For Reference

NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM THIS ROOM

6[x UBBK

anmsiOliB amsiumis

»

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA

A PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF

WELFARE WORKER CHARACTERISTICS

by

John E. Millraan

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGR

OF MASTER OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

EDMONTON, ALBERTA

March 1964

Ill

ABSTi^ACr

Welfare Workers were administered five psychological

tests after having been rated by their supervisors as to

overall suitability. Four hypotheses were tested concerned

respectively with (1) the comparability of welfare workers'

test scores with the scores of other "helping-professions",

(2) the score differences between High-rated and Low-rated

groups, (3) the significance of the multiple correlation

calculated between predictor variables (scores) and the

rating criterion, and (4) the fakability of the three non-

cognitive tests. The data were analyzed separately for the

two sexes.

Subjects consisted of the population of welfare

workers employed with a large public welfare department. The

"Major group" of 69 males and 76 females pertained to hypo¬

theses (1), (2), and (3) while a smaller group of 20 males

and 16 females ("Simulation group") were utilized in testing

hypothesis (4). The tests used were: Valentine's Reasoning

Test, Wonderlic Personnel Test, Maudsley Personality Inventory,

California Psychological Inventory, and Strong Vocational

Interest Blank.

All four hypotheses were supported for both male and

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from

University of Alberta Libraries

https://archive.org/details/Millman1964

i V

feinale samples except hypothesis (2) for the female sample,

for which the number of dimensions significantly discrimin¬

ating the High-rated from the Low-rated groups was slightly

less than the required fifty percent.

The intellectual, personality, and interest character¬

istics of the typical welfare worker, as well as of the high¬

rated and the low-rated workers, were described. Considera¬

tion of those variaoles most discriminating the high- from

low-rated groups, and of those found to contribute most

independently to the multiple regression equations, provided

further definition to these groups.

In spite of the apparent fakability of the non-

cognitive tests, both quantitative and "pattern” differences

were noted between the High-rated and the Simulation groups'

scores. Possible directions for further related research on

this and the other findings were suggested.

r! ^4-' ''{i. '■;^' ■■ ■■ 4^ r..--;i(!-. i,b- 'to i-i’:

- ’ •'^ v' .1 ; . '.'.’..J.-r, ^ ,! jM.j .1 '"'I,. J. 1 ■.■/) ? I''; i

S£, » Hv/i. ;,i ovv c ^ i-iiiii*!’ LB0k<.y\if >o

' ■ br? i , cj Xiiij* ] .;> ? O'l'•'A':'■ ' .XfXA.)' br;

i , r -

7;;c; bf;iS a!<.'A : n bA-

V C. ..anc " X i C;-/A XS 2 ;A 1 C ■)'o ir-v't of '/ ! .i n.9.t

C'u r yrj I'iA.x'-

bo V ? ; I xxi X'.. e \' ' rAx:c6u.-,;.c ■ ."av (,T

-'■■ •'- ^ ^ ^-' ‘' > ■ ■• i -■ i:Cv, h ■:> 6. iS A ..r. Syih yjiJ »■' 'A'C . v? 1 2 aa -i v

-Axo no .A iJ'x 44 oajJ bac {j?a t A'l-rlolII orlt r5i)ow4s>u bs T

.'Xoooov bX'jsJA.i xoxi;):c.?x loi arix, i: j on x j:4' olcixsx'iob

^.Arooi. ooo'/; ■ opn.chnxi lydJ'o sriJ" b

Oi.0«?5Sjl

>.cdw 1x41

b) iprrrf<'

I ;■:> ,0 i. ' :> ;

/Ti bl. b'AX

XO X’A'Ai

j' n. 1 - 'VO;[

nBbi ry. j

■fOii 1

r 4 iffi;.''''' '"A

Oa 9-.TOW

. 2,® 10 08

(oi 2 xnj

ACKNOWLEDGEMiiNTS

Upon the completion of this study I would like to

express ray gratitude to my supervisor, Miss. L. Wilson,

for her guidance and constructive criticism, as well as

to the other members of my thesis committee; to the sub¬

jects of the study, for finding the time to be away from

demanding caseloads; to the Department of Public Welfare

generally, for their consideration; and certainly to my

family, for their encouragement and patience.

1

\

r.

0

I •

if.^

>■

,no3iiW .J .gexM ,xQ®lv':£{jqii8 ym of abut Ha'S q ym eafinqx^

2fi Xl3w i:i3 avl,ta*iiJ8no-:> !S>oftj&f}jci;5.f;^©ri’*.5Ep,l

“Cfus 8igsdt • yi« :fco 3t£ddf3J»i6 xsNito,,©dt^vpt

' ' • ■ ..... ^

fljoil yjsw© sd oT tyfoi/i®'»<ll ■lo.ssisXost

©:ifiiI©W oxlcfw^ ^o

' ■ ■■

ym yInxsXxQo-bn-is i aoiJ©x©5ia«0O .. ,''ylXjSxafs©5' ■■■ '■''

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Abstract. iii

Acknowledgements . v

Taule of Contents. vi

List of Tables.viii

List of Figures. x

List of Appendices. xii

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION. 1

Statement of the Problem . 1

Statement of Hypotheses . 6

CHAPTER TWO - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 9

Helping-professions . 9

Rating Criteria . 16

Inventory Fakability . 17

CHAPTER THREE - METHOD . 20

The Sample. 20

The Criterion. 21

The Tests. 23

Collection of the Data. 26

Statistical Analysis. 28

CHAPTER FOUR - RESULTS. 34

Psychological Description of Welfare Workers. . . 34

Psychological Discrimination of High-rated

from Low-rated Welfare Workers. 39

Multiple Regression Analysis. 50

Fakability of the Non-cognitive Tests . 54

VI 1

PAGE

CHAPTER FIVE - DISCUSSION. 64

Psychological Description of Welfare Workers. ... 64

Psychological Discrimination of High-rated

from Low-rated Welfare Workers. 80

Multiple Regression Analysis. 84

Fakability of the Non-cognitive Tests . 89

CHAPTER SIX - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 91

REFERENCES.101

APPENDICES.110

xiV

30AS

oa

Q&

IQ

. ■ ■ ‘ .7J. Ofl- ■

v-^;* . avn

ito, «bi^tsjni^kxia«'X& lfi3X«?o^orio^e‘? v' . • • • ‘ . .a^siiioW ©is^fcXbW'moii * * >„ • • ‘ ‘ .aia.^XAoA rto’x»;gis»T:9®H ©Xqi^fliiW '^''''':''^¥| . . 8ia©X &vIfkii^oo^-’aoVt ©ni' ^o ■ '-.v.-iii

, . . .2«oiTAai©Mic>DaK-a&iA - xie hhihaho

Vlll

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I. Biographical Data for Male, Female, and

Total Samples. 21

II. Means and Standard Deviations for all Test

Variables: Major group. Males. 34

III. Means and Standard Deviations for all Test

Variables: Major group. Females. 35

IV. Percentage of Ss in Biographical Dichotomies. . 39

V. Means for High and Low-rated Male Groups with

Results of Significance Tests of their

Differences . 43

VI, Significantly Discriminating Variables in

Rank Order. Males. 44

VII. Means for High and Low-rated Female Groups

with Results of Significance Tests of

their Differences. 46

VIII. Significantly Discriminating Variables in

Rank Order. Females. 48

IX. Ratio of Ss in Biographical Dichotomies for

High and Low-rated Groups with Results of

Significance Tests of their Differences ... 50

eHjsfti laij

, .,!%!/■ . 3jmt^ } )'W;

if, > ' •

JgbX IX4» iQ'^ a-nolts.tv^Q, ,/ba4. ffi , ,

„. .,.• .. .,. . . ,3'^£:&M .,qudtp

taoT ££s 8ni!>£:^&xv■SMQ bzsbgikfB.'bfiB, ,8impU^

..■ ,. ’.' . . .a^X'saia'H .q.Wi:!t> loIsM

.-a9liaDt'orio,i;Ci lBolriqjs.i{3,o.£.H al s-B i‘o

ritxw aqx;oxO ©IfiM btsdfix^-wo'J fads rf'i|:5;H zoJt atr^sM

•ix©fiJ- io aJasT ©ofJjSDlXifiglB “xo atlt/ada

. X'l

VI

,v

. . .■ . ■» . ■ aso'dSfX©^! .'cO

ni esId^xx^V Q-jntxXsnlfflixQax'Ci %lSa£id£t£a^-£B'

- . ‘ . . • ■ . . . ' .; » .XSjbxO ,^4,.C5'iS5i,

eqxjoxO ©isiasB: b&fsz-'wod bri& ciQjtB .jo% ■iS . . ‘

1o a ta9.T 9.6rt<SDxlcXng.x8 to a 11xtaa'S ■ fl t .cw .

»IV

'IIV

• * • * . 80Dja®x9lMCI zisds ■iivX

ni asXdsxxjsV gnitjBniaix^aiG VXistpia

• * *. « . • ■ • . . ■ . *, . asljsfli©'^,-, .'isbiO jXn^H '.'Vi ,' . ,-m ' ,

zot asiffloiorioia I-aolrfqiS-xQoia'ni aB Xg oliag ■ m

....tp aiXpssW diiw zqiiotO-bdt&z.--woJ btm df-iH.

. . aponpxsl^ia zk^clt to sfs^T &onBoi:lkngW

fefSg

.*iiv

■■ ---I ■••;:.'■;■>. ' ■.! .' '

.,XI

1 X

TABLE PAGE

X. Point Biserial Correlations between

Biographical Variables and Criterion with

Significance Test Results . 51

XI. Variables Entered in Regression Analysis. ... 51

XII. Results of Regression Analysis. Males . 52

XIII. Results of Regression Analysis. Females .... 53

XIV. Eta Test of Linearity of Relationships

between Regression Equation Variables and

the Criterion. Males . 55

XV. Eta Test of Linearity of Relationship

between Regression Equation Variables and

the Criterion. Females . 55

XVI. Means and Standard Deviations for Non-

Cognitive Test Variables. Males. 56

XVII. Means and Standard Deviations for Non-

Cognitive Test Variables. Females. 57

XVIII. Simulation-and High-group Means for Regression

Equation and Discriminating Variables with

Significance Test Results. Males. 61

XIX. Simula!ion-and High-group Means for Regression

Equation and Discriminating Variables with

Significance Test Results. Females. 62

S2 ,*■. . si-;

ee ^a.:!':.- ,r«r, M'-' .. _. ..i/ ■ ■’■; ^ ■, :■".■. ■''ImS

. •ri’. ■Ml*

|pv', >■ fe 1^,' tj. .

. d'cTfiS aaX46 ,^nQ,x|;iS«^

- - *3^ ^ • t ■ ■ « /♦v

m'

■i)

ee ■# as

3!

^‘' '

b/ ■■ ■

^ -V

If*. «'%M xw. ..-dg*;

’iJlblfigl;

P[,~

■*■ St *' vMhLigniK!

X

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 and 2 - Distribution of Ratings (Original) ... 40

3 and 4 - Distribution of Ratings (Transformed). . 41

5. - C.P.I. High and Low group Mean

Profiles. Males . 44

6. - Strong High and Low group Mean

Profiles. Males . 45

7. - C.P.I. High and Low group Mean

Profiles. Females . 48

8. - Strong High and Low group Mean

Profiles. Females . 49

9 and 10 - C.P.X. High and Simulation group

Mean Profiles. 58

11. - Strong High and Simulation group

Mean Profiles. Males. 59

12. - Strong High and Simulation group

Mean Profiles. Females. 60

13. - M.P.I. Mean Scores for all groups

discussed 68

X ■■ r' I. ■ •

■f

BOAH

Ot>‘

V ;'

8i^

ae

ve

Od

' Bi.

8d

' ', f,

‘' T'i' ’>i\ aaauoi'i yio xeivi

■’ni -..^1 . %■ ..

aauoi'H

. . . (XsaigiiO) ag«x^is5f X.o CEOi;XXidjtTc^«iCI S bna 1

. . (bsmxoXens^T) sgrtitsSl Xo noxtwdxiiitxCl - ^ bns £ _ ; ■ . - ..a . ■ ,. .

■1v

rifi syi q xro X g wo J bn& ri g xK . I. q. 0

, Jv ■

• '. . ... . . e^XeM .?,©Xi:^oiq

■ nsal-'l %HOiLt^ ^ ■

'.■ T.'H'^W-- .TI. ;- ■ ■?. ■ ■'■■ vr-n-w; - i,/ , ^ ^ ^

• * '• ’ • • • • • • . '-‘v"'

,,■ -v r, .. ^ ■ > • I • .-. ., *v

nissM qxjoig wOvJ ba& rigxH .ol.q.O -

Klii

. . ..8<dlfini9q .ssli^qxq

aBsU quo'XQ woj bn£ doxH pnoxX^Ss *• ■ -S; *

. . .^'. . . a9lsiK©q .'aaliloxq . ^

■''' J^kv-

/li. qijoxp ao-xtiilwBia'bajs dplH .I.q.D ^^,01 ban H ' sliJ

•^. * . . ... . asfXx'toxq xi^fesM

qtroxp doit&Xw/ia 5ns fIpJ:H pnoxxa 'fp

as X bM .3 sIxlox q i nfisM

'"txX

qnoxp ctoxtBlumiB bfxfi ripxH p«6xX8';;p'^''

. . . .asXsaisq .asix'loxq nssM

^ m. eqLfoIp IiG Xo\ a9XooS cts©M X*

•Vf.

XI

FIGURE

14 and 15 - C.P.I. Mean Profiles for Welfare

Workers, Social Workers, Nurses

and Prisoners. 72

16. - Strong Mean Profiles for Welfare

Workers, Social Workers, and

People-in-General. Males . 76

17. - Strong Mean Profiles for Welfare

Workers, Social Workers, and

People-in-General. Females . 78

XI1

LIST OF APFENDICiiS

APPENDIX PAGE

1 Instructions to Raters . Ill

2 Instructions to Major Groups . 113

3 Instructions to Simulation Groups . 114

4 Full Names for Test Scale

Abbreviations . 115

5 Statistical Formulae . 118

CliAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

U GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The expanding welfare services being requested and

supplied throughout much of the world today coupled with an

annual graduation of qualified social workers that is below

capacity (Kendall, 1957), has inevitably resulted in a seri¬

ous shortage of professional staff (Albee and Dickey, 1957;

Grygier, 1963; Oettinger, 1963). This is further aggravated

by the administrative morass into which the more casework-

oriented professional feels he or she is sinking (Leigh,

1963) and by the high attrition rate of this female-dominated

profession (Watson, 1963a). Concern over the effective de¬

ployment of welfare personnel thus ranks among the most

urgent priorities in the social welfare field. Opinion in

Canada is becoming more widespread that "we must tackle

seriously the idea of having more of the workload carried by

personnel with less than professional qualifications" (Fisher,

1963). In areas without a school of social work there is

little actual choice in the matter. Oettinger (1963) states

that half of U.S. counties have no full-time trained welfare

miTomo^mi

' ’aMX ^q. im^gTA'iit. .x

■ f ^ ■(/;{' foo« 5?ni®ci $*s»!lt.X9W' 5?nXfon«qx© '«»dX

nfi dtiw tJsJlqiuoo v:^b6X; t'-Ucm sdX ’lo koum iuod-^upidt ^»Hqq«3

.V'- vjoiQd ai .tfifiX si9>iotow IsisQiE b©i.3:i;X«i/p. *jto, aoiJ&jjb&HQ lawnn*

. -.f y,'. ■ ■ '■•i

■' '''ir-' - ■ ■' " -X.zsa* » nX Jbsi lxiasi v^Xdstxvffi'ni: a/Rfi , (J?6QX XX®b.n©^) y tipaqjio

" ■ '■ ■>''!: ■ ■' ' '■ "

{VcQl ,ys>ioiQ bn« sadIA) I«noxi3as>lo^cq 'Sto sn^AljicadR aqo

bsXfcv.fiigpfi. si sXdT . (£0(JX , xsjQnittaO {

->i.xowi*afio sxoit.' rioidw oXni seAxoai 9\>lXj6xX»Xdii»foj*„©riX v:cf •'■■■'■• m ■ ■

_ ' ,./'•-1K| Dnx>l,fri8 ei. ^da',vXo ad aXi5»sii. XAfloiaaa'Xq^xq. bsXnaixo.

'3 , ■ m .. ^ :-i> . -

bst<»aifi,ipbr:£>Xftn;s>'i. eiriX Xo £»t^x noxt.iiXXA dt^Xd^sriX ^^,d. bd«

' ^- ■ ■ ^ -s»b ©vitp&XX^ 3d j, xs)vo nxspabp . (a£d^X noaXsW) doX««®Xpxq

& H , Xaoffl 3dX t;>noo)fi a^riisx eudi Isfjaoaxpq "io Xo^sftJVoXq

(31 ‘ ni apxnxqO ..bXsiX 9ij&Xl9w..'X^X)PP» ©dX nx aaiXixaiiq XdPexxi

'i';'' ■■ ’ "■" " ■ 91'

sldDsX Xauin sw” X/SriX bs9xq«i^bxw ©'xoni Q.nX«iop»d n-i ivbnnxiO

y_d bssizso baoLAio)N ©riX lo ©xoro Qn:xv<&dte.^o A0bl ©riX yXawoii©8 ^

„ s sIb. ' , zsdsiq) ”anoxXspxliXjBup IsnDxaasX.oxq nsdX^#«as!^X ritlw X©,naoa'x©q

' , ',< ' ' ■ '■. -'ft' ■ ■

^21 ©i©dx blxow X&iooe io-looriDa s Suod‘SaX .{tdQi

, . (L a::iXfiXa (£dPi) TygnxXisO pdx oX ©oxodo X&yX.o© sXXXiX

r.»w b©ni/siX ©raiX~lXijX sv/ari asxXaxiOO .eJ,UjX0 ItXad X^dXj

2

staff while in the other half the percentage of workers with

some training actually decreased from 517o in 1950 to 43% in

1960. In England, the Younghusband report recommended a new

grade of "welfare assistant" to help alleviate the similar

situation there (Nicholson, 1959). There is no reason to

believe the situation is brighter in other countries. Hence

unqualified welfare workers, to be distinguished from grad¬

uate social workers, form the bulk of welfare personnel and

their numbers, of necessity, appear to be increasing.

This situation has resulted in increasing attention

being focused upon the classification and differentiation of

positions and tasks for the non-professional worker which

would enable the development of more consistent in-service

training programs and undergraduate social work education

(Manson, 1963). Stress seems to be laid upon the most effec¬

tive integration of task with skill or training. However, as

pointed out by Gripton (1960), in-service training by itself

apparently does not ensure a higher standard of service or

predictable improvement in welfare worker competence.

Presumably there is an optimal range of intellect for the

responsibilities involved, pre-screening in terms of which

should improve the position. However, the application of such

ii^fw ‘i©:r{-Jo s^tif ftx 9i'Jt2:ri<#r

ni 'S^£.^ Cd9£ ni ffloit AcJXiSaJofi 9®08 ^

, ' i-ss v/an & b^baaifouiors^a: t:ioqs»i bi^^daoriigiRijoy nt . Od©!

ifil iiais ’SflX 9:fj5ivslliS qXsrf ot ’ yMiSJeliae •Itb 'Wexd

oi ar}ajs32 on^si sisriT . , nbaloriaxM)

9on&fl .2'si:i?nx>or> *r9ffj£) hi

:' .'Ji' ■M , fy

ffioxt b6.ri®iii9{t.i.tiSib &d[ oi 't'M''X0^x\9'w 9'T;S^X'»w b8''fc-y.Xl8'ijpiitJ» ■' ' ' ■• ■ ji ' ' * ■ ■■f'

bftjs'£X!d'5^i»rf '^tq'1 ^

■ .i^h'i.5n^i.ohi &di x'ssqqs’ ^\itxa89S^.« Ito vsx^cm'jufi

nditnbttB --baie''iS9!ronrl, nx bstinsax 's«'fi tioilBvfiiB .air'ii't'-- hf

.;• ^ . -. ■ ■ - ■ ■ , ■ , .

lo noit-BxtnstioM’ib- foa^is «olt'J5oi:y±®2iBl’o ^d't .it —. ''

.V. ■ .... ;*■

sDiVxsS-'ni dnstaiafioD sxoBie-yc? :frtsxsqdl5»V^^5 9di^' s>J[di'a^%|boi» - . ’■'< ' ,;.

, n6 iXsr^iib^ AXo'?j Ib iboa ■ b brj* amai^oxq xjsx X.

- jaYiD tab'nj srit noqw bxBi oJ .sitsbis seafXtS . (€d'9X , )

Bt” 2x. ■, :xsv&’,*>oH .Qaici tsif xo IX i?!'® Htiiv jiasf 1o hoiT&xpi»<lnl s*vly

W'■,. ^ . § ^ ■ ,

iXsati yd pninrBXt aolyxsa-fti , (xiolqixO \d tub b^fdloq c:'®

■ - —'

xo apirvxaa Id bxsforta'ta xofl^Xd ^ sxwaa© ton a»o5 yXtb^XBqq^

.9dn!&tsqtjioo ‘i£»i'^dw'sxB^Xaw ■nf ’'l'£tda?Wvbiqtox

ocli i6‘i toeLloJnl io bgirt/si: IjfitoxJqo ajs ^

v ‘v’4vSl WV, '."V

to ainist rri b'nxnosise^^SiXq-'-^bQvX'ovd t‘'aisitIXjfdiaSoqeox .^j

.'■“c “"noxtkoxXqqe bdj" , xoVswoM .noitl^febcj; o'dt Wdx^jifti bXWoda •!

3

intelligence would prove even more fruitful according to

Grygier (195b), if, in selection, cognizance is also taken of

the personality characteristics most suited to the various

interpersonal occupations; characteristics not elicited

through training and often at a premium. The assessment of

interests was thought by McCornack and Kidneigh (1954) to be

of comparable importance in this regard.

