other than those defined i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f such were the case, then the qu e s t i o n n a i r e would not measure those t r a i t s i n the l i f e of the i n d i v i d u a l which i t purports t o measure. 7. The same t r a i t score does not n e c e s s a r i l y mean the same t h i n g f o r two d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s (Stagner 73, p..30) . I t would not be a good assumption t o assume that a l l i n d i v i d u a l s have the same p s y c h o l o g i c a l reasons f o r t h e i r s i m i l a r responses . At the l e v e l of p e r s o n a l i t y i t cannot even be s a i d that d i f f e r e n t responses necess-a r i l y i n d i c a t e the same t r a i t s . In qu e s t i o n n a i r e s the dubious assumptions are made that the stimulus s i t u a t i o n i s i d e n t i c a l f o r each i n d i v i d u a l , and h i s responses have constant s i g n i f i c a n c e . Hence que s t i o n n a i r e s f a i l to allow s u f f i c i e n t l y f o r an i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of cause and e f f e c t sequences. There are many more p o s s i b i l i t i e s of e r r o r i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e technique of p e r s o n a l i t y measurement. The major l i m i t a t i o n s of qu e s t i o n n a i r e s probably s p r i n g -3b-from these systematic errors. In addition there are certain mechanical weaknesses in questionnaires, but by constructing them according to correct mental measurement principles these weaknesses could be markedly reduced. -31-Chapter IV The Testing and Rating Procedure  The Problem Under Investigation. There is much need for a rather extended analysis of a new personality questionnaire before i t is put to extensive use. The purpose of this study is to make some contriubtion to the s t a t i s t i c a l evdilution of the California Test of Personality, Intermediate Series, Form A. The Subjects mmmmmmmMtwmtm urn nrfiw i — A l l of the subjects for this study were students in the Kitsilano Junior-Senior High School, Vancouver, Bri t i s h Columbia. A l l subjects were tested as groups in their respective classes. Form A of the Intermediate series was given between Hay 15th and 26th, 1946 to 173 boys and 155 g i r l s in ten classes in grade VIII, and 125 boys and 125 g i r l s in eight classes in grade X. Of the students originally tested in grade V i l l i 45 boys and 55 g i r l s were retested between December 5th and 9th, 1946. The Baker Adjustment Inventory was administered to 91 of these students in November, 1946. Of the students originally tested in grade X, 47 boys and 53 g i r l s were retested during the same period as the retests in grade VIII. For both tests the directions in administering the tests were carefully followed. -32-T h i s sample of students i s probably r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the c i t y school c h i l d r e n as a whole because t h i s school e n r o l l s a composite c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . The students tested covered the complete range of academic achievement. Nature of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y According to the manual of d i r e c t i o n s ( 8 6 , p . l ) the main purpose of t h i s t e s t i s to r e v e a l the extent to which a student i s adjust ing to the problems and c o n d i t i o n s that confront him. The teet includes two main s e c t i o n s , s e l f and s o c i a l adjustment, each of these having s i x s u b t e s t s , as shown i n Table IV. A copy of t h i s test is contained i n Appendix A . Norms are provided f o r s e l f , s o c i a l and t o t a l adjustment, as w e l l as f o r the s u b t e s t s . The questions fol low the pattern of the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet. The student responds w i t h a c a t e g o r i c a l yes. or no to each q u e s t i o n . While there is -no time l i m i t , i t was found that students r e -q u i r e d approximately f o r t y f i v e minutes. The scoring key gives a l i s t of ' d e s i r a b l e ' o r acceptable responses. D e t r o i t Adjustment Inventory, Alpha Form T h i s quest ionnaire i s designed to i n t e r p r e t -the adjustment problems of j u n i o r and s e n i o r h i g h school students. It i s s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e "tlas one hundred twenty items d i v i d e d i n t o twenty-four - 3 3 -TABLE IV . CONTENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA TEST OF PERSONALITY Number of Items 1. Self-Adjustment 90 (a) S e l f - R e l i a n c e 15 (b) Sense of Personal Worth 15 (c) Sense of Personal Freedom 15 (d) F e e l i n g of Belonging 15 (e) Freedom from Withdrawing Tendencies 15 ( f ) Freedom from Nervous Symptoms 15 2. S o c i a l Adjustment 90 (a) S o c i a l Standards 15 (b) S o c i a l S k i l l s 15 (c) Freedom from A n t i - S o c i a l Tendencies 15 (d) Family R e l a t i o n s 15 (e) School Relatione 15 ( f ) Community Re l a t i o n e 15 . .Total Adjustment.. 180 -34-topics with five specific items under each of the twenty-four subdivisions. The student selects the one response from five which best describes his attitude or situation. A copy of this test is found in Appendix A. Teacher Ratings ' In order to obtain a criterion by which to validate the California Test of Personality, six members of the Kitsilano teaching staff were asked to rate the students on various personality aspects indicative of adjustment. The graphic rating scale was the method adopted for rating. The rater was instructed to place a cross on an unmarked line at the point which he believed best described the student. The scale was scored, by dividing the line up into five equal divisions and assigning numer-ic a l values from one to five to the different divisions on the rating line. A student's score depended upon the distance of the check from the "low" end of the scale which represented poor adjustment on that t r a i t . The lowest division was given a value of one, the highest the value of five, with intermediate values between. A specimen of the rating scale and the instructions are found in Appendix B. The traits rated were those that a teacher might be able to evaluate in a student, and included: school relations, freedom from nervous symptoms, freedom -35-from withdrawing tendencies .freedom from anti-social tendencies and total adjustment. The teacher rated the students after the questionnaire had been administered. In no case did any of the teachers know the standings of the students on the California Test of Personality. They rated only the students in their own class. , No teacher had to rate more than twenty students, each of whom was rated by only one teaclier. Eighty^six of the Grade VIII students were rated and correlations between the retest scores and ratings were then computed. t .0> - 3 6 -Chapter V. D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of Students, D i f f e r e n c e s between Grade V I I I and Grade X Students The C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y , i n termediate S e r i e s , i s designed f o r grades V I I to X. Hence, age should not a f f e c t the p e r s o n a l i t y scores to any degree f o r Grade V I I I and Grade X students. The d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean scores of Grade V I I I and Grade X p u p i l s on any of s u b t e s t s , the s e c t i o n s and t o t a l scores should not be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i f oraly one set of norms i s to be used i n i n t e r p r e t a t i n g t h e i r scores. Table V presents means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of raw scores, by grades on the v a r i o u s measures of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y . D i f f e r e n c e s between means are given i n column 5 of Table V. The r a t i o of the d i f f e r e n c e between mean scores t o the standard e r r o r of the d i f f e r e n c e s i s shown i n the l a s t column. Grade V I I I and Grade X students score approximately a l i k e on s e l f r e l i a n c e , f e e l i n g of belonging, s o c i a l stand-ards and community r e l a t i o n s . On s e l f adjustment, sense of personal worth, s o c i a l adjustment, a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies, school r e l a t i o n e and t o t a l adjustment grade d i f f e r e n c e s are s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l . On s o c i a l s k i l l s &%&.rt d i f f e r -ences are s i g n i f i c a n t at the &% l e v e l . On only two t r a i t s , namely, f e e l i n g of belonging and s o c i a l standards, do the TABLE V. COMPARISON OF SUBTESTS AND TOTAL SCORES OF GRADES VIII. AND EC. GRADE VII: . GRADE IX. DIFFERENCE t . RATIOS MEASURE _ Mean SD • Mean SD BETWEEN MEANS. -Self-Adjustment 65.68 10.82 68.76 9.96 3.08 3.62 Self-Reliance 10.02 2.68 10.18 2.28 .16 .80 Sense of Personal Worth 10.49 2.72 11.20 2.40 .71 3.38 Sense of Personal Freedom 12.15 2.50 12.50 3.06 .35 1.45 Feeling of Belonging 12.24 2.62 10.44 2.52 1.80 .81 Withdrawing Tendencies 10.20 2.86 11.52 2.46 .32 1.39 Nervous Symptoms 11.09 2.88 11.38 2.48 .20 1.45 Social Adjustment 67.27 10.60 69.86 9.83 2.59 3.05 Social Standards 12.85 1.82 12.84 1.92 .01 .063 , Social S k i l l s 10.48 2.39 10.99 2.42 .20 2.25 si Anti-Social Tendencies 10.37 2.86 11.28 2.62 .91 3.96 family Relations 11.55 3.04 11.87 3.12 .32 1.31 School Relations 10.23 2.72 10.89 2.50 .66 3.00 Community Relations 11.63 2.86 11.82 2.60 .19 .83 Total Adjustment 133.27 20.19 140.17 17.50 6.90 4.34 -38-mean scores of students i n Grade V I I I . exceed those of the students i n Grade X. These two d i f f e r e n c e s , however, are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . On the whole the data i n d i c a t e i f taken at face v a l u e , a g r e a t e r degree of student "adjustment" i n grade X than i n Grade V I I I . There i s only one set of norms f o r Grades V I I I . through X. To score these grades on one set of norms im p l i e s that the p e r s o n a l i t y adjustments of the students i n these grades are much a l i k e . I t has been shown th a t i n s i x t r a i t s there i s a ve r y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the mean scores of students i n the grades being s t u d i e d . A l l t o l d , the data suggest that i t i s l i k e l y t hat the norms f o r these grades can be combined i n some cases and that they cannot i n others. Comparative Data on P e r s o n a l i t y Scores of Canadian and American Students The C a l i f o r n i a Test of P e r s o n a l i t y was standard-i z e d upon students l i v i n g i n the United S t a t e s . Can the norms be used e f f e c t i v e l y f o r students l i v i n g i n Canada? Median scores f o r each of the two grades and t h e i r c o r r e -sponding p e r c e n t i l e values f o r these medians obtained from the manual of d i r e c t i o n norms are given i n Table V I . t o -gether w i t h the corresponding data from the C a l i f o r n i a A c r i t e r i o n group. ' ~~ , According t o Table V I . Canadian students d i f f e r from the American sample t o such an extent that the norms TABLE 71. COMPARATIVE DATA ON PERSONALITY SCORES OP CANADIAN AND AMERICAN STUDENTS MEASURE GRADE VIII. GRi IDE X. U.S.GROUP Median r Percentile Median Percentile Median Percentile Self-Adjustment 67 35 70 40 72 - 73 50 Self-Reliance 10 50 10 50 10 50 Sense of Personal Worth 10 30 10 30 12 50 Sense of Personal Freedom 12 35 14 70 12 50 Feeling of Belonging 12 f 30 12 30 13 50 Withdrawing Tendencies 9 1- 20 12 50 12 50 Nervous Symptoms 11 35 12 50 12 50 « Social Adjustment 68 35 70 40 73 50 I Social Standards 12 30 12 30 13 50 Social S k i l l s 10 35 11- 50 11 50 Anti-Social Tendencies 10 30 12 50 12 50 Family Relations 12 40 12 40 13 50 School Relations 10 40 10 40 11 50 Community Relations 12 50 12 50 12 50 Total Adjustment 135 35 143 45 144 - 146 50 -40-would appear to be of l i t t l e value in the school system where t h i s study took place. On thirteen t r a i t s Grade V l l l Students f a l l below the f i f t i e t h p e r c entile, while Grade X students f a l l below the f i f t i e t h p e r c e ntile on seven t r a i t s . The greater differences in percentile values i n the case of Canadian students and American students can best be a t t r i b u t a b l e at this time to differences in sampling. The authors, as indicated in t h e i r manual of directions would conclude that such low percentile summaries show a need f o r investigating the d e s i r a b i l i t y of modifying the objectives and procedures of the curriculum. They (86, p.13) state: If the majority of s e l f adjustment scores f o r a school system are low, i t may indicate that the educational procedures in vogue are too formal or t r a d i t i o n a l and that more informal a c t i v i t i e s should be undertaken. If the data were taken at face value, i t may w e l l indicate that .the Vancouver eductional system is more formal than the American. Whether or not the personality/ t r a i t s of Canadian students d i f f e r from those of American students i s unknown. Sex Differences To score both g i r l s and boys on one set of norms implies that the personality t r a i t s of the two sexes are much a l i k e . Mean scores and differences between the means f o r both sexes in Grade VIII ar* given in Table V I I . -41-Grade VIII g i r l s and boys score approximately alike on sense of personal worth, sense of personal free-dom, school relations and total adjustment. On self reliance, nervous symptoms, social s k i l l s , anti-social tendencies and community relations sex differences are significant at the 1% level. On withdrawing tendencies and social standard, sex differences are significant at the b% level. The data in Table VII suggest that the scores of boys and g i r l s in Grade VIII can be interpreted on the same norms in certain cases and that they cannot, in other cases. Mean scores and differences between the means of both sexes in Grade X are given in Table VIII. Grade X boys and g i r l s score approximately alike on sense of personal freedom, school relations and commu-nity relations. On self reliance, sense of personal worth, feeling of belonging, social standards and social s k i l l s , sex differences are significant at the 1% level. On social adjustment, anti-social tendencies and family relations, sex differences are significant at the 5% level. The data suggests that Grade X boys and g i r l s can be scored in the same set of norms in some cases and that they cannot in the cases where there are very s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant d i f -ferences between their mean scores . TABLE V I I . MEAN SCORES AND THE EXTENT OF SEX DIFFERENCES FOR GRADE V I I I . STUDENTS BC )YS GIRLS DIFFERENCE X RATIOS MEASURE Mean SD Mean SD Self-Adjustment 66.60 10.52 6*+.*+6 13.7k 2.1k S e l f - R e l i a n c e 9.68 2.37 9.Q3 2.65 .85 2.83 Sense of Personal Wortt IO.36 2.6»+ 10.63 2.78 .27 .90 Sense of Personal Free-dom 12.2k 2.61 12.18 2.*+*+ .06 .20 F e e l i n g of Belonging 12.51 2.-+1 11.79 2.9k .72 1.07 2.*+*+ • -r • ro Withdrawing Tendencies 9.31 3.17 10.09 2.90. .78 Nervous Symptoms 13.02 .1.97 10.59 2.12 2.1+3 10.56 1 S o c i a l Adjustment 69.92 15.80 68.83 10.12 1.99 1.0k S o c i a l Standards 12.70 .06 13.03 1.69 .33 2.36 S o c i a l S k i l l s 9 .19 3.08 11.07 2.22 1.88 6. k& A n t i - S o c i a l Tendencies 9.88 3.01 10.91 2.56 1.03 3.1+3 Family R e l a t i o n s 11.98, 2 .92 1 1 M 3.IQ .53 1.61 School R e l a t i o n s 10.16 2.79 10.20 2.79 .6k •13 Community R e l a t i o n s 11.2k 3.1*+ 12.06.. 2.kk .82 2.65 T o t a l Adjustment 132.93 19.89 Ilk.11 20.16 1.18 A 7 TABLE V I I I . MEAN SCORES AND THE EXTENT OF SEX DIFFERENCES FOR GRADE X. STUDENTS MEASURE BOYS GIRL S DIFFERENCE t RATIO Mean SD Mean SD Self-Adjustment 71. -+3 11.08 69.78 8.58 1.65 1.32 S e l f - R e l i a n c e 9.22 2.3}+ 10.39 1.78 1.17 Sense o f Personal Worth 10 2.1+6 11.72 1.96 1.27 Sense of Personal Freedom 13.08 2.2k 12.89 2.98 .19 . .58 F e e l i n g of Belonging 11.00 2.82 12.60 2.86 1.60 Withdrawing Tendencies 11.81 2.*+2 11. 2.1+8 .57 1.8k 1 4T Nervous Symptoms 11.12 2.58 10.76 2.3-+ .36 1.1.9 U> 1 S o c i a l Adjustment 68.?8 9.80 7 1 . ^ 9.95 2.56 2.05 S o c i a l S k i l l s 10.52 2.50 l l - ' t o 2.2*+ .9-4 3.2I+ S o c i a l Standards 11.36 2.12 13.15 2.0k 1.70 6.5»+ A h t i ^ S o c i a l Tendencies 10.93 2.72 11.62 2.1+6 .69 2.03 F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s 12.15 2.9-+ 11.59 3.2*+ .56 2.02 School R e l a t i o n s 10.92 2.52 11.09 2.72 •17 .52 Community R e l a t i o n s 11.68 2.72 •11-97 2.1+6, .21+ • 73 T o t a l Adjustment 138.35 18.27 1M.68 16.88 3.33 1.1+9 -44" Differences in mean scores and the t ratios for Grade VIII g i r l s and Grade X g i r l s are given in Table IX. Mean scores are not shown as they have already been given. There are very s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences at the 1% level in mean scores between Grade VIII g i r l s and Grade X g i r l s on self adjustment,- self reliance, sense of personal worth, withdrawing, tendencies and total adjustment, and at the 5% level there are st a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences on sense of personal freedom, feeling of belonging, social adjustment and anti-social tendencies:. These students score approximately alike on nervous symptoms, family relations, school rela-tions and community relations. Differences in mean scores and the't ratios for Grade VIII boys and Grade X boys are given in Table X. At the 1% level there are very s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences between mean scores of Grade V l l l boys and Grade X boys on self reliance, sense of personal worth, feeling of belonging, social standards, social s k i l l s and anti-social tendencies. At the 5% level there are significant differences in their »ean scores on social adjustment and family relations. These students score approximately alike on sense of personal freedom, school relations and community relations. -45-TABLE IX. 