Opinion held by administrators in these fields regard¬

ing the nature of such requisite qualities is apparently

often intuitive, idiosyncratic, and biased by a priori con¬

victions rooted in certain theories. Thus, in the social

work profession, selection decisions are normally based upon

assessments of applicants' levels of maturity, poise, empathy,

discretion, etc. gained through "the interview technique"

with heavy reliance on the "dynamic interrelationships" de¬

veloped therein to provide clues to the above (Bishop, 1948;

Berentgarten, 1949; Towle, 1952). The construct "relation¬

ship" as so frequently used in social work was concluded by

Shively (1961) to be cloaked in ambiguity and its meaning to

possess little or no reliability. An immersion in psychoan¬

alytic theory appears to have resulted in a certain aversion

to objective assessment methods in this profession. Sanua

ot Qi\£b:io:;iO& bfLiuQ9i ‘''m

li iu ' ax ■e-'3nfiv'5.ifi^>-o3 ■ inoi;to»i-9s- «! , v’il 1.^X10

■' ■; auoxx£v ot bB^xua laoci aDi-ta-'lxQtojsxfirfo. ^^i'xXj*acr«xa>q'‘arit

^ ^ bo3 ioll^ ton go'xXelxstofix^riD' j a;noii6X|;i?^xo >X0ao.i»i®;qxaX^ii ^■'■'' ':

' - ^ ■ ' & lo sdl .iCiJXfljQXq « bit&' ■QCiJLt$i&lLt' ti^XK^'Xdt

ad ot (^£§1.) fItJxax^bx5^ bttia jiOjsnxqDoM yd dfi-Qx-'Giit

';>1 if ^'k^,,•?,:\ • . biBeax exff t'nx-aofiAtxo-qffix, aidsxjsqinioo 3to

-bx«Dax- eblsi^--aearix nX is-iof&'it^.mXoibri vd fo£«fd, noizxxqO Y':i "■

xltoaxisqqis. ax aaiJiisttp atxsxxpax now® \o ^%ufsia ad# giiiX

-003 Ixoxxq/6i b.aaBXd bos ■< oldsxoxiM^oibx ,>avJ:t,ixrfxil isafio

j Xsxooa 9rix ai (aodX .asixoax^X ni^-txad ni batoox-aoojttoxv

'■“if-

noqti boasci v.IXs>BXDn oxs anoxsxoab noitoaloa ^ oo^ssralioxq jilow

m

, V(xltsqfii9 ^93i:oc^ 't<> aXsval ’ ejasaxXqqs >.o ®Joofliaaoaas »;5/c

‘sixpifirioat woivxoJfix digwox-fit banxsexa.ota ^tlolt^toaXb

-ab "acilriertoxtiQl3.xxatnx 3xwsoYb*4 sdt no aonfiXIax ’v;vso4 rilxw

, . , m . ^ ,qoxisxa) avods sriX ox aaaXo obivoxq ot nxaxarf^' baxjoXov

■ ^--noxtsiai” XoxiJaxiOQ sdT ,(S£9’X tbXwoT iQPQl ^ nstaijQdxioxaa _.V< I*', . - P- •

Ycl babt/Xonoa ssw .><xow Isxooa «x .bsex).j.vXta9wpai^ oa

of qn Icifioffi a t X bas y r iijpidfijs • nx'^bo^isoXo OdXMtJ. (Id$J. 1 viovXiia

- rtsodo'i,^aq‘;flti'aoiaxaoiaix nA .v;XiIX,d6lXoi /Qfi xo aXtXxX asaeaoq

uoXa'TOVs nxstXDo s fjx fostiaeox svsri oX 9%%^qq& xio^dt

sw/tIS* .'rio.csao'loxq axdX ni abobtoni tn^seeasaas dvxXoo^^do oJ

4

(19o3) points out that although other professional schools

(law, medicine, engineering, etc.) utilize psychological

tests to aid selection decisions, this has not been the case

with social work.

To the extent that hiring decisions in welfare agencies

are influenced by professionally-schooled administrators a

similar orientation would likely also prevail in the selection

of welfare workers. However, according to Newman (1961) there

has been "little effort to define objectively the personal

qualifications needed for social service" in any case, whether

in psychoanalytic strongholds or otherwise. In view of the

evidence against the efficacy of interview alone (Viteles,

1945; Guildford and Lacey, 1947; Kelly and Fiske, 1950; Zubin,

1957; Holt and Luborsky, 1958; Sydiaha, 1962) some alteration

in this position would appear justified. The recent opinion

of a prominent social welfare researcher that "the development

of a selection battery (of tests) would be useful for both

non-professional personnel and in candidate selection for

graduate schools of social work" (Watson, 1963b) may represent

a new view point in the profession. The utility of psycho¬

logical tests in social work generally is further emphasized

by Grygier (1963) who feels the use of more objective tools

I

5

to assess both client and worker characteristics would lead

to more productive casework.

The problem with which the present study was therefore

concerned was that of identifying, with the use of several

group paper and pencil tests, some of the psychological

variables (purportedly measured by such tests) which most

characterize, respectively, a male and a female sample of

public welfare workers. This is dealt with under Part A.

The variables which best discriminate those workers given high

ratings from those given low ratings on a suitability criter¬

ion were also sought and are dealt with in Part B. The type

of variables identified by psychological tests were expected

to afford, at least tentatively, more explicit bases for

inter-subjective agreement and common frames of reference

than more intuitive approaches when, for whatever reason, the

attributes of this category of apparently socially adequate

individual (who outnumber graduate social workers) are of

concern. (e.g. in vocational counselling).

The possible application of information as found in

Parts A and B for selection purposes requires that such tests

possess adequate validity in terms of relevant external

criteria and are insensitive to purposeful distortion. An

JbssI blifow aoxtei.ia.) Dieaiirio OJ ' ® .:

1 *>J3;ows>«£iO avx;J'4wboiq sioia: ot ^ , ■■ ■ . .. ' ?t; ■ ■ ; • ■ tiL

ilt iiio\di©rlX 2fiw -^bt/Xa tn-^jadiq.TSffJ ritoxflw riJlw m^idoiq siflT ' .^ |

IfiiQvsa Ip S3U 9rit r(?,cw ^i^axvlxJfisbi ^o t^dt «6w bsttij^pnoo

IsDxyoXorioveq ariX lo siaoe lipasq bn® x^qxsq qt/pig

iaom rioxriw {aizet doua^^\d fop-iwsApia vilbpXloqxtrq) 8pX;d®i:SiSv

^o 9iqjiifi8 irflsoiol: .® bftjQ pisai ® , qlsvjLi;p!iq3&^ ^ji&k'xu'J'b&iLi&do

,iC ,A xxaS xpbnti d^xw Xlcpb ai'i sxdT . zjqH'XOY/ &7£iJ:I&w pxXdwq

ripxd nsvxe eloj^xow paorit 9X®nxujixpaxb 3spd fipxdw aslP^i^iAv »riT

-xaXi'XQ,,viXiXid®J“XJJ8 B no gQnxJjsx woi fipvi^ aspri? mpfi »Qj«xXb3

y sqyJ sdT. ..a JxbS xii ritxw Jlsab •95B fodB Xd©wo8 oaiB s-iaw nox

b&Xodqx^ sxov; aXasJ iBOxeoIorloyeq yd bsi^iJnabX «s-XcfjB.ii&V'^i,Q

. ra.

xo^ ssaBd JxoxXqxD ©xoin ^.yXsvxXsinst XaBpX 4’B^^ of,

' ‘ .

^’1]^ spnsxsi'iax aoiaBTl noaiflipo bn®' J-ni

, nosBPi ipypJBriw xo’l" ^ apdw asdoBoxqqa pvxJxxri-oi pxo£B osd^

QjSijfjpbB vlXsxooa vXXnpxBqqs jto yxo^pXfiP zltif Ifco odxli;t&

vT lo pxB (axpxxpv/’iBXboa 9XB.ubB'xg» xpdmxfnJuo odw) .j!i^;ubxvxbnl

. (pnxlXpanuoo Xbop-x^bpov nx ’'.p.p) .rtipprtoo

nx bnuoX 2b nbiXBfaxoXni io noxJBoiXqc|'S sXdJiasoq pdlC .4 w

vS-)" I'

afasiX doxia Xfidt spxiupax asaoqxi/q aoiJ-ppXpa plcX B ba& A sXxxsq Tr-l

■i£

iBifipj-x© XhbvoXox Xo emipX ni yXxbxiBV pXBxjppbB aapaaoq

' :@, ■ ■ . • . -v ■ ' ^ -rioXJuo^aiPi IijXpeoqxijq oX pvxXxaapanx 9ie forsB BiitpXixp

If,

A 'l2i<'X 'li**

' "-Sh '■ .''‘fv fe r;.,.

'!i

o

initial step (only) with respect to the former point was

undertaken also in the present study in a multiple regression

analysis of the test variables against the rating criterion

(Part C). Studies estimating the fakability of personality

and interest inventories, whether developed on rational,

empirical, or forced-choice principles, are legion (see Chpt.

II). However, as Dunnette et al (1958) state, in reference

to a typical inventory, ”the C.P.I., as an aid in the selec¬

tion of applicants, will be enhanced with the continued

accumulation of information on the effects of possible faking.”

The fakability of the non-cognitive tests used in the present

study, in terms of the particular criterion herein concerned,

was therefore also investigated, in Part D.

Findings throughout this study, although hopefully

heuristic, should be considered tentative and will require

refinement and cross-validation before conclusive statements

of predictive validity regarding welfare workers should be

made or generalized.

2. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES

The following refer equally and separately to the male

and the female samples. With respect to Part A, a descriptive

analysis of welfare workers, it was hypothesized that:

(nioq , 9fU oJ- ftJi*/ (sili^'oj t|ii>^a'-^Xsi 1 xrtl

'i ' I ■ >'<'■■ « aoieassdsi sXqxtlnfli'fi «'l ‘iburs fam’^'xq^ fit &^Ib mABt^Bhnu

, ■ • ■ ■ '''^:

rtoiT9ti43 ^ni^jRX 9rfJ rarti^iOj©: asidf^i'Ttsv \o aiavlitne

yJxXiinoE^csq 5^0 afiX esxbxftS^ »i(D- Jt!^'^)

.liSnoi^A*! no bsqoXsvsb %as>Xic*J«9val S^asixdtni bne

.J<;<1D 9Q3) 110X591 9X^-.v-asXqiofixxq 9bxodD~&90iib^

e»ofj»i9i9:t ax ,9XBXa (seel) ifisXs ifeB tis^xstWbH 1(11 s. \ A -^.j

-oaXas 9dx fti bijs dB. v 11^iD'srit" , N:SGX.Pi9vf!jE; jBaxqy# '6^ Sf '^5''

bounitaoo 9^^^ rii'iw bs on Brins 9d XXiw , ed'AsoilqqB 1;b noit

'* cGnX#!.sX: 9Idlasoq Xo 3^09^19 arix'’no noxlBaitQlni lo'^ctoii^BlofiaaooB

i-:R929'lq oriJ ill iSozu 9VxXxn5Op--.£iO0 sdX lo y'XxildBJiiSit PfIT ■'■ ■ y

.bsmoOiioo nisisd^irtoxctatixo ijHuolS-'XBq-.Brii &mx0f dflJ^ybcXa' ' an.^

■:fKv^) ■ - a . ..a ■ X:s6Si. nl ^boXB.glXpovnx o^Xb 9to'5:9i9ff

. VlIoisqDfl ripx-odXXjS pyboXa SlriX Xwbri^doxfiX

I.-, . . ’ ' • • . , . ■•'if

lixw bfiaiovxtBXnoX bsTstj/ignoo ad biwode * oil®xload

t ® . ?trfsojsd&te svieulodoo ■9to’i9d' aP/^li&bilx.v.-Eebxo 5a£.Tdfi9iH9i0X^91

od blnorls exs^lrrow biBiXsw yt£5xt.^y ©yirtoxba'^xq lb

' ^ ' /v ■ *i>9sllBX9d9© :lb' ^bjSlB

'■ ' vV..' ,".'.», ;, ■ .4* . N . • , -.•■’.i .' t,**' ; •• • ;,.-q-i-!>. T- ■ ■. ^ : -. .•.., • ,v . , •« ■■ ‘ ' ■•*■ -' . , v ''V '■••?>.'

■■■ , i ,1. - I

,'r' ‘‘■k ■'' • .. '■'. ' ,ll ''J?^' jl ,„,,', :^r 'eafeiiH^ropva,

sXfif: 9fii oX yl9iBX£q98 bas ylljsiips xa'isi pnlwalXo^ 9fiT

i^k .d »,. ■ ’ ■ Xqixo.-ob is , A Ji/eH o'X Xosqaoi dXiW . 39Xqi:o^a aXsirWl'^dt bnis

v :x;>dX basxaodXoqyd ajsw Xx , ex9:;4iow'%xb1;X9w lo aisylBni^

'welfare workers would achieve scores on the tests given com¬

parable to other helping-professions but different, in many

respects, from those of such as salesmen, scientists, and the

socially inadequate, where such norms are available'. A more

explicit hypothesis was not thought justified for this

exploratory enquiry.

With respect to Part B, a discrimination of workers in

terms of suitability, it was hypothesized that: 'the differ¬

ence between test score means of those workers in the High¬

rated group and the Low-rated group would be significant on

the majority of dimensions measured'.

With respect to Part C, the multiple regression analy¬

sis, it was hypothesized that: 'the multiple correlation

between the ultimately selected predictor variables, as

weighted in the regression equation, and the rating criterion

would be significantly greater than zero'.

With respect to Part D, the fakability analysis, it

was hypothesized that: 'the majority of Simulation group

mean scores on those variables shown to discriminate the

High/Low groups or included in the regression equation would

either not differ significantly from, or would fall beyond

(in the diredion of suitability) the comparable High-rated

'■J

. - , "i , ' - , ■■■, ' ■:>„ J. i i:,'! W* ■

/ . ■ ... ” ’ ' ' '.'i i iv.'M'

'O'?Clor

- .... •: ,■ v,£I'rw..oo;

■ ., i o...,'.{Vi :i ..>. ;:j j. [ 4x9

. V I ,C.r.r:n,A„ . , ; ■

v r' ; cf v4'.t uskW ■ .

4..:-'/ .',.4 .ViMia 5:o

... ' '4j ,''44' .4'. / r u9.9Wj'0d" . 4

i, ■■ ,4. U:i4- 4 V''^i,':..i..-''.4'.4.; ,4 4:1

’ 1, ■■...'..'ir‘^ '.-'.iH.c i.4 Vf'4 4 .4- 4 J ii,O.SfS 9i:'S.£

.. ..,-4.:4"'-.. :?.; -4 ..''Ijjm: 4 * :V S'-.o''-' ...4. 44444:4., dr" i;V' ■

'y;.4. 4: i. 4 ;^4-: ■ 4j i4.i, j ,!:'44..d44.! ,rOC4/i1 eiSWS': t.l ,43,

■4 '.''/r.^rY.. ■: 44: j':>;....^4 4 ^-.o j'y;, ^ v .i'':4.r4.4.4 44+ na&wtad'

4'.'..,: 4 1 4'4:. 4 4'4 ir4,r>''4;:: •' 9'{j vi,,d b'-s tX'IliiJXSW ' ,

, '4;..,- 44iV444r; 4 ,1 /,:'4..4.' 11,44 .L3-,£».d' hltiOW , V. ;

., V 4:. :...l.r ..■:4\4."4r ■.444 4V’ 4 4 4‘4 .y'' .] :.4.; 4 4:4 4 ii'ijj’! ' ' ■;

: .: . 4 d, ;4;.' V"'. ' r. •■444.44 4;', 7' : i 4,d: d.4r Va:3r-i'V@<|Vj'4..:,gaw , ,

-4i 4 w L d.' ,;4: 4...'.',4(4 .v O ..d.,;^ X 4 7 £44 4,4d!' 4 J V 'd'!..'. V ' ' , _ , ... 4 '•■■■■■'■ 4 4.:

'44.,' 4: ,',,..4.> ,-.-r.;{ j: ' i f I'i ,L -4 tiV-Y-.'.I.Ord. 4-7 4q.|.i'Q'fp ’VO., V'',|

.d, - id,:'” a:,, ,_.;:44.4 vJ..;a.fi.o.r';U.e!;:43; dsdd Vb: tr'r4a'a£i£*,d'tJ:©,,4{;b',d'■

■ d' > J ,4 4€.., .''yd 4;4^ ( V T r jdL4jsx.!;;ue do aox i'sa.Txii>'':, s4.i',.4l5[:ii|4

a

group mean scores’.

All above-mentioned groups are defined in Chapter III.

The choice of ’’majority" for the hypotheses of Parts B and D,

although admittedly somewhat arbitrary, allowed some basis

for generalization of whatever conclusions were reached

regarding, respectively, the relevance of the tests chosen,

and the fakability of their more discriminating variables, in

the context of this study.

9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The present investigation is not particularly concerned

with the more esoteric problems inherent in the separate

topics of criterion analysis, rating procedures, personality

theory, inventory validity, regression analysis, faking,

personnel selection, social work, vocational interests, intel¬

ligence, etc. per se. Each of these could be probed in depth

in conjunction with studies explicitly delimited to one such

problem. The following review will therefore be consistent

with the exploratory nature and format of the present study,

incorporating certain marginal topics only as they pertain to

the identification of welfare worker characteristics. For

convenience however this discussion is divided into sections

dealing with studies on "helping-professions”, rating criteria,

and inventory fakability.

STUDIES RELATING TO THE "HELPING-PROFESSIONS"

The majority of studies concerned with identifying

attributes and improving selection methods of potentially

suitable trainees in these fields have dealt with graduate

students entering clinical psychology, psychiatry, public

' ‘'3.< . ©riJ* ai tn©?»ri0x ^ffl;0Xdo:jq bi:is.#Ofl>s> ©'totRiarlJ' iitiw

,y^xX6no8l^q Qnktmn 'aiSlqot

,,.ai8vlsa& fToiaasxqai tyJlX>il«v yxoi'fidvrtl *\fXosrft.

5i „..v:

-i©Jax «3^2©x©Xftx XstioidT^^oov k>1iow XjsIdos''^, Xsnno«xoq

■ > . - ■* ■

ritq05 nr'-:X>scfoxq 9d. blaoo aeferix lio do&l . ,9® xaq .of© »9o«S:QXi- ■ if "

d:>us ©do o t b© Xiaj tXb5 y 11 ioiXqx© so kbuta- ri t iiw^ fioonij^^ivo a±

tnoiszsaoo od ©xbifcQxariJ lliw vjsix/©x DtiiwoiXoX ©riX '.ajsXdoiq • ■ ’ {£

^yDx;X3,.sixr9^9xq 9xiX :it3 X&xt/xq^ bxiiS ©xuXisn %ioX®ioXcpct9 odf dxiw ■j^ . . ^

; K , , ot ax&i:%&<{ yariJ^-as ^^Xn:p' aaiqbj Ijsfix^isitr eixbXxsd qfiix^lbqxooni

'1.0^' . .,s;;jxX3 £39XoBXBfio ■'X.od'x&yi s.XiJ^XawgXo', nbxti&oxXxi'nafox ©riX

anoxXaoe oJfix bsbivxb ax aoiaawDaib el/lX xa’x/awod ©doaXiiavdoo n -V, ^'^ ■ . ■ . ■ ;ii.

,6ix9txto ^nxtBX ,‘'artoxaabXoxq-t^fiiqXoxl" do so Lbuta. dii-vti^nxL&ob ^ ^ ' .-7:^ ■■>^'^ ■ gjf]

■' ■■'t ^ ■'^'1 ■.'ir : ■'■ ■■ ■ ■ . y X'M'idBAtBX yxo.Xnliv|3x ba&

’T " "“aMa'.s.ifr t;. .. - i^v^.f..';.'v- •■

" etjo igeaqaaq ~ D\n is jgH» 'mix.<^.^ oj^lTAja^^ rate . x

'■ ' • ’■' ^ QnxyriXii&bl dXxw bonxoonoo a©ib£jtxg pXo .yXxlotBfif ©dXl" »

yXIfixxrioXbq Xo abo/lXsw noxioaiss’ipaivoiqfox bax, a©XwdixXtB

1^ '^^ ' ■ ■■■iit’ m oj&iib&ig dtzw ©VBd abIsiX ©aodX ax 39s>fiXjsit sXdjsXxj/®

r , i t yXXBifloya<^, { ycolofloygq i&oiniXo'^ pnxxsXaa ,-®tn©b£/te

10

health, and social work. To this writer's knowledge no psy¬

chometric studies have been reported involving untrained

welfare workers, in spite of their increasing numbers and im¬

portance (see Introduction). Sanua (1963) remarks that

"while lengthy investigations have been conducted with top

level helping-professions, very little work has been published

on the less prestigeful "helping-vocations' or sub-profes¬

sional personnel". Of the latter there have been some studies

on psychiatric aides, psychiatric nurses, and military social

work aides. These and some of the above studies provide the

more meaningful data for comparison with the present study.

Cliff, Newman, and Howell (1959) reviewed several

studies seeking to identify successful psychiatric aide quali¬

ties and concluded that no predictive personality variables

had yet been isolated; that ability tests were the only

promising tool. One typical study (Cuadra and Reed, 1957)

found the C.P.I. did not differentiate the better from less

suitable aidesand concluded that the criteria were either

unrelated to personality variables or were over-shadowed by

intellectual and experiential factors. A Ph.D study by Sidney

(1957) similarly found no scales on either the Guildford-

Zimraerman or Kuder to be predictive of psychiatric aide

-.1 |. Tj J X -v.) fx

"::aiiono

'. . ,1, ■ -t, .’■> ll>if

.;7l': L i:’'.r^'S

- • . ' rii d iO^'i

. '.• jd • ■>. j','‘'W ■ &/.i3 S'XOii'j

, sd” : Id;

;'?! S./'^■:-.'i't^. S:s!s Sb Xi J' 3

s i.-'issss 'dii*;: ■«;& dj

I: :’‘-;S:id ds'v djisri'

, '■ , d X'Si s bscuod'

::;■ ■■:• - v L s dlcdc f iij 2

' '■ ■' ,S ?■ J 'lilLI

J'.^' :j':» r IsXr?,X

d:ssii;.r,a {\^.^l)

.-.i x -'! ) fserTts/caffixS

li

proficiency.

Rosenburg et al (1962) found the average score on three

intelligence tests more predictive of military social work aide

course success than all C.P.I. scales except Self acceptance

and Achievement by independence. These latter did however

contribute something to a multiple regression equation while

scales of the p$ychiatrically-oriented MMPI did not. Marin

(1953), in a Ph.D. dissertation, reported no scales on the

Bernreuter predicted graduate social work success although a

correlation of .38 was obtained between grades and a combined

score (social-emotional scales) on the Bell Adjustment Inven¬

tory. These two studies however did not utilize, as did those

with psychiatric aides, practical proficiency as criterion.

It would appear that in these interpersonal occupations acade¬

mic success can, at times, be predicted by personality variables

but actual performance, in which "the whole person” would be

expected to be even more involved, is not.

This situation is further complicated by the findings

of Goldstein (1960) and Sanua (1963) who gave graduate social

work students an ability test (Miller's Analogy) to predict

grades. Correlations were not significant however and for

males and females were of different sign.. Holt and Luborsky

k oiXo'xq

5),©2rii- aospioos 9Q&‘iq v& stlJ bauol ^ Jrft4:§^.adasao-S? ,

'>5ijs ?i3:07J IsxDoa iSoam^zli^icil

QOBfiJqaooiS IXaR tq&.o'A9 aaissa ♦I«3*D XXa -i^aa.^ooiiev^s^tuoc!'® ' ■ ' ' ,'9!

:)[-3vstwort\.,i>Xd idJXiiX &.«3riT4A-'r;>;O0»Jbn9,qs»f>aX vskdf^A-'hcii^

sXiftw noxtsaps .iioxsas^^x &lqktlum a oivQnifl3$A0O8 .s$«dliJ«oo ; ■ ■ • - . ■ ^ V ■

aiiiiM.^ ►.ton. bib ,8siisa!.8

sriJ- «io on bsx^oqsx .^.abiiAJxsealb ^ ai ,(£g«3X).

■ I ‘ ■■ , & tiQijqdi Ir aaoooaa ;-lxow I;s'x5oa 9.t&iibf%‘XQ bsXoxbsxq XS5’«9Xflx»a^

-... ' . '% '' ^

bQqidmoq B haB 39biS'.t§.^ nsswtsd bsaiaido. e«w 8£*, 'ndi|j3l©ixoo

V,i\ 'i'V

-nsval inaflAXaijxb^ IIsH no .(i2pij502 X«^xioiJ;oais~- siiabs

oaodt bxb as ^,^sxXiiw■■'’'i■oxl bib .xsvswod asibjaXa bw^ ■ >:' ■■ **■' ■ ■ " )!5 ■ ■ - X,

. ■■■; , -. u .noxxsi.xxQ ab yonsloiXioiq iBoxXosiq- , ssb.ifi Diiisidb^sq . di.iw

^ ' • ■ '4 li&i' ' ■ ■ ■ ' - '

awQxlAqjjopo iJsnoexsqxsJ-'nx ssarix xii, t4.di -.XB&qqs biqow XI

aoIdi^xTisv ytiifinpaxsq Yd bsxo.^exq sd ^asoxit txj -.,'H ’’

K'' ■■^‘' ,’^1' 9d bLvow "no2X9q eXody/A&eit" doidwr ni t9qjn&us-XQ%±9q J:BiftoB tJJd

, ,Xort ax ^bsviovnx sxod? nsvs sd. bs-tbsqx©

agaibnii &xi,t x9 bol^oxlqmoo xsritxwi: «.i noxxlwXia axAiT-'^^^

■ : . . ' ' ' ' ^ Ifiipoe siBiAbisxp'J s'/fig or/yx; (.£a^I} a.qni&<5 5a^. (:Op^X ) oiSxsbIoO

>' ■* : ' S' '‘r: ^ ’ ’t:'

^t 'jxbpxq^^-oJ ( vppIsxtA ,s * xsXIiM). das j, xiids njs ateeby^s '^4xow ■ «...

xoi bnsi isvsv^ori Xneoxlxxigi^, tqn 9'XDw 2nozXj:iX.9lxoO,MsBbBXQ

vyleioduj bne JXoH .ngia drnaxsi-ixb aiow esXfioisi bft« asXjsm ■ ■ ;Sji *:■;

L2

(1958), studying post M.D. student selection for psycliiatry

training, found experts' opinion on the relationship between

academic performance in medical school and later psychotherapy

ability ranged from "considerable" to "none". Kelly and Fiske

(1950) found the Miller correlated .47 with clinical psychol¬

ogy student grades but only .02 with therapy skills, the best

correlation with the latter being a measure of extroversion.

These studies have relevance because of the comparability of

social casework and psychotherapy.

Sanua (1963) is of the opinion that projective tech¬

niques, by providing a measure of unconscious motivation,

would improve prediction of suitability in personal contact

occupations. Two Rorschach studies (Pietrowski, 1946;

Frankie, 1951) found a significantly greater number of Move¬

ment responses given by the more proficient social work

students than those of less ability. However the effect of

intellectual differences was evidently not considered.

Grygier (1956), who found a verbal I.Q, test more predictive

of psychiatric nursing grades than psychoanalytically-based

measures still feels such assessments are superior to social

behaviour questionnaire approaches for such prediction.

Projective and psychoanalytic methods allegedly also

5:

W

V'l j-jsino\eq,^xol nSHo© tgoq ^ (ae<?X) F.

n^DwJad .firlainoiJsisti ecii ■ no noinxqb *'“

y-£.73riiorio\{'aq bne Icorfoe'^Xfibibser ni' 9on«c.7o“ii^-q Djbn^5i50fi

o?iam bn& .’’snon" ot ’’sXdisisjbianbo'* iw>l^ bd&rtftx 'i<;t'i;XXds f

-Xorioyaq lAbxnxX:) ri^xw b®J'£X9XXO0 t^XXXM »rft bftbo^’^{0&91)

is&d art* > aXXiA'2 v^q^’xsrl^ driw SO. y'Ioo Xxd a&b/s^i? f n&bvts

noisj9vorjj<i^ lo 9iwafi'3>m & Qniod X»)r <toXXaIsxioo s

'~f , !to, il ;'ijsx£q{ffoo "lo 9SX/«o9d tabaev©!*?! ©v«rf as,lfof./X© ©asiriX

. v^qei^riJoiiONiaq-bfiA *130W©Sjso XbIoo* '

DVito©hoiq noifiXqo ©n'X !ko ai (£d@X) /Swnjd-S

, noiXfiy XXoai auoxbaiioonb lo 6xo?fi©>«! e etiibxvoxq li^d ’, a©xrpin

jDBtnbo XiSft03'i©jq fiX YXiX'xdatxfia io iioxtbi'bdirq ©ybxqrai^foXoow

, x>fawbxt©iq) asibtJXa rioBrfoexoJi owT .anoxtsqoocio

‘-•©vgK Xo'xodraxjn xbXaaxQ Yi-'Xnsoiiinpia £ bfxjuol (X2<cl *©I:;in[j6X‘'5

,>Ixow Xj&xDoa vtfiQxdxibxq 3XOnf ©rix ycf -'bsv^) aaanoqai^x tnafa

i'L 't.. '■ ib tDsitX© ©f'X xsvswoK .y^ilxd'js -eesl Xo ssoflx rt/5fft"sJ«©5uts

■' u"’"' ,X . '■ ■'■ '■ ’■' ' Ml. ^'‘ "■-' ' 't "

■ * ■ .bGxobxaqoo Jon yUnsbiv© a^w aeonoxsil.ib Ifiu'^cwiXIeJni

f^vi fo iboiq ^■xom XasJ .p,l Xsdxsv js biii.'oi odw t (d€ex) ""xsxevtxO

tki' t h)ze6^\IlEoi'f ^l&nBbclo<izq nfiriX abbBXp''Dnxe*xwn^ DXTcJsxfXDyaq

ierooa oJ -loriax-Da 'ox& aJnsfnaasasB ripws eX©©! XXiig ssixise^m

,;l

' iJL .nbiJoxboxq nows lox a©do£oiqq£ 3Xx£ftnoxJa©.fjp I'woxvjCirfsd

•'''. ' . s ■' ^

0''i£ '(Xb&y©XIs aboriJsfti' oxJyX£n;so'r£oy;aq bxii^ ©vXjdsO^^'^

1.3

point out certain pathological factors, however inventory and

life history data may be similarly oriented. Lewis (1947)

found high Depression and Hysteria scores but low Hypochon¬

driasis, Psychasthenia, and Schizophrenia scores for social

workers on the MMPI. Sanua (1936) and Roe (to be published)

found social workers above average in neuroticism on the MMPI

and 16 PF tests respectively, especially the male workers.

Roe attributed her findings to a high incidence of difficult

early home environments in those who select social work,

hypothesizing a search for more satisfying relationships.

Berengarten (1940) reported similar findings with sibling

rivalry, isolation, dependency, and parental conflicts char¬

acterizing their early environments. Nachman (1957) found

social workers typically to have had dominant mother-figures

and weak or no father-figures with a consequent feminine

orientation to matters of discipline and empathy, in compari¬

son to lawyers and dentists. There was also some deprivation

in infancy. Tibbie (1959) asked trainee social workers to

express their main anxieties regarding their new roles and

found "they were particularly concerned with their adequacy

in human relations in unfamiliar social contexts”.

Kidheigh and Lundberg (1958) compared test results of

'■ •six!

hi bt\L,!Oi,

•; !: .ij i, "li b

ixow

V!5i: bnwc'i

'i ‘b i ;::• ciB

'ij, .( ,.i'S-1 51

cl* ’, i O V ( i

;; jGpaiil':3,e5/

,,

i- -C c?'.? OS

.V ISX.'?C^

, ■■'ifi 'Vv '0^1 £>

i K t I’i-y X "i O

r o.'i' no a

i’i,1. i'.; X f 'l X

S "jf. i^XX S'

3 ” , h-.OJOl

n&'fliuri ,a 1

14

social work students with students in other professional

schools. Their major finding was that they were more liberal

and less dogmatic than those in other schools, regarding

political, social, family, and economic matters. They con¬

cluded this attitude allowed non-judgemental responses to

clients, meeting dependency without control, and an accept¬

ance of new problems. Examining biographical data they con¬

cluded neither age nor experience were important factors in

social work student proficiency but noted that such students

chose their vocation later in life than those in other pro¬

fessions .

Barthol and Kirk (1956), using the Concept Mastery,

MMPI, and Strong tests, attempted to improve selection of

graduate students for a public health diploma course. They

found difficulty "in the determination of selection scores

and profiles", possibly due in part to their failure to use

a multiple regression technique. They found all the tests

would screen out the poorer prospects but simultaneously eli¬

minated too many of the good students. The Strong social

services scales (Group V) were scored highly by all applicants,

but were not discriminating. Only the verbal-linguistic

scales (Group X) were positively related to' success. None

.;f ■' '

QCtxh'X&^OTi

'4 -£I05» \i9riT

t "

'- i - aser>aq8»i„ I l'^'''sil^ ij.tirf''rA'.-'#|^^ 'ft'ttfo'tlla:

^ ___ ai: ^‘los-ok^ $m

' "' ^ .'life. &in9bu ts fioue " " b&:tq'k\;^iS>d' t.«' ■

■''.'fj

'¥■ ■C !

* l.t/1

sa u b i&Tli Ism A ^ 'tt^L

aig©t &m iXfi J3

0 • ,'W n aEFtPvX- Mt. ■

M- •'^' B '%

"Bfr

,ei«<4oxXqq[« ..Xi./s Vd "M;.Xri:^j:ri 'battle

^ • 5-n , o i J a 'i I “ i dd f^m ^’ll oa Ib’'^ ©1['‘$iij^'>!V!'

'..." ^ '1. '. jilnoM .aesDcjoa of b9f£-i3i'Y‘l^JrlfJ:M<^

were discriminating for the females although the Social

Worker, Psychologist, and Lawyer scales approached signifi-

canc e.

Other interest studies by Lewis (1947), McCornack and

Kidneigh (1954), and Gravitz and Mintz (1953) found social

work students liked contact with people and verbal activities

while disliking the manual trades, physical sciences, isola¬

tion, and the selling fields. On both the Strong and the

Kuder the social services category was, not surprisingly, the

most highly scored. These studies did not hovjever report

correlations with or predictability of criteria. Kelly and

Fiske (1950) reported some significant prediction by Group I

(creative-scientific) Strong scales with clinical psychology

grades (.26) and clinical competence (.21). However Holt and

Luborsky (1958) found the Strong gave largely negative result

for prediction of suitability in psychiatry, although it is a

closely allied helping-profession. Abeles (1958) however

found interest differences to be more discriminating between

trainee counselors given high and low global ratings by

supervisors than ability or adjustment measures.

Findings in the above studies, even those with social

workers, do not necessarily generalize to non-professional

X6 looa. Sfri J- self XOX J/SftrtX^XlpSjCfe J®2fcs#w

- ii.cn^Xa ^ tsiedi ofioy**? , :£a^.5oW

»90050

bde .SDsn'ioDoM ,(T4»qi) axwoJ Js9i9?ni isriiO n

' '’' ■■^•^r.' ' ' .. ■‘ .i^'- • ■ '■■ ■ '■ IqIoob bnvQi ( S£9i ) s tniM brta i tXv'&'3;0 bnjs’ f () ri^isnfoxX

■ ... ^.,. :■- - -isS' .

a^xjxvitofi bnc^slqosq ftXiw XoysJnoo ^9^1:1 ataobuSts ;dxow

■ :-' ■^-■■■' % \ ■ -.,.-.. • ■ ' ■ -aioa i (aaonaioa I^ox^yriq , 39£>i>xt odX Q^oxjiilgib alidw

GfiJ bfis QfioxXg ©dx xiXod oOs ,efol9i"t pnillsa ariJ bn^. , ooxJ .. - Tt •

: . . • '•, ■ •.Jril'*;.'. ... . r ^<50 <adw yxo^yXao aooxvxa^ laxoos sdi xsbii>l

. , " ^ ‘ • , ■''^ • ■ , • .•' ■ ’jl: - ~ '*'• ■.*;<>

•■ ■ Ate.■,/ •' ’^1-'\.. n- Xxoqsx 39V9wof» ion btb gojiboXs saoriT .b^ixooa >^IriQxri Xaom

'■ ■■

un& 'vl£s>^ .Gxxsxjtxo Xo icfGXoxbsxq ‘ xo rixxw anoltGlsmoo

1 qooiiD \4d noifoxboiq Xosoilla^xa 9iB9a.fo©txoq9i (t)eeX) 9>{ei^

.iv■ '■ ■ -. ■ ■ T ■''■ ■- \^^}aIo/!xyaq iGoinxIo. rix xw aaljsos qnoxXS ( oxilxooxpa-GviX^sxo)

, . s>: fans XioHjX9v/9woH .(IS.) sonsxsqifioo iGoifixIo boa (dS.) aGfojRxg

3Xl/>29x j jiTei^jon \(logX£r- ‘^vbq onoTtB otit bfiuol {S^9I) -;,YJ(«.xc>dwJ ”’ ' .>■ ' '' '■ .,/r''^ '

• • * *' • " > ■ J?-'’ • * * xiQxjoriJlB , v7X©xrio,\(aq rii; (^XlX xdG 1x1X2 io do i:^ oibsiq xolc

X9V3wyf{ (6€:9I) ssistiA .noxassiGXif-qaxqlod feoxXlG yipaoXo

iiQswJoo qrtitanxnJXXOeXb sxoin ad ot asod&xsl^ib’ Xg9X9XfiX^^£>noo^

yd EoaxJGX iGcfoIg '^oX bnxs dgik'adS'xq axo'IssimoO;

• ■ ' 'k 4 - ’ ^ ■ *" -j...

.as}juii£9.f XnsraXexjr.br> xq^y JxXxdfi ndxU-.jaioexviGqoa

■' . -' •■’■■' ' j' ’•^: ^AXOOa d.TxvV 980dJ nS'/S ,29i;bx:X2 GVOlfxi adJ HX SQnxfcXli'Ji

. X&noiaedioiq-non oi*'dsiXGiSUGQ yl xxj&aaoooci Xori oJby t s^'XoAi cm

d. t. ..

Ib

welfare workers. Motivations may be different and the wider

educational range of the latter could result in greater pro¬

ficiency discrimination by various assessment procedures.

2. STUDIES RELATING TO RATING CRITERIA

Conflicting opinion exists regarding the reliability

and validity of all rating procedures, whether peer, super¬

visory, or self; structured or unstructured; descriptive or

numerical. Krause (1960) concluded "one type of rating is

as good as another", but felt the concept was necessary and

nee,ding further exploratory research.

Subjective evaluation of overall performance may,

state Prien and Liske (1962), be the only criterion available

where that predicted is of a complex nature. Guion (1961)

found sub-criterion measures (job-dimensions), even if known,

to be often unrelated to total performance. Thus Topetzes

(1956), who correlated occupational therapy training success

with ratings on thirty apparently relevant traits, found uni¬

formly low correlations. Jay and Copes (1957) found "broad

category (overall) ratings" the least influenced by the sen¬

iority of those rated. Sub-category ambiguity errors and

summated halo effects are minimized thereby as well.

The validity of ratings is generally expected to

79biw bfjjs &d 3 no if AvifciM ,.f5!is>i'iow s'xeiXaw

■;'»4 -o:iq ssfGs^n^ ni. iXifiss:! bix/oo ■xsX'Jfii aiit sgiciiJi's: I^dotf&odbo

%■■

. asiwbyoO'xq. tcxsnregasa.® ex/oi^xav- yd bolit.sn.iwiioalb’ yansloi:^

' < ci»iiT/ui or DKxxAja?r eaiauTs *V , „JW:.

y:txXidfiil3-i srij” jjnxbijse^si ai’ejbc® moxniqo ©niXo.U’idoD ■j: > ■ ■ ' ■ ,,

•'

-xscxija ,x33q xsdtariw , Qnii&'t XJ[« io yJXbiXfiv fon^

xo Si/-itqix3j8ab ib^iuXowiJenxj :^o i^Xas i04;,ytos.fcv

‘■^t'4ni

ei Ji^ibiiXonoo (OdeX) .Xisoiiromun'

has saw Jqaonoo edX XXal ,lud ^"'’ladfonjs bode ejs *■,,

.doxsasQ'x yxoXBxdXqxs xsulXiu’J;

,y«m sonxjffjio’iiyq XXfiXsvo f.o noXxsjuXiRVO'dyltoat.dy0 . .j ■■ ■ . f"''- '•' 1. ., ■„. • .'ipiKir'' J

'^MR sXdfilXsvfi noiX9|xxo yXno odx od ,(Sd^>Xi ©jiaXJ bn^ nol'x<| sJ-is^s^

. .J^.

(XdOX) noxuO .siuXsn xsXqmoo ^ ^o ax boXoiboiq f&df ai&dw \ '/W ■ •■"“

^nwooM n3V9 , ( aiioiaaoroxb-dot) s^xua^ani fioXistiio-dwa foatfol

aosXsqoT aurJT rsDiifiwxo^isq l&fofi.o} bsfBi&7.ai> n&f^o Bd of

^ _ m.. ^ ' ■ -I aeooona eaxnxsxJ yq^isrlx XegoxXsqxipoo bs^jsisxxDO oriMt t{d£§X)

.■ , . ; .^. . ' 'lif- -inx' bntjo^ ,aXxiixj- JrLfivaXox yXXxisXisqqs no eQaifsi dfiw

b^oid bavoi (^2^1) esqoD bn6 ^ysL' . anoxXfiXsxxoo woX

iiS -n^e 9r»x yd bex tssoX 9ffJ (XX&xqvo) yxoes-tAo

. “ JBsM! ^ I

be.* 8XOXX9 yJxt;exef(iTB yxoe©Xiso^dxiS .bsJjsx ©eodJ ’5;o yJxxol fc’ ^' ■

'T*' ,'.,XX9v/ B& y<'sjx9dX basxdixfjxia sxjS aXosi^o ui^d b^S&aitnuB

ol bot090X9 yXlAisnsg ex agnxXsx yXxbxXfiV ©dT

!g'

L7

increase with more raters per ratee to the extent that inter¬

rater agreement is high. However, Buckner (1959) found

higher predictive validity for a complex criterion occurred

when inter-rater agreement was low than when it was high*

He attributed this to different raters being expert on, or

perceiving, different facets of the total performance variance.

This same principle is implicit where different raters rate

different sections of a total sample. Distefano and Bass

(1959) obtained a significant rank correlation between law

students' admission test scores and numerical (1 to 5) ratings

by court judges of their overall legal ability five years

after graduation; each judge (in a different county) rating

only an isolated sub-group of the total sample on which the

correlation was based. Windle and Dingman (1960) feel such

unique frames of reference allow greater validity where the

criterion is complex than when it is uni-dimensional.

3. STUDIES RELATING TO INVENTORY FAIC/\BILITY

This topic has been studied at least as early as 1932

(Steinmetz) following which it has been given continual atten¬

tion, e.g. Kelly et al (1935), Borden (1943), Paterson (1946),

Gough (1947), Longstaff (1948), Wesraan (1952), Garry (1953),

Heron (1956), Rusmore (1956), Bass (1957), Sorenson (1953),

- X® > w X 1 m’tmi i m ;r ■ m0;

20 f.iiQ rj9q:ko ;'ya'i9tf’>XSii&x ,

■ r- ,; ’ . , . ■ , ■ .■ '#11 . ooim-M&v. :BO'a&mo^^Bqyl0^s: te' ^

^ '■■■axsy4w:-v% ^si:, ®irjT

^•' '•:' %r\ ' ■ ' ’•''' ' ’ ■■' ■ i^’'^^''^'' '■' 'w'"'' ' " - ■ '

■ ^ ^vw^X ,xis.swd;9d

' Q:aiT-sf ■ - S^. ^.Jt) ' mm.- i

:.,>-'^;.y-;& '„ . ■ ■ ^.: ; '.;" ' ' ' ■ , r. " Q.ds do'x£tW'..-itO'.B.Mqame 0&tof, Bds.

•fioi>® .-( .Od'i&X) ‘ xiMBp-srl^^' -©-Xlaiti'Wv, : doXtslB-i^oo

■■X©'Xb©x.§- w'bS-i'S' BOhstTB^O'^-' %p’' t pifp ldb

m . lBXtiO-X3fi©l(jX&"'.'i'0M'^,SX'> .X'X:^ ;i?'0f/W'''‘Hj^^ X:S>XX|ilttO',0' @X .itOX'X£3!‘t XXO

»5'‘A'''

i'l' •' ; 6ir': -aa : ,g

■ ..- '‘r';''Wi'’''"”f

-.iB;tjj, JjujnitnoD asVip fwod ajsrl X |,s

aoszBUd , (EHU) nabcxoa flX©^

■■ .- ■ -■■ ' ' . -a- ;:r -,. V ■ :. ' ;

, (L^ vi). ^a'60 , ( SfJ tX) ) X'^4^a©wJ , (xmx.)' xlfijw>0'

auact^-ioe S'S^a

18

Krug (1958), Borislow (1953), Mayo and Guttnian (1959),

Dickens (1960), Riniland (1962) Dunnette (1962), Kirchner

(1962). The general conclusions have been that when instruc¬

ted to simulate various roles testees can fake interest and

personality inventories.

Certain studies are of relevance to the present in¬

vestigation. The empirically developed C.P.I. was reported

fakable by Dunnette et al (1953) and by Jackson and Messick

(1953) who claimed a significant proportion of its total var¬

iance was accounted for by easily faked social desirability

responses. However Dickens (1960) found it less fakable than

the E.P.P.I., a forced-choice inventory equating binary items

in terms of social desirability. The type of inventory which

can adequately control for social desirability is evidently

as yet unperfected (Borislow, 1958; Maher, 1959; Messick,

1960) although Norman (1961, 1962) appears to have made some

progress in this regard.

Eysenck (1959) admits the N scale on his M.P.I. can be

purposely distorted although felt the E scale was moreresist-

ant. Taylor’s M.A.S. was shown by Mills and Hannum (1959) to

be similarly transparent. Longstaff (1945), Paterson (1946),

and Garry (1953) reported the Strong to be fakable, as did

Gehman (1957) who found Engineers could simulate various roles,

/ ''O-’ i . ! o C.\r r ;

■ >■■■:< ’ . .i-j <3^'U:‘::,iIC!