'Mean D i f f e r e n c e s and "t" R atios f o r Grade V I I I . G i r l s and Grade X G i r l s Measure Mean D i f f e r e n c e R a t i o S e l f - A d j ustment 5.32 4.09 S e l f - R e l i a n c e 1.36 5.04 Sense of Personal Worth 1.09 3.88 Sense of Personal Freedom .71 2.45 F e e l i n g of Belonging .81. 2.31 Withdrawing Tendencies 1.16 3.59 Hervous Symptoms .17 .63 S o c i a l Adjustment 2.31 1.98 S o c i a l Standards .13 1.35 S o c i a l S k i l l s .39 1.44 A n t i - S o c i a l Tendencies .71 2.03 Family R e l a t i o n s .14 .37 School R e l a t i o n s .89 .33 Community R e l a t i o n s .09 .30 T o t a l Adjustment 7.57 3.47 -46-• TABLE X Mean D i f f e r e n c e s and T Rat i o s f o r Grade V I I I . Boys and Grade X Boys  Measure Mean • f c D i f f e r e n c e R a t i o Self-Adjustment . 1.65 1.32 S e l f - R e l i a n c e 1.17 4.50 Sense of Personal Worth 1.27 4.54 Sense of Personal Freedom ' .19 .58 F e e l i n g of Belonging 1.60 4.44 Withdrawing Tendencies .57 1.84 Nervous Symptoms .36 1.19 S o c i a l Adjustment 2.56 2.05 S o c i a l Standards 1.70 6.54 S o c i a l S k i l l s .94 3.24 A n t i - S o c i a l Tendencies .69 3.08 Family Relatione .56 2.02 School Relatione .17 .52 Community R e l a t i o n s .24 .73 T o t a l Adjustment 3.33 1.49 -47-Table XI gives the differences in mean scores of the t r a t i o s of the Grade VIII g i r l s and Grade X boys. At the 1% l e v e l there are'very s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between mean scores of Grade V i n g i r l s and Grade X boys on s e l f adjustment, sense of per-sonal freedom, withdrawing tendencies and s o c i a l standards. At the 5% l e v e l there are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between t h e i r mean scores on f e e l i n g of be-longing, nervous symptoms and school r e l a t i o n s . These students score approximately a l i k e in s e l f reliance, sense of personal worth, s o c i a l adjustment, a n t i - s o c i a l tenden-cies and family r e l a t i o n s . Table XII gives the differences in mean scores, and the t ratios of the Grade VIII boys and Grade X g i r l s . At the ifo l e v e l there are very s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences in the mean scores of Grade V l l i boys and Grade X g i r l s on s e l f adjustment, sense of personal worth, withdrawing tendencies, nervous symptoms, s o c i a l s k i l l s , a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies, school relations and t o t a l adjustment. At the 5$ l e v e l there are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences in t h e i r mean scores on sense of personal freedom and s o c i a l standards. These students score approximately a l i k e on f e e l i n g of belonging and s o c i a l adjustment. -48-TABLE XI. Mean Differences and T Ratios for Grade VIII. Girls and Grade X. " Boys  Measure Mean Difference Ratio Self-Adj ustment 6.97 3.44 Self-Reliance .19 .63 Sense of Personal Worth .18 .58 Sense of Personal Freedom .90 3.91 Peeling of Belonging .79 2.26 Withdrawing Tendencies 1.72 5.38 Nervous Symptoms .53 1.98 Social Adjustment .25 .21 Social Standards 1.67 7 .30 Social S k i l l s .55 1.96 Anti-Social Tendencies .02 .20 Family Relations .70 .19 School Relatione .72 2.26 Community Relations .38 1.22 Total Adjustments 4 .42 1.90 -49-TABLE X I I , • Mean D i f f e r e n c e s and T Ratios f o r Grade V I I I . boys and Grade X. g i r l s  Measure Mean D i f f e r e n c e t R a t i o Self-Adjustment 3.18 2.82 S e l f - R e l i a n c e .51 1.89 Sense of Personal Worth 1.36 5.04 Sense of Personal Freedom .65 1.97 P e e l i n g of.Belonging .09 .33 Withdrawing Tendencies 1.93 5.85 Nervous Symptoms 2.26 8.69 S o c i a l Adjustment 1.22 .81 S o c i a l Standards .46 2.56 S o c i a l S k i l l s 2.27 7.9C A n t i - S o c i a l Tendencies 1.74 5.61 Family R e l a t i o n s .39 1.06 School Relations' .93 9.30 Community R e l a t i o n s .73 7.30 T o t a l Adjustment 8.75 3.92 - 5 0 -Rehabilitiee of Means and Skewness of Distributions  Table XIII gives the means, v a r i a b i l i t i e s , standard errors of the means, and skewness of the distribution for the variables of Grade VIII pupils. At the 1% level of confidence the following distributions are very significantly skewed in a negative direction: self adjustment, self reliance, sense of personal worth, sense of personal freedom, feeling of belonging, social standards, family relations and community relatione. At the b% level of confidence the following distributions are significantly skewed in a negative direction: withdrawing tendencies, nervous symptoms and anti-social tendencies. This negative skewness indicates that there is a considerable piling up of cases at the high score end of the scale. Because of the high average scores on these measures, and the extreme negative skewness of these distributions, these measures probably do not discriminate between those students who are exceptionally well adjusted. Those students who are poorly adjusted are probably-discriminated at the lower end of the scale. Table XIV gives the means, v a r i a b i l i t i e s , stand-ard errors of the means, and skewness of the distribution for the variables" of Grade X pupils. TABLE X I I I . MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS) STANDARD ERRORS OF MEANS.AND SKEWNESS FOR THE TEST VARIABLES OF GRADE V I I I . STUDENTS MEASURE Mean Sigma Standard E r r o r of Mean Sk. - Standard of E r r o r of Sk. Sk. SelfrAdjustment 65.68 S e l f - R e l i a n c e 10.02 Sense of Person-a l Worth 10.-+9 Sense of Person-a l Freedom 12.15 F e e l i n g of Be-. l o n g i n g 12.2k Withdrawing Tendencies 10.20 Nervous Symptoms -11.09 S o c i a l Adjust. 67.27 S o c i a l Stand. 12.85 S o c i a l S k i l l s 10.k8 A n t i - S o c i a l Ten. 10.37 Family R e l a t . 11.55 School R e l a t . 10.23 Community R e l a t . "11.63 T o t a l Adjustment 133.27 Standard of E r r o r of Sk. (T R a t i o / 10.82 2.68 .60 ,1k -8.36 - .10 • 1.09 .03 -7.66 -3.33 2.72 .15 -1.60 .19 -8.*+2 2.50 .lk -1.-+8, .08 -18.50 2.62 .15 -1.9*+ .12 -16.16 2.86 2.88 10.60 1.82 2.39 2.86 3.0-+ 2.72 2.86 20.09 .16 .16 .58 .10 .16 .16 .15 .16 1.1k - .kk -.52 -I.T2 -10.67 .02 - .51 - I.»f2 - .15 - .93 - 2.23 .21 .21 .78 .13 .17 .23 .22 .21 .20 1.62 2.09 - 2.k9 - I.1+6 -82.07 .12 - 2.22 - 6.-+5 - .71 k.65 1.38 I H I TABLE XIV-MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS' STANDARD.ERROR OF MEANS, AND SKEWNESS FOR.THE TEST VARIABLES OF GRADE X. STUDENTS MEASURE • t-L' / ... OF Self-Adjustment 68.76 9.96 .63 -1.11 .76 .01 Self-Relianse 10.18 2.28 .14 .20 .09 2.22 Sense -of Personal - 37.76^ Worth 11.20 2.40 .15 -1.13 .03 Sense of Personal -2.51 .04 - 62.74 . Freedom 12.50 3.06 .19 1 Feeling of Belonging 10.44 2.52 .16 -1.78 .17 - 10.47 Ol to r Withdrawing- Tendencies 11.52 2.46 .16 1.50 .23 6.51 Nervous Symptoms 11.38 2.48 .16 -8.43 .22 -68-31 So c i a l Adjustment 69.86 9.83 .62. -1.86 .88 2.11 So c i a l Standards 12.84 1.92 .12 - .37 .17 2.17 So c i a l S k i l l s 10.99 2.42 .15 .18 .22 .82 Anti-Soc i a l Tend. 11.28 2.62. .17 .48 .23 2.08-Family Relations 11.87 3.12. .20 -1.13 .27 4.18 School Relations 10.89 2.50 .16 - .27 ,2E 1.22 Community Relations 11.82 2.60 .16 - .78 . .23 3,39 Total Adjustment 140.17 17.50 1.11 -4.56 1.47 3.10 -51-At the 1$ level of confidence the following distributions are very significantly skewed in a negative direction: sense of personal worth, sense of personal freedom, feeling of belonging, withdrawing tendencies, nervous symptoms, family relations, community relations and total adjustment . At the 5% level the following distributions are negatively skewed: self-reliance, social adjustment, social standards and anti-social tendencies. The distributions for self adjustment and social s k i l l s are approximately normal. There are probably two main reasons why many of these distributions depart from normality. In the f i r s t place, the negative skewness may have resulted from a biased sample. The total population of students in Grade VIII. and ,Grade X may be normally distributed in regard to these traite, but because of the method employed in obtaining our subjects we may have obtained negatively skewed distributions. It is worth observing that the manual data indicate the standardization group was negatively skewed on a l l the. measures except nervous symptoms, social standards and school relations. In the second place, the negative skewing may have resulted from a faulty measuring instrument. The manual data indicate -53-the average interquartile range for anyone subtest was only about 4 for the standardization group. As there are only fifteen items for measuring each of the separ-ate components the ranges of scores are rather small. Hence this personality test may not have enough highly diagnostic items to differentiate those students who are exceptionally well-adjusted from those students who are only well-adjusted . Probably both of these factors are responsible for this negative skewing. -54-CHAPTER VI. Re l i a b i l i t i e s of Measures Table XV. gives r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the variables in the California Test of Personality. One hundred students in each of the two grades were retested after a period of six and a half months. Por both grades the Richardson-Kuder r e l i a b i l i t i e s are based on the results of the original testings. The following Richardson-Kuder formula was used to estimate the r e l i a b i l i t y of the various measures for the f i r s t testing: rtt --S-T X V P * n -1 by 5 Where p q ie the product of average proportions of pass-ing and f a i l i n g testees to each item, n is the number of items in the test and .at is the standard deviation of the total test scores. » The Richardson-Kuder r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the separate subsections range between plus 0.45 to ,77 for Grade VIII. pupils. In the manual of direction^ r e l i -a b i l i t i e s of the subtests are said to be "sufficiently high that they provide an aid in locating more restricted areas of personality adjustment." The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of this test found in this study for the subsections are too low for individual prediction in the case of -55-TABLE XV. Richardson-Kuder R e l i a b i l i t y and Test-Reteet C o r r e l a t i o n s f o r Grade V I I I and Grade X. GRADE V I I I . GRADE X. Measure R.K.Reli-a b i l i t y . Teet-He-Test R e l i -a b i l i t y * H.K. R e l i -a b i l i t y xest-tfe-Test R e l i a b -i l i t y * Self-Adjustment .84 .84 .84 .80 S e l f - R e l i a n c e .54 .44. .49 .53 Sense of Personal Worth .52 .64 .48 . , .62 Sense of Personal Freedom .67 .65 .30 .42 F e e l i n g of Belong-in g . .70 .60 .53 .53 Withdrawing Tend-encies . • .77 .39 . .56 .54 Nervous Symptoms .69 .68 .58 .53 S o c i a l Adjustment .76 .59 .84 .74 S o c i a l Standards .45 .45 .57 .55 S o c i a l S k i l l s .45 .51 .52 .50 A n t i - S o c i a l Tend-encies . .63 .53 .63 .56 Family R e l a t i o n s .77 .60 .75 .64 S o c i a l Relatione .68 .40 .68 .45 Community Relatione .71 .52 .74 .53 T o t a l Adjustment .91 .68 .88 .67 Number of Cases 328 100 250 100 5 A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e l ^ l e v e l . -56-Grade VIII. pupils. The test-retest correlations range from plus 0.84 to plus 0.39 for Grade VIII. pupils. Test-retest coefficients show that the Richardson Kuder r e l i a b i l -i t i e s are lower on sense of personal worth and social s k i l l s than the test-retest coefficients. Richardson-Euder r e l i a b i l i t i e s and test-retest coefficients are identical for social standards and self-adjustment, and approximately identical for nervous symptoms. The Richardson-Kuder r e l i a b i l i t y of the total adjustment score for Grade X students is almost high enough for individual diagnosis. For Grade X pupils the Richardson-Kuder r e l i -a b i l i t i e s of the subtests range between plus 0.30 and plus 0.75. No subtests are sufficiently reliable for individual prediction. , The self-adjustment and social adjustment variables are probably sufficiently reliable for group prediction. The test-retest coefficients range, between plus 0.80 and plus 0.42 for Grade X. students. Test-retest coefficients are higher than the Richardson-Kuder r e l i a b i l i t i e s on self-reliance, sense of personal worth and sense of personal freedom . Test retest coefficients and Richardson-Kuder r e l i a b i l i t i e s are identical for -57 feeling of belonging and approximately identical for with-drawing tendencies, social standards and social s k i l l s . These r e l i a b i l i t i e s do not entirely correspond to the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of this test as reported in the manual of directions. Table XVI. gives the comparisons between the r e l i a b i l i t i e s found in this study and the only three r e l i a b i l i t i e s reported in the manual of dir-ections. Guilford (33, p.278) and others have pointed out that the Kuder-Richardson formula tends to under-estimate somewhat the r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient. This may account for the lower r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the total and self scores in this study as compared to those reported in the manual of directions. The r e l i a b i l i t y coeffic-ients for social Ascore are larger in the present study than that reported in the manual of directions. The low r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients for the sub-tests are to be expected since each subtest has only fifteen items. 4 -58. TABLE XVI. COMPARISONS OP RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS Adj uetment Manual Split-half Corrected Grade VIII . R-K Test-Reli- Retest a b i l i t y Grade X. R-K Teet-Reli- Retest a b i l i t y Total .932 * .68 .84 .67 Self .898 . i f . .84 .84 .80 Soc ia-1 .873 .59 .8^ f- .74 Number of Cases 792 328 100 250 100 -59-Item Analysis The basic purpose of item analysis is to re-ject items which f a i l to yield responses that differ-entiate those who are well-adjusted from those who are poorly adjusted. The most direct and simplest method of determining item v a l i d i t y is to divide your subjects into two criterion groups, a poorly adjusted group and a well-adjusted group, and then compute the correlation between the criterion scores and individual test items. Guilford (32,p.18) has provided a chart for a graphic solution of a phi («jj>) coefficient as an index of item validity based on the proportions of passing individuals in the upper and lower criterion groups. Guilford's chart was used in this study for computing the phi coefficients. One hundred and twenty-six tests in Grad^ e VIII. and one hundred and twenty-six tests in Grade X. were used as the basis for the item analysis. One hundred of the tests in each of the two grades were the ret est papers, while the other twenty-six tests in each of the. grades were those of students who had taken the test for the f i r s t time at the period of retesting. Three c r i -terion groups were used, by selecting upper and lower scores on each subtest, on self and social adjustment scores and on total adjustment scores. In each case -60-the upper and lower groups included 27 per centrrof the students who took the retest in December. Phi coeffic-ients were computed for each item according to each criterion. To arrive at a c r i t i c a l point or lowest accept-able phi coefficient, the n o i l hypothesis was made, and the establishment of the lowest acceptable phi coeffic-ient was accomplished through the use of the chi square. When the two criterion subgroups are equal in size X 2 = Njf2 . where X 2 is chi square, N is the number of cases and ^ 2 is the phi coefficient squared. With one degree of free-dom a chi square of 3.841 is significant at the 5$ level and one of 6.635 is significant at the 1% l e v e l . In our case a significant phi at 5% level would be equal to / 3.841 and a significant phi at the Ifo level would be equal to 7 6.635 —• Kelley (44) has shown that i f upper and lower groups are used, the certainty with which the means of the upper and lower groups are differentiated is at a maximum when two t a i l s of the normal distribution each contain twenty-seven per cent, of the cases. -61-Evaluating our phi coefficients by this chi square method, we find that an item that correlates with the criterion score more than ,24 is significant at the 5$ level and one correlating more than .32 is significant at the 1% level. Phi coefficients are found in Tables XXIV to XXVI. in Appendix C. Prom an examination of these tables, we find that the v a l i d i t y of an item depends consider-ably upon the criterion that was used, not a l l items being valid according to a l l three c r i t e r i a . The distributions of phi coefficients accord-ing to each c r i t e r i a are summarized in Table XVII. Study of this table reveals that the values of the phi coeffic-ients tary considerably from grade to grade. The mean phi coefficients, according to the three c r i t e r i a , are presented in Table XVIII The mean phi coefficients, according to the three c r i t e r i a , are very similar for both grades. As is to be expected the mean phi coefficients are greatest when the criterion is scored on each subtest. Mean values of the phi coeffic-ients are practically similar for self, social and total adjustment c r i t e r i a . Table X n C i l . and XKC show the number of valid items in each subtest according to. each of the three c r i t e r i a . The interesting fact arising from these two 62 TABLE XVII D i s t r i b u t i o n of Item V a l i d i t i e s According to Each of Three C r i t e r i a Sub-test Self Ad.i • S o c i a l Ad.1 . Total Adj Or .VIII .Gr .X. Gr .VIII Gr .X. Gr.VIII -.Gr .X VIII . X .80 - .80 2 3 .70 - .79 11 6 3 1 .60 ** .69 27 18 2 1 7 5 4 1 .50 «• .59 22 32 6 5 8 5 15 14 .40 a* .49 ' 43 38 24 . 