>rr ,(<.c(in

.' ■‘ '' ; -;;r i’ bs J'

■ '■ oc -T •.■.fy'L'

, /j ^ T ^ ' ':.".:,oi v:- ■ ■-J'b . noil XBpi X :-:p V

r.r^ .x" n;.’:, , i- ; ' :i I'u:<l \jd ia» X a £j., I • X

i IP'^ ' P'1.;'X <

•■o'-.L' .ixi' ■ ' .X v/ X ^ ■<:' : P t p., f &w Cl 0‘ ti t,

^ £; S i t 1 b -.V- 0‘.i '■ •'.■ ., ig.So nOCi eiS ’.(

i C.1 Q \i '1:1 £.■ : Ci ' ".-bEJ:; ycoi 0 stri.X

■“iV'i i; 1:o ,7>< '-.i w xciT v.M.n :i : ■ bo.i. p bo siKtcsX nx

■j C. j. i. ! ; r' ■' ;^?'X) Xij.cDOr; 'XCl ic;'i vn.'0:: vXsXswpsbjG riiSo

>•‘1 J S.‘ .i ^ tJC ■ [ e i j. ':'X. ; 1'O';-X. ,;,oqn// To\[ b.G

r\,br;' oj , X b P j 1 ; • ' ■-■oob ;i, :jodX I.e, (OciQX

- ioiX' oi: s-es'i^oiq.^

Li:, Of- Vi f cl t ;s :;■ J ■■ ib/, , ‘ ■- '•■ J- j CCCOSh'- O.

' St.V.i '.^,C; 0 :" aJ -'Xol Xii: ■' 0 J . r; \. i. fj>,53 O'.XO jjC!

■Ufr/icH ‘Xj. ■■" v..i 0'W;-P-;: ■bx,,". 0 ' r'.;oX .Ins

J-;:'! , ( r t-P Lj iX•eXsp; .'.i ' }.-,v .. J.b '■ •-’ ' i ;■;, C ,f., ; - . . i'.,'.-. „|' <?

L-* I vj ^ oc! e; ;,>ao3 />• '■ ’ ('■ bOi op: yoD b iiE

. ' J-f j-.si i .:. rixa bXr'O'. r- j ' ' ' 'X', Of/w { -. b V j ! ) i.sol'is'D

19

particularly the social services group. The utility of such

tests are therefore generally felt to be restricted to situa¬

tions in which the testee has a desire to know or communicate

his real, typical characteristics.

A further consideration however should be made regard¬

ing test fakability: although fakable, will they actually be

faked in situations other than those providing instructions

to fake? Green (1951), Heron (1956), Gordon (1956), Bass

(1957), Sorenson and Sheldon (1953), Kirchner (1962), Rimland

(1962) and Dunnette (1962) investigated this question and

found generally that most scores did not increase significantly

in the desirable direction under realistic "vested-interest"

conditions. Sociability or extroversion scales were particu¬

larly unmodified while emotional adjustment measures showed

some increase. Sorenson and Sheldon (1958) concluded faking

to be more unlikely when the particular dimensions measured

are poorly realized by the subjects. The type of person

(sample) concerned is important. Kirchner (1962) found that

applicants for sales positions faked more than those applying

to be technical representatives, yet even sales applicants

were found by Dunnette (1962) to fake much less (only one in

seven) than employees instructed to fake good on the same test.

d^ue .cjiJOigi, X>ixooa' a'rit

- qX ' £>©JDi'3:ta9t' ©tt' oJ 3"X©X:' Yl'X^ifiansQ-©lot'^xsilj'.aXSt&X

©tisoiriijmfiioo lo won>f ot ©ixasi^, wXX ttelrf.w . ffl

■.<3:::ji;r8x:rsXi>6XJsri©' , Xs©x ®j^rl

-bx&.^asx, ©fo.fim.'©t( blupriB T9V©wox1 'x,s>fitixx^-A

«»,d' v:Ii£ii/jos Ilxw'\sld&j<-^i. dgDddXX* X.a«i>x gxix grToi;;;: "ii-j.i^'';';':: '%":'\ ' ' ''

anoirJ ounf Bat Q;CTibl'VaXq .©addX, xsdi’d ettoiX'jfix.-J'la, ni' ,5s5fjs^ : '■ >

SBisa , {.di9:L) rtpbxoa, ^ {d^Wiy ^ { ,, ot

ba^ilfivxfi;;,, (£bei..) XPrt*lox,x^- t (x-.e^l) dol>I»d« bxm.;. xtdedsnoiB .(?{.t.<2#i;)

.bn/5, npii 3©xj,p , e;uft. tea viii (^deX) ©riannpS'fens {Smi)

S.tci&o^^llagl^'. t^0&&xoal :t00, bkb &sxoo:& iBotiil 3&di bni/o'Sc

'’t,p.:9ir3tnx'rb©;^a©v^'': pjr^'ExIaax x^bm noXd.oax.xb-s|.cfjs.xXEafo ©riJ-.- ni ■cS)

.■'iJ0xt.x/5q,; ©x©,w ■'gp.Xfioe .d'oiaxayoxXxa lo yiiXicfjslpcje .^mltibnoo

, foswods (iEQ xsje^siri inafEfta.utb'^,, i/&noiiofflS» ©■X.xdw beii xboit/nn yX.TfiI

b©.bni3acio, (8e.QI) nofoX»d« bniS nosdaxoS .♦sajaaioni ©wo®

b©-xt;e£©hi anoienamib, xeX./ioi^xEq odt ciadw yXo.4xX..nw ©tf' oX . ,-■' '■ ' :!l(

nos.i&.q ^O; ©qy J . .©dX .sXpp.b'^XJ® S'xli' yd basils©^ yixooq@!£jB

,jT,fix bn/jo^i (S.dQI ) .x©ndoix.J^ . iOfiX’Soqmi a x banxasnod (i^Xqfflijes)

' t ■ ' \ t ©nxylqqis ©aorix n/5faX ©xo/n -b3>i-£.!t anolii^qq.'g-.^Xx;-®'. tbX,■ axn^

■: ' . 'fe • ■ ■ ' '

3J nsD'xXqqii 3©X«>s ..nav©; .Jay < EsvitBinpEPiiq^’X' i/S;piXsdo©X ©d ■ oX

ni ©ijo ylfxo) sa©! dpn/n: oX ’.(..S'.d.^X)'■ ©iisxiinj'jQ, yd bndoi siaw

Xa»y ©mss Br0 no boo£> 3>i£ii:- o.i b©:Xp/jiX’enEi asayoiqejs Msdi ('navpa

20

CHAPTER III

METHOD

l_. THE S/\MPLE

The total welfare worker staff employed with a large,

province-wide public welfare agency was divided into two un¬

equal groups. The major group, of 160 subjects, consisted of

workers from larger regional offices having staffs of 4 or

more workers, while a smaller group, of 40 subjects, repre¬

sented workers from smaller offices. This latter group, for

whom ratings would likely have been the least reliable, was

restricted to that phase of the project concerned with the

attempted simulation of the non-cognitive tests. Moreover,

Riraland (1962) and Palermo (1961) found simulation and actual

scores were reciprocally modified when both instructional sets

were assumed by the same group, with the order significant.

Separate groups were therefore used in the present study.

In order to maintain subject anonymity biographical

data of the major sample was obtained on four variables in

dichotomous form only: Sex (male or female); Age (over or

under 30 years); Education (degree/diploma or not); and Length

of Service (over or under 1 year). Percentages falling in the

f

■It- ^ -

b^A^oiqtaa aifi.^X©w IstoJ aril

-au ovvt or.ai babivib asw. aija^law oildt/q abiw-»Dni:vo3:q

lo D^^eiraoo Odl \o isptcc® saT Iisxfp9|

, ■' io fr* >o Qffxv^ib aaoilt^o l&noiq'&T iqqxbI atoi'i aie^fiow

p^. ■"^ 'd;; : -3"iq95 ,eJ0B{;,dua OS* lo ^qi^pxg XQil&mat & aXidw taxaji'iow siooi sa ^

. i ; ' v'' ':■ ■ - ' ■ 'v ■ ^

xo^ ,qwcig zisi J . aGbxx^o i^Xisaig mo^l ax^^xow baxnss

HQW f ^IoGiiax X.easX ..oril -nasci sjvarf yla^xX XiXuQiw a'Q>nX,ti&x'’jBoxtw f/,'-'-iS.„

3d? d?iw i>3;flxaono|f tdsco^q 3ri? !fco s@isdq:»t?ii3d.t oi b&toxxte0.i r;V.l . ■ ^ ■ . ■’ ■

, ♦ xdvoaxoM ai ss?.i,_3VxixnQOo-aoji 9.£i? ^o aoitaXw£2iXa i>©?q«'i;a»?

i6x;?o/5 f>afi noitisXiiCfJxa bnwo3; (Xrjqi> otax&lMH bn^ tSdQlV'bnSXmxH^v, /s

^ ' '■ ''i^l

3?3^8 JsnoxJoiJXfgai dtod fiadvv bsxitbom yXi&Doxqxosx &x&w asiooa ‘ ' •i.. ” ' . ■ ip'l '

.K,,. , ■■ . ^' ‘ '^'^-

. Jrj^oxiingxa xabxo ©d? dJiw^ij qxjoxQ sajBg ©rf? h&mvsBJSi qx0W

‘ i,, - ■ ■ ■ : /<) . -

.ybL'jg ?n3a9‘xq ©it? ax baao sxo'k&xadT -sibw 3qxiOX|& s?«GXjsq©3

f . I.- . '*'> ■ ® ■ . . ■ SSii

liiOj.fIq£XQoxd J03rUf-''a fiijsiraijsjs; ,]©? isfexo

Vi^i; * ,5!^

ni asXdsxxav xup? . do fo©nxi5^do's&w ©Iqfljjaa ©d? /^a stisb

10 X3v/oy^ 3(:.A t(9la0i3'i 'xo ©Xsai) xsSf,.; J yXd© /r<xo?, . axiOffioJorioxb

a • . _ " ■' rttqryDu !ya& i{joa xo BrooIqxb\33x^9b) aoxdfiotjbXt {(axjsoy 0£ 'isbaxi

©ij? itx oaxXI^X 39^6.1 aooxaq . (xasy X xabnu xo 'X3Vo) stsoxvi^S lo

respective categories are shown in Taole I. The degree of

relationship between these and the criterion was examined by

appropriate significance tests.

TABLE I

BIOGIiAPHICAL DATA FOR MALE, FEMALE AND TOTAL SAMPLES

EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES IN DICHOTOMOUS CATEGORIES

Samp1e

SEX AGE EDUCATION LGTH. SERVICE

M F 0 U N D 0 U

Ma 1 e

(N=69) 100 0 67.1 32.9 58.4 41.6 7 7.3 22.7

Female

(N=76) 0 100 36.7 63.3 21.4 73.6 59.1 40.9

Total

{N=145) 47,6 52.4 51.2 43.8 40.6 59.4 67.9 33.1

2. THE CRITERION

A memorandum outlining the general nature of the re¬

search was sent to office and unit supervisors in the larger

offices requesting they rate each of their workers on a single

criterion of ’’overall welfare worker suitability and profi¬

ciency”. A 10 point numerical rating scale was used which

ranged between the numbers 70 to 79 to take advantage of our

cultural set regarding grading or being graded out of 100.

This particular decile range would, it was hoped, allow

T.V '>V nn*^ I ' • /, * 'm

lo BS>l^Qb arilT , X diodt £,f'&o

Vd-='b^;f:lcifeKS e«w'4roiss>3rxr!& 9B-&fif' qidartQlJel®! ^■;f'; .'. i'-' . ■ # ' " ■’-

,’'■' ■ 93‘'«»'jc^i;qo:iqojii **

'^' '^0^'

■ I ' '. _ V.-r'-' ^;. ^’'*'

JAW O'W/-. 2■aAf'^e'^ ■ ^m atao ’ viApiHSAjiDOia' ■a^^osTAD^ atjOMQTg;ia .M| oai^aan^xa

iw1V .MtOJ ^ :-50ixAaf?Cfs I ..- *' ■•’<

, 'BLqciJiH 1 • 'f{}r. ^

'*'<S>''XAM

(^d»«)

u ssriar-MJsrsssrss

N . £i^

Jr^ 0 • <3 'v

^rtfg:e:jgtey«ffiswu.'c<

6. lA

:,S H''■ ' ■■'•■•" 1 ■jefey^Wifiwwa rffwa

■ . cva

r 'W

'Q.^t .

■ 0 wsv'«**<3«oeec,iwi«

i. .Vd

7i : \ \9r-'' • sf.'ntarijwflw

0-

' ■

OCX

^'vOS^-" '-i, C^c. ■ ^'- - i-r - - 1 . iiifu"

V® '■: .ed' ■

■ Ov

X . L ‘~ ■

. \ d

*>'

a/G^ ' jj.a ,,‘.,1

,-.:SfXa-

■ ''y'

4. sa d/iik 1

: ■ (eM=vi}

V

' -i, ;'

^')):. .

''" ■' C '■\’^J^,y?i';' •'. '?^y7 '

-Dzc sjn't lo aiutfia sd? -^Jia'chiX^xio m^bna^o^iKslr,,A

v" “A-' ,s,’ ■ ■ • , sfl.t, n £ B'xiysl'‘/’i^'<ivB J xfiij kips 'Q$-X'3:'id p-i iVi©a a^w rioi&sts

."*^ '■ ' '■ ./■^■'^''' ■ ' ' ■•v a ■"

Dionxe /» no b'.bAiqw' i‘^opi 80oi:^!to

‘‘ ' ' -. ^ .• '’V '’■ •'."' '^'V ' '' ' '* .-.•ia?-.-''”' 1 -. • sy. y| ■' ' ’

f 1,014; X'-.K/j. f.u£> t'&A'xpif'i. pzs i§w^ X..Ib%b'M';i'^ ll.Qvn CtoJiia Jxio

dDifrv/ baei^ saw olios''Xs0ii4>teL;.c^'':9'^aio^4 ,‘’yo«M»xo ,-‘ M

$ ^...., ■ ^. ■ ' "'

VIjO LO oyaJ novbfe/ ■ 6J 9V C'T 3l0d«J-fcjq &'icS f iWSiVlSBp bHQajS.^

^‘bX-C 16 ju.o bobnyrj rmi^cii lo t&^s ‘ipjijtSvo

22

discrimination with little constraint due to "conscience",

thus minimizing generosity errors, as compared with scales

which possess a more explicit raid-point and consequent value-

ladened lower and upper halves. By informing raters that

"there are satisfactory workers elsewhere who would be rated

in the 50's and 60's but we are assuming we have none here,"

it was expected that ratings in the low 70's would not be

avoided to the extent they would be were such ratings re¬

garded as or identified with negative or failure values.

(For full instructions to raters see Appendix 1). No attempt

was made to define suitability or proficiency for the super¬

visors. Rating distributions for males and females ultimately

tested are shown in Figs. 1 and 2 in Results.

To allow anonymity supervisors were instructed to

choose, from a range of numbers arbitrarily assigned each

office or unit, a code number for each worker beside which

the appropriate rating was to be recorded. The particular

tests to be subsequently administered were purposely not

identified at this point in order to minimize criterion con¬

tamination due to subjective anticipation, by raters, of

predictor-variables.

:-V -E!

,'’sbnsiDenoD'' at sub dtiw noiSj^nxmk-xo^kb

esisqa iitiiw 5©;i^qfiaoo aa t3-roii§) ai/rf t'h f'W fii ^ " - ' "' ..

■suL^v i-.ii&vp&&noo.'bn^ J-xiicq-bi:® i'iDiiqx'© & ^as^'sbq. rfoxiiw ‘ T

j£riJ 310j£X Qaiiaiolnl ya .s^vi^d isqqu bajs lowol bonobjel

b9i.fix . 9d bX.dow ■.priWx,9XL9dw9;3X.9 abc9>Iaow sxpdj”

”,9X94 ^^o^r pvfid pw ©niofijaafi s.ifi sw j-wd 3*0d bn-s. jk

» «*

9d toa biwow e-0\ v/oX ©rU fU agalt&i tfiriT r>»:ro9qic9 Sfiw ti

-9X agniifix doaa &xow od b,,iaow yarii in^Xxp oi.«b»diovfi

'■ •'4'S'^‘: aauifiv .sxuXxfii IP 9yi^6:e>9ft rltxw bslixiii^bX xb «fi

xqmo tkB ol1;,=,.f"(X xxbctsciqA ssa axtui.l^i. oJ aGtoktouxiadk. IXu'i ixoH)

T- -isqws Sf.rii xoi yQfrslbl'ioxq xq vi:iXi.dfitiya arti^9b 9f)«fu, f.Jw

ylaifimiXliJ a9lfi.qj.93:,^bnfi eolem 1-.0I, Qmitu^kxHkb QnktMM ..,axo«xv

-''■ ■■ ■' 13t~Su3ofi (IX bnfi X nx xrwQris bxfi

'• b.i' bsipyxisni sxow 2XO|xvi9qrj2 yj-imynoafi woX..[fi oTft’ ^

. riofis b9it(?i2aB. Yi.ixfixij:dxfi s'lsdmun lo. a^afix b i«o,xi ,9 80<^do !r;K

rfoxriw 9bx89d, ioAxb\i^ doss io\ lodmun fifooo & , t'Xau.^.io .'.ooilto

Xfilooiixfiq sdT .bobx.oosx 9d oi ssw j^nxXfix .oXfixiqoxqqfi otif

ion v!l98oqxyq 9X9w bsxpXsxniqibs yi,l'fi;s>,yp9sdyg ®d oi a.i‘29i‘

'‘Iji ' -•'it -noo aoxxsixio 9s.xt»xnx«i 01. x9fo;yo nx .ii^a'±pq

X\

ko .zisXbi yd t.noxifi^fxplX4B .©vitboctiya qi &.vb noifBnkm.&S

^HF”>>.-»a Idfii'Xfi,y»xo j- oxbs :ra

23

3. THE TESTS.

Cognitive:

(a) Reasoning Tests for Higher Levels of Intelligence

(Valentine, 1954).

This test is said to provide an assessment of "general

reasoning ability" at a level suitable for use in the selec¬

tion of entrants to such as British universities and teacher's

training colleges. Its two parts provide tests of induction

and deduction respectively with a liberal total time limit

(55 minutes). Although there are at present no North Ameri¬

can norms the test's reviewer (Dale, 1959) recommends its

experimental use therein for "cross-fertilization" purposes.

Its author claims that as its purpose is "to provide.... a

basis on which to select entrants" all that will be needed is

"comparative estimates among applicants". However some rele¬

vance attaches to comparisons with norms provided on the

teacher-training groups who possess both an educational level

and an interest in people comparable with welfare workers.

It was expected that this test would provide a discriminating

measure of the type of reasoning ability required in helping

to solve those interpersonal and social-living problems, often

involving many variables, with which welfare work is concerned

''S'

O ;C j!

. A.i

e 1' /

. .. .

J ,cr 1 ' f.

; .'. •', ' i i

S' • , {-S''

I- 'i) )'l<j O

} '

lo ;,ijsys/gsj is'}

. - ' ' , ■ ' - ( j 1 VV-I >':■•> i.x 'J 1

’ ,;;;q nx i.v/oiq ,.0/ bii;.®' px " i

si'j t u iv lOi rise- x3V';yi. a j’a 'v’.!.iixa pn.,:.Moa3S,a'x

^ ■'-a" a'3:.i a.-tj ;;x; i,i',;; .ex rtawe a:' ' a ::i, .:= .,3,x •; ■'■

'Hi; ■ 3C- Xri JXpJ DOi^^.^Jnx ajXi.vX,; dp? -d/tl . 3'x.dr*,./p dx':p.axE'i?

“ r xJp:; * ■ C Xj * ..L;? / 1 I, . v x ;V( r.x.dx. x;d;,; ,

'S .: 'S's '■ S'S '.iis i:::.v:v '..s'S'Sn: I'. X- .. ( Xf ;p!'i..f3,j;,X '.d;,, j

S' X*,.? i,:ii!/.v,-;..*P ' i_ '.■, c J, , sdxs',-' ; 7 • , . ■-: •■ 7., ^ 7:7, ' V'i") O

■"-'s .i-.di'Td'i- 7X-;-- .':X: ,i7,. 7,:, , 7 p; ,f a .■'px xu.xxxxxp

. api. 7* 7i, o,7' ,,7; 7:,- , ;. X X . ■ ■.: Z:' d, 3 SSsSi J SJS BTj

*■*■■?■'■. xx''..' ^l, )..x ; ■ .7/ 7-. .,-'7 :x: 33 -X, j ,t’i,7.j7d,v ao 'i.cspfi

77..X.7.:,r: ■.; 3 s; 7 7 XxX , .’X.' X':7 X j;',-..:* S':Xn: 7 "

! :j X.''7.,7.7x:::-v. 7 ,,,; XX: ;. r,:d:VJ 7 r -X x7; .;x ,v.-., 7- .;. ;! ,;;7.77.37i'7

’ - s,K.'S: s.;,& X73;:* 7 ac,.>q .;:*ry' x. 7. ' x.,:'77*:, \ ,;r ■»

J OvV »i7.:,»,7v; i3..-.X*'K ?>.l3..; Bl.S3qi!T7:0 £iICjs-:.-'■ 7/ J 77 j'n.l : n.a

S-sOS^jO 7 X'X-7'/0 7.j d duvJW' 7 37 j- ' B i,d.i7 i ,7,,d j- .7 7 ? 77i-'XP ,'3 ©W J I , ' 1

’■•''■ ‘-'p-^ ■•*■ ' V ?-I .vi-xX;. y3'7,i.,?;!oa3>x'd ' •t’X aq';qr xxxi' do ayx

xvd. ;.-17 .ja l;xxf3 ■ .f:/=.aQ,eyoq77-::.. * ,x■.;x : ot

.s r dx’_/w oxKxlyyj rixj j'wo ri j‘iw a© Iciyi t <x x voxiox-nrixy .icaxo i.

24

(Wassernian and Gitlin, 1963). Three scores, induction, de¬

duction, and total are obtained.

(b) V\/onderlic Personnel Test (Wonderlic, 1945)

This short (12 rainute) test consists of 50 items cov¬

ering a wide variety of intelligence dimensions (numerical,

verbal, spatial, etc.) having wide application in personnel

research (Buros, 1953, 1959). Its inclusion in the present

study was expected to allow efficient coverage of such addi¬

tional domains as may be pertinent but not measured by (a)

above. It provides a total score only. Considerable norma¬

tive data is available.

Personality:

(a) The Maudsley Personality Inventory (Eysenck,

1959) is a short (48 item) yes? no inventory purporting to

measure two basic personality dimensions, neuroticisra (N) and

extroversion (E). It was constructed empirically by a method

of criterion factor analysis providing measures said to be

relatively pure and independent. This test was included in

the event these factors might contribute efficiently to the

prediction of the criterion by accounting for non-overlapping

portions of its variance. Norms are available for both

English and American normal groups as well as certain psychi¬

atric groups. A third score, E minus N, was also obtained

“9b < nio'x:J-oi!;»bax' , 9© , 'ni'rJxO' bfj® 'd&wjisaaieW)

'.b©axis/fe iis'lbt ■ bfr*

bli.^®b.fiioW' (,'Gf)

“\/oD a'f«i9.i-l: OS ii.o 3 Jais«ir0D J (.©ittnxm SX-)'^'alilX ' . :' ' '■’S'',!,’?:;;?!:-!'■?'■ , ' ■ '.

"■ >' <'t i , ■' ^ ‘ , , , X«9l29ait!a-) aciolaa^ffiib s?9«&^. EXis»Xrfl: !)co 9biw b.

■ Iaano<Vibq;:nl ■ sbiw gdxvsd (.d'X© ,«

srix ' nl aot&Ml-^ns- bH - '. ( £S©,i' ^ uotaB)

■ ' 's: ^ ■ “xbbs rioua; :iQ '-9gfix©ViOo'’ woXIjs li^bxrta

(^5 \l<i -b'B'tm&m- fon tud. tmn-ks^i&q sdXsmob

“©aiion'* sXbbxsbi&aoO' .■^Ido s’xooa m a^bivotq ' f l ^ ' *9Vo<Xjr

.: ' ■ al'. JsXeb'©vit

t)lon9s%i3.) ytotfisvdl ■^xiXsnGa.i©^ v&iabu&M ©dt {&)

ot c>d.xtXoqiuq yioXfib^/'ni on't ^^X: Xxorfa^ li■ aX'.('^SeX

bn-© (H) 'jfcbXbX'Xoxos-n-^^anbXS'n©^ 'Xt.kkBnofi'x&q o-iasd owX %1.0®©9ra

U boddsm} B Mcf^'\iIsaXx iq0i9.‘b9toMtano-D a©w XI ,(a)'

■ig ©d od bx©a a9XxjeaG.x|i ;Qqibivolq\;-aXav Ibd© ftoX:x©flT» !tO'

nX bobuioni airiT . Xb^bdbqbbnl'bds sijjq; ^0:.

bdX 9 fi t o J y X J n9 X5 XXXb s tud:i't tnob'- i-d ’,3 's-1oX d'jsX 9 39d 1 f a.'pvb

> ' .'. -. 'smi laii qiixqqsIx9Vo-ndn xoX b'dXXjtXi/oaD© yd riol.*^©d:Xib-9dt Xd noiloUbaiq

d'J'od xdl' sld^Xiav© 9i© smxoM .©bnfixi©v aJX, ib addXtXoq

-4i4dv.aq nxi3J-x»D SB IJbw SB sqiio'ig iBonon uBoljQmA bm tUkkgaM

bBftXfitdo (^1b sbw , , sunim b. ,-9X03a bxxdd A ,®q;ifoiQ Bl-tfs ;:■■■ ■■j'l;"? ..It-

on the present sample in the event a correlation did occur

2'3

between the two dimensions which may

measure masked by consideration of E

negative values a constant of 30 was

scores.

represent a meaningful

or N alone. To avoid

added to these derived

(b) California F'sychological Inventory (Gough, 1957)

consists of 430 True/False items providing measures on 18

scales considered by the author to be ’’characteristics im¬

portant for social living and social interaction”. It was

constructed on empirical rather than rational bases utilizing

criterion groups thought to characterize the dimensions meas¬

ured. Interpretation is meant to stress degrees of normal

functioning rather than the converse. The characteristics

needed in the interpersonal activities of welfare workers,

often under frustrating pressures (Schmidt, 1963), would seem

to be suited to measurement by this instrument. Both male

and female norms are available for a number of academic and

occupational categories including graduate social work stu¬

dents and certain socially inadequate groups.

Interests:

The Strong Vocational Interest Blanks for men and women

(Strong, 1959) each contain 400 items to which one responds in

%. . .<*■ '-d!^ «“/'■ “p- ’Ttf':--:"” !fr •

. ■■ ., , « -1 Lu^Qnm&om .&

. ffl ■ ■^■’4; '■ ■'■

&ipy« oT;

5evictd£>..;de

:.'.©,pO'iB' ,M -:l‘p.va:y4P'

, i i?''%i>’-*^';; rip-- '*% ' •:, . V ■ .9!i’^![li^;----' ■Ss W + «» *sk-«i.W.yV.rf^'••''iV ' »^'-f. kJ'i-d. 1. «k« ^

'IS '^'

ik: ’ i’i- ..,.^ii*'

i *ej;. no $pi^A3»fT‘ '9 ■ ’f, ' ■ ■,■■■■' ■ ' ■ rtai:'’'‘‘S'v^''''■ '•jWrtit.'j.fa

-:’ - ; „ ‘W' , ■ =r.f ■« ^3sw; jX^^-qoe ■.XfWfi. ,,X4'Xoo.$'.%43;il4n4J^:icoxi W#

^tiisxXxto- »p8®d ixtfiojfXyS.x ^4#4.3;^■ ■Xf4^.'JS,:£^YX4M.S:l4^

rg-i*:* -s^p/r. gftoXafisxtJib. Qfii'. s>i^i;.i,0.^Q6-:|[js4'3->

']‘j ;j, 1®j., '■ '.*,» ® ^ ' ■ ■'!»' .Jin ' WSlf“'"‘V.’;'^ as., '. .. r- ^ '•^' ■ .- ‘-^ ■- tS\' r’T^. ■^'

>?XB®20il ^o-399ie®b,f«'3S!XXs>'«<a;f «.x

. :■«>*:. ■ " ". rf> -^N;- ,SJ .-1^%’" -;;^, ■ >?:— ,

^,’a-i9Mxow 9Xi5,^l9w^^io.i39Xj4xv?x;!?'0^

7‘t*' # 5' f 3.«» hf rrr,u, .(Phot .

V}' ijjM'

UI99S &I wow ::;t:7b'>i><^i:c^.); . ■ ■■ .#3^1?’ ‘ "^ • „„3i:

; - - ® , i’ I‘ ^, . . ,:,. ^ (ss ■ sXsm

• •■*“' one oinr^foso© 1:0, ..is-d-iiiw^'''i'b‘l''''‘9J^^i‘’lfiV!® ■Sr?t:a,g3fla-i;o4 '.^I'llSff^jii feiTa j^'--'

, .,.^r ul& AiOVi.^ l&kOpB . ®

rtSfflow nam loY sHnfi'Xa ;^8»x»3nl^X^enoM^iSsOV

If. ■- s., ^ ■<* tf; ' .^jai'-rw ■ * J '^1 i^noqatti ano rtjj,(tw pJ aroaji (jy^s ai*} ooa rfp«a ieafeE,,..

» Jl _ ' _ '1*.'lA. - j.; ' tT'™ .v'-:^ .. )£_ !.» »»> ,/fl\' V' .-rr'-^ffS

" ' in ,, >i'i '. - ' ‘"

is; *‘'k'

26

terms of liking, disliking, or indifference. They were de¬

veloped by the empirical technique to provide measures of the

degree to which one's interests compare with those of various

occupational groups. The 45 specific occupations listed on

the men's form are divided into 11 more general occupational

Groups while the 29 occupations on the women's form can be

divided into 14 such Groups (see appendix). Each form has,

in addition, a Masculinity-Femininity scale while the men's

form has three other non-occupational scales: Interest Mat¬

urity, Specialization, and Occupational Level. Those scales

in the Social Services category especially were expected to

prove relevant while those in less verbal-interpersonal cate¬

gories should be somewhat discriminating in the negative

direction. Norms are available for all occupations measured

plus the overall general population.

4. COLLECTION OF THE DATA

(a) Major Group.

Once all ratings were received the five tests were for¬

warded to supervisors with administration instructions for the

workers (see Appendix 2.). As each subject handed in a com¬

pleted paper, on which the name space was to be left blank,

the supervisor wrote in the appropriate code number, privately.

2/

The coding system, ensuring anonymity of subjects to both the

researcher and higher administrative staff with respect to

rating and test data, was thought vital to maximize motivation

to respond with utmost honesty. Sorenson (1956) found a sig¬

nificant decrease in a mean adjustment score for non-signers

compared to signers under actual attitude conditions, the

latter achieving a mean score more comparable to that found

under faking instructions. Biographical information, also

identified with code only, was restricted to the dichotomous

form to maintain anonymity. Eighty-nine percent of the tests

were completed and returned resulting in a final sample size

for this group of N=145. This was composed of 69 males and

76 females. Unreturned tests represent workers who either

left the service, were too busy, or were ill during the per¬

iod of data gathering.

(b) Simulation group.

A similar memorandum outlining the project but not in¬

volving the rating aspect was sent to smaller-office super¬

visors requesting that workers complete, again anonymously,

the three non-cognitive tests, M.P.I., C.P.I., and Strong.

These workers were instructed (see Appendix 3) to complete

each of these tests as they felt a most proficient,

, J‘ 2 y .-19fi T

lyrrf .n^jiifiTc

'-• ’ ■ < '-:■' ■ Qi'i X J .ti 7

y >:-■ o2

; x::; v-i;; ' in

: v;,;,j o:!; 6;iX;!;.o:/

.'•i rlj/:

i j,90t'U.>

' !'v.,; biy ,(, :t xJ'7'S©.b i

.. ' 'Ji tI'--i iiixob

■ '*■ * ^ L/ J ',.1 j’: ' .!■ .'.-i :“jJT'S*V^

■'.Cl I'j'O > ;.i ,> ?:ri , xcct

:-’:'aU . '-i i ^ dV

vX':) J'XCl

•' X.> T X.* C' x. O box

! X ’’ O-' ic? ( c, )

' yoa A

:: oi oj-;:t Da y/ Tov

, X ■' 7 axiix^xv

x.yjo-;'i,oa ooxdj orlJ’

y -t ov' X xis^./iiow 93sdT

oaodj >o riojso

28

respected, qualified social worker would when applying for a

much desired position in welfare, knowing the results would

be taken into consideration by the employer when deciding

whether or not to hire such an applicant. It was again

thought that anonymity would promote adherence to the ob¬

jective of this aspect of the study. Coding was not required

for this group since results were not to be correlated with

ratings or other data. Completed returns represented ninety

percent of this group providing a sample size N=36. This was

composed of 20 males and 16 females. The same factprs

accounted for unreturned tests as in (a).

5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A separate analysis of the collected data according to

sex was prompted both by the existence for some tests of male

and female forms and by the findings of Carlson and Carlson

(1960) who noted that of the many characteristics on which

research groups can be divided none was more justified on the

available evidence nor more often ignored than the sex dicho¬

tomy. Results based on male populations (which they found

form a majority in personality research) are too frequently

generalized to mixed populations or where a mixed group is

used a separate analysis is only infrequently made. Borgatta

Tiv Mi

^ i' ■ . '■■,■'■■ ■ , ' i 'i.aiij

^ ‘ ' '"Mi-'vui ...,^1;"'. r.l,:!! "i

' M r M! ii: i''.- t; J 7; um;> T* ' mmoD, , i? li) i' -■ .a

■’ y 6. xl. S ^.t 'X Mi'q '

C 'XX .. I :XXiX:\ ;) j, I''M i!' ^ J .« i-i , • C 2 ' i'4 X/

- ' b©rx'vi..;xriXM»;i tv,,,:k .ox

'■ ' i-.'':. '..■-"-/qxr; M ' to ■ X .'i! t,«A " :

-■' '■ •r.:,,x M.,r X".,; •■ '.xx xdt , ri rMxi' x x? 1

'■ '" -■■X siXT c.,' i,i 11 Xiit qcj hix:. .axno'l brtjs '

'' ' ’'■'■■■■ ■-.r M nx ;; 'x!.v,,; j- .-qo ,ix, } iiii orfw i (Od?^,i ) ' "

i 'X,. M'acx; _->.':.!i:ix/ib'x>d nxo aoiMO'jrq

' '"■■'"' Xx. ■'X) / „1.: X .1 0;X ion M; Qrioioi.os ' .x: ’ M; x

■ . , - . ,.X: ■ ■. '-q' ' ■ '.:x . ' ,X .c:Ox i, ,.:MX,i.,, ol.ct:,' oo fcassu a,:rXi

’ ^•'X[ {/'■ ' • .V : oxq^ 1 i'x;xx-;o:ffx-i q j i-r£■ no«>;XiO£#a/'

■■x''-X'''x xxr.'ii: ..ivo s'vxixMtGXiyqoq .'^a'X.i'Mjx:0,X

'-■ 4,X'.--x;' ,M M xii ^o-X't Xnx 'iiqa'o o i srsvlEiijs o t®'a ''’/j ', ■ ' .. . ." '■ '"■' ■ 'X '■ ;; ■ , ■ ',x', '■'■'■ .'xi-xv .'

29

and Stimson (1963) have found it necessary to further empha¬

size this point, advising "extreme caution" in such general¬

izations. Similarly, with respect to interests, McCornack

(1954) found that the revised Social Worker keys on the

Strong were very discriminating between the sexes indicating

their inappropriate use for the opposite sex. The original

single key was similarly inappropriate for unmixed groups.

The following procedures were therefore applied separately

to both male and female samples.

Part A. Psychological Description of Welfare Workers.

The descriptive aspect of the research is restricted

to a visual comparison of means and variations on the many

test variables measured with appropriate available norms.

Obviously specific significance tests could proceed almost

indefinitely involving prohibitive calculations as well as

being of dubious psychological value in this context. Statis¬

tics (means and standard deviations) in this part were ob¬

tained via computer as part of the multiple regression results.

The extent to which the means of the biographical variables

fell above or below the dichotomy mid-points was also deter-

2 mined, as a measure of central tendency, by calculating X.

since these variables presumably also serve to characterize

“isrfqaifs 3orij:ul i.td^i.l) .eiQi&mtiii bn&

^ rioz^s cfx '’noif.zJBo s.rjs.xtx©'.’' pnxeivjb* \^f'n,jioq 9si:«

A3&aioOoM (atssxaiai oX >n3qss^\.4l|''iw-.^^*

arix. no- ayaA! x9«xoW isxpo^ baaivsi,, axtx „ X«xiKX>nxfol (ikS,@X) ,y._ > ,1' /

► , i ' -r - ‘ gas.X^oxbnxSfiX rtpawXsGf .(?niXfi<:ii.'<iUX3a,ib V;1PV XS

X^ax^ixo aril .xae a^xsoqq© arlt ip_i> s^vu P.X'«:X‘iq.©zqq«ni^XiariJ

, .• ' S-

iaq'Voxp bax.xfnnzj x,o^ p-XfiixqpxqqAaXvv 'pX^nxa

V,X©-^4X4q9e;baxlqqs ©xpX^sxsiiX, ©XiS^w asxxf&sppxq gnxwoXXpl srfT

- y: - ■ b(i& SfJs.m fi^osS Qt

.sx^Miqk sz&lkXs'-^ lo m>xjaxxP8g>C X&pipoX.aiG[$veq' ,A tis&H

, 4 ' bsXpxiXasx^sx xloxjsaf?©! ©riX. Xio Xoaqa* ©vxXqxipapb sriT

\(asiji..sdf no-:3ia0i3£ixjsv bn& am&m Xo 4to8ix«qieoo%s«»iV & oX^ ^ " fc. ■ ' '

apjxort"Bid^Xx-fiV'.s.^.xaxxqoxqqfi, dj^xw £)a'3;fc^azs®ijii Xast

'if ■^*''

.Xsoxiifi, 5©9QQxq bXiJop. gXjisX ppdapilxnpxa ox^xoaq* ^Xax/pxvdO

t'-', ,

. s£ XX©»; SB . 3aGxX,ilXz.'oXi6p, ©vxXX^xdosg ;pcx\xXovwx ^XpXxfii^pfeinx

'“sixaxS . XxaXauo sxdx nx aizXav XxiQX8©XQff3'£3q ®x/oxddfct. ,'io i^nXsd

X -ii;

' i'Sr v rdo ©x-ywf Xxaq..axdX al (anoxXaxvpb bxsXxXiv^Xa bpa arra'Stji) aoxX

■5' q'

3XCxj391. ©oxsaaxQQx ©XqxXXiJffi .©lix io, X'x^isq aa .xsx,oqff«oo axv ©pnxaiX

"'■ ^ ^ •' ..

;«©Xuaiixv iaj-xdqax^pxp ad X to axifipW, ©rix rfpxdw. oX X«©X)t© ©dT ^ - ' ' ■ ■ '

3 -xsXab 08Xa saw axaxoq.rbxiii yaio|Qdoxb ©d'X|^y/ol9d xo svocfa XX^'i

S ' ' ' '^ ' X gn cXftiiJiiXao VO ^ s^anabaax. XaxXapp ©xasaam jg. aa tbstnlei

'R

xiv J pfixario oX ©vips oaXa vXdatfldep’iq j3©Xd6X’Z<«v*^ ©sszix ©pax?

30

(this sample of) welfare workers.

Part B. Psychological Discrimination of High-rated from Low¬

rated Welfare Workers.

The identification of the test variables providing sig

nificant discrimination of the high-rated from low-rated

workers was effected by calculating t ratios.

The significance of the difference between the ratios

of the 4 dichotomous biographical variables in the High and

2 Low groups were determined by calculating the appropriate X .

Part C. Multiple Regression Analysis.

(1) In the event one or more of the biographical vari

ables might prove sufficiently predictive of the criterion,

point biserial correlations between these and the latter were

calculated and their significance tested with an appropriate

t test. Variables displaying a significant relationship were

then considered for further analysis via (2) below.

(2) A restriction on the number of variables which

the multiple regression program was able to handle necessi¬

tated the computation first of intercorrelation matrices in¬

cluding all test variables, any biographical variables dis¬

playing a significant relationship to the criterion, and the

criterion. Both male and female matrices were examined in an

■ - V.^ .-■ ' ^ ■, ■ ■ ■- ' . ■ ' ■ - ■■■■-■ ^ .

“9£8 Dnj:fej:vo:£q-.s9Xdiii:t§v X@aJ .Qdt Xo •aoij^^xixtds&i: ©dt

bQjfii-WG;^ loo'jct bsItBt-fiQktl ®cit. !l;a doXJ&jtititfJxXGKiib JnsGiliia

• t QaitBluoXso '^d i3©J3©^.l9 ss.'sw-'aiQjfiow

aoiitsi sdX nQswTQd .9Da©i9^^ tb ^dJ ©dX , ,

, . ■ _ ■

bdfi- riglH srit nx 89Xdsi:isv- Xfi.oidqjsx^o.ld ^worootodoXb ^ &dt Xo

S..' . . ^ : 9 XfiXtqo.iqqsw ©rix Qfi xXg XxjqX^g v;d fosdiisi3a»t9i> © x©w ssqijotE^ woJ

, ■ ^ v'V' .■ ■ %; .,*•_ ■' XM-:’'

aXdX.tX^H -.0 fx&H

“Xx«v X63j:rlq&:i0oxd adX to ©tom 20 q«o ©xlt

>■- ...i-J'v,- ■ . .,

,aoxxQtx20 Sdt to QviJoxbsxq ’^XXdsiDi.ttxis ©voxq"'Jd(3iai'%QXd«

sxQw x9tJ-sX Qrit b0B ©3QdX n99wt9d,3nox?fiXa*x-jOo l&kt^ehd taloq

QJsixqoxqqs «« riXiw bstast sonsoitxnE'^e ilsrft fod® fo©tsXi/oX/so

QX9W q.xdacio.iTx5X9x Xasoxt'xn^xa ^ jjnX^jaXqaib aald-eiijsV^; .tsat t

.woXQd (S) siv axsYXddd xarlticijt tot baiQb-ianoo OQdt

doXriw aQXd/5xt.av to todioon &dt do doxtoxitsst A {S) ■ . ^

- xtsQosa ©Xbdfid ot Qld« a&w nrstQoiq noxasstDQt QlqitxW ®dt

-dx ctoiT&LQXioprskaX to tatit noXtAtiiqmoo sdt batS

■ Tsxb eoIdoxxBv X^oxdqsxBoxd tSQiddxXBv XasS IL& {?.axbwXo

Bdj paB ,00XX9TXX0 ofXx ot qiriaboxX^Xo-i XdiioxtxdQXe s yfli^^Xq

' ■^' ■ .' '■ ■■ ■-.; '. ■. . .V .

n» a- Boaim-Exs sisw e9oi:t^Em sIemsH bae sis® rijoa .nbiis^iro

31

attempt to identify the 30 variables in each which apparently

most satisfied the requirement of minimal intercorrelation

amongst themselves but maximal correlations with the criter¬

ion. Those selected were analysed further via (3) below,

(3) A stepwise multiple linear regression program

(Smillie, 1962) was revised by its author to increase the

number of variables handled from 16 to 30. This analysis

provides, among other results, the optimal regression coeffi¬

cients for the most predictive independent variables in the

order of their relative contribution. Thus that variable

which accounts for the greatest portion of the criterion var¬

iance is obtained first with the coefficient which, were no

further variables utilized, would provide the maximum multiple

correlation. As the succeeding variables are added the earl¬

ier coefficients alter value slightly, to maximize the corre¬

lation at that point. Various considerations may determine

when no further variables need be included in the regression

equation. When the standard error of the criterion (provided

in the results) reaches a minimum the increase in predictive

efficiency is considered insignificant (Smillie, 1963), so

this criterion was applied in. the present study.

The multiple correlation coefficient R thus derived

yi ni 0£ siriJ ystii tqaiaJ^^B

ctol^fi^'^1•xoo^^^tt:i Li&ai:aim to tas>mi%.iap&iL Jsom ■S' , ; SB- ; ■

“isJxxo arfy fiiiw ^ao'i.t&l&t.loo Su0 2ayX:®acn9riJ tz^nosn&

- . . ■ li 4 ;vgfoXsGf ■ (£) js.cv fo&syl£riiS 6»^»sii.taa ©aoriT ,nojt

.1 . ” m.s:i$oiq'i.=aOj^sea3t^ai: tt-safrAl ©iqxJ Xi.(ffl- ©aXwqaJe A {t) -'

adt aafisidox ox lodtUii stl yd baaivsi mvt (Sd$i ,al:XIlHra)

axavX'^t^s airiT ..oe ot dl luoxS; bBlibasti aaXdjsitiftv' lo idd/nan

•’ i'ileoo - fioks&&&lip^% l&iaXtqo , etdgdonus , 3®feivoxq

adivax saidfixisv -XGsJbciaqaJbnx ovidxDxbaxq iaotti: adt■ joi ataaxo

aidj&xxsv JiSriJ awriX .noxlt»cfxiiaoo l;o isb^o

' . ' ;.>.V-;^-v:,' ■ ' "r''-'-’ -■3;QV rtox^xaJxxo 9dt noxXxoq taal^a-axi? ©d:^ lo^ stuwood* doxdw

(<« .l(?*fi'J(

on aiawr jdoidw tnaxox'iiiaoo adt dtxw ,|»i4:^ el ©oajRi

rax ■ .IqxfXufii ionaxxjBfii sdX sbxvoxq bXuow ^basiiiitw ®©Idjs,ix9v xadJ-xw^

~Ix^3 ©rit babbfi Qxx; aaidsxx^^v eaibsaoQGa ©dt eA ^^doiJ^fiiaxxoD . , . '»v> ' :-’cV

■axxoo ©riX ©sxfoxxBoi oX ,yX^ripxIa ©wXbv, xadX® aJnQlDi'i^aoo x©x

■'V'W'V-' •■ ^ ■';■-' ■ ' ■■ : • ■ ■ . ' ■ ' w .1: ■ ' . -,

yBfiJ ainoxXfixsbxenGo sgoxxbV . tnioq S'&dt,,^X& nois&l

noxsas'XQsx ©rit ni babxiXonX sd baad aaidisx-iBv laddxui oa nadw ■m-

bQbivoiq) noix3txxo ©rid 5:o,,^^0X19 bXBbdBXa ©dt nadW .noxtBi/p©

©vxXoibsxq nx ©ax>©xoax ©dX fnGJnxniixfi^.B^^abd'OBsx (alinaax arix ni ■■■■: . ■-.- ... '

02 , {£d5?X' ,©xXXxme) XnBoi^irrpiani^bsxsbisnoo ax yonaxoiiX©

^)r ' .ybuXa tcioao-xq sdt nx baxXqqB^ noxxstitd airii

^ ^ ifi ■■ ,f I,, 0 bavxxgb audX Si triy xoxi'iQoo noxtBX3XXOO* aXqiiXuw ©dX

CZt »■• , ' -■.■ ^ ’ ■;• • • ■.' •jI.. / .„, •• •'■ LVr, '

32

was tested for significance from zero by calculating the

appropriate F value.