16 18 21 24 23 .30 - .39 35 27 19 24 . 16 16 53 43 .20 - .29 25 . 37 27 21 21 20 40 42 .10 - .19 .14 10 8 15 13 14 ' 27 32 .00 - .09 3 , 9 4 8 7 8 10 • 23 -.10 - -.01 1 3 1 -.20 - -.11 1 63-TABLE XVIII. Mean Phi Coefficients by Grades and Cr i t e r i a . Criterion Grade Subtest Self Adj . Social Adj . Total Adj . VIII. | X. .44 .42 .34 .30 .34 .32 .32 .41 -64-, tables is that the percentage of items valid at the 1% level varies greatly with the criterion. At the 1% level, 77 per cent, of a l l items are valid for Grade VIII. pupils according to subtest v a l i d i t y , whereas only 66 per cent, are valid for Grade X. pupils. The items would appear to be more valid for the Grade VIII. students than for the Grade X. students according to each of the three, c r i t e r i a . The data from these two tables indicate that the three best subtests, according to agreement with subtest score, for Grade VIII. papers are withdrawing tendencies, nervous symptoms and anti-social tendencies. These, tests have items which are a l l significant at the 5fo level. ¥o single subtest on the Grade X. papers has a l l of its items significant at the o% level, although the family relations subtest has fourteen items signi-ficant at the b% level . For both the grades, according to each of the three c r i t e r i a , the social standards subtest is the test most lacking in item v a l i d i t y . The data indicate, that, on the average, items are more valid when correlated with subtest total score than when correlated with self or social or total adjust-ment score. Because of this fact i t is suggested that the scores on the subtests may be more meaningful than those on self-adjustment, social adjustment or total adjustment score. TABLE XIJC^i . NUMBER OP ITEMS IN SELF-ADJUSTMENT SUB--TESTS VALID AT 1% and 5# LEVELS. Jb. C r i t e r i o n Suh-tes-rJ Self-Adj . To t a l Adj . Or .VIII. X Sr.VIII. . X. • " Or .VIII . X. 1% 1% 1% 5% 1# 5fo Self-Reliance 12 2 9 1 11 2 5 1 7 4 5 2 Personal Worth 12 2 10 0 9 3 7 2 6 3 6 2 Personal Freedom 11 1 9 1 7 2 5 3 7 0 5 1 Feeling of Belonging 11 1 10 1 4 5 6 2 3 5 8 2 Withdrawing 13 2 11 1 10 2 10 1 8 4 7 2 Nervous 12 3 12 1 8 3 8 1 7 1 5 4 % of A l l Items 80 10 68 6 54 19 47 1 42 19 40 14 —' In each sub-test there are 15 items. - 6 6 -TABLE X J T A , NUMBER OP ITEMS IN SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT SUB-TESTS VALID AT 1% and 5# LEVELS .±-± C r i t e r i o n Sub- test S o c i a l Adj . Total Adj • Gr.VIII 2 Gr .VIII. X . Sr .VIII. X • 1% • 5# 5% Soc i a l Standard's 8 1 7 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 .Social S k i l l s 10 1 10 3 6 3 6 1 7 1 7 2 Ant i-Soc i a l 14 1 9 3 11 2 6 3 12 2 2 6 Family Relations 11 1 12 2 11 0 7 7 11 1 11 ,2 School Relations 10 1 10 0 8 1 7 3 8 3 3 1 Community Relations 13 0 10 2 1Q 2 11 1 9 . 1 8 0 % of A l l lieme 73 7 63 13 52 1 44 16 53 11 28 13 In each sub-test there are 15 items. -67-CHAPT3R VIII. Validation; by Outside Criteria Validation,, by Test Intercorrelation. If two personality measures are valid indicators of total adjustment, then we should expect them to cor-relate rather highly. Personality questionnaires have been validated against other tests. While this method of validation is not ideal, i t does afford some estimate of v a l i d i t y . In order to determine the relationship which exists between the total adjustment score on the California Test of Personality, and another measure of adjustment the total score on the Detroit Adjustment Inventory was correlated with that of the California. Ninety-one stu-dents in Grade IX. were used in this analysis .of the tests. The correlation between the total adjustment score on the California Test of Personality and the total score on the Detroit Adjustment Inventory was plus 0.512 £ 0 53 .P.E. Judging from this correlation the California test bears a very s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant relationship to the Detroit Adjustment Inventory. The Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t y coefficient for the California test at the Grade VIII. level is plus 0.84 and the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the Detroit Adjustment Inventory (test-retest was one -68- • . month apart) is plus 0.74. Applying the correction for attenuation, we find the correlation "between true scores in these two to be plus 0.65 rather than the obtained one of plus 0.51. These two tests apparently measure to a f a i r extent the same aspect of personality adjustment. This does not prove that they actually do measure student adjustment. They do appear, however, to measure some-thing in a f a i r l y consistent manner. This correlation has only provided an inferential estimate that the Cal-ifornia Test of Personality has some v a l i d i t y . Validation by Teacher Rating . To serve as an outside criterion with which the personality scores of these students might be compared, the members of the teaching staff .were asked to rate the students on school relations, nervous symptoms, with-drawing tendencies, anti-social tendencies and total adjustment. Eighty-six pupils in Grade IX. (those originally in Grade VIII.) were rated by their respect-ive teachers. Each pupil received only one rating. The correlations between teacher.ratings and California scores, shown in Table XXI. are a l l low. The correlations between these teachers' ratings and test scores range between minus .145 to\r.225. None of these measures show? any s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant 69 TABLE X X r CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TEACHER RATINGS • AND FIVE MEASURES ON THE CALIFORNIA TEST OF PERSONALITY • Measur e r P.E.r .089 .07 -.145• .06. .225 .68 -.157 .07 .012 .07 -70-relationship to teacher judgment of personality adjust-ment . It is apparent from these correlations that the scores received "by students on these five measures give no indication of adjustment insofar as these are com-pared with teacher ratings of student adjustment as ob-served in classroom situations. If these ratings are highly reliable and valid then i t follows that the Cal-ifornia Test of Personality offers l i t t l e help in the isolation of personality problems (relative to the five measures rated) to this educational situation, and hence, does not possess a high degree of v a l i d i t y . However there are reasons that probably con-tribute to these low correlations. These reasons are as follows: 1. The teachers tended to be generous and over-rate the pupils. Only three students were placed down in the very poor end of the scale; 2 . the teachers stated that they could not rate the specific personality traits independently of each other. Each rating is affected by the general attitude of the teacher toward the pupil; 3 . i f each student could have been rated by at least three teachers, and the pooled judgment taken the r e l i r a b i l i t y of rating would have increased. One rating is probably highly unreliable; 4 . scores on the test may have been f i c t i t i o u s for some students because of f a l s i f i c a -tion; 5 . maladjustment shown on the inventory may not he vi s i b l e in classroom situations. For these reasons i t is impossible to say i f the test is or is not a valid measure of personality adjust-ment . It would seem, however, that i t is safe to conclude that i t is at least not a valid indicator of school r e l -ations such as prevail at this educational situation. 72 CHAPTER IX. Intercorrelations and Interpretation of the Relationships Among the Test Variables One of the most important considerations in any study of the analysis of personality traits is the inquiry • into the intercorrelations among these t r a i t s . A l l degrees of relationship are of prime importance, from the chance correlations between traits indicating the uniqueness of these variables to the correlations which indicate some, or a high degree, of relationship among traits . Table XX7X gives the coefficients of correlations among the test variables for 250 students in Grade VIII. The data in Table XXJJ. indicate that in the main there are significant relationships between the various subtests. Hence, subtests are probably not measuring uncorrelated unique t r a i t s . The correlation between the self adjustment score and the social adjustment score is .70. When corr-ected for attenuation, this becomes .83., indicating that the two scales do not measure two distinct aspects of personality adjustment. Correlation cluster'analysis, correlation-profile analysis and factor analysis were used in an attempt to discover the organization underlying the C a l i -fornia Test of Personality. TABLE TXTZ .INTERCORRELATIONS OF GRADE X. STUDENTS -250 Students. 2 3 4 5 6. 7 • 8 9 10' i i 12 13 .. 14 15 l S e l f S Adjustment .40 .41 .57 .73 .69 .58' .70 .32 .49 .38 .27 .46. .42 .91 Z S e l f - R e l i a n c e .21 • * .15 .37 .40 .47 .41 .12* .44 .30 .35 .30 .26 .56 3Sense of Per-sonal Worth .20 .68 .29 .36 .49 .19 .45 .19 .26 .39 .34 .63 •ISense of Per-sonal Freedom .31 .24 .36 .33 .00* .09* .17 .57 .15 .17 .42 5 F e e l i n g pf Belonging .39 .36 .55 .11* .27 .25 .08* .26 .23 .65 hWithdrawing Tendencies .45. .54 .23 .27 .44 .51 .36 .33 .67 .53 .12 .36 .46 .51 .40 .24 .86 8 S o c i a l Adjustment .60 .67 .75 .68 .65 .62 .92 S§?andards .2-2 .32 .21 .33 .18 .37 / 0 S o c i a l S k i l l s .27 .24 .43 .33 .51 «i Anti-Social Tendencies .36 .45 .33 .61 '* Family. Relations .33 .25 .60 School Relations ".So .59 if uommunity Re l a t i ons .-54 5 Total Adj. • * Not s i g n i f i c a n t at the Ifo l e v e l ; a l l others are s i g n i f i c a n t at the ifo l e v e l . Correlation Cluster Analysis. A correlation cluster may be defined as a group of trait elements which correlate highly for a l l possible pairings of items in a cluster (Cattell 17, p.76) . -The number of clusters which can be.obtained from our table of intercorrelations depends on the arbitrary level of inter-correlation accepted as defining a cluster, and on the . grouping of the variables,. In order to be admitted to a cluster in the present study each variable was required .. to correlate at least plus .4 with every other member of the cluster. Pour main clusters were determined by this method. Table XXIII. presents these clusters with the residual subtests or traits whose correlations were not satisfactorily congruent with the main clusters. Each pair in a residual does, however, intercorrelate at least to the extent of plus .4. The lines in the table show the overlap or intercorrelations of. one cluster with another and the overlap of residuals with the main clusters. These clusters are themselves considerably inter-correlated. "Nervous symptoms" is found in each of the four main clusters, "withdrawing tendencies" is found in three and "anti-social tendencies" is gound in two. Res-idual cluster (e) overlaps with the second main cluster. Such evidence suggests that not only are the subtests TABLE XXIH SUBTESTS PALLING IN SIMILAR CORRELATION CLUSTERS. — GLUSTERS Nervous . ^ 2. N e r v o u s — ^> 3. Nervous >4. Nervous Withdrawing Withdrawing ^ Withdrawing School Self-Reliance F a m i l y . Anti-Social J ^ A n t i Q Social RESIDUALS i; ) Sk i l l s - —1 r- (b) S k i l l s .-(c) S k i l l s ' - (d) Belongingl(e)jPersonal I .r 'v (Freedom School J Self-Reliance Personal Wor/t^^rsonal W o r t t i ^ Family 1. Only an abbreviated t i t l e of each subtest has been given -76-c a l l e d "nervous symptoms", "withdrawing tendencies" and " a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies" measuring somewhat the same aspect of adjustment, but also that these subtests are measuring things in common with some of the other subtests. C o r r e l a t i o n - P r o f i l e Analysis . Tryon's (92) method of c o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e analy-s i s was also used to determine the organization of the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . This method attempts to discover c l u s -ters by studying the columns of c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s in a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. The members of a c l u s t e r have s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s as regards t h e i r correlations with a l l the other v a r i a b l e s . The members of such a c l u s t e r do not necessarily have to correlate highly with one another as they do in the method of c o r r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r . C o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e analysis yielded three clus-ters of t r a i t s f o r the table of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . Clus-t e r one included nervous symptoms, withdrawing tendencies , community re l a t i o n s , school r e l a t i o n s , and a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies . The t r a i t s in t h i s c l u s t e r show po s i t i v e correlations with every other t r a i t . Cluster two is com-posed of s o c i a l s k i l l s , s o c i a l standards, s e l f - r e l i a n c e and personal freedom . There is a f a i r l y marked r e l a t i o n -ship of th i s c l u s t e r with the f i r s t c l u s t e r . The items describing these t r a i t s imply components of self-assurance in d i f f e r e n t types of s i t u a t i o n s . Cluster three, composed -77-of sense of personal worth, f e e l i n g of belonging and fam-i l y r e l a t i o n s , is not very c l e a r l y defined. The t r a i t s in t h i s c l u s t e r show po s i t i v e correlations with every t r a i t . This c l u s t e r has a great deal in common with c l u s t e r two. This c l u s t e r seems to depict a factor deter-mining c o r d i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with people in general. The f i r s t c l u s t e r of the c o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e analysis is somewhat s i m i l a r to the four main c l u s t e r found by the c o r r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r method.. Nervous symp-toms, withdrawing tendencies, a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies and school relations found in c l u s t e r one of the p r o f i l e - . analysis also appear in the four main c o r r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r s . The t h i r d c l u s t e r of t h e . p r o f i l e analysis i s s i m i l a r to the residual c o r r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r of f e e l i n g of belonging and sense of personal worth. ^ Factor Analysis of Sub-tests M u l t i p l e - f a c t o r analysis was used f i r s t of a l l to discover i f there are underlying, basic factors in terms of which the twelve sub-tests may be expressed, arid second, to i d e n t i f y these functional u n i t i e s or f a c t o r s . Table XXj-Vi . presents the results of the f a c t o r analysis of the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r Grade V I I I . students using •the general factor method described by Burt (14, p.461 -467 . The results obtained are f i r s t approximations only. TABLE XXIM. FACTOR LOADINGS? COMMUNALITIES? RELIABILITIES, SPECIFICITIES AND THE.VARIANCES ATTRIBUTABLE.TO UNIQJENESS.AND TO SAMPLING.ERRORS 'FOR THE.SUBTESTS - TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY STUDENTS IN GRADE VIII. ..ORIGINAL TEST.. SUBTEST FAC1 POR H 2 r t t Speci-f i c i t y Unique ness - .Error Variance I. I I . I I I . Nervous Symptoms .684 .250 -.127 .547 .58 .033 .453 .420 Withdrawing .656 ,123 .144 .466 .56 .094 .534 .440 Personal Worth .640 -.466 .217 .756 .48 -.276 .244 .520 Family Relations .625 • 411 .250 .622 .75 .128 .378 .250 School Relations .612 -.22.1 -.265 .494 .68 .186 .506 .320 An t i - S o c i a l .591 .287 -.360 .561 .63 .069 .439 .370 Belonging . 589 -.446 .578 .880 .53 -.350 .120 .470 Self-Reliance .567 .245 -.238 .338 .49 .152 .462 .310 So c i a l S k i l l s .564 -.287 -.261 .469 .52 .051 .531 .480 Community Relations .488 -.145 .210 .303 .74 .437 .697 .260 Personal Freedom .434 ,415 .309 .456 .30 -.156 .544 .700 So c i a l Standards .348 -.250 -.314 .284 • .57 .286 .716 .430 . EK a/N .312 .097 .094 -79-The loadings f o r each, of the three factors with the sub-tests are in the colunns headed I., I I . , I I I . The communalit ies are given in the column headed "h 2" , which is the sum of the squares of the three f a c t o r load-ings in a sub-test . It represents the t o t a l variance of a sub-test that can be attributed to these three factors* In order to make some further estimates concerning the variance of a sub-test, we need an estimate of the co-e f f i c i e n t of r e l i a b i l i t y of the sub-test'. The Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s are shown in the column headed " r t t " . In the column headed " s p e c i f i c i t y " are given the s p e c i f i c i t i e s of the sub-tests. These are found from the r e l a t i o n : s p e c i f i c i t y s r t t - h 2 . The specif-i c i t y of a sub-test is that part of i t s variance a t t r i b u t -able to factors belonging to that sub-test alone . The column headed "Uniqueness" is found from the equation;, uniqueness « l - h 2 . It i s the sura of the variances of each sub-test produced by factors other than the three found in t h i s t e s t , or i t is a l l the variance that is a result of the s p e c i f i c and error factors combined. The last column contains the error variance of each sub-test . The determiners of thi s variance d i f f e r from sub-test to sub-test . It is found by the r e l a t i o n : error v a r i -ance equals uniqueness minus s p e c i f i c i t y . The t o t a l . -80-variance, which is equal to one, is the sum of r t t plus error variance, or the sum of h 2 plus uniqueness, or the sum of h 2 plus s p e c i f i c i t y plus error variance. Before we attempt to i d e n t i f y and name the three f a c t o r s , l e t ue observe some general facts about Table XXIII. The f i r s t row of Table XXI V£, which has to do with the sub-test c a l l e d "Freedom from Nervous Symp-toms" is interpreted as follows: It has a po s i t i v e loading of .684 with Factor I . This sub-test has small loadings with Factors I I . and I I I . Approximately 55 per cent, ( h 2 b .547) of the t o t a l variance of this sub-test is accounted f o r by the three f a c t o r s , 3 per cent, (speci-f i c i t y • .033) by factors belonging to t h i s test alone, and 42 per cent, (error variance • .420) by errors of measurement. In a s i m i l a r fashion are a l l the other sub-tests' interpreted from the data in Table XXIII. "Social Standards" contribute very l i t t l e to any of the three f a c t o r s . This may be due to the fact> that according to the item analysis, i t lacks a high degree of inter n a l consistency. Over 75 per cent, of the variances f o r "sense of personal wortJa" and " f e e l i n g of belonging" are accounted f o r by these three factors; and "nervous symptoms", "family r e l a t i o n s , " and " a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies" are f a i l y w e l l accounted f o r by the same f a c t o r s . -81-"Nervous symptoms" is largely determined "by Factor I. and i t jhas an unknown variance or s p e c i f i c i t y of three per cent . "Withdrawing tendencies" is also a r e l a t i v e l y pure measure of Factor I., and has an un-known variance of only nine per cent. "Community r e l a -t i o n s " i s to a large extent determined by Factor I . , hut i t s determination is s t i l l forty-three per cent, unknown, the largest a p e c i f i c i t y f a c t o r found in any sub-test. In general, the data in Table XXIII. indicate the greater part of the variance of each sub-test, apart from error variance,can be a t t r i b u t e d to three f a c t o r s . While the unknown variance varies from 3 to 43 per cent., most of the sub-tests have very small unknown variances.