(4) Tests to determine possible non-linearity of re¬

lationships between the regression variables and the criter¬

ion were required to justify the assumption that a linear

equation was an adequate fit. The square of the correlation

ratio Eta (i|) was calculated from bifrequency tables and its

2 significance from r tested by calculating the appropriate F

value. Linearity exists to the extent that the least squares

via r and are not significantly different.

The formulae for all statistics used are shown in

Appendix 5.

Part D. Analysis of Simulation Scores.

Tests of significance of the difference between Simula¬

tion group means and High group means were made on those

variables selected for the regression equations. These tests

utilized the same formulae as in Part B, for the same reasons.

Where such Simulation means were found to be not significantly

different from or to fall ’beyond' the High group means, re¬

interpretation of the possible utility of the regression

equation would seem warranted.

Comparisons between Simulation means and High means

7^ yd, o:f@5: ipd’ii sr*w

•/,\ y' ■ ‘S)fA^iqoxqq&

-91 yj’iajssnxX-non ^Xdjta-aoc; selari^Jijfb. ot iSdfesXT-.

aril bfis aoid^iiav aoi3a®xjQ>©'j ari^ n0»wi©d »qirienoj.lfiI

i£.9nH, mxfqmsjuQjs. Sfit oJ bsixwp^i 9i»w, aol

aoilfiXaiioo aril sf'-.i . a* siiw^ npij/siirp©

eJi bxifi aalo^l yonQipa.i’lxd njoii b9l&j;ooXfip «j6w (|t) jsia oxl&i

•I slAiiqoxqq^ s*a1 pxixl^XxipI^p,)yd bslg®! 1 *t50'ii^9on4*Di^cjk.ifigi8

Isfipl skdi Ijsrril ln©ij<9 ■siril oi alaixa yl'xi&sftiJ .sul&v^

. lnst£9^!J:xb yilafiox^txn^xfi. lofs ®tj» • ci bf.t& % jsxv

ax nwods sib basu epxXailxita XXb 10^ SAXunnroli sfiT ■ ■ - V •.

.* ' 'V.'i.i . ■■ ' A\ ;

■V ■ '■ ■•■ ■■^■. '!> .'.u

iS. xXbnaqqA ' ^, I;

g^lQM..nQ.lX4.Xjugix8 lo aXaviisnA .Q liAq

■Blmsla nsawisd ©onaisiilb 9/i> Xo 90fiBox!txxipie I0 alaaT '■'■• ,.;7, ./’'’ >,■?-■*■;

sGodl no sfoBai b'i9t/7 dfiBSKO qxfoip dpxH bfiB saaoni oxjoid noXl

'■<■ v/p sp,:v ... . —.... • •’f3‘ ^aartT .enoxXBxps noXgasiiijpx axil io!t fooiosls® eald&xiBv

: ♦iCfWSw .snogBsi oinse ©lii 10,^ rix 3b o&lLsmo^ &&&& ©xil bs^xlilu

% yllnfioxiin^ie Joa pd ol hnuo'^ ptsw sritBjofa aoiiBlxjfljxe ripw« : 9i©fiW

- w>. ;' -jj^ - -9T ,ad99tn .quoX^i, riQxH dnl 'bnoysd’^XXBlt ol xo moz^ xb

aox839xp9i anl yij.Iiip sXdxssotj aril noilBlaiqiainx

f '■■<'■■ .bslUBZ'xjBw iwaaa blxiow noxlBxjps

anBpg) ripxH bn* eaBSui npilBliuiixS asswxsd ^aoaiiBqoiob

were similarly made with respect to those variables which

discriminated the High from Low groups but did not predict

the criterion as efficiently as the regression variables.

An estimate of their fakability was considered of comparabl

interest however and was therefore tested in terms of the

same hypothesis.

riDiriw 29ldfix'ij&v seori J at fD^qa4i ‘siixw ^b&oa orsvi

toibftstq Jon

. ftsXusixiaV

Sld»XjBqfftO.G "to

adt .Ito emx9t ai bnn ’Xs'^st^oU- is fa i

"t&l^Sflfpq\fl S.JRIBS

. ’ «i¥ bxb '/idd wod iaoxl' f>^;ii:H' ^rlB’ b^t/Gxiimiioexii?

ei-oi&as:i,^:&X sdf &b ig&~ nullsflisBdt

b&iBhisnpQ- tIbHj ^o^‘^Bf&d±f a& uA ^m^sw^ymmam /vt. r'

34

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

FART A. PSYCHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF WELFARE WORKERS

The raw score means and standard deviations for the

major group on all test variables are shown in Tables II and

TABLE II

RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL

TEST VARIABLES: MAJOR GROUP - MALES. N = 69

Variable X -^

S —

Variable X S Variable X

1

S

Valentin e Californi a Strong

I 10.0 4.4 Py 12.2 2.1 YPh 34.8 10.4

D 14.5 8.9 Fx 10.0 3.2 PD 33.7 10.2

R 24.5 11.6 Fe 17.7 3.9 PA 43.8 9.3

Wonderli( Strong YS 33.5 9.5

W 29.0 6.9 Art 24.6 8.9 SST 40.4 9.3

Maudsley Psy 30.5 10.3 SS 34.8 8.7

N 16.6 8.4 Ach 24.8 11.5 sw 41.1 9.9

E 25.7 7.6 Phy 31.1 10.2 Min 32.7 11.3

E-N 39.1 12.9 Ost 34.7 9.9 Mus 36.1 10.3

Calif orn. ia Den 25.4 8.6 CPA 28.3 9.2

Do 28.9 4.8 Vet 24.9 9.6 SCP 34.9 9.0

Cs 21.5 2.7 Mth 16.7 8.7 Acc 28.8 10.7

Sy 25.1 4.3 Pht 11.7 9.1 Off 34.4 8.3

Sp 36.1 5.2 Engr 20.2 10.1 PrA 26.3 10.2'

Sa 21.5 3.5 Chm 23.4 9.4 Ban 29.9 8.9

Wb 38.9 2.9 PM 30.5 7.1 Pha 30.3 8.5

Re 32.1 3.3 Fmr 31.7 3.8 SM 28,9 8.3

So 36.8 4.2 Avr 29.6 10.6 REs 33.2 7.0

Sc 32.8 6.0 Cpt 21.0 10.9 Lins 32.0 8.3

To 25.4 4.0 Pri 35.5 8.3 Adv 33.3 7.1

Gi 20.4 5.6 MthT 33.7 8.6 Law 34.3 8.0

Cm 26.4 1.7 lAT 20.3 11.5 A-J 31.6 6.5

Ac 29.5 3.0 AgT 27.4 10.0 Pres 27.8 7.1

Ai 21.9 3.2 Pol 33.6 7.9 OL 52.4 5.6

le 40.4 3.7 For 29.4 9.0 MF 41.5 8.0

Ill for males and females respectively. I'or explanation of

abbreviations see Appendix. The mean total scores (R) on

Valentine's Reasoning Test approximate those achieved by Brit¬

ish trainee teachers (non-university) reported by Valentine

(1954) of 27.6 and 23.0 respectively. General population

norms are not provided. British university students achieved

an overall mean of 37.4 on this test, varying from 30.2 for

TABLE III

RAW SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL

TEST variables: MAJOR GROUP - FEMALES. N = 76

Variable X Variable X

California

Sc 32.2

To 25.3

Gi 19.4

Cm 26.4

Ac 28,5

Ai 23,5

le 41.2

Py 12,5

Fx 12,1

Fe 23,8

Strong

Art 27.8 7,3

Auth 28,3 8,4

Lib 24,8 7

ET 29,8 12

SW 40,3 8

Psy 30,5 11,8

Law 29.3 10

SST 28,2 9

YS 19.9 9

Variable

Valentine

I 10

D 12,

R 23

Wonderlic

W 28.7

Maudsley

N 16

E 26

E-N 39

California

Do 27,7

Cs 21.9

Sy 25.5

Sp 37.8

Sa 22.0

Wb 38.3

Re 31.8

So 38.1

4.9

11.0 14.4

6.9

8.8

7.7

11.3

6,0

3

4

5

3,

3

3

4

8

2

6 6 6

4

5

6.9

3.4

6 8

9

5

5

6 2

3

Strong

Lins

Buy

HsW

ElmT

Off

St gr

BEdT

HEcT

Dtn

PEdT

OT

Nur

MthT

Den

LT

Phy

MT

Mus

PhT

Engr

MF

18.8

20.4

32.0

30.4

32.9

35.9

23.7

22.5 23.6

28.7

35.3

31.1

27,0

24,6

26.5

27.5

23.5

32.8

35.2

22.4

54.5

8,8 10,3

3.5

8.1

6.7

5.6

8.4

10,0 9.3

12

6

10

11.7

8.6

10,5

9.0

11.3

7

10

10 8,

lo Ao.i tcnc.Xrix©, :io>l . fio^s aelsin lo^. Ill

■ ' . ' " ■ • •-

ao, (fi) as'iooe l&Jot 0.^,0Bd’ q0‘T .xibAsqq.A .^fiozJfltvoxcJdja , ■ V- X’ ■© C.'V

j£:bS ya bsy^xrl'os seuri-'t Ik 'uaiteifjLi&V ^'■-•Z-?:: ■■ ' ;v ■ m: .--;■ f . , ■; ' ■ ■ ■ ■

y0.-bsit JK><i$i,:i (-y>a^aley4fl^ d«x- ■ ' '■''' • ' ‘'‘ ■• ' ■'* ■■ .. ■■■' ■: W .1^/ ; ...... i ' . V ,' , .

.,y.[s?y,x.to©q,afi>i: br,§.-£ to (i^Sei) '■ . " . ■'■■^ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■'- ■-'• ■ ■-. ' ■■

b^v&Hor^ 8-;na6i;t«^j vb^JbxvoTq i'.o/t: j!>^: amxon ••As . . ' .•

. ' j • • •. ' ‘i.oi S..OE cr.oxt Qnxy^./:iV, ,aj:''rf:f ao I'X'fiXiBVO oa

.'• . ■•■ ■ ' '*■' ■'',• '■• . " ' ' ■ ' ■ ' '■ 'I. ' ' •> ■ ,' Ai' ■ ,(■■’' , , j.' , . I ■ 't^'

, J,|;I 3JSAT : ■"■'■■■b ■, A-'j ■ '^'■

jjA.. soq- erax^;l’ATV5]i'a:q■>i^aHATa: awA ajJODe \Vt s:' K /^.acIvfAWcJXl -■ 4lX)'ivJ 5JOI.AM: :sajQAi?3Av/xeiT '

-_,

—,,4^

^ j.d'zirxc,

_ ^rif' i . J' BBbV'"' "

A. OS ■ V.:A€; ;,a f' ..> O.S£ WsiJ j_ ;i ^.ue X?' LH . '.' „ (')

C . %* r O -V.£S'^'- XbcJa

.0, OX ,a,2s .,. XoSH k'. . b d. es ■' ■ AJ O ,

.as Tfoaq f>. d ■£..:?■ TO

■e.c'-j; X . IP ■X u'A

: t. t; O.A-S ^’Tfi :ftr

'■>.. i-; d, •WS cioO

C. 01 *. OS Li

O.Q ' .rr^s- ■"

?-:.: X rl.OS , IM 0/ . ^ 8 . X S,, e*.K I .01 r Tri^ 1.01 V r* r • ■ e.,.- -V ■ ■ aM.

1'$.^ ^

■ Q-Xr C.SI ^,>'1 SXEK

V . 8£

■ 'nf

I ■ '" ■-a

51

0 li,'zsbxjoW

8^*:'a X' ^ dj. ia .. %vda

: E:. ^ f'" 0. Q't . '

V>X»i>A/sM

■r W' :

SI -'[ Sf W-B

\.t£

b i jt:£

■e,.;eb

"b.C... ,

■0.^£'S £ t 'BE n, X£

"X.6<£:

oG -:>■

■^' ye

|. qa^

;tia

aw

-»si, da

36

medical students to 53.4 for Oxbridge scholarship winners.

The relatively wide standard deviations obtained are similar

to those reported for the above British groups, reflecting

the tests discriminating power. Scores by welfare workers

ranged from 2 (obtained by 3 Ss) to 68 out of a possible 71,

Norms are not available for the two sub-scores which however

could have relevance to Parts B or C of this study.

The mean scores on the Wonderlic were not significantly

different for the two groups. They approximate that generally

achieved by American 4th year undergraduate college popula¬

tions (i.e. males - 30,8; females - 29.1) thus exceeding such

as skilled tradesmen and clerical workers by about 8 to 10

points.

The mean male welfare worker N score on the Maudsley

places this group below both English and American general

mixed-sex population means (19.9 and 20.9). The female wel¬

fare worker N score, although slightly lower than the males,

needs to be considered in light of the fact that women gener¬

ally score about 3 points higher than men (Eysenck, 1959). It

appears that while male welfare workers are slightly less

neurotic than men in general, female workers are, in relation

to their normative group, considerably less so (at least in

.B'jisaaiw qirieifilofioe'®|c>51.Tclxp loi ^.€£ oj jEtnasbiMls XfioiX>!S)fn

bsaXisj-do' Sfidx^sivab. obiw \(X®vi;JT(sX©3[ sriX !>4,-

0fi I JoaXXsx t sqjjoxQ rIax3-liXE svocXiS ©dt xo3: b^Xxoqax ©aoxlt oX

B'lsAtovi ^'xj&tl&w yd asxoDS ,i®wo;q Qai:JsfiX«iitoarxfo 9dJ'

, XY 9ldisad<5 . iS Xo tuo 8d od (eS £ yd X>s»^tX«tdo) 2 moii begnsii

Xiav&wori floxdw 89XGoa-diifs owX adX xod aXdAliv^va. Xon eojioW

.y.bu^a aid! do D xo S stxisq pd !=»ort«v9ls>i pvcri 5X000

. -Jr'’ f yXdnsoxdxnpis' dorr ©xsw oxiX9ii.'‘ndW ©rft ad asxooa hmsk &n'I

yIX*i®nsp dfidd. ©JjsmixodqqB yoclX; . aq^oxp owd odd tod dnstsddxb

-fiXbqoq ©qsJ.Xgo iB©y fi<3oix:©iJJ.A yd bpvoxridjB

dona pnxbp:©ox©:a0rid ( X . ©2 - a Pi dfc «OE ~ , asIjjM .s . x) anold

01-ot 8' dxfodjs' yd s'ls^Jxow-liSoidsXo bdifi'majapb&atd fo^XXJbia as

.adnicq

y&IebosM ©rid rio ©xooa t©;4dow aiBdXsw ©X&m a^sipfu ©fiX

Js- ,i«xPn©0 nfioxxpinA br^is rlsi'X©a3 dtod woX©d qwox;;? aid'd s^oMlq

-J.9W pXsindl ©riT .(4.QS bn& Q.Ql) za&Bun. aoid«Itfqoq. x©a-bpxiifi

^SPXam ©dd h^rld iswol yXdfigxXs dpuoddXa tadOoe M x©>(tow ©t&X

“ipnpg ascaow dfidd d,psd ©dd do ddgxX nx boxabfcafjpo Pd od eb©©n

^ ,, '■ 1^' 1' I

rI , ( qcqx t;^oxi©fey^I) nsm fiedd x&ripxd. adhxoq £ tuods ©toos yXIvs

V"’:: aaaX yXdrigxia ©xb axpdiow ©xsdXow ©Xsm ©Xx.dw diJW'id aiapqqs

noidsXox ax ,qx£ ax©>{tow ©Isfnsd- (ijsxonog ax n©<n njsdd oldoxosn ■ yf / ■ -x'’'

rf^ dsissi f£) oa sapi yldsdoXi-xanoo j-qpoxg ©vxdjtsraxon xxarid od

37

Eysenck's sense of the term). Both samples' mean E scores

fell between those of English normals (24.9) and American

students (28.5), these values representing mixed-sex

populations.

The mean C.P.I. scores for male workers fall, for every

scale, above men in general indicating, in Gough's interpre¬

tation, better than average adequacy in social and interper-

sonal functioning. No single scale nor group of scales stand

out although further interpretation is presented in Chapter IV.

The female workers achieve scores generally above the men,

being particularly elevated on the Ai and Fx scales. Thus

besides being slightly more adequate in social behaviour (in

its broadest sense) they are particularly more "independent,

resourceful, and flexible" than women in general. However

they do fall below the male workers on Re, So, Gi, and Ac,

suggesting they are less influenced by too restrictive or

conforming ethical and social forces. Further discussion is

given in Chapter IV.

The major finding on the Strong for male workers is

their above average scores on Group V scales (social services)

and the one very low mean on the Physicist scale. The female

group exceed women in general most noticeably on the Social

sjtfiGoa a ns3ia flj-oa . (sjrir lo ©an^^a a’>iofi©a^a

■ ;, 'A' ’ .

r{soi;xQivA bciB («?'.^S) aXstaocon riax£^rt|t lo a&ewltad IX©!,,,/ V'

xsa-bsxxfn 9fU.ta-3a9-xq9i aswijBv ©a©rft ,(e.8£) stfciSbvfs

■.' v'V'^^ ■ • / ■a.noiJfil£Kjoc|

to! .rXfi! aTs^lTOw sX/Siii':s6! ©9TOOS nj&bm »dT ■

"'Sr^q’xs.jni a rf^woO fix j(Q(r»x:^53ii>nX X^Tsna^ fix n&en ©vodis ,s&Xj8o@

“TsqisXrrx fons X/sxooa ni y^osup&bs bq,/S'x^\^b n/siit T9.tX©cf ,n.oxXjBX

ba^ta g9l£08V!o qoOTQ ion olsoa S'Xgnxa oJ^ > Qftinox tonii!, Xanoa

.VI J9fq&ti0 fix boIfi^a&Tq ai noxJjSXsTqTsXaX tsfftTX'! ri^troriJ‘Iis txfo

^a{^m Brit &vqda ^LA^xen&p agiiooa svsxflos ax9>fxow ©X«<n©! ©riT

BudT .asfAos x'l ba^i xA ©dX mvfosiAv/©!© vXti/s'XwDitx&q pixiad

ni) lubivsdBd I&tooa ai &t£up&b& Btoin ^nxsd asbXasd

, Xnshnaqsbnx" &*xoci uoiXTsq ©Tfi ts&b&oid ® ?i

T9V9WOH .IsisnsQ al aBCiipw aj&dr ^Bldix&Xl ba& , Ixf!©oi0os©i

,^,,oA bn& jxO ,oe. «o 3T0>iiow sX/Sia ©rij- woXsd XXa! ob

bQpnotrXXni aa©! ©t& yQ'rix

^8x nqxaeuoaxb iqfiXxu'H .asoTo! IsXooa bos J«o.XfiX© .9ni:inTO!n[OD

,,'.:'\p//;. * VI i&'!qsdO fix n©vi(j

ei axs^fiow bI^ssu tq! gnoaXS 9dX no gfijbai! ©dX -.,; x„

(ssbivxoe l&iboa) saXsoe V qwoiO no aoiooa ©gsTq.vs ©vods lisrft

aXs/no! odT .oXsoa Xaxoxayrfq srix no nsom^''woX yiqv ©no ©dJ bns

Xsiooe odd no vXdsooxXon facm Isiooog nX noiwow bs©oxo qxjoxg

38

Worker, Psychologist, and Occupational Therapist scales while

following below mainly on the Life Insurance Saleswoman, Buyer,

and Librarian scales.

Comparisons of the present findings with those of other

"helping-professions” (see Chapters II and IV) indicate, to

the extent that it is possible to be comprehensive, that the

hypothesis of Part A may be accepted. Specifically, the

Valentine scores are comparable to those of teachers, the

Wonderlic to college populations (no "helping-profession"

norms are provided), the M.P.I. N and £ scores fall beyond

the general population in a direction away from psychiatric

groups (Figure 13), the C.P.I. scores are above normal in

terms of social adequacy and quite comparable to social

workers (Figure 14 and 15), while Group V (social service)

Strong scores and those similar in the female form differen¬

tiate this group from the general public, salesmen and physi¬

cal scientists, being similar to those of social workers

(Figure 16/17).

Welfare workers placed typically in certain categories

of those biographical dichotomies measured, as shown in Table

IV. For the total sample the number of male workers is not

significantly different from the number of females. With

i»Voa , n^i8<^v^^ifi^ ® iJ . ciq ■ vJ ai&af wolad ^ t^xwoiXolt

.s^X«Da p&it^-xdiJ has

:i9ilJo"' ^o'- s>'$'ori3- si>?i.M)ai^- 9rit ■^■o -|f'q«jg csjBqfljoO^ '"■■■'•

E' '•■ - ’ ■ ■ "■ ■ '■'■ ■' ''. -i'^'?K;i’''7r^'''^ ' ■' 'iv'^' i dt. .©t^oxdnx fV'I bfti^ ft iiafci^jatO

t&df lev'xafiadaiqnjoo acJ o?' aXdXgeoc^ $.t tJ: fj^d'f :taBfxB & dr

:■.:' ■ ": :• . ■ ^ \ ' -til aria- ^ ^Xl&oitioatqS, rb9^qB00j& ©d ^;6«» A ti&q- lo ixaadaroqyd

. axiX- Ip paortx' ..oX pXdA^6qiii>'''->d i8©’3co54i'.»fi:lafj^i*V'.

"ndlasalr.o'sqr^nlqlad’'’ on), a.aoxlxyXpqpq, aoaXio-jt ot aXl-arsbaoW.

■ XX-JS.i ssxop^^ bn& M .-1,S.K'adJ" , (fofefoxv’Oiq sisi'jon

dxiia'«ijrioyeq otqtI ^e’ws

ni .I^roxoa svods ©as

no X X Dpd: ib a x no id’A-X pqoq fii© na^- ©d t

apdops . X,3 odd g (EX 9ixij{jjc-^) fjquoi©

Xsiooe od ijXd-fiinqapo ©dinp bnj^ vosnpabfi X^aioo® Xo a^jidsd

(qoIvxob I^iooa )' V ;qxifqx3> .aXirlW i; '(?.X bn^ M ssxa^f-xow

*npx9d^ib cixod- aXs.snsli:, .9f|i ni 3«IisnXs ©sorid bnxi aaxops QnoxJS:

^ • ' 'T' ^ ■ ' ■'''■

-XR^riq bns nsinaalBs * oiXdqq, i.fixsq©g» ©fi.t ijfo-ii qppi.©"^axd>. © t^-xJ

■ V axsdxow. Isloog Xp ©aorit' orVxBi.xaiie paiaq g,ed&xdn:ai;pa i-fto

. , ( A'^X\dX ,;p(>i i/9 5iq)

aaixQpod^iO n.ifiXX9D tix 'x'XI&axqii^t bsocXq sto^xpW’

^ '' ■ ''''•' ■■ ©XdfiT nx awQxia *b©:x«es.dio‘ sp x^pdcid.aXb ^X'apxdqAxj^o.bd. D«,cn.:d

' • :' . K' - '. ' -

ion ex elodxow ©X/sifi 1o iodmi/,o ©rij olqMAe ,XBdp-t ©dd .VI

. E, ' . . ®' " ■ - ■ : ' .aaiswaX lo xad/wdn odx mpxd drtp'is^ixb ^ji.dqjfo,t"x4:nyiE

39

TABLE IV

PERCENTAGE OF Ss IN ONE CATEGORY OF BIOGRAPHICAL VARIABLE

DICHOTOMIES, WITH OC AND CHANCE PROBABILITIES ASSOCIATED

WITH THEIR DIFFERENCES FROM EXPECTED PERCENTAGES

Variable Category Sample Obs.% Exp.% P

Sex Male Total 47.6 50.0 .23 -

Age Over M 67.0 50.0 11.62 **

F 36.7 50.0 7.20 **

Educ Non-D M 58.0 50.0 2.60

F 21.4 50.0 30.90 **

Lgth Serv Over M 77.0 50.0 28.83 **

F 59.1 50.0 3.40 -

(Obs. = Observed; Exp. = Expected; - = N.S.; ** = less than .01)

respect to age, male workers average over 30 years while fe¬

males do not. The number of male workers with and without

degrees or diplomas is not significantly different, while

significantly more of the female workers do possess such

qualifications than do not. Finally, it is noted that the

majority of males have more than one year of service while

female workers are fairly evenly divided on this dichotomy.

Part B. Psychological Discrimination of High-rated from Low¬

rated Welfare Workers.

Ratings

The original rating distributions are shown in Figures

'-iO ' ^v'^ „ >:r' T!WOIlJHD TO

or Silo or. ox Joy

• i<<4K>-4vf M«aa’«>3nt/VM*viK > wr^*^ S*. I

'■<■ \ ^T ,■« .1/ ll H' I <.r,f; i: t): It V 5

:fiTo.J

■;ij-

’ o-). * ■:' , OJ tD&qa<}:5'

• O' i. . , j'oo. oh zoitiSi

' ^■o'.O'-iiqzo xo ssy:itj;:>b

T'X o'xo'-a ’„;I.r lapla

O&0.C no j: j:X tii.ip

0 3r^^j? I.3 \{jrxiO';sK

" ' ' - -‘i:* .:4 J.'4> X^)'AA x

l&iOLQ.LXO ©'d-X

40

1 and 2. The semblance of normality apparent likely resulted

to some extent from errors of central tendency, common in

Rati' ngs

Fig. 1 Fig. 2.

Distribution of Ratings

Males. N = 69

Distribution of Ratings

Females» N = 76

ratings, although the qualities underlying this criterion

could possibly distribute somewhat normally. To the extent

it was primarily the former, validity may be increased by a

transformation of the ten point scale to the range 1 to 7 by

combining the tails thus equalizing the quantity of low, med¬

ium, and high ratings. It is possible this was assisted also

by the particular rating instructions given. Transformed

rating distributions are shown in Figures 3 and 4. It was not

felt there would be an appreciable loss of information by such

a transformation since reliability is undoubtedly not at a

level requiring finer sensitivity.

•• bfO£ i!

iKj< c ?

fe;: b7 \ v bT st"W' if ■ pi :

biOMiTAfi

■ , •■'■

Vcb flOrtwdx'iiftlG

up dp!/(•:?« tie .iQnzt&i

^ ^ j^j w-' tourexb 'ildxaspq' bXeoo'

■d" p,xr<:ToI “sda .qIIxx®iXq 4mr ■ti

:^.>.i;jc: :?aiv:'u aot spb-io sffOxIaG'Xp'i'ig-iSiS't

‘■' 'srllsq'''©-pt .^adlPX'disop

' ■ ' d’^xo;]' x;r j'l 0-ppxrx'Iftt ■ riq'lii;^^

'- '■ ^ '■'' d rjy ,' a n >: e>«„x t#'!'/ Ib,! itscx t '■■i>p'i'' "i^p.

Gip: ' efepxt^i;iC^I“ti©0:^

'-■' ' ' riB, Xu bli/hw Il®'|

■;'-' '' I io X 11B7. ; ppl

- V .:■ xv :11 xbnsp''

|-ii

£.i

5

41

Fig♦ 3 Fig. 4

Distribution of Ratings - Males. Distribution of Ratings - Females.

N = 69 (Tails Combined) N = 76 (Tails Combined)

With respect to statistical analyses normality of the

variates concerned is not required in the computation or sig¬

nificance testing of Pearson's r or its multiple R derivitive

(Nefzger and Drasgow, 1957), while the central-limiting theorem

provides the basis for the ultimate normality of the High and

Low sub-groups to which t-tests were applied. Such groups of

course represent the same upper and lower percentage of total

subjects whether or not tails are combined. The High group

consisted of those in rating categories 6 and 7 while the Lov/

group consisted of those in categories 1 and 2.

42

2. TEST VARIABLES AS DISCRIMINATORS

Tatiles V and VII show High and Low group means and t-

test results for all test variables. Of the 70 male sample

variables on which scores were obtained 39 or 55,7% proved

discriminating at the .05 level of significance. This

supports the hypothesis of Part B for this sample. The parti¬

cular tests chosen appear to provide, for the male sample, an

efficient coverage of the dimensions underlying the criterion,

with the discriminating variables being represented relatively

equally on all tests. The more discriminating are however

found primarily in the cognitive and interest tests, with the

total and deduction Valentine scores, the SW, OL, and PA

scales proving the most discriminative. The rank order of the

significantly discriminating male variables {test and bio¬

graphical) are shown in Table VI. Comparisons on the C.P.I.

and Strong tests are facilitated by reference to Figures 5

and 6 which represent High and Low means graphically.

Since the w/onderlic , Lawyer, and le scales are also

relatively discriminating it can be seen that general mental

ability and professional status potential, especially in

interpersonal, communicative fields, most distinguishes the

higher-rated workers from those of lower rating.

W:’'r-: i, > " ■ gMTMtMlI.DEIQ ZA 8aJ8Al«AV TSHT '. . S

-J- bfjfi ^en&s^w qubXQ woa bris rij^JcH woB^ IIV btuerv .,.■

siqffiea olsin OV sdj . asXfijsii^v +sq3’ Xle loX ^ t^st

bsvoiq SIT.22 :to Q&'' t>&ht&tdo sisw ssiods doirlw^io asld^iisv

ax^T .3onsox'iIx?’(?le io X^vsi cO, ddt t& ©‘ii;tfirfieiX*x:;>aib .• ' ’, ''•’v'K.'V

-xtxfiq adX .3lqm-se axcix -xoi a ,tir/aS[ ®j:a3jr{Xoq\jd fdt edfioqqxra ft ■ _ '■ • , . •

as tslqmisg ©fit, xol tSbj:vb:tq ot i&sqqjis n^aodo ©taot isXxjo

. ' 1^' t fioX'XQ t iid^sdf Quxf^I'x^bri.ii snoxafismxb ©dt Xo BpsiJ&v0o XnstxoiXXh

' . , ~ ■■%

\(l3.vit&X©-j b9tn©s©xq©x ^niscf s©Xd*ixsv Qaxt^nxailxoaxb ©dt

tsvbwori ©i« Qnxtfifixaiixoaib 9io« odX XXj® «o yXX«ifpo

©fit dtxw ,2ta9t ta©x©t«x bnji ©vitxn^oo ©H^ bx Ailliaffliiq bnuo^

-AS bf!6 ,JO tWe ©rdt tsaxossa ^nxtnaX.^V'vnoltabbfirb X>n4J lAtot ■ .. . '

3rii- ,Xo xabio ©riX .©vxXsax-xJx'iaa ib taoiw, &ffx gnxvoxq ^gtlsos

-oid b.n« ta©t) saXd^xxfiv ©;UiG Qnit«fj,Uixxaaib vXtnftoni«^x«. '1?

.I.q.D ©fit no''enoaixBqmoa' .XV ©XdisX ax nwofl@ ©xa (XfioixiqisxQ

2 asxjjgiq ot ©6asx©X©i b©tfjtxXxo«it sx© gteat r5ioiJ8 bci«

• xX-Uoxdq^xg ersBoxn wod bns rfgxH tnsaoiqsx .d.piriw d bns

oal© sx© aolsoe- ©I bn© ^ x©^^WBJ , 0iIx,©fcnoW ©rit BocfxB-

isiasm l£i©n©|>,tfifit n©93 sd ^©p, ti \il&vxt&lQ%,

. . . a

cim ^^XX&'xo^qa3 ? Xsxtnstoq awt©ts ^Xsaoxsaa^oxq bna ytxXxd©

3rit aariaxnenxtslb teoin ,abX©xX svxtspxntW-op . X©no8x©qx©t(jx

^ .Qhxx&x X9WO.X Xo ©aodt moiX ax©>lxow bs i AX'^'xsdgi.ti ■At

• i.*" 1 ,'Ua

a: . m

43

TABLE V

TEST VARIABLE MEANS FOE HIGH AND LOW RATED MALE GROUPS,

T RATIOS, AND CHANCE PROBABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH

THEIR DIFFERENCES. = 22; = 17

Variable t P Variable t P

Valentin* 2 Strong

I 12.7 8.1 3.24 ** Engr 19.5 21.2 .31 -

D 22.2 6.4 7.27 ** Chem 24.1 22.2 .52 -

R 34.9 14.4 7.49 ** PM 30.0 30.9 .24 -

Wonderlie Fmr 29.6 36.2 2,74 **

W 33.9 24.6 4.57 ** Avr 28.3 33,1 1.45 -

Maudsley Cpt 16.5 32,4 3.96 **

N 13.9 19.4 2.03 * Pri 33.7 41.5 3.14 **

E 26.4 21.6 2.17 * MthT 34.0 37.0 1.11 ”

E-N 42.5 32.2 2.94 lAT 16.4 27.2 3.08 **

Calif orn. ia AgT 25.3 32.4 3.02 **

Do 31.0 26.9 2.73 ** Pol 31.9 38.8 2.89 ** 1

Cs 22,4 19.8 3.25 ** For 27,9 35,6 3.47 ** 1 Sy 27.2 23.8 2.43 * YPh 35.4 33.0 .69

“

Sp 38.4 33.6 2.98 ** PD 43.0 35.0 2.42 *

Sa 22.6 20.1 2.08 * PA 50.7 35.7 5.38 **

Wb 39.8 37.8 2.05 * YS 34.7 31.1 1,08 “

Re 33.5 30.4 3.11 ** SST 44.5 34.8 2.37 *

So 38.5 36.0 1.88 - SS 38.8 30.4 3.19 **

Sc 34.4 31.2 1.46 - sw 48.6 33.6 7,14 **

To 27,6 22.6 3.89 ** Min 35.5 28,5 1.84 -

Gi 22.0 19.1 .48 - Mus 34,8 35,7 .19 -

Ac 31,3 28.0 4.10 ** CPA 30.9 24,6 2,26 *

Ai 23.0 20.4 2,82 ** SCP 36.3 35.9 .08

le 42.8 39.2 3.69 ** Acc 28.1 29,5 .29 “

Py 13.2 11.2 3,78 ** Off 33,8 36.8 1.10

Fx 10.8 9.1 1.84 - PrAg 26,0 28.0 .51

Fe 17.7 18,3 .56 - Ban 30.5 31.6 . 44

Strong Pha 29,8 28.8 ,43

Art 23.0 25.6 .89 - SM 29.9 26.2 1.41 -

Psy 34.8 24.1 3.48 ** REs 34.1 33.1 .49 “

Ach 23.6 24.9 .11 - Lins 32.5 30.1 ,91 -

Phy 33.6 27.6 2.02 * Adv 35,2 29.3 2.56 *

Ost 35.6 32.4 .97 - Law 38,6 27.7 4.51 * *

Den 22.6 27.4 1.61 - A“J 33.5 28.1 2.58 *

Vet 22.4 26.3 1.64 - Pres 28.9 26.9 1.86

Mth 18.4 14.4 1.26 - OL 55.9 47,8 6.09 **

Pht 11.1 11.8 .18 - MF 41.4 42.9 ,47 - 1

( - = N. s.; * = less than . 05; ** = less than . 01)

, ^UiTA>^ T.

■...a.:;/’

SIGNIFICANTLY DISCRIMINATING VARIABLliS IN

RANK ORDER. M>\LE SAMPLE

Rank Variable Rank Variable Rank Variable

1 R 14 Psy 27 Fmr 2 D 15 For 28 Do 3 SW 16 Cs 29 A-J 4 OL 17 I 30 Adv 5 PA 18 SS 31 Sy 6 Educ 19 Pri 32 PD 7 W 20 Re 33 SST 8 Law 21 lAT 34 CPA 9 Ac 22 AgT 35 E

10 Cpt 23 Sp 36 Sa 11 To 24 E-N 37 Wb 12 Py 25 Pol 33 N 13 le 26 Ai 39 Phy

Figure 5

California Psychological Inventory High and

Low Group Mean Profiles. Male Sample

i'

I

I i

;/■/&h6ib .

' ■ ., ■ ^ i i r ■ . ; .• '.., ■ , ■■, yt- ■

ri

we

JO A

A4 /r^

■A,Xvt

■fj’-'

. • Vv / V f* / * • .A’* .. i o

..A

:' <', !'i ’i*''' OX

oT; V 1,1

<>:X

Ski £. I'

jiaaSt

Figure 6

Strong Vocational Interests High and Low Group Mean Profiles

Male Sample.

,. ..:.. AMr

‘ ''■-4-^^^M■ii4-4^H^4».■4^^.j. .^-:;.t; ■^=f: J,-^,,

H-+-Vi4"f'I-

fMnM’jsiA

••'■ '»-'-'wf.

-'■; AHi‘.-i,ifS;a,;

-^■f-H-1-J:-<-+- TuTWis

H^+-'H'4*-i-tH-+jH-^l“f-i4 f't'44t4-

:Wi()(iit;i>ii;(ti jji-,-, {

.

■ ' ■ I " ■ " Cl- < ■■ti:'"- '

»<-H-H'M4-ljk-y^M'H-*'M't l|lji,.«i!i^'i Sfe:i-!^-< 1 I'I;N->t4_

. oil® ^^..

' ^ ■*- t-V-'f ■*~(-'f-fT'H"'*"WJ’

j- - T. 4-f,.^_^(...j,,4_^|,j_^J.^,.^

!~44-4^>4“m--lrf4|4-44'' 0,1.

MAiorr AM r)*'i'.i M

VSU'llJ'KK'^

ma?h3

, «*AMA«I I ’/f

i-4'f4' 4-H4'f|+"V'44^ l- .' " 'iSk '

pi OA-C' ■ 'A^.-:;,' ■ 'n<. ' '

JtO?Al\,»A,i

WJtfeHSAoJ

■ ^!siv»tn!

. SjH^'AJir-mA A}>1»

H-t"!-rf■+''H*'r-r;T-*“‘ i-

.®f.

•AifKCJAilt .VjfU'iWA ,30y.

MA'VJMOI

■f-r'4-4.rh

A’AM .i:;-'‘''»iii nsaJOV s

ocT.X'mia .j >K^ -i>(.E>,M*V i' V

i‘+4'.44'-f 4^1

■■•a

flOOStilO 4S*l«CiS'-Ai,

»aTv\j(niKiMa.A, ntJsuo

L;', ' M'-F;,./-; ^,','i, . ' '

i"iH3‘Ajr, ,a,H JO! ESOi;

.TSM? .«VOH»?',rtlO

^ ^ ’ ■■';j , ' 'V- r'A'ii

,~'S4' -4)4’4-'!’'<-jh>^4-'‘i

H~t~4-i •4-‘“t4'4"44H4“)"'f". tj«)..4-A4;

H-'

f;}, '

■t "fHE.

4-+---H-+-Hf*-i --t- !■;■ •. ^:)t'-:;,,;i45.._f ’ J;r^j|VH'-'4H"i~H'4 4|HH+W-r4-

‘'.'f:' , ♦^44-f4f#:44'! f|4-!

jC{7v' i/Sifi^j

^-T- -r

l-l + l-r-M-i j+i,|.4.. '.'> ^'^,■

4£ i.-p.j—l-fi.r i- 4-} -f -!"t-'.

,iAr>0?

• • <l4'i'!\lv(.M

mMumnm wAJottyM jv

.A ',0

.A.IjiO »OtK3!

TiSfATftuiSii :jA

' ■ VAfa ismQ

’1-+

' '■ ■■■ 1,44 -:’. - ..;.^-f.4,.,i.

-ff'Xi}' b?SCt£"l-WO,l ^

■H

ilo^ Pf -H-4 '' ■!■ -!•- - ■ ' '4S. , ., ' " "'" ‘ 4. ••■ . .’ ■',' ■( '■ y*,'

■ ;:7-- ^.•■-^T~}--ff.j-4.j+.4r44-r4-i

•4-H4-4 i^»(4’H-'H--f'-W-i

nv

(IIV

'»3Xi/!A9

;ma'3(tom I

.T!i,t:>AW8AH4 j

ajOAMAM J51A? Xt

‘■ J,.. 4MW'.i.A!;y3T;!i-t2'3 ■JAJ',- •> WhMiU|<^8<W

^ r '4^-f-4~l~j~i.4- f-Pf- |.i4..f..^^;_j j ,L.

.3,wiitt«4!.VOA

fFllJl^l ||| lilii (..*,A,ilijiiiii4jiull<«iW^!fp:|4.;^^^^

“si

TI • M viSUO l-sowrvA

(iiSdowaoMO

4^4+ ^■H^•■+-f•+--■H^;4.44,

'Of . j . as'., V-iJA.

Ji y is 4 .a; A |iij'&)7 A x t'cj ;v 0

,4»(iJi W30ii;sr>')iJ« J to

HaTjs T ■

40

TAP.LE VII

I'ESr VARIABLE MEANS FOR HIGH AND LOi\/ RATED FEMALE GROUl^S,

T RATIOS, AND CHANCE PROBABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH

THEIR DIFFERENCES. N = 18; N = 20 X 1 JLa'

Variable t P Variable \ t P

Valentin e St rong

I 14.4 6.4 5,92 ** Auth 28.9 24.3 1.52 -

D 23.8 3.8 9.16 ** Lib 23.7 21,7 ,79 -

R 38.2 10.1 9.93 ** ET 39.1 23,9 4.52 * *

Wonderli c SW 48.5 33.8 7.11 **

W 34.4 23.2 6.21 ** Psy 39.8 21.5 6.98 **

Maudsley Law 35.6 25.4 3.51 ■if -K-

N 13.7 18.0 1.43 - SST 35.9 25,2 4.11 **

E 26.4 25.5 .39 - YS 29.8 18.5 4,27 **

N-E 42.8 37.6 1.53 - Lins 19.1 21.1 ,64

California Buy 13.7 27.9 5.10 **

Do 28,6 26,6 1,33 Hsw 29.0 37.2 3.81 **

Cs 23.7 22,0 1.80 - ElmT 31.1 33.7 1,03 -

Sy 26.9 24.9 1,51 Off 29.9 36.3 3,38

Sp 40,5 36.1 2,62 * St gr 33.7 38.2 2.91 **

Sa 22,8 21.0 1.64 - BEdT 22,4 26,8 1.62 “ Wb 38.3 38,8 .41 “ HEcT 20.6 29.2 3,44 **

Re 31.4 31.6 , 18 - Dtn 20,2 29.8 3,79 **

So 36.9 39,7 1.81 - PEdT 38,2 22,1 5.54 **

Sc 32,0 33.8 ,72 OT 34.7 34.7 0 -

To 27.0 25.2 1.83 - Nur 30.2 34.0 1.08 -

Gi 18,8 22.2 2.06 * MthT 30.7 27,3 ,80 -

Ac 28.9 27.8 .92 - Den 23.4 24,2 .06

Ai 25,7 22.0 3,86 ** LT 22.9 27.2 1.33

le 42.1 39.9 2.23 * Phy 30.1 22,6 2,49 *

Py 13,3 12.0 1.47 - iMT 26.7 23.3 .98 “

F X 15.1 10.5 3.83 ** Mus 33.8 31.2 1 .05 -

Fe 23.6 23.5 .06 - Pt 39.4 31.9 2.51 *

Strong Engr 29.9 17,3 6,43 **

Art 25,8 24.1 .28 - Fe 56.3 58.1 .92 “

Of the 55 female sample variables on which scores

were obtained 26 or 47,3% proved discriminating at the .05

4 7

level of significance. The hypothesis of Part B for the fe¬

male sample is therefore rejected. Discriminating variables

were again distributed throughout the tests given although,

compared to the male sample, were quite sparse on the C.P.I.

which likely accounts for the less than S07q figure attained.

The rank order of these variables is shown in Table 8.

TABLE VIII

SIGNIFICANTLY DISCRIMINATING VARIABLES IN

RANK ORDER. FEMALE SAMPLE

The more significant were again in the cognitive tests and

interest inventory with the former more discriminating than

in the male sample. Figures 7 and 8 alloiv comparisons of

High and Low means on the C.P.I. and Strong tests.

'i-V':j j:,

' ' ' * ; ‘ j.''.‘r} ’ St

48

Figure 7

California Psychological Inventory High and

Low Group Mean Profiles.Female Sample

3. BIOGRAPHICAL VARIABLES AS DISCRIMINATORS

The extent to which the biographical variables dis-

2 criminate between the High and Low-rated groups is shown by X

values calaculated for their dichotomy ratio differences in

Table IX. The discriminative value of ’Education* exceeds

noticeably the other biographical variables, especially in the

less homogeneous male sample where it places higher in rank

order. This variable presumably reflects qualities similar

to those of the more discriminative test variables (e.g. gen¬

eral ability; professional status potential).