-I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Factors Let us. now attempt to i d e n t i f y and name the three factors indicated by the a n a l y s i s . The f a c t o r analyses method does not supply names with which to de-scribe psychologically the e n t i t i e s derived by the method. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of factors in the present study is..based upon an examination of items in the t e s t s , and upon an inspection of the signis, and numerical values of the fa c t o r loadings . Thurstone's measure- of r e l a t i v e impor-tance (EK^/il) has-been calculated f o r each fa c t o r and has been used as a guide in l i s t i n g each fa c t o r in columnar order in Table XXIY- . Thurstone's measure of r e l a t i v e -82-importance is the sum of the squares of the fac t o r loadings divided by the number of sub-tests, and i t indicates the con--t r i b u t i o n of each fac t o r to the t o t a l variance of a l l the sub-tests. The f i r s t factor accounts f o r 31 per cent.of the t o t a l variance. A l l of the sub-tests are p o s i t i v e l y loaded with the f i r s t f a c t o r . "Nervous symptoms" and "withdrawing tendencies" are most heavily weighted with t h i s f a c t o r , with "sense of personal worth*', "family r e l a t i o n s " and "Bchool r e l a t i o n s " following in that order. These tests might com-prise' evidence f o r the more f a m i l i a r l y known neurotic ten-dencies characterized by nervousness and withdrawing. Stu-dents making low scores on these tests would be character-ized by poor personality integration. Hence Factor I . seems to be'measuring a general adjustment f a c t o r , one which emphasizes freedom from nervousness and withdrawing ten-dencies . The second factor accounts f o r 10 per cent.of the t o t a l variance. Its factor loadings are pa r t l y p o s i t i v e and p a r t l y negative. It is thus a bipo l a r f a c t o r . The factor loadings are p o s i t i v e f o r "nervous symptoms", "withdrawing tendencies"."family r e l a t i o n s " , " a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies", " s e l f - r e l i a n c e " and "sense of personal freedom", negative f o r "sense of personal worth", "school r e l a t i o n s " , " f e e l i n g of belonging", " s o c i a l standards", "family r e l a t i o n s " and "sense of personal freedom" have the highest p o s i t i v e l o a d -ing f a c t o r . The two tests which have the highest negative weighting with the second f a c t o r are "sense of personal worth" and " f e e l i n g of belonging" . We may infer that p o s i t i v e values of the factor indicate a sense of secur-i t y , and the negative values, a sense of personal inade-quacy. Hence the second f a c t o r may be best described as a sense of personal security or self-assurance. The t h i r d factor is harder to interpret f o r t h i s group of students, - i t contributes 9 per cent . of the t o t a l variance. This t h i r d f a c t o r tends to be doubly b i p o l a r ; that i s , i t s f a c t o r loadings f o r the s i x sub-tests which a l l had p o s i t i v e loadings with the second fact o r are now half p o s i t i v e and: h a l f negative; and the factor loadings which a l l had negative f a c t o r loadings with the second fac t o r are now half p o s i t i v e and half negative. This t h i r d factor, therefore, probably i n -dicates two d i s t i n c t s u b - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : 1. f i r s t of a l l , i t divides the six sub-tests which had p o s i t i v e factor loadings with the second fac t o r into (a) a sub-group of three, which appear to represent a sense of personal freedom, and (b) a sub-group of three, which appear to represent freedom from a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies; 2. and secondly, i t divides the remaining s i x sub-tests into (a) a sub-group of three, which represent a f e e l i n g of belonging, and (b) a sub-group of three, which appear -84-to represent a respect for. s o c i a l standards. The t h i r d f a c t o r shows a heavy and s p e c i f i c p o s i t i v e loading in the measure of f e e l i n g of belonging. Whatever ent i t y is being measured seems to relate primarily to c o r d i a l relations with people and respect f o r s o c i a l standards. The findings of fac t o r analysis tend to corrob-orate and elucidate the data found by cor r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r analysis and c o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s . Factor one found by factor analysis i s remarkably s i m i l a r to c l u s t e r one found by cor r e l a t i o n p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s . The /four main clusters found by cor r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r analysis shewed that nervous symptoms, withdrawing symptoms and a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies were the main determining sub-tests f o r these c l u s t e r s . A l l of these sub-tests are also heavily loaded with fa c t o r one . Factor two i s somewhat' s i m i l a r to clu s t e r two of the c o r r e l a t i o n p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s . The re s i d u a l t r a i t s of the cor r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r analysis appear to have much in common with f a c t o r two. Factor three i s approxi-mately the same as c l u s t e r three of the c o r r e l a t i o n p r o f i l e analysis . I -85-Chapter X  Summary and Conclusions The purpose of t h i s study was to make a comprehensive s t a t i s t i c a l evaluation of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, Intermediate Series, Form A. This ttest was given to 173 hoys and 155 g i r l s in ten classes in Grade VIII, and 125 hoys and 125 g i r l s in eight ©lasses in Grade X. A l l subjects were tested as a group in t h e i r respective classes at the K i t s i l a n o Junior-Senior High School, Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Of the students o r i g i n a l l y tested, 100 students in each of the grades were retested approximately s i x and one half months l a t e r . In resume, one may say that within the l i m i t s o f . t h i s study the following results appear:-1. Grade VIII and Grade X students d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r mean scores at the 1% l e v e l on s e l f adjustment, sense of personal worth, s o c i a l adjust-ment, freedom from a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies, school relations and t o t a l adjustment. 2. Canadian students d i f f e r from the American sample, to such an extent that the manual norms would appear to be of l i t t l e value in the school system where t h i s study took place. 3. Grade VIII g i r l s and boys d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r mean scores at the 1% l e v e l on s e l f reliance, freedom from nervous symptoms, s o c i a l s k i l l s , -86-freedom from a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies and community re l a t i o n s . 4. At the 1% l e v e l there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between mean scores of Grade X boys and g i r l s on s e l f reliance, sense of personal worth, f e e l i n g of belonging, s o c i a l standards and s o c i a l s k i l l s . 5. Grade VIII g i r l s and Grade X g i r l s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in th e i r mean scores at the ~$$> l e v e l on s e l f adjustment, s e l f reliance, sense of personal worth, freedom from withdrawing tendencies and t o t a l adjustment. 6. At the 1$ l e v e l there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between man scores of Grade VIII boys and Grade X boys on s e l f reliance, sense of personal worth, f e e l i n g of belonging, s o c i a l standards, s o c i a l s k i l l s and freedom from a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies. 7. At the 1$ l e v e l Grade VIII g i r l s and Grade X boys d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r mean scores on s e l f adjustment, sense of personal freedom, freedom from with-drawing tendencies and s o c i a l standards. 8. Grade VIII boys and Grade X g i r l s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in t h e i r mean scores at the 1% l e v e l on s e l f adjustment, sense of personal worth, freedom from with-drawing tendencies, freedom from nervous symptoms, s o c i a l s k i l l s , freedom from a n t i - s o c i a l tendencies, school relations and-total adjustment. 9. At the ifa l e v e l the following d i s t r i b u t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y skewed in a negative d i r e c t i o n f o r Grade -87-V I I I students: self adjustment, self reliance, sense of personal worth, sense of personal freedom, feeling of belonging, social standards, family relations and commun-ity relations . 10. At the 1% level the following distributions are significantly skewed in a negative direction for Grade X students: sense of personal worth, sense of personal freedom, feeling of belonging, freedom from withdrawing tendencies, freedom from nervous symptoms, family relations, community relations and total adjustment. 11. Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the various measures for the Grade V I I I group, on the original testing, were between .44 and .91, and for Grade X pupils the Kudef-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t i e s were "between .30 and .88 for the various measures on the original testing. 12. Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged between .39 and .84 for the Grade V I I I group, and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s were between .42 and .80 for the Grade X group . 13. The va l i d i t y of an item depends considerably upon the criterion that was used, not a l l items being valid according to a l l three c r i t e r i a used in the present study. 14. The values of item v a l i d i t i e s , that is the item phi coefficients, vary considerably from grade to grade. -88-15. Mean item v a l i d i t i e s - p h i c o e f f i c i e n t s - are greatest when the c r i t e r i o n i s score on each subtest. 16. Mean values of the phi c o e f f i c i e n t s are p r a c t i c a l l y s i m i l a r f o r s e l f , s o c i a l and t o t a l adjustment c r i t e r i a . 17. At the 1$ l e v e l 11% of a l l items are v a l i d for Grade VIII pupils according to subtest v a l i d i t y , where-as, only 66$ of a l l items are v a l i d f o r Grade X pu p i l s . 18. The three best subtests, according to agreement with subtest score, f o r Grade VIII students are freedom from withdrawing tendencies, freedom from nervous symptoms and freedom from a n t i s o c i a l tendencies, 19. Por both grades, according to each of the three c r i t e r i a , the s o c i a l standards subtest is the test most lacking in item v a l i d i t y . 2©. The co r r e l a t i o n between the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality and the Detroit Adjustment Inventory 1B .51, and t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n becomes .65 when corrected for att equation. 21. Correlations between f i v e measures on the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality and teacher r a t i n j j o f adjust-ment vary from - .145 to"fc225. 22. The corr e l a t i o n between the s e l f adjustment i and the s o c i a l adjustment score is .70, and when corrected f o r attenuation, this becomes 23. In the main there are s i g n i f i c a n t relationships -89-between the various subtests. 24. A correlation c l u s t e r analysis revealed four main clusters of t r a i t s , among the subtests. There clusters were themselves considerably int ere or related. 25. C o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e analysis yielded three clus t e r s of t r a i t s among the subtests. .26. A fac t o r analysis of the subtests by the Burt general f a c t o r method indicates that three factors w i l l account f o r most of the relationships among the various subtests of the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality. 27. The findings of factor analysis tend to corroborate and elucidate the data found by c o r r e l a t i o n c l u s t e r analysis and c o r r e l a t i o n - p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s . In resume of these results, one may say that within the l i m i t s of t h i s the following general conclusions A appear: 1. The data suggest that where there are sig n i f i c a n t differences in the mean scores at the 1$ l e v e l between groups that such groups should be scored on a separate set of norms. This would mean Grade VIII students and Grade X students should be scored on different norms f o r s e l f adjustment, sense of personal worth, s o c i a l adjustment, freedom from a n t i s o c i a l tendencies, school relations and t o t a l adjustment. S i g n i f i c a n t sex differences exist on various measures, both, within grades and between grades. Yiflaere s i g n i f i c a n t sex differences exist, a separate set of -90-norms should be used f o r each sex, 2. The manual nouns would appear to be of l i t t l e value i n the school system where t h i s study took place. 3. Because of the high average scores on the measures of this test and the extreme negative skewness on may of these measures, these measures prob£iy do not discriminate between those students who are exceptionally w e l l adjusted from those who are w e l l adjusted. 4. The. Kuder-Richardson r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the sub-tests indicate that they are not high enough f o r i n d i v i d u a l diagnosis. The t o t a l adjustment score f o r Grade VIII pupils is the onHy measure s u f f i c e n t l y r e l i a b l e f o r i n d i v i d -u a l diagnos is . 5 . The test - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s indicate that what i s being measured is perhaps something t r a n s i t o r y , rather than the fundamental pattern or organization of pe rs o n a l i t y . 6 . According to the item analysis, the t e s t appears to be more v a l i d or i n t e r n a l l y c onsistent f o r Grade VIII students than f o r Grade X students. 7. Items are more v a l i d when correlated with subtest t o t a l score than when correlated with s e l f or s o c i a l or t o t a l adjustment score. Because of t h i s fact i t i s suggested that the scores on the subtests may be more meaningful than those on s e l f adjustment, s o c i a l adjustment or t o t a l adjustment. 8. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality and the Detroit Adjustment Inventory indicates that -they measure something in a consistent manner. The cor r e l a t i o n between these two measures has given us" an i n f e r e n t i a l estimate that they may have some v a l i d i t y . 9. If the teacher ratings of student adjustment are highly r e l i a b l e and v a l i d , then .it follows that the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality does not possess a high, degree of v a l i d i t y . The results indicate that the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality is not a v a l i d indicator of student adjustment in school situations such as p r e v a i l at the educational si t u a t i o n where t h i s study was made. 10. In the main there are s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between the various subtests. Hence, subtests are probably not measuring uncorrelat<Lcfn unique t r a i t s . 11. The high c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f adjustment and s o c i a l adjustment indicate that the two scales do not measure two d i s t i n c t aspects of personality adjustment. 12. Three factors or c l u s t e r of t r a i t s w i l l account f o r most of the relationships among the subtests. Cne factor was i d e n t i f i e d as a general adjustment-factor, one which emphasizes freedom from nervousness and with-drawing tendencies. The second fa c t o r may best be described as a sense of personal security or s e l f assurance. Whatever entity the t h i r d factor i s measuring, i t seems to relate primarily to c o r d i a l relations with people and respect f o r s o c i a l standards. A p p e n d i x A C o p i e s o f t e s t s u s e d \ A Intermediate Series Grades 7 -10 CALIFORNIA TEST OF PERSONALITY—INTERMEDIATE Form A A PROFILE OF P E R S O N A L A N D S O C I A L A D J U S T M E N T Devised by Wi l l i s W . C la rk , Ernest W . Tiegs, and Louis P. Thorpe Name. .Date..'. Sex: Boy-Girl School. .Age Last Birthday. Teacher Grade. C O M P O N E N T S 1. Self Adjustment . . . A . Sel f - re l iance . . . . B. Sense of Personal Wor th C . Sense of Personal Freedom D. Feeling of Belonging . E. Withdrawing Tendencies (Freedom from) F. Nervous Symptoms . . (Freedom from) 2. Social Adjustment . . A . Social Standards . . B. Social Skills . . . C. Ant i - soc ia l Tendencies (Freedom from) D. Family Relations . . E. School Relations . . F. Community Relations TOTAL ADJUSTMENT Pos-si- Sta-ble dent's Score Score 90 15 15 15 15 15 15 Per-cent-ile Rank P E R C E N T I L E Chart Student's Percentile Bank Here) 1 10 20 30 40 50 . 60 70 8C 90 15 15 15 15 15 15 180 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 J . 90 99 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 99 P E R C E N T I L E Copyright. 1942, by California Test Bureau Published by California Test Bureau — z — •\\e uiaqi paqsiuii 3AEIJ noA" |IJUn J3UJOUB OJ 3 §Ed auo UIOJJ uo aq3u OQ (jsSuiqj j n o q B op noA" IEUM. JO ' p a i noA A\oq '>[uiqi noA" JETIM MOUS m q 'SUOJAV i o JUSIJ jou 3JE suoiisanb aqj^ •suopsanb SJE salted jxau aqj UQ ON S3A d^BP!Ji * S E l I 0 0 H 3 S 0 1 o S n 0 ^ P!Q 3 ON S3A c J B 0 B 3 A ! J P n 0 A " U B D '9 ON S3A puxoq JE 3op B 3 A E q noA OQ y •A*EA\ 3UIES 3qj OAVJ jpqjo aqj OQ $3A p u n o j E apjp E 9>[EUI ainoq IE 3op E OAEIJ noA JI '^ jduiExa JOJ[ 'ON J O S3A 3 H l P u no j^ apjp E 35{EUI 'suopsanb 2U;A\O|[OI aqj jo qoE9 J 3 j j y siNaanis 01 SNOIIDOCIISNI INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES First look, at each thing in this test. Make a circle around the L for each thing that you like or would very much like to do. Then make a circle around the D for things you really do. 1. L D Play the radio 27. L D Collect coins 51. L D Go to church 2.L D Read stories 28. L D Collect autographs 52. L D Go to Sunday 3.L D Go to movies 29. L D Collect pictures School 4. L D Read comic strips 30. L D Use a camera 53. L D Belong to a club 5. L D Work problems 31. L D Sew or knit 54. L D Belong to YMCA 6.1 D Study history 32. L D Repair things . or YWCA 7. L D Study science 33. L D Make boats 55. L D Go to parks 8.L D Study literature 34. L D Make airplanes 56. L D Engage in sports 9. L D Do cross-word 35. L D Make a radio 57. L D Go to a circus puzzles 36. L D Work with tools 58. L D Sing in a chorus 10. L D Study trees 37. L D Have a garden 59. L D Sing in a glee club 11.L D Study birds 38. L D Drive an automobile 60. L D Belong to a gang 12. L D Study animals 39. L D Play with pets 61. L D Play ping pong 13. L D Study butterflies 40. L D Raise animals 62. L D PLay croquet 14. L b Draw or paint 41. L D Go fishing 63. L D Play ball 15. L D Work in laboratory 42. L D Climb or hike 64. L D Play tennis 16. L D Model or design 43. L D Skate 65. L D Go hunting 17. L D Do housework 44. L D Ride a bicycle 66. L D Go riding with 18. L D Sing 45. L 0 Ride a horse others 19. L D Play the piano 46. L D Practice first aid 67. L D Play in a band 20. L D Make a scrapbook . 68. L D Play in an orchestra 21. L D Keep a diary 69. L D Go to church socials 22. L D Write poems 70. L D Go to parties 23. L D Speak pieces 47. L D Play cards 71. L D Go to dances 24. L D Play an instrument 48. L D Play dominoes 72. L D Be an officer of a club 25. L D Visit museums 49. L D Play checkers 73. L D Be a class officer 26. L D Collect stamps 50. L D Play chess 74. L D Go camping SECTION 1 A SECTION l ' B 1. Do you keep on working even if the job is hard? 2. Is it hard for you to be calm when things go wrong? 3. Does it usually bother you when people do not agree with you? * 4. When you are around strange people do you usually feel uneasy? 5. Is it easy for you to admit it when you are in the wrong? 6. Do you have to be reminded often to finish your work? 7. Do you often think about the kind of work you want to do when you grow up? 8. Do you feel bad when your classmates make fun of you? 9. Is it easy for you to meet or introduce people? 10. Do you usually feel sorry for yourself when you get hurt? 11. Do you find it easieryto do what your friends plan than to make your own plans? 12. Do you find that most people try to boss you? 13. Is it easy for you to talk to important people? 14. Do your friends often cheat you in games? 15. Do you usually finish the things that you start? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Score Section 1 A.. 16. Are you often invited to parties where both boys and girls are present? 17. Do you find that a good many people are mean? 18. Do most of your friends seem to think that you are brave or strong? 19. Are you often asked to help plan parties? 20. Do people seem to think that you have good ideas? 21. Are your friends usually in-terested in what you are doing? 22. Are people often unfair to you? 23. Do your classmates seem to think you are as bright as they are? 24. Are the other students glad • that you are in their class? 25. Do both boys and girls seem to like you? 26. Do you have a hard time doing most of the things you try? 27. Do you feel that people do not treat you as well as they should? 28. Do many of the people you know seem to dislike you? 29. Do people seem to think you are going to do well when you grow up? 30. Do you find that people do riot treat you very well? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Score Section 1 B:. S E C T I O N 1 C 31. Are you allowed to say what you think about most things? YES N O 32. Are you allowed to choose your own friends? YES N O 33. Are you allowed to do many of the things you want to do? YES N O 34. Do you feel that you are punished for too many little things? YES N O 35. Do you have enough spend-ing money? YES N O 36. Are you usually allowed to go to socials where1 both boys and girls are present? YES N O 37. Do your folks usually let you help them decide about things? YES N O 38. Are you scolded for things that do not matter much? YES N O 39. Are you allowed to go to as many shows and entertain-ments as your friends? YES* N O 40. Do you feel that your friends can do what they want to more than you can? YES N O 41. Do you have enough time for play and fun? YES N O 42. ' Do you feel that you are not allowed enough freedom? YES N O 43. Do your folks let you go around with your friends? YES N O 44. Do you help pick out your own clothes? YES N O 45. Do other people decide what you shall do most of the time? YES N O Score Section 1 C 46. S E C T I O N 1 D Do you find it hard to get acquainted with new stu-dents? YES N O 47. Are you considered as strong and healthy as your friends? YES N O 48. Do you feel that you are liked by both boys and girls? YES N O 49. Do most people seem to enjoy talking to you? YES N O 50. Do you feel that you fit well into the school where you go? YES N O 51. Do you have enough good friends? YES N O 52. Do your friends seem to think that your folks are as success-ful as theirs? YES N O 53. Do you often feel that teachers would rather not have you in their classes? YES N O 54. Are you usually invited to school and neighborhood parties? YES N O 55. Is it hard for you to make friends? - Y E S N O 56. Do you feel that your class-mates are glad to have you in school? YES N O 57. Do members of the opposite sex seem to like you as well as they do your friends? YES N O 58. Do your friends seem to want you with them? YES N O 59. Do people at school usually pay attention to your ideas? YES N O 60. Do the other boys and girls seem to have better times at home than you do? YES N O Score Section 1 D • 4 — \ S E C T I O N 1 E S E C T I O N 1 F 61. Have you noticed that many people do and say mean things? YES N O 62. Does it seem as if most people cheat whenever they can? YES N O 63. Do you know people who are so unreasonable that you hate them? YES N O 64. Do you feel that most people can do things better than you can? YES N O 65. Have you found that man}' people do not mind hurting your feelings? YES N O 66. Would you rather stay away from parties and social affairs? YES N O 67. Have you often felt that older people had it in for you? YES N O 68. Do you have more problems to worry about than most boys or girls? YES N O 69. • Do you often feel lonesome even with people around you? YES N O 70. Have you often noticed that people do not treat you as fairly as they should? YES N O 71. Do you worry a lot because you have so many problems? YES N O 72. Is it hard for you to talk to classmates of the opposite sex? YES N O 73. Have you. often thought that younger boys and girls have a better'time than you do? YES N O 74. Do you often feel like crying because of the way people neglect you? - YES N O 75. Do too many people try to take advantage of you? YES N O Score Section 1 E 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. Do you frequently have sneez-ing spells? YES N O Do you sometimes stutter when you get excited? YES N O Are you 'often bothered by headaches? . YES N O Are you often not hungry even at meal time? YES N O Do you usually find it hard to sit still? YES N O Do your eyes hurt often? YES N O Do you often have to ask people to repeat what they just said? YES N O Do you often forget what you are reading? YES N O Are you sometimes troubled because your muscles twitch? YES N O Do you find that many people do not speak clearly enough for you to hear them well? YES N O Are you troubled because of . having many colds? YES N O Do most people consider you restless? YES N O Do you usually find it hard to go to sleep? YES N O Are you tired much of the time? YES N O Are you often troubled by nightmares or bad dreams? YES N O Score Section 1 F 9 1 . 9 2 . 9 3 . 9 4 . 9 5 . 9 6 . 9 7 . 9 8 . 9 9 . 1 0 0 . 1 0 1 . 1 0 2 . 1 0 3 . 1 0 4 . 1 0 5 . S E C T I O N 2 A Is it all right for one to avoid work that he does not have to. do? YES Is it always necessary to keep promises and appointments? YES Is it necessary to be kind to people you do not like? YES Is it all right to "make fun of people who have peculiar notions? YES N O Is it necessary to be courteous to disagreeable persons? YES N O Does a student have the right to keep the things that he finds? YES N O Should rich boys and girls be treated better than poor ones? < YES N O N O N O YES N O Should people have the right to put up "keep off the grass' signs? Should a person always thank others for small favors' even though they do not help any? YES N O Is it all right to take things that you really need if you have no money? YES N O Is it all right to make a fuss when your folks refuse to let you go to a movie or party? YES N O Is it all right to laugh at people who are in trouble if they look funny enough? YES N O Is it important that one be friendly to all new students? YES N O When people have foolish beliefs is it all right to laugh at them? YES N O If you know you will not be caught is it ever all right to cheat? YES N O N O Score Section 2 A.. 1 0 6 . 1 0 7 . 1 0 8 . 1 0 9 . 1 1 0 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 2 . 1 1 3 . 1 1 4 . 1 1 5 . 1 1 6 . 1 1 7 . 1 1 8 . 1 1 9 . 1 2 0 . S E C T I O N 2 B When people annoy you do you usually keep it to your-self? YES Is it easy for you to remember the names of the people you meet? YES Have you found that most people talk so much you have to interrupt them to get a word in edgewise? Do you prefer to have parties at your own home? Do you usually enjoy talking to people you have just met? Do you often find that it pays to help people? Is it easy for you to pep up a party when it is getting dull? Can you lose games without letting people see that it bothers you? Do you often introduce people to each other? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Do you find it hard to help plan parties and other socials? YES Do you find it easy to make new friends? YES Are you usually willing to play games at socials even if you haven't played them be-fore? YES Is it hard for you to say nice things to people when they have done well? YES Do you find it easy to help your classmates have a good time at parties? YES Do you usually talk to new -boys and girls when you meet them? YES Score Section 2 B 6 — SECTION 2 C SECTION 2 D 121. Do you have to get tough with some people in order to get a fair deal? YES NO 122. Do you find that you are happier when you can treat • unfair people as they really deserve? YES NO 123. Do you sometimes need to show anger to get your rights? YES NO 124. Do your classmates often force you to fight for things that are yours? . YES NO 125. Have you found that telling falsehoods is one of the easiest ways for people to get out of trouble? YES NO 126. Do you often have to fight for your rights? YES NO 127. Do your classmates often try to blame you for the quarrels they start? YES NO 128. Do you often have to start a fuss to get what is coming to you? YES NO 129. Do people at school sometimes treat you so badly that you feel it would serve them right if you broke some things? YES NO 130. Do you find some people so unfair that it is all right to be mean to them? YES N O 131. Do you often have to push younger children out of the way to get rid of them? YES N O 132. Do some people treat you so mean that you call them names? YES N O 133. Is it all right to take things away from people who are unfair? YES NO 134. Do you disobey teachers or your parents when they are unfair to you? YES NO 135. Is it right to take things when people are unreasonable in denying them? YES NO Score Section 2 C 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. Are your folks fair about it when they make you do things? YES NO Do you often have good times at home with your family? YES NO Do you have good reasons for liking one of your folks better than the other? YES N O Do your folks seem to think that you will be a success? Do your folks seem to think you do your share at home? Do your folks seem to feel that you are interested in the wrong things? Do you and your folks agree about things you like? Do members of your family start quarrels with you often? YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO Do you prefer to keep your friends away from your home because it is not attractive? YES NO Are you often accused of not being as nice to your folks as you should be? Do you have some of your fun when you are at home? Do you find it difficult to please your folks? Have you often felt as though you would rather not live at home? Do you sometimes feel that no one at home cares about you? Are the people in your home too quarrelsome? Score Section 2 D YES N O YES NO YES NO YES N O YES NO YES NO — 1 — S E C T I O N 2 E 151. Have you found that your teachers understand you? YES N O 152. Do you like to go to school affairs with members of the opposite sex? YES N O 153. Is some of your school work so hard that you are in danger of failing? YES N O 154. Have you often thought that some teachers care little about their students? YES N O 155. Do some of the boys and girls seem to think that you do not play as fair as they do? YES N O 156. Are some of the teachers so strict that it makes school work too hard? YES N O 157. 1 5 8 . 159. Do you enjoy talking with students of the opposite sex? YES N O Have you often thought that some of the teachers are unfair? YES N O Are you" asked to join in school games as much as you should be? YES N O 160. Would you be happier in school if the teachers were kinder? YES N O 161. Do you have better times alone than when you are with other boys and girls? YES N O 162. Do your classmates seem to like the way you treat them? YES N O 163. Do you think the teachers want boys and girls to enjoy each other's company? YES N O 164. Do you have to keep away from some of your classmates because of the way they treat you? YES N O 165. Would you stay away from school oftener if you dared? YES N O Score Section 2 E 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. S E C T I O N 2 F Do you often visit at the homes, of your boy and girl friends in your neighborhood? YES N O Do you have a habit of speak-1 irig to most of the boys and girls in your neighborhoods? YES N O Do most of the boys and girls near your home disobey the law? YES N O Do you play games with friends in your neighbor-hood? YES N O Do any nice students of the opposite sex live near you? YES N O Are most of the people near your home the kind you can like? YES N O Are there boys or girls of other races near your home whom you try to avoid? Do you sometimes go to neigh-borhood parties where both boys and girls are present? Are there people in your neighborhood that you find it hard to like? Do you have good times with the boys and girls near your home? Are there several people liv-ing near you whom you would not care to visit? Is it necessary to be nice to persons of every race? Are there any people in your neighborhood so annoying that you would like to do something mean to them? Do you like most of the boys and girls in your neighbor-hood? Do you feel that the place where you live is not very-interesting? Score Section 2 F — 8 — (Published, 1942, by the Public School Publishing Company, Bloomington, Illinois. Printed in U. S. A. Copyright, 1940, by Harry J . Baker. The right to modify or print this work for use in the Detroit Public Schools has been assigned to the Board of Education, City of Detroit.) Det. A d . Inv. T E L L I N G W H A T I D O By Harry J. Baker Alpha Form for. Junior and Senior High Schools Name Boy.. First Last ..Girl Grade.. Age School.. Years Months City.. State.. Date.. The following exercises have five different answers. N e x t to the answers are the letters A , B , C, D, and E. Y o u are to put a circle around the letter next to the answer which most nearly fits you. Some of these things we may know about you already, but we want you to tell us yourself. It is the purpose to help you with any problems you may have. There is no time limit, but please keep working and do not waste time. H a n d in your booklet as soon as you are finished. Please be sure to answer all the exercises. 1. About my health A . I a m not sick very often. B. B e i n g sick does not worry me. C. I am never sick. D. I don't believe I will ever be well. E. M y health is only fair. 2. About being thin or fat A . I am neither thin nor fat. B. I don't mind being a little fat. C. They tease me for being very thin. D. I don't mind being a little thin. E. They tease me for being very fat. 3. About being tall or short A . T h e y tease me for being very short. B. They tease me for being very tall. C. I don't mind being a little short. D. I like being a little tall. E. I am neither tall nor short. 4. About my skin A . M y pimples (acne) bother me a lot. B. It is nice and clear. C. M y skin is too oily and shiny. D. M y few pimples do not bother me. E. M y skin is too dry and scaly. 5. About m y heart A . I believe it is about average. B. I must avoid hard play. C. I never think about it. D. T h e doctor says it is all right. E. I can't play at all. 6. About my bed A . It is only a couch or cot. B. It is a little better than average. . C. It is just average. D. -I have a very good bed. E. It is very hard, so I don't sleep well. 7. About how I sleep A . I always get plenty of sleep. B. Noise often keeps me awake late. C. I usually get about enough sleep. D. I am often short of sleep. E. I have many dreams and nightmares. 8 . About sleeping alone A . I hate having to sleep two in a bed. B. I have a bed and room to myself. C. W e sleep crowded; three or more in a bed. D. Two of us sleep together fairly well. E. W e have separate beds in the same room. (Go to the next column.) (Turn to the next page.) 9. About eating together A. Eating together goes fairly well. B. We don't like eating together very well. C. It is pleasant most of the time. D. We always have a good time eating together. E . Eating is a time to scold and quarrel. 10. About liking foods A. I like most kinds of foods. B. I eat mostly cake and candy. C. I enjoy all kinds of foods. D. I have to be careful about what I eat. E. I always get angry if food is not just right. 11. About my face and hands A. I am sometimes praised for having them clean.. B. It is quite hard to be always cleaning them. C. They are usually quite dirty. D. I am rather proud to have them usually clean. E. They are just about average. 12. About my hair. A. I think others admire it. B. I am rather proud of it. C. I keep it as good as others do. D. I worry because it never looks nice. E. They often make fun of it. 13. About my clothes A. They never seem to look well. B. I dress as well as my playmates. C. I set a good example about my clothes. D. I am often praised about my clothes. E. They don't fit very well. 14. About my teeth A. I worry because they look bad. B. They are just about average. C. I take pride in giving them good care. D. They bother a little once in a while. E. They ache and need fixing. 15. About keeping clean A. I do as well as most people. B. I keep a very good standard. C. I do fairly well some of the time. D. I am pretty careless about it. E . Others tease me for being too clean. 16. About my fingernails A. They just grow and break off. B. I worry because I bite them off. C. I just can't help biting them. D. I usually keep them in fair shape. E. I always take good care of them. (Go to tJte next column.) 17. About blushing A. I boast that I never blush. B. I seldom blush. C. I often blush a little. D. Others sometimes tease me about it. E. I worry because I am always blushing. 18. About getting dizzy A. I worry because I am often dizzy. B. I seldom get dizzy. C. I never get dizzy. D. It does not bother to be dizzy once in a while. E. I grew out of being dizzy. 19. About sitting still A. I am always able to sit still. B. I can't sit still very often. C. I can sit as still as most others do. D. I usually can sit still. E. I never seem able to sit still. 20. About fainting A. I have never fainted. B. I faint once in a while. C. I faint quite often. D. I am no worse than most people. E. I sometimes feel like fainting. 21. When my parents are sick A. I try to hide my worry. B. I worry much of the time. C. I help and usually don't worry. D. I worry myself sick too.-E. I am sure they will get well. 22. About the world coming to an end A. I never think about it. B. I worry once in a great while. C. It bothers me sometimes. D. I don't worry; can't do anything about it. E. I worry about it much of the time. 23. About daydreaming A. I worry because I daydream most of the time. B. I never daydream at all. C. My daydreaming does not mean much to me. D. I have a few spells of daydreaming. E. I seldom do it at all. 24. When I must make up my mind' A. I worry because I can't do it quick enough. B. I worry because I can't seem to do it. C. I always do it right away. D. I am as quick as others about it. E . I can do it after a while. (Go to the next page.) Page 2 25. When they laugh at me A. It worries me very much. B. I worry a little more than I should. C. I can laugh too, with them. D. I am like others are about it. E. I usually don't worry about it. 26. About thunderstorms A. I enjoy them. B. I sometimes get scared. • C. I try not to be afraid. D. I don't pay much attention. E. I am always very scared. 27. About being alone in the dark A. I try not to be scared. B. I try not to think about it. C. It never scares me at all. D. I am sometimes scared a little. E. I am probably scared quite badly. 28. When I am up in a high place A. I am all right if I try hard. B. I get scared and want to jump. C. I am probably more scared than I would admit. D. I know I am a little scared. E. It does not bother me at all. 29. When I meet a stranger alone A. I am often quite scared. B. I never let it bother me. C. Most of them are probably all'right. D. It is hard not to be a little scared. E. Probably a little scared; won't admit it. 30. When I must recite A. I have a little stage fright. B. I usually don't mind it. C. I get along about as well as the others. D. I usually get scared. E. I always enjoy it. 31. About temper tantrums A. I have tantrums once in a while. B. I often get angry but no tantrums. C. I have tantrums quite often. D. I never have tantrums or get angry. E. I get a little angry sometimes. 32. When I break some of my things A. I know it is my own fault. B. I get very angry at myself. C. I am more careful next time. D. I believe it is just my poor luck. E. It is hard not to get angry. (Go to tlie next column.) 33. If someone hurts me A. I hurt them right back. B. I ask them nicely not to do it again. C. I think they did not mean to do it. D. I try to avoid them next time. E. I just don't seem to notice it. 34. When someone breaks my things-A. I try not to be upset. B. I ask them to be more careful. C. I think it was just an accident. D. I break something for them. E. I try to stay away from them. 35. When others are getting hurt A. I don't like to have it happen. B. I sometimes try to stop it. C. It is hard not to get angry. D. It is probably none of my business. E. I get angry and fight for them. 36. About blind people A. I am glad if others help them. B. I just go on because they can't see me. C. I pretend I did not see them. D. I think they will be all right by themselves. E. I am glad to help them myself. 37. When I get hurt A. I am seldom sorry for myself. B. I just reason it out. C. I am glad when others pity me. D. I feel very sorry for myself. E. I am sometimes a little sorry for myself. 38. When I see crippled people A. I just don't seem to notice them. B. I hope others will help them. C. I always try to help them. D. I sometimes want to help them. E. I try to avoid them. 39. When I see helpless old people A. I sometimes pity them a little. B. I probably pay no attention to them. C. I hope they are cared for. D. I always want to help them. E. I often pity them. 40. When I see poor people A. I hope things will get better. B. I help them all I can. C. I am not sorry; it's their fault. ,D. I don't think much about it. E. I hope others will help them. . (Turn to the next page.) Page 3 41. About being in a crowd A. I always enjoy it. B. Like it some, once in a while. C. Usually don't like it. D. I find excuse to get away. E. Neither like nor dislike it. 42. - About talking to friends A. 1 sometimes like to talk a little. B. I always like to do my share of talking. C. I don't care whether I talk or not. D. I never talk .much. E. I hope they do the talking. 43. About going to parties A. I like them very much. B. I never go to any. C. I don't care much for them. D. I don't mind once in a while. E. I go only when urged. 44. About helping people get acquainted A. I always try to avoid it. B. I do very little about it. C. I always help them get acquainted. D. I like to do it sometimes. E. I believe they have met before. 45. About being shy when in a crowd A. I am never shy in a crowd. B. I don't think much about it. C. I am always very shy. D. I am usually quite shy. E. I am probably a little shy. 46. About the way I dress A. I usually am fairly happy about it. B. I don't think much about it. C. Sometimes I am a little ashamed. D. I "feel ashamed most of the time. E. I am always proud of my clothes. 47. About being homely or good-looking A. I am usually happy about my looks. B. I am quite happy about my good looks. C. I believe I am average in looks. D. It worries me because I am homely. E. Little homely but try not to worry. 48. About my school marks A. It's not my fault that they are poor. B. I am quite ashamed of my poor marks. C. I am very proud of my school marks. D. They are just average. E. I am usually happy about my school marks. i (Go to tlie next column.) Page 4 49. About getting on school teams A. I am proud to be on them. B. I enjoy being on them. C. I am not among the few who get on. D. It worries me very much that I don't make them. E. I worry a little not to make them. 50. About being popular A. I worry because I' am not popular. B. I am <happy and proud to be popular. C. I am just about like most others. D. It is nice to be a little popular. E. I am not popular, but it does not worry me. 51. About ever becoming a leader A. 1 am going, to do what I can. B. My chances are rather poor. C. I have high hopes for it. D. I know I never will. E. I probably have a chance. 52. About ever getting rich A. 1 am quite hopeful that I will be rich. B. I expect to be neither rich nor poor. C. I hope I will not be very poor. D. I would like to be a little rich sometime. E. I will probably be quite poor. 53. About being happy or sad A. I am a little sad sometimes. B. I am quite unhappy most of the time. C. I am about average. D. I am always very happy. E. I am quite happy sometimes. 54. About getting ~a job A. I worry that I will never get one, B. I am very sure I will get one. C. It's no use worrying if I don't. D. I think my chances are pretty good. E. I think my chances are only fair. 55. About the future of the world A. It will probably stay about as it is. B. I hope it will not get too bad. C. I hope it will get some better. D. I am sure it will get much better. E. I think it is very dark. 56. About studying at home A. It is always easy to let it slide. B. I have to try hard to do it. C. I do it just fair. D. It is easy to do; I like it. E. I find excuses not to do it. (Go to the next page.) 57. About eating too much A. I never eat too much. B. I always eat too much. C. I try hard not to eat too much. D. I eat as everybody else does. E. I find many excuses to eat all I want. 58. About controlling my fears .A. I try, but without much success. B. I have few or none; easy to control. C. I just can't control them. D. I don't have very many fears. E. I can usually do it fairly well. 59. About doing right A. I go along as most people do. B. I often find excuses for not doing right. C. I must try to make myself do right. D. It is always easy to do right. E. I often don't do right. 60. About making up my mind A. It is easy to do some of the time. B. I want to do it myself but seldom do. C. It is always easy to do. D. It is neither easy nor hard. E. I just let others do it for me. 61. About speaking English at home A. My parents speak English fairly well. B. My parents don't speak much English. C. No one speaks much English in our home. D. We all speak English all the time. , E. We speak English only part of the time at home. 62. About owning our home A. Our home is partly paid for. B. It is paid for, or nearly all. C. We pay rent but seldom move. D. We all have to live with other relatives. E. We rent and move often. 63. About the health of my parents (or step-parents) A. Both are sick most of the time. B. One is sometimes sick. C. They are well most of the time. D. Both are always very well. E. Father often sick; can't work much. 64. About father (or stepfather) working A. He would like to work but is not able. B. He works most of the time. C. He always has a steady job. D. He works about half the time. E. He has been out of work a long time. (Go to the next column.) 65. About the houses on our street A. I think they are fairly good. B. I like them very much. C. Most of them are rather poor. D. I think the houses are all very poor. E. Houses are not as nice as where we used to live. . 66. About holiday parties and birthday parties A. We have very few parties. B. We never have any parties. C. Our parties always get too wild. D. We often have nice parties. E. We have many very nice parties. 67. About books and magazines at home A. They are too high-brow for me. B. They are good; I enjoy them. C. I don't care much about any of them. D. The ones we have are not very good. E. We don't have hardly any at all. 68. About my parents spending time with me A. They never do anything with me. B. We go out together once in a while. C. We go out together quite often. D. It's a very long time since they did. E. They don't do much with me but let >ne go. 69. About my parents' friends A. They are all very nice. B. My parents, have almost no friends. C. I neither like nor dislike them. D. I think they are just about average. E. I usually don't like them. 70. At home we are A. Always cheerful and happy. B. Often sad and rather unhappy. C. Always gloomy and unhappy. D. Usually cheerful and happy. E. Neither sad nor happy. 71. About getting along with my brothers and sisters A. I have no brothers or sisters. B. We argue sometimes. C. It goes fairly well most of the time. D. We argue and fight all the time. E. We always get along very well. 72. About my parents punishing me A. They are fair but firm. B. I get treated like everyone else. C. It varies from easy to strict. D. They are always too strict. E. They are always too easy on me. (Turn to the next page.) Page 5 73. About having me help at home A. My parents are too easy about it. B. They are fair, but expect me to do it. C. It goes along about average. D. They vary from easy to strict. E. Both are a little too strict. 74. About being the favorite child A. The others think I am the favorite. B. One of the others is the favorite. C. We are all treated alike. D. I have no brothers or sisters. E. There is only a little jealousy. 75. About my parents watching me A. They are always watching me. B. They don't pay as much attention as they should. C. They know they can trust me. D. I am as well off as others. E. They check up once in a while. 76. About being allowed to do things A. I probably have too much liberty. B. Most of my friends have more liberty. C. I have about as much liberty as my friends. D. I have a reasonable amount of liberty. E. I am not allowed to do anything at all. 77. About feeling awkward A. I am a little awkward sometimes. B. I am getting over being all arms and legs. C. I have never been awkward. D. I am about like my friends in awkwardness. E. Lately I seem to be all arms and legs. 78. About, my thinking I am grown up A. ' I am getting quite a good start. B. I just don't seem to be grown up at all. C. I am not grown up except about a few things. D. I am sort of in-between. E. I am quite well grown up now. 79. About arguing with my parents A. We argue about everything all the time. B. We seldom have arguments. C. We never have any arguments. D. We argue about quite a few things. E. It is just fair. 80. About deciding for myself when younger A. No one did much about it. B. I was allowed to decide some things. C. Once in a while I decided something. D. They always decided everything for me. E. They usually let me decide many things. (Go to the next column.) 81. About marking up school desks and walls A. I have done it a few times. B. I did it once or twice. C. I mark them quite a lot. D. I have never done it. E. I sometimes want to, but don't do it. 82. About liking my school duties A. I like them all very much. B. I don't like any of them. C. I try to make myself like them. D. I like some and dislike others. E. I dislike most of them. 83. About talking and whispering in class A. I do it quite a lot. B. I don't do it but often want to. C. I never talk except to recite. D. I do it in one or two classes. E. I sometimes do, to answer others. 84. About liking my teachers A. It's about even on likes and dislikes. B. I like most of them. C. I like all of them. D. I don't like any of them very much. E. I dislike most of them. 85. About being truant from school; that is, being absent without permission A. I have never wanted to be truant. B. I have been truant several times alone. C. I go when others ask me to. D. I sometimes feel like it, but never do. E. I go and get others to go. 86. When we lose a game A. We must expect to lose sometimes. B. I sometimes get real angry about it. C. It's hard not to get angry. D. I think it's just our bad luck. E. We try harder next time. 87. About taking my turn at play A. I don't mind being among the last. B. I am glad to take my turn any place. C. I am willing to do what the others do. D. I see to it that I am among the first. E. It bothers me some to be among the last. 88. About playing according to (by) the rules A. I just play them to suit myself. B. I do as well as the others do about them. C. I am glad to play by the rules. D. I think most of them are all right. E. I get away with as much as I can. (Go to the next page.) Page 6 89. About starting games A. I can do it but don't like to. B. I never start them. C. I sometimes do it when I am asked. D. I start them most of the time. E. I sometimes do it myself. 90. About sharing my things with others A. I guess it works both ways. B. I always share gladly. C. I usually don't like to share with others. D. I refuse even when asked. E. I share with others quite often. 91. About giving to charity A. I always give all I can. B. I often give a little. C. I give only when I am made to. D. I never give; don't have enough myself. E. I give once in a while. 92. About taking more than my share A. I try not to' take more than my share. B. I never take more than my share. C. I do like most people do. D. I do it whenever I can. E. I don't; I might get caught. 93. When I borrow something A. I pay it back right away. B. I hope they will forget about it. C. It soon slips my mind. D. I pay it back after a while. E. I pay back if asked to. 94. If there is a question of right or wrong A. If wrong is easier, I do it. B. I don't try very hard to do right. C. I always try to do right. D. I intend to do right, but sometimes don't. E. I do what the others do. 95. About telling the truth A. I always tell the truth. B. I intend to tell the truth. C. I have a poor reputation. D. I am sometimes careless about it. E. I do fairly well. 96. About traffic tickets A. No tickets, but some warnings. B. I don't drive a car. C. I have had one or two tickets. D. I have had quite a few. E. I drive but never had a ticket. (Go to the next column.) 97. About teasing little children A. I try hard not to tease them. B. I never hurt or tease them. C. I don't, if they keep out of my way. D. I guess I like to tease them. E. I tease them but don't mean to. 98. About running away from home A. I ran away once. B. I ran away several times. C. I never wanted to. D. I went once, but came right back. E. I thought about it, but never did. 99. About taking other people's things A. I never take anything. B. I sometimes take them. C. They suspect me sometimes. D. It is easy just to help myself. E. I always expect to give it back. 100. About probation or detention home A. Have had both quite a few times. B. Never had either. C. On probation once; never in detention home. D. Was taken once to be questioned. E. Have had both once or twice. 101. About my parents and my friends A. They get along fairly well. B. Most of my friends don't like my parents. C. My parents trust me out with my friends. D. They always try to choose my friends. E. They let me choose some of my friends. 102. About my friends and pals A. They are all very good. B. They are just about average. C. I hope they are not bad. D. I believe that most of them are good. E. I am afraid most of them are rather bad. 103. About the number of friends I have A. I have only one or two. B. I don't seem to have hardly any. C. I have a few only. D. . I have many friends. E. I am fairly well fixed for friends. 104. About making new friends A. It is very hard for me to do. B. I like to make new friends. C. I can do it but don't like to. D. A little hard, but I like to do it. E. It is neither easy nor hard. (Turn to the next page.) Page 7 105. About having dates A. Neither my parents nor I do much about it. B. I have dates quite often. C. I believe my parents would not let me. D. I am too young for dates. E. My parents.leave it up to me. • 106. About boxing A. I would dislike it very much. B. I might do it but would not like it. C. I don't care much about it. D. I like to box very much. E. I am quite' interested in it. 107. About reading the sporting page A. I always' read it. B. I never look at it. C. I read it nearly every day. D. I don't pay much attention to it. • E. I read it once in a while. 108. About liking to go hunting A. I might do it but would not like to. B. I would like it very much. C. I would not like it at all. D. I never thought much about it. E. I would probably like it a little. 109. . About reading the fashion page A. Usually I would not read it. B. I read it almost every day. C. I would not unless something very unusual. D. I would not even look at it. E. I always read it. 110. About what I like to read A. I like mystery and adventure best. B. Mostly about family and home. C. I like Wild West stories best. D. I like all kinds of stories. E. I like love stories best. 111. About my hobbies A. I have several; mostly alone with them. B. I spend a little time on hobbies. C. I don't have any at all. D. We share many hobbies together at home. E. I have as many as my friends do. 112. About the movies A. I learn a few useful things from them. B. I get ideas from them for my hobbies. C. Sometimes I learn a little from them. D. I go just for something to do. E . I go just for a good time. (Go to the next column.) 113. About reading books and magazines A. I don't read hardly any at all. B. I read the movie magazines. C. I read mostly Collier's, Saturday Evening Post, or Reader's Digest. D. I read only good fiction or novels. E. I read mostly Wild West or love stories. 114. About listening to the radio A. I listen to all the exciting adventures. B. We listen to lots of the best music. C. I pick out a few good programs. D. I listen a little to different things. E. I don't pay much attention to it. 115. About going to dances A. I think I will like it later on. B. I am too young except for school dances. C. My parents don't pay much attention. D. I often go to public dances. E. I will never want to dance. 116. About deciding what work (job) I will do A. I keep changing my mind. B. I still don't have any idea. C. I do some thinking about it. D. I feel fairly sure about it. E . 1 have already made up my mind. 117. About helping me decide my vocation A. I sometimes listen to a little advice. B. I am going to decide for. myself. C. No one is doing much about it. D. My friends think they know what is best for me. E. My parents are deciding for me. 118. About seeing people work at jobs I like A. I have never seen anything that appeals. B. They were poor workers; I could do better. C. I have seen both good and poor workers. D. I have seen only good workers. E. ' I don't know whether they are good or poor. 119. In helping to decide my vocation (job) A. I have read and talked about it. B. No one gives me much help with it. C. I have read a little about it. D. I have talked to some workers about it. E. I have never found out anything about it. 120. About my chances of success A. I am sure I will succeed. B. I don't have much idea about it. C. I am just trusting to luck. • D. I think I have a good chance. E. My chances are probably fair. (Go back over each page to make sure you have indicated your response to each exercise. Then hand in your booklet.) Page 8 - 9 3 -Appendix B-Speciman ofrat ing scale and instructions PERSONALITY TRAIT RATING SCALE Graphic Rating by Date • Directions for using rating scale. Read the following directions very carefully. 1. Let these ratings represent your own judgment. Please do not confer with anyone in making them. Attempt to eliminate the opinion of other teachers. 2. In giving your rating on a particular personality trait, disregard for the moment every other trait but that one as specifically defined. Do not rate a student high on a l l traits simply because he (or she) is exceptional in some. A student may differ greatly in the following traits and rete high in terms of one and low in terms of another. Attempt to make real distinctions. 35. Before attempting to make out your report, it is necessary to have in mind the exact traits to be reported on. Read each definition carefully and rate in terms of i t . '4. In each personality trait, compare the individual student with the average person of his age. When you have satisfied yourself on the standing of the student in tiie trait on which you are rating him, indicate your rating by making a check (X) on the line just where you think it ought to be. It is not necessary to locate the chock directly above a descriptive phrase. If you think the rating fal l s between two phrases, you may put the check at the appropriate point on the line. Before making your check, read very carefully the characterizations below the line. 5. To reach a more valid set of ratings you are provided with an estimation of the percentage of pupils that might be expected to f a l l within a certain portion of the line 5?. 20?. 50?. of students 20?. 5?» 6. Note that in each case one end of the line represents one extreme for the trait in question, and the other end of the line the other extreme. The middle of the line represents an average amount of the trait. The average student should be placed in the middle of the line where 50?. of a l l students would be placed. 7 , Rate a l l the students on one trait before turning on to the next trait. Give a rating on each trait for every student. The ratings will be held absolutely confidential. SCHOOL RELATIONS Trait X. School Relations. Consider ability to get along with his teachers and other students, whether he belongs to clubs, and enjoys other school activities. Name Unable to get Often lacks ^afcl^ Weil balanced Well balanced Shows genuine along in school interest and in school in most interest and relations enjoyment i a relations school relations enjoyment l n school relations school relations Unable to get along in sohool relations. Often lacks interest and enjoyment i n school relations Well balanced l n school relations Well balanced in mogtl school relations Shows genuine Interest end enjoyment in school relations Unable io get along in school relations Often lacks interest and enjoyment in school relations Well balanced in school relations Well balanced i n most school relations Shows genuine interest and enjoyment in school relations Unable to get along in school relations Often lacks interest and enjoyment in school relations Well balanced in school relations Well balanced in most school relations Shows genuine interest and enjoyment in school relations FREEDOM FROM NERVOUS SYMPTOMS Trait 2 . Freedom from Nervous Symptoms. Consider whether he bites his fingernails, finds i t hard to s i t s t i l l , drums restlessly with his fingers on tables and chairs, has headaches and appears chronocally tired, whether he stutters when excited, or has muscle twitches. Name Decidedly Shows one or ' Normally free Healthy a n d E x c e l l e n t nervous more nervous from nervous free from-'n'eiv health symptoms symptoms vous symptoms Decidedly Shows one or Normally free Healthy and Excellent nervous more nervous from nervous free from ner- health symptoms symptoms vous symptoms Decidedly nervous Shows one or more nervous symptoms Normally free from nervous symptoms Healthy and free from ner-vous symptoms Excellent health Decidedly nervous Shows one or more nervous symptoms Normally free from nervous symptoms Healthy and free from ner-vous symptoms Excellent health Normally free from nervous symptoms Healthy and free from ner-vous symptoms Excellent health Decidedly nervous Shows one or more nervous symptoms FREEDOM FROM WITHDRAWING- TENDENCIES Trait 3. Freedom from "'ithdrawing Tendencies. Consider whether he is characteristically ' sensitive, lonely and remains to himself; whether he substitutes fantasy for actual successes in real l i f e , and given to self concern. Name Easily moved to loneliness, s elf cons cious-ness Tends to be lonely, and with-drawing Usually outgoing, not given to self concern Active, enjoys people Keenly interested in things, and people Easily moved to loneliness, selfconscious-ness Tends to be lonely, and with-drawing Usually outgoing, not given, to self concern Active, enjoys people Keenly interested i n things, and people Easily moved Tends to Usually Active, Keenly to loneliness, be lonely, outgoing, enjoys interested selfconscious- and with- not given to people in things, ness drawing self concern and people Easily moved to loneliness, selfconscious-ness Tends to be lonely, and with-drawing Usually outgoing, not given to self concern Active, enjoys people Keenly interested i n things, and people Easily moved to loneliness, selfconscious-ness Tends to be lonely, and with-drawing Usually outgoing, not given to self concern Active, enjoys people Keenly interested in.things, and people ' FREEDOM FROM ANTI-SOCIAL TENDENCIES Trait 4 Freedom from Anti-Social Tendencies* Consider whether he is given to bullying, frequent disobedience and destructiveness of property; consider whether he endeavours to get his satisfactions i n ways that are damaging and unfair to others. Easily moved to quarrelling, bullying, and disobedience Tends to he damaging and unfair to others Normally free from anti-social tendencies Well balanced in actions with others Exceptional balance of responsiveness and control Easily moved to quarrelling, bullying, and disobedience li'enas to be damaging and unfair to others Normally free from anti-social tendencies Well balanced in actions with others Exceptional balance of responsiveness and control Easily moved to" quarrelling, bullying, and disobedience Tends to be damaging and unfair to others Normally free from anti-social tendencies if:ell balanced in actions with others .Exceptional balance of respons iveness and control Tends to be damaging and unfair to others Easily moved to quarrelling, bullying, and disobedience Normally free from anti-social tendencies Well balanced in actions with others Exceptional balance of responsiveness and control Easily moved to quarrelling, bullying, and disobedience Tends to be damaging and unfair to ethers. Normally free from anti-social tendencies 'ifell balanced in actions with others Exceptional balance of responsiveness and control TOTAL ADJUSTMENT Total justment. Consider whether his total behavior adjustment i s satis-factory, or whether i t is causing di f f i c u l t y . o f any degree, that i s , has he made a relatively harmonious adjustment to the personal and social requirements of l i f e . Name Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent Very Poor Poor Average Very good Excellent -94-Appendix C Phi Coefficients for each item according to each of three crit eria 95 TABLE XXIV. Validities of Items on Self-Reliance According to Three Criteria Sub-test Validity S elf-Ad j us tm ent Validity Total Adjustment Validity Uo.of Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 . Gr.VIII. b .30 .83 .25 .41 .37 .66 .21 .55 .48 .53 .43 .40 .38 .35 .44 Gr.X 3£ .20 .44 .51 .68 .41 .37 .26 .52 .44 .19 .52 .22 .43 .21 .22 Gr.VIII .20 .56 .41 .30 .34 .38 .08 .42 .34 .59 .32 .32 .21 .42 .67 Gr .X J T .25 .07 .37 .54 .08 .22 .15 .42 .12 .18 .34 .23 .42 .13 .23 Gr.VIII . Gr.X =3SI .12 .47 .21 .32 .31 .26 .08 .48 .35 .42 .24 .35 .27 .41 .28 .25 .47 .22 .72 .03 .30 .11 .33 .10 .20 .40 .12 .53 .21 .10 96 TABLE XXV Validities of Items on Sense*.- of Personal Worth According to Three Criteria Sub-test Validity Self-Adj ustment Validity Total Adjustment Validity Gr.VIII .Gr .X. Gr.VIII. Gr.X. Gr.VIII. Gr .X No.of Item 4> <*> 4>- cb 16 .44 .73 .38 .61 .21 .59 17 .35 .39 - .47 .38 .50 .32 18 .29 .52 .21 .10 .11 .05 19 .53 .65 .21 .19 .22 .50 20 .60 .38 .42 .30 .30 .27 21 .52 .50 .42 .35 .39 .38 22 .38 .22 .45 .29 .47 .20 23 .58 .41 .49 .33 .47 .30 24 .43 .38 .30 .32 .30 .27 25 .35 .42 .20 .41 .18 .39 26 .37 .23 .45 .12 .32 .20 27 .41 .18 .33 .29 .71 .20 28 .21 .22 .10 .18 .00 .10 29 .41 .41 .26 .32 .31 .33 30 .24 .21 .28 .20 .25 .19 97 TABLE XXVI Validities of Items on Sense of Personal Freedom According to Three Criteria Sub-tes Validit t y Self-Adj uetment Validity Total Adjustment Validity Gr.VIII. Gr.X. Gr.VIII. Gr.X. Gr.VIII. Gr. X. No. of Item 4> 4> 4> <*> 31 .42 .23 .14 .24 .18 .21 32 .17 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 33 .61 .42 .42 .39 .39 .22 34 .50 .42 .38 .43 .49 .39. 35 .35 .41 .18 .19 .39 .12 36 .35 .00 .27 .09 .20 -.10 37 .66 .57 .52 .29 .20 .38 38 .74 .63 .42 .23 .72 .24 39 .66 .57 .33 .41 .39 .18 40 .70 .68 .48 .48 .50 .37 41 .32 .41 .33 .41 .35 .41 42 .35 .62 .24 .30 .22 .45 43 .17 .21 .12 .09 .15 .10 44 .00 .19 .10 .09 .10 .10 45 .24 .29 .10 .21 .10 .21 98 TABLE XXVII VALIDITIES OF' ITEMS ON FEELING OF BELONGING ACCORDING TO THREE CRITERIA Sub-test V a l i d i t y Self Adjustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr. V I I I . Gr.X. Gr.VIII. Gr .X. Gr .VIII. Gr .X No. of Item. 46 .41 .50 .32 .45 .31 .38 .47 .38 .28 .28 .23 .20 .21 48 .23 .45 .20 * .42 .10 .41 49 .46 .41 .22 .35 .29 .32 50 .42 .38 .28 .30 .25 • .32 51 .20 .22 .20 .20 .20 .13 52 .41 . .22 .27 .18 .23 .25 53 .47 .39 .26 .08 .10 .29 54 .41 .50 .28 .52 .30 .52 55 .38 .50 .39 .38 .35 .40 56 .38 .22 .21 .21 .32 .20 57 .42 .49 .32 .41 ;3o .41 58 .01 .10 .00 .09 .00 .10 59 .62 .42 .46 .30 .42 '.22 60 .31 . .45 .20 .50 .18 .54 99 TABLE XXVIII VALIDITIES OF ITEMS ON WITHDRAWING TENDENCIES ACCORDING TO THREE CRITERIA 1 Sub-t< V a l i d JSt Lty Self-Adj l V a l i d i l astment ty T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII .Gr .X Gr.VIII. Gr.X. Gr.VIII. Gr.X. No. of Item 4> <*> 4> <*> <*> 61 .62 .73 .46 .47 .05 .42 62 .61 .39 .48 .22 .52 .22 63 .52 .53 .40 .35 .50 .37 64 .38 .45 .57 .39 .31 .39 65 .75 .63 .61 .41 .55 .30 66 .28 .21 .18 .32 .15 .28 67 .45 .22 .30 .21 .35 .21 68 .32 .50 , .00 .45 - .11 .45 69 .48 .53 .32 .50 .24 .46 70 .47 .30 .40 .28 .73 .23 71 .38 .53 .32 .55 .29 .51 72 .32 .45 .28 .48 .64 .46 73 .42 .41 .42 .39 .42 .28 74 .22 .22 .23 .22 .25 .18 75 .41 .19 .39 .19 .33 .10 100 TABLE XXIX V a l i d i t i e s of Items on Nervous Symptoms Acoording to Three C r i t e r i a Sub-test V a l i d i t y Self-Adj ustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII Gr.X. Gr.VIII Gr.X. Gr.VIII. Gr.X No. of Item <* <* <*> <*» 4> 76 .28 .00 .20 .11 .10 .10 77 .54 .41 .43 .19 .21 .19 78 .38 .48 .29 .21 .35 .10 79 .39 .50 .20 .18 .09 .30 . 80 .59 .64 .40 .38 .20 .32 81 .39 .58 .29 .39 .35 .31 82 .60 .58 .59 .45 .39 .38 83 .73 .67 .52 .38 .49 .45 84 .42 .30 .24 .22 .20 .27 85 .50 .50 .49 .37 .42 .22 86 .29 .42 . .19 .33 .10 .38 87 .63 .38 .48 ,32 .32 .22 88 .50 .41 ,40 .26 .29 .26 89 .46 .52 .46 .46 .40 .60 90 .28 .20 .20 .19 .13 .18 TABLE XXX V a l i d i t i e s of Items on Social Standards According to Three C r i t e r i a  Sub-tes-V a l i d i t : t S o c i a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l k Va] i.dj ustment Lidity Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X No. O f Item 4 4> 4> +" 4> 91 .50 .53 .21 .21 .32 .28 92 .25 .21 .09 .19 .11 .00 93 .46 .59 .20 .42 .14 .32 94 .19 .28 .18 .19 .20 .09 95 .62 .63 .21 .51 .31 .43 96 .10 .21 .10 .10 -.01 .19 97 .41 .27 .21 .12 .30 .15 98 .12 .10 • .00 .19 .00 .00 99 .42 .33 .24 .10 .12 .05 100 .10 .00 .00 -.10 .00 .09 101 .32 .41 .19 .32 .24 .32 1C2 .19 •. 10 .10 .00 .10 .09 103 .38 .43 .10 .20 -09 .05 104 .20 .21 .15 .21 .10 .19 105 .62 .57 .41 .25 .32 .22 102 TABLE XXXI V a l i d i t i e s of Items on S o c i a l S k i l l s According to Three C r i t e r i a Sub-test V a l i d i t y S o c i a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII. Gr.X .No. of It-em . 4> <P <t> <P 4> 106 .22 .27 .40 .15 .62 -.09 107 .38 .33 .09 .02 .53 .10 108 .20 .30 .49 .03 .50 .28 109 .62 .69 .22 .62 .13 .52 110 .70 .49 .34 .41 .23 .41 111 .00 .28 .10 .23 .00 .09 112 .52 .82 .26 .50 .32 .52 113 .21 .21 .30 ,.21 .13 .05 114 .68 .75 .38 .63 .32 .55 115 .71 .19 .60 .13 .53 116 .38 .43 .20 .22 .21 .27 117 .27 .09 .20 .00 .21 .19 118 .41 .41 .33 .17 .33 .09 119 .56 .56 .28 .42 .29 .39 120 .46 .38 .35 .29 .44 .32 103 TABLE XXXII V a l i d i t i e s of Items on A n t i - s o c i a l Tendencies According to Three C r i t e r i a  Sub-test V a l i d i t y S o c i a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X No. of Item. <*» <f> <P <*> 121 .76 .75 .61 .40 .55 .31 122 .77 .62 .63 .43 .52 .31 123 .83 .88 .52 .58 .51 .48 124 .41 .22 .39 ,21 .44 .19 125 .39 .33 .41 .41 . .37 .30 126 .69 .33 .52 .02 .52 .00 127 .42 .09 .26 .00 .40 .00 128 .42 .32 .45 .28 .39 .28 129 .32 .09 .32 .00 .32 .00 130 .69 .42 .54 .28 .49 .28 131 .40 .28 .26 .38 .29 .32 132 .62 ,28 .62 .21 .52 V .00 133 .42 .42 .22 .22 .28 .07 134 .62 .32 .52 .42 .49 .25 135 .31 .27 .11 .29 .15 .00 184 TABLE XXXIII V a l i d i t i e s of Items on Family Relations According to Three C r i t e r i a  Sub-test V a l i d i t y S o c i a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y T otal Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X No, of Item «*» 4> 4> <P 4> . 136 .22 • .22 .20 .10 .10 .13 137 .28 .49 .23 .42 .20 .45 138 .46 .62 .38 .31 .40 .32 139 .50 .30 .40 .30 .34 .33 140 • .68 .45 .58 .45 .49 .42 141 .55 .31 .45 .28 . .44 .28 142 .50 .48 .45 .46 .47 .32 143 .77 .58 .44 .32 .43 .32 144 .12 .32 .00 .33 -.07 .33 145 .62 .52 .40 .38 .36 .55 146 .20 .32 .11 .30 .20 .30 147 .56 .48 .34 .30 .30 .42 148 .69 .63 .62 .46 .60 .55 149 .62 .37 .57 .30 .65 . .28 150 .45 .42 .40 .28 .31 .41 105 TABLE XXXIV V a l i d i t i e s of Items on School Relations . According to Three C r i t e r i a  Sub-test V a l i d i t y S o c i a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII Gr.X' Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X No. of Item <4> <¥ <¥ 4 151 .49 .55 .20 .42 .32 .19 152 . .30 .38 .31 .40 .21 .41 153 .33 .70 .18 .30 .33 .31 154 .63 .80 • .46 .40 .38 .30 155 .22 .13 .32 .11 .35 .00 156 .62 .47 .45 .40 .31 .21 157 .23 .13 .21 .32 .23 .32 158 .68 .68 .47 .11 .38 .02 159 .38 .32 .35 .11 .22 .30 160 .62 .52 .50 .29 .38 .13 161 .27 .67 .41 .41 .31 .35 162 .20 .10 .19 .20 .19 .21 163 .39 .23 .22 .28 .25 .23 164 .42 .00 .21 .00 .35 .10 165 .52 .32 .32 .39 .35 .25 106 TABLE XXXV V a l i d i t i e s of Items on Community Relations According to Three C r i t e r i a  Sub-test V a l i d i t y S o c i a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y T o t a l Adjustment V a l i d i t y Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII Gr.X Gr.VIII • Gr.X No. of Item <*> 4> 4> <t> 166 .40 .52 .29 .44 .21 .54 . 167 .46 .50 .28 .39 .28 .32 168 .46 .21 .52 .11 .33 l .00 169 .50 .47 .42 .31 .40 .06 170 .38 .68 .00 .55 .10 .33 171 .42 .41 .38 .37 .40 .34 172 .20 .00 .08 .19 .10 .17 173 .52 ,62 .36 .42 .36 .46 174 .70 ,59 .61 .62 .54 .41 175 .47 .53 .40 .48 .35 .12 176 .70 .62 .69 .68 .50 .42 177 .10 .30 .11 .43 .02 .23 178 .62 .21 .62 .22 .53 .10 179 ,39 .28 .39 .42 .20 .23 180 .52 .59 .42. .57 .34 .59 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. A l l p o r t , G. W. 2. 1 Concepts Psychol. of t r a i t and Personality. , B u l l . , 1927, -24, 284-293 3. 4. Baker, H. J . 5. B e l l , H. ffi. 6. Bernreuter, R. G. 8. B l a i r , G. M. and Clark, R. Boynton^ P. L. and Walsworth, 3.ML. 10. Brogden, H. E. Test of ascendance-submission, J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1928, 23, 118-136. Personality: a Psychological interpretation, New York, Henry Holt and Co., 1937, Teacher's handbook f o r the Detroit Adjustment Inventory, Bloomington, I l l i n o i s : public School Publishing Co., 1942. Theory,- and practice of student counselling, with s p e c i a l reference to the adjustment inventory, Stanford University: Stanford University Press, 1935. Theory and construction of the personality inventory. J . of S o c i a l Psychol., 1933, 4, 387-4.05. Imbrication of tests of introversion-extrjoyersion. J . S o c i a l Psychol.., 1934, 5, 184vf20l. Personality adjustments of ninth grade pupils as measured by the M u l t i p l e Choice Rorshack Test and the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality. J . of Educ. Psychol., 1946, 37,13-20. Emotionality t e s t scores of delinquent and non-delinquent g i r l s . J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1933, 38, 87-92. Pactor analysis of f o r t y character t e s t s . Psychol. Monographs, 1940, 52, 39-55. 108 11. Brogden, H. E. and Thomas, W. F. 12. Brown, F. 13. Burke, B. 14. Burt, C. 15. C a t t e l l , R.B. 16. 17. 18. Clark, W. A.' and Smith, 1. F. 19. Crook, M. F . 20. Darley, J . G. and McNaraara, W. J, Primary t r a i t s in personality items purporting to measure' s o c i a b i l i t y . .J. of Psychol., 1943, 16, 85-97. Experimental study of the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Brown Personality Inventory f o r children. J . of Psychol., 1944,17.,.-75-89. Personality scores in re l a t iomt to measurement. J . of S o c i a l Psychol., 1936, 7, 140-149. Factors of the Mind, London: University of London Press,1940. Description of personality. I Foundations of t r a i t measure-ment. Psychol. Review, 1943, 50, 559-94. Description of personality. II Basic t r a i t s resolved into c l u s t e r s . J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1943, 38, 476r507. Description and Measurement of Personality. New York: World Book Co., 1946. Further evidence on the v a l i d i t y of personality invent-o r i e s . J . of Educ. Psychol., 1942, 33, 81-91. Retest with the Thurstone Personality Schedule a f t e r six and one-half years. J . General Psychol., 1943, 28, 111-120. Factor analysis i n the e s t a b l i s h -ment of new personality t e s t s . J . of Educ. Psychol., 1940, 31, 321-21. Edwards, A. L. 22. ' E l l i s , A. 23. Flaranagan, J . C. 24. Flemming, E. G and Flemming,- C. W. 25 . Ga It on, F. 26. . Garrett, H. E. 27. Garrett, H. E., and Schneck, M, R. 28. 29. Gibb, C. A. 30. G i l l i l a n d , A. R. 31. Guilford, J . P. 109 S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis, New York: Rinehart and Co. Inc., 1946. V a l i d i t y of personal-ity questionn-a i r e s , Psychol. B u l l , 1946, 43, 385-440. Factor Analysis in the Study of Personality.- Stanford University: Stanford University Press, 1935. V a l i d i t y of the Mathews Revision of the Woodworth Personal Data Questionnaire. J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1929, 23, 500-06. Measurement of character. Fort-nightly Review, 1884, 42, 179-185. S t a t i s t i c s in Psychology and" Education: (2nd Ed.) New York: Longmans, Green, 1940. Psychological Tests, Methods and Results, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1933. Study of the discriminative value of the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet. J . of General Psychol, 1928, 1, 459-471. Personality t r a i t s by f a c t o r i a l a n alysis. Australusion J. Psychol and P h i l o s . 1942, 20, 1-27', Referred to by C a t t e l l , 1944(17). What do introvers ion-extr.pversion tests measure? J of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psycho}, 1934, 28, 407-412. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Co; Inc., 1936. P h i - c o e f f i c i e n t and chi square as indices of item v a l i d i t y . Psychometrica, 1941,- 6, 11-19. UK) 33. Guilford, J . P. 34. Guilford, J.P. andi Guilford, R. B. 35. 36. 37. 38. Guilford, J.P. and Mart in,H. Fundamental S t a t i s t i c s in Psychology and Educat ion, New York McGraw H i l l Book Co., Inc.,1942. Analysis of the factors in a t y p i c a l test of introversioti-extxoversion. J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1934 . 28,-377-99. Personality factors S, E and M., and t h e i r measurement: J.of Psychol, 1936, 2, 169-27. Personality factors D, R, T, and A. J.of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1939, 34, 21-36. Personality factors N and G'D J.of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1939, 34, 239-48. Age differences and sex d i f f e r e n c e s and emotional t r a i t s , J.of General Psychol., 1944, 31, 219-229. 39. H a l l , 0. Attitudes and Unemployment. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934. 40. Harris, D.B., and Dobelstein, D.A. 41. Heidbreder, E. 42. Jackson, J . 43. Jasper, H. H. Study of the Mailer and Boy Cit on Personality Inventories. J . of Educ. Psychol., 1938, 29,279-86. Measuring introversion and extro-version. J . of Abnormal and So c i a l Psychol, 1926, 21,120-134 Relative effectiveness of paper-pen c i l t e s t , interview and ratings as techniques, for personality evaluation. J . of S o c i a l Psychol, 1946, 23, 35-54. Measurement of depression-elat&fcr»s and i t s r e l a t i o n to a measure of extroversion-introversion,. J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1930, 25, 307-318. 44, Kelley, T.L. 45. Kelley, E.L., Miles, C. , and Terman, L.M. 46 . Keys , "N. and Guilford, M.S. 47. Kl i n g , C. 48. Landis., C. 49. Landis, C , Zubin J . and Kutz, S.E. 50. Layman, E. M. 51. Long, J.A. and Sandiford, P. 52. Loofbourow, G.C Keys, V. IP-S t a t i s t i c a l Method. Macmillan, 1924, New York: A b i l i t y to influence one's score on a t y p i c a l p e n c i l and paper test of personality. Character and Personality, 1935, 4, 206-215. V a l i d i t y of ce r t a i n adjustment inventories in predicting problem behavior. J . of Educ. Psychol, 1937, 28, 641-655. S t a t i s t i c a l study of the r e l a t i v e of neurasthenic, dyspeptic and a l l e r g i c symptoms. J . of General Psychol., 1934, 10, 328-343. An attempt to measure emotional t r a i t s in j u v e n i l e delinquency. In Studies in the Dynamics of Behavior, edited by K a r l S. Lashley, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,. 1932. Emperical evaluation of three personality adjustment inventories. J . of Educ. Psychol, 1935,26, 321-330. Item analysis of the adjustment questionnaire. J . of Psychol, 1940, 10, 87-106. V a l i d a t i o n of Test Items, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1935. and 53. L i c k e r t , R. Group test of problem behavior tendencies in j u n i o r high shcool boys. J . of Educ. Psychol., 1933, 24, 641-653. Technique f o r the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: Columbia University Press, 1932. 54. Martin, H. G. 55. Mathews, E. 56. May, M. A. 57. Mosier, C. 58. Murray, H. A. 112 Construction of the Gu i l f o r d -Martin Inventory of Factors "G-A-M-I-N. J . of Applied Psychol., 1945, 29, 298-300. Study of emotional s t a b i l i t y of children. J , of Delinquency,1923, 8, 1-40. Problems of measuring character and personality. J . of So c i a l Psychol., 1932, 3, 131-145. Oh the v a l i d i t y of neurotic questionnaires. J . of S o c i a l Psychol., 1938, 9, 3-16. Explorations in Personality, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1938. 59. Murphy, G. and Murphy £33., and Newcomb, T.M. 60. McLoy, C. H. Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. Rev. Ed., Hew York: Harper Bros. 1937. Factor analysis of personality t r a i t s to underlie character education. J . of Educ. Psychol., 1936, 27, 375. 61.- McNamera, Ward Darley, J . G. 62. P a l l i s t e r , H. 63. Perry, R. G. 64. Pinter, R., and Forlano, G. Factor analysis of te s t - r e t e s t performance on attitude and adjustment t e s t s . J . of Educ. Psychol., 1938, 29, 652-64. Negat ive or withdrawal 'attitude: a study in personality organiz-a t i o n . Arch, Psychol., H.Y. . No. 15, 1938. Analysis of group factors in certain adjustment questionnaires, Psychol. B u l l . , 1933, 30, 598. Four retests of a personality inventory. J . of Educ. Psychol., 1938, 29, 93-100.-113 65. Pinter, H., and 66. Pinter, R., Loftus, J . J . , Porlano, G., and A l s t e r , B. 67. Remmers, H.W., Whisler, L. and Duwald, V. H. 68. Reyburn, H. A. and Taylor, J.G. 69. Riggs, W. C. and Joyal, A.E. 70. Root, A.R and Root, E. B. 71. Sletto, R.P. 72. Stagner., R. 73.. 74. Stagner, 75. ' Stephenson, W, V a l i d a t i o n of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by outstanding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of p u p i l s . J . of Educ. Psychol., 1939, 30, 25-32. Aspects of personality, New York: Yonkers-ori-Hudson; World Book Go., 1937, Neurotic indicators at the adolescent l e v e l . J . of S o c i a l Psychol., 1938, 9, 17-24. Factors in introversion and extroversion. B r i t . J . Psychol., 1940, 31, 335-340. Val i d a t i o n of the Loofbourow- . Keys Personal Index of Problem Behavior in Junior High Schools. J . of Educ. Psychol, 1938, 29, 194-201. Study of the Neyirian^Kohlstedt Diagnostic Test f o r Introversion-Extroversion. J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1932, 26, 415-21.. Construction of Personality scales by the C r i t e r i o n of Internal Consistency. Minneapolis: The S o c i o l o g i c a l Press, 1937. D i f f e r e n t i a l factors in the testing of personality I Sex differences II Differences in maturity. J . of S o c i a l Psychol., 1932, 3,477-487. Psychology of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,1937. Diagnostic nature of introversion-extroversion items. Amer. J . Psychol. 1924, 46, 321-324. Invented fa c t o r technique. B r i t . J . Psychol, 1936, 26, 344-361. 114 76. Stockard, C. K. 77. S t o g d i l l , E. and Thomas, M.-E. • 78. Symonds, P.M. 79 . Terman, L. M. 80. Thomson, G.H. 81. Thomson, W. A. 82. Thorndike, E. L. 83. Thorpe, L. P, 84. 85. 86. Thurstone, L. L. and Thurstone, T. G. Tiegs, E., Clark, W. and Thorpe, L. P. Physical Basis of Personality. New York. W. W. Norton Co., Inc., 1931. The Bernreuter Personality Inventory as a measure of student adjustment. J . of S o c i a l Psychol. 1939, 9, 299-315. Diagnosing personality and conduct. New York: The Century Co., 1931. Measurement of personality. Science, 1934, 80, 605-608. F a c t o r i a l analysis of human a b i l i t y . London: University of London Press, 1939. Evaluation of the P. Q,. (person-a l i t y Quotient) Test. Character and Personality, 1938, 6, 274-292. Interest of adults. 2. The in t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of adult in t e r e s t s . J . of Educ. Psychol. 1935, 26, 417-507._ Psychological Foundations of Personality. New York: McGraw-H i l l Book Co., 1938. Neurotic inventory. J . of S o c i a l Psychol., 1930, 1, 1-29. The C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality. J . of Educ. Research, 1941, 35, 102-108. Manual of Directions, C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality - Inter-mediate Series, Los Angles; C a l i f o r n i a Test Bureau, 1942. 87 . Traxler, A. E. 88. 89 . 90. 91». Turney, A. and Pee, M. 92. Tryon, R.C. 93. Vernon, P.E. and A l l p o r t , G. W. 94. Whisler, L. D 95. Willoughby, R. R. 96. Wolfle, D. 97. Zubin, J 115 R e l i a b i l i t y of the B e l l Inventories and t h e i r correlation with teacher judgment. J . of Applied Psychol., 1941, 25,672-678. Use of tests and rating devices in the appraisal of personality. New York: Educational Records Bureau, 1942. Current construction andl evaluation of personality tests, Rev.'Educ. 'Research, 1944, 14, 55-66. Techniques of Guidance. New York; Harper, 1945. Attempt to use the B e l l Adjustment Inventory f o r High School guidance. School Review, 1936, XLIV, 193-198. Cluster Analysis. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1939. Test of Personal Values. J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol, 1931, 26, 231-248. M u l t i p l e f a c t o r analysis of general-ized a t t i t u d e s . J . of S o c i a l Psychol, 1934, 5, 283-297. Some proporties of the Thurstone Personality Schedule and a suggest-ed revision. J . of S o c i a l Psychol. 1932, 3, 401, 423. Pactor analysis in .the study of personality. J . of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychol., 1942, 37, 393-397. Method of internal consistency f o r selecting test items. J . of Educ. Psychol., 1934, 25, 345-356. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0107085/manifest

Comment

Related Items