I'l

«(S %'■, TJi''. tSM> «

...ym,

•■ Vy" , ;*•, % '^'>,7'';^ ■'•

. jM’fL.. ...

i.'y

', I

I

,■ .^',;.' 'j '■- I'-J i.X

:) ;•-

■j\

'..!i-..:„.:. ,•■ .< o :t

j ; cH' '.;.jb7o

':iJ J' 1 <:.' yS;C>ji'v.i‘ oj'

■■‘m V V i r ;,cl,;:;

49

OCCUPATION ID 70 30 40 SO

ARTIST ~r'i r 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 r i i i i ivi i i(i r i i i|i i t i i|i i i i i|i i i i i i i i i i t

AUTHOR T wW 11 fwl r t ! f tp 1 I t 1 f jf t t t qt't t f tfr t t t 1 t t 1 t ! 1

LIIRARIAN t t t f f t t t 1 t t t f'T r t^rtTpp^^~rTt t t t f|| t t t t|f t ♦ t t|l 1 t t 1 1 M 1 t'I

1 ENGLISH TEACHER r t r t ft t t t t T t-tr-f t tX 11| 1 1 f |t t t i tft t j-t i t r M't' 1

SOCIAL WORKER (REV.) 10 70 , 40 y^^^SO

PSYCHOLOGIST •T'tttfMMfftifttIt T T|f t t t f f M M t t

LAWYER ■r M J t t M t f 1 t M f t t t 1 M t|t t t r 'lTTpP^|f t t f t|t t M t 1 1 f t t 1

SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER

Y.W.C.A. SECRETARY

LIFE INSUR. SALESWOMAN t 1 M 1 M M 1 M 1 Mjl M 1 l|M 1 1 l|M M l|M M 1 1 1 1 M 1

10 . 30 . <0 , 50

lUYER M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M|f M 1 l|f M t t}l ! I M|l t t ! M 1 1 I 1 1

HOUSEWIFE t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 M 1 11 1 M t 1 |l 1 1 1 n* ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 1

ELEMENTARY TEACHER i t M 1 1 1 1 1 Itt rt'ff tItjI t 1 1 l[^■t t M|M It l{l M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1

OFFICE WORKER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11| 1 1 t 11JP 1 1 1 1 1 |l 1 1 1 1 |l 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 1

STENO& - SECY. 10 20 , "]] , ir^ 40 50

OUSINfSS EO. TEACHER

HOME ECON. TEACHER 1 1 1 1 M M 1 M M 1 1JP M |l 1 lR| MM 1 M|l M M|l M M|t M 1 t 1 1 M t 1

DIETITIAN 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 M BM M |l M 1 lU 1 1 t 11| M ! 1 f1 1 M 11| 1 t 1 1 1 t M t 1

PHYS. EO. TEACHER ICOLU

OCCUP. THERAPIST t ! f t I 1 1 t 1 t 1 M 1 1 1 M * 1 1 l|l 1 1 1 Ijl t t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1

10 20 30 ^Jr 40 50 ■ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ii 1 1 1 111 1 i.^mi 1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NURSE

MATH.-SCIENCE TEACHER

DENTIST

LABORATORY TECHNICIAN

PHYSICIAN 10 20 iT, 40 , 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iB 1 11 1 1 1^1 1 1 1 1 li 1 1 1 1 Ii 1 1 1 1 Ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

MUSICIAN TEACHER lllllllllllllll W1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 T T * I ' LaJ 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M^f'M ^1 1 1 1 1 1

MUSICIAN PERFORMER 10 20 ; ,40 50

PHYSICAL THERAPIST Low-rated GrprrvpiJ^

ENGINEER

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 ^ wff FT 1 1 11M 1 1 M1 M 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 > 1 t * ♦ 1 4 t 1 < f t 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 t 1 Hl-f 1 t HI t t t t t I > t i -1

10 > 20 30 40 50

1 M 1 1 M 1 1 t 1 |M 1 M 1M t 1 11M 1 1 1 |l M M j| t t 1 M M I M

> 1 1 T 1 1 1 liiii l|li 1 1 M' ' l|lli 1 l|l 1 1 1 l|l 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1

FEMININITY-MASCULINITY ' 1 1 I ! 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 ! 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 I 1 M M 1 M 1 1 1 1 M M p^^5 45 35 25 1 5 M

■ « ■ » « ■ ■ 1 » » ■ t * ■ » » > > 1 * » * ‘ 1 ■ ‘ ■ 1 » 1 ' 1 * « ‘ * 1 3 ^ ‘ t-L-L i 1 1 i-_L J

Figure 8

Strong Vocational Interests High and Low Oroup Mean Profiles

Female Sample.

S< O'* 01' .■T-,'-^TT-r-rr-rt^-rrn-rvjr-r-r-r-;[^-»-T^

'r«vi' «'«w J»4/U-

.|-H ■• ■^-^'■t'+i.^-ij

f j-r f- j. , ' sit Of

f+f' -^-l■^-i-4-!- ^vf.(_,w.| ;, ;. ,.,.4.4.1. i._;„44.)..^,(. ^

irt'.**a'A**i,i j,

KAijilkU j

. jAi ■fJOi

f- t

0^

5‘m

.•HfWAJ!

,.-‘Mit*;'*?? lOifjdisiV

Vli4Ta30ii .A,;,>,w,y

.P!1.;>»A) iftfJ

S'f'H--f-+'|H-4"l"f"'-

:m 'r 11 r I M ? f-f- “

I ■ ii" I" >

pt - ■ ■ '8f'

4. ‘.,.. ,s4-H l-l’f trH-f-fi*

■ir f-f-i-'-H’-H'-t- f4.4.(..i-|..

OS.. Of

s • -i- f- -I. ■

»-;-'■ f-f-t-t-f-A-f-fys-i—■('4 '< 44

f"H-t )''f44'^r f--^-44-+4ff-r^-?-;i[{i

>- ‘-H-H-

M4HH4'.--HM-4fH-4-' .4H.4-f4-.;-4!+44

f + f- I I i --!- »ff ■' : ,-(- |-f iS44“rJ--|-44-.h4;j-444 Ja

H -^-Ksi--Hrf •‘■if!"f-+++s j 4 Ki-f:..; :,, , . j.4-44|A-r.+44.,.^4.444J^

_ lit-

,q'XD • -s's

'Hr.-«

.«.«VUS

IH('sfif'S.fyOH

.ssjjvjAif y*AJ*^3W,J,t3

JtiiJlftOW 3;jt>!iO

-vDjij ~ 4tf>niri

^irOASt .iJJ

»' -:i4SS'AJT :,MOSiV' iSA.OM

MAi'f;'t'i«3 ;■

1 yaci'j* ,*SK.-3.A#t .Oi jTtH I

jiHAftM*? -•tuaaa;

f-“-f 4-H4 f4.f-4-4%H4~

’ 01

W(*y.«

V3H3A4t jW*(0?-.«TAM j

r^sTwifo i

a*’

'■^*'*-‘"H-i4-*-+4|A-f-+--H4'-i-} •;. i^'

)- 4, - , -J.(. 4..4_f4-4: ,4 j_.y. ,,,

, 1;( -.'-i

MAfO’Wf'tSJ'ai tsOta^A-MA.i

, , »i»MSA5T,MAlj>fiUf<A

'=. .sJJMidMS

o

80.1 nssH qx/o-rn wal Ln* n'M.if’ XanoxiBO-o?

50

TABLE IX

RATIOS OF Ss IN BIOGRAPHICAL DICHOTOMIES FOR HIGH AND

LOW-RATED GROUPS, VALUES, AND CHANCE PROBABILITIES

ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR DIFFERENCES. MALES AND FEMALES

Variable Sample Ratio (h) Ratio (l) P

Sex Total 17/20 22/18 .58 -

Age M 16/6 13/4 .24 -

(0/U) F 6/12 12/8 3.29 -

Educ M 6/16 15/2 12.83 **

(N/D) F 2/16 8/12 10.74 **

Lth Serv M 18/4 13/4 . 14 -

(OAJ) F 9/9 13/7 1.31 -

( - = N.S.; ** = less than .01)

Part C. Multiple Regression Analysis

The degree of association between the biographical

variables and the rating criterion is shown in Table X ex-

pressed in terms of point biserial correlations which were

tested for significance from zero with t. Only ’Education’

proved significant, It was therefore considered to be of

potential value as a predictor so included in the intercorre

lation .analysis. The 30 variables selected for regression

analysis by inspection of intercorrelations and criterion

correlations are listed in arbitrary order in Table XI.

i '■ '•■ Wc. .1.

>t [ .A! j;; T '■'' '!. ly^c A

\i!.1ij'.ii-. ix^v

‘-'r: :-, j- nx bxtxxDXx,

vii ::;>-i,r ■:. X 1 “t: 01 bDj3&:f

■< .[ K.-xt.;' ze bsvo :.q

--r.,:q jx .ss I/sv i';i & .3 as-^oq

, <5 L i'. V' i « c: & o x^ 1

■r. v;I>G^tS

£*»*•' j a XI !;;> ',t ,a 8 ao i J' b I @ i x o d

5i

ivelationships with the criterion are positive except where

(-) is shown.

TABLE X

POINT BISERIAL CORRELATIONS BEIWEEN BIOGRAPHICAL

VARIABLES AND CRITERION WITH THEIR

SIGNIFICANCE TEST RESULTS

Variable Sample ^pbi t P

Sex Total o064 .55 -

Age M .132 1,11

F .203 1.81 “

Educ M .454 3.54 **

F .334 2.51 *

Lth Serv M .059 .47 -

F

CO

O

.74

( - = NoS,; * = less than .05; ** = less than .01)

TABLE XI

VARIABLES ENTERING REGRESSION ANALYSIS

Male Sample Female Sample

W Ac PD W AI Buy { “) R Ai PA R le HW(

E-N le SW E-N Py Stgr (

Do Py CPA Do Fx Dtn ( ”1 Cs OL Pres Sy ET PEdT

Sp Psy SM Sp SW Phy

Sa Vet Adv Sa Psy Mus

vJb Mth Law So Law PT

Re Cpt(-) A-J Gi SST Engr

To Pol{-) Educ Ac YS Educ

‘ c^^yjsi

'■W

>

J'jOOXa aviixsoq siirtJ' tffiw tiiixdanoxiaX»St'

^ ^ % . nwofle e Jt (-) .''■!!'!Kji''iWji0iW>,wi3}l '!(■'!v:4>oWit(/SSM8i^ . .,. '‘'''®™® , ■' ','/i;’:''’;^’f;. ,■ .■, =. ,t..;»

■AprHHa !^aak xsia,, xme tsi ■ ■ tk xch , ..,>i3HT HTXW. .miSaf|j?o am,: 4iM^X5?iw

m?‘ii

i..'6rk-:isi

-■ jSfti

^-’^'Ci'il(:|: i:':

XX,oX'' ' :. r;te. ' j,

;-/ '>

^«i.'

'T^.r ■,f 1*6?! ■!■ lt>^^||«M»|»|ji;,*!»!■»*.■

X:^',c ,!vM ■'. <

41 ^i^■<t^1|y)^|lll^■</l.

K

m

m.

iAfcwiiiitL«i»iin*rwi^ni :.f.-,, , ig:,ti4,: ..m

(10. 'Kx- ■» - ) ' ,, ' '''■ '■.„/ ■' ,' :; ‘ -'■ ... '. ' :'ff - '. ",'■ ' '■' - '

;■•‘rt' iVi.fc® I'S/wfiv ,;■ Viicainwm'Kjtfi.t/flA ''V'liifMj-fM,. ■ ; - . ...

,:;:-v:;i ..V .'ifc" ■ ■■<v;.‘'' r' fc xe aaimxsi^';

^ j ^ ^ j ■ . r ,■< . '^ ' . ‘j ' -.. .,. ■ ...-:v, ,, 'W'"fM'^": ■ ■ ..'.■ „■ - ' ,»IwfKfc3/ » I'.iJtWs^'^.gi;*'’ :'’■ ■' ■: ^'' ■':'^. i^—,. -. ^

’ , , ■■' .‘ :>.,, "i-. ■ 1".’^ ■■►Vi*-1Ii -'—I tli|ifMir‘fwrtiif<ii»iiij*tf rti

i •’ )M|' ■'; ■ ' '4'X ’

(“• Vi

:r4 , ■ ■V.XaJfi ,.'■'% ,

Ol' y^fiH -

1^1 ■ w^d'.''

.xaa:V

■:

■oax" ": ■;"

4, cjf’"X:':': ''i

d,' <iiZ , ■

r/nTiivriliWfWWiMniiiiiiiii j - • .'

- OH '■■

.- .' ■ ..^ ./iS ■■j'i 't:'

■m .m

lA • ' g

vd oO _^.^c.

I dji>i dW iit

■..,' .' |;:)^t), i.o,<^,, ■ qX ■

^4; 111,

It can be seen that the lists are slightly different for males

and females (in addition to tlie Strong differences). On the

C.P.I. the Cs, Wb, Re, and To scales appear to be of predic¬

tive value for the male sample but not for the females while

Sy, So, and Gi were of greater predictive potential for the

latter. For neither sample were N or E listed although the

E minus N derived score is of apparent value in both.

The predictor variables determined by the regression

analysis to account most efficiently for the criterion vari¬

ance are shown with regression coefficients (beta weights),

constants, and proportion of variance accounted for by each

predictor in rank order in Tables XII and XIII, It is seen

TABLE XII

RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR MALE SAMPLE

Rank Predictor Regr. Coeff. R^

1 R ,0542 ,494

2 PA ,0388 ,182

3 OL ,1098 ,081

4 sw .0520 ,023

5 PD -.0239 .014

6 To ,1150 .009

7 le -.0877 ,015

8 W ,0468 ,006

9 A-J -,0744 ,009

10 Educ ,4653 ,007

11 Law .0378 ,008

Constant = -5,6913 Total = .848

R = .921 F = 28.7 (Significant beyond ,001

level)

• ■(

'T '■'!

I

53

that 'Education' was ultimately selected for both male and

female regression equations as an efficient predictor.

TABLE XIII

RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR FEMALE SAMPLE

Rank Predictor 2

Regr, Coeff. R

1 R .0494 .502

2 SW .0841 .103

3 W .0992 .042

4 Sa -.1108 .020

5 Phy s .0900 .015

6 Stgr .1102 .016

7 YS .0642 .016

8 E-N .0262 .010

9 le -.0582 .013

10 Educ .7559 .010

11 PEdT -.0069 .006

12 HW -.0580 .004

13 Psy .0569 .016

Constant = -4.1542 Total = .772

R = .879 F = 17.1 (Significant beyond .001

level)

Its relatively low position in each (10th place) however

suggests that the other biographical variables would very

likely not have been included had they entered the analysis.

The multiple correlation coefficients are remarkably

high, allowing acceptance of the hypothesis of this Part for

both samples. A large portion of the predictable criterion

variance was accounted for in both samples by the total score

(R) of the Reasoning test, with interest variables PA for the

, ; J

/•lAi'.?'

' V . > ' A ‘

-Tjj

f::: ':c'xr

('} r ‘j y c

X -i i; V Xw ' etc X i c c ub .H ' il :f

.. X;.-if/ps- jix>.ri'i«ir&':n>e.'T

'■'Dy;ec„xi;xpp;,: ve AJUe^,^)

^ AaiiD-Sj*

'• ' ■'■ '■’ ■' '■ '■ -X''. j. Xj--1 -i X a :r I

' ■'' ■■ • ' ■-'' ’ -' '■■' ' ’ ‘■' ' ' ' ■' a -1 cX:’';.''X’ i

-Ofi.p r.xac' Xoii

• :^ e •' l'. 11 ;jiii a.,IT

' X's ~-X, X VjC .;. O '. ■ ’ i i.'.:oi. X C ^ „x n i/X

'' • X;x..a N/;.«■ rs iocl

'.;-x j c re. xc-' c/5w X; D

b J [.yCi'.f , i 'J-ri X .t,e) y| )

54

males and SW for the females contributing the next major por¬

tions. The multiple regression equation for the male sample

takes the form:

Y' , = .0542R + .0388PA +...+.0378Law - 5.6913 M

while that for the female is:

Y’p = .0494R + .0841SW +...-.0569Psy - 4.1542

The standard error of the criterion actually reached

its minimum for both regressions after about fifteen or six¬

teen variables had been entered but contributions beyond the

particular ”cut-off’' points chosen were minute. Direct com¬

parisons of the beta weights are difficult since raw not

standard scores are utilized.

Those variables included in the equations were tested

for the linearity of their relationships with the criterion as

shown in Tables XIV and XV. Of the 24 relationships tested

only 2 (those with female variables Phys and Stng) appear to

be non-linear and at a low level of significance (p = approx.

.05). Were the exact configural formulae for these known the

prediction would be improved only slightly.

Part D. Fakability of the Non-coqnitive Tests

The raw score means and standard deviations for the

Simulation groups on the non-cognitive tests are shown in

I tXi!:! n cj i:(id £ 1 / ao n i.: • J.i-;* d io;;-

ijd:? lf.Ci'± nQXt: " 5:tpS o:'/i.G ■■:■■-. qS h', ■h-i;’,-, jh j'.1, /-i ’/p-d . .i O : ’ ' ,1'

- i . ^ ' 5- (i . i ; ,!>.

i-.Idd.d ■" '/iG-l: d do. . V , , i iV :i. .''d'^ ' q

d i - d '• V3'd>dd , ,. “ , ’* Idd i..--'- d /•., ■•;■ " d ('; 'i. : ■“ ■ V

, V j. .1 G (. ' .; G no/ j, hi 1 i/- orl/ do . hi/; .0/c.:/, d (

/o i;oS'j ''-td; i i.od./ o;: :; :1& Of'C-iO / //q.O- d ' :■ ! ■(:: '• i . ' dodr' 0 hdi

o r' i b i\c- ■' d' n hio , J 1 oo -h :)/!0 fij". . ,: I'o ■;/■(, h. ,d;:' , iio: ,■

■•'.rco oeid.' Oi-.i i;U ii' O'.COV i -OoHC d;, / ■d-,;-o.(i 'di: 0,;'’:o/',/' .1 jh d/-Oj

.1 0"T ■ ,' > ■■* ,7 .'Ti*.: -• J-- L‘'7-- X '.i. ^ ' d; 0;.-.. ■ d'di^; flt'jn .i'h , - 1 ■

soorj^opo ori/ r'' ■ ' :• i'd / ri. .d ; J hXiv:.- Od... i. .

noL'i::: dio odd rl tivi acT-Xrii dhd '- / . d--,hd do did :; 1; iidiX ;/ d' //'?

d o :)■ / r p drl / rtcv i. r £, J ii'- o ■ 1 i. - .d .0 VD; ffid.-/:‘.oT ,/h id

X' i' ■- i/o ‘ & ; pn;Jd .do a ■ o . , ■- v''hMh/,i ..fi/o d/’.v:v(d 1 vis:,':

>:x/T'.'|£ - q ,;;w/.;.. d.. ' . 1;..' X’ .ioi . .:; .i i Jho drift :. -o'-'h ; r-Odo,. /dh

rbi ci.'o.i30(' i -j/d o,;. •'■ d d... :o,.^. dl-. :•; d / ■ „ 1 ,dd

«■ V J J ; ■i ft>' dOi/'diXod Od dhd'd:V.- ./dd, . d ;rq

o-odd-l'.ddd. x-'ft'idd do J r i J:d,o d ^ci .iood

d o/d” h^'o/xifti/yddi Oiifto; , o.vo nn/iDih ooGoe Whii or; I

nr r-idoria ohiii adasi' oo.- i’d/;/ ; ood s.rfj- no ehio-'^dp n-d .Hodf 05/ic

55

TABLE XIV

ETA TEST OF LINEARITY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

THE REGRESSION EQUATION VARIABLES WITH THE

CRITERION. MALES: N = 67

Variable r F P

R .494 .532 1.72 -

PA .457 .473 0.49 -

OL .349 .430 2.11 -

sw .356 .381 0.64 -

PD .150 .141 2.59 -

To .161 .269 2.71 -

le .116 .145 0.73 -

W .370 .440 2.68 -

A-J .055 .119 1.68 -

Educ .206 .251 0.92 -

Law .238 .307 2.41 -

( - = N.S.)

TABLE XV

ETA TEST OF LINEARITY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN

THE REGRESSION EQUATION VARIABLES WITH THE

CRITERION. FEMALES: N = 76

Variable r F P

R .501 .528 0.98 -

SW .418 .459 1.21 -

W .410 .461 2.14 -

Sa .051 . 101 1.39 -

Phy s .071 .201 3.76 *

Stngr .080 .194 2.99 *

YS .150 .197 1.08 -

E-N .020 .107 1.98 -

le .054 .113 1.57 -

Educ .112 . 181 1.68 -

PEd .181 .230 1.31 -

HsW .124 .219 2.63 -

Psy .296 .350 2.24 -

( - = N.S.; * = .05)

^>;iV '.

.y^JX ..EiS^At "■i • 'ii;^-'.., ii .

' .,,^^,,fci^EWTaa a^i;ii'?ci^0Eiit rtmj^z■ leax ath

a<Hj n;sx^ cejbai'MA'.^' Witau^e ..i^laaEKoaH eht

■000m

'vm

f«JV «

- ".J':0" Z''y

£ V, X 15 ea. - . 0 - ' O-E^ ; ''

■ ^^'d'/c>' iM. daa. , “ .s. 101: dsxt

'xv*.s mz. ■ « , £X, O' ■ tP^Z', ■ dli ,„ ' - 6d^S ; '0P0. PTE.

„8d.X:, 'ni- cEO, - ■, - .s <? ; 0 ■ IxS, 60S'.

XVt . ' OEt.

'v" :,; .Ml '

a> l^jfS liiiiV'

H '.

A4

ni.Aiwiw^i ,i< ■■nn»wi^i>.»tatw»

T

JO- m

'Ql“ ,

0X

, w

t-A

ojuib'j

W'^0 »«>.W|l»iJWlMHIW»t<»<WiWWMimiM| liM

''.:i, V)i'"

(',8VW'«, “• ' )

- {^. ■■

VX Jv^EAX' ■ .'■■::''C .'-I'- ftS: 'I'.si-

aEiuawpxTAjEH '# vxiyiAHiixj eo ibex axe,

.' ' EHT HTXW' B'5XJEAX'Ji:Av;;TO|:TA?X^^

dX ■- t fsaJAivja,^ *’/DX?lETl5?D

'■,^ ' ', ' I ■ . ■ 1i| ■

q ■'

v,X ' BSE"..'-' ," XQE, •* XE.X--. '■ - sX'^^'. - Pl.t, ■ I6p,: ,. '.gXa; - QE.i XtO'.' •X- ■6Tv.,E " ' ip£:.\'

V?V?.S ‘ , #X'. ■bao'J',' \. “* .30.1 :0cx;^'

*- 00.1 ■ Oso-, " Tc.:i' ",' Tepv'

86.1 ^ 'Ijl^ 'sxi.;' iw •;■ IE;I OE'S', ', XAi; - ,Ed.S £Xs. Xai.- - .P ocE;,,' ':: d'OS.

''\ - .(ao.. ^ - i

'IV .,.','.^''W‘‘V''. ,

'30

Tables XVI and XVII. It can be seen by comparing with lligh-

TABLE XVI

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR NON-COGNITIVE TEST

variables: SIMULATION GROUP - MALES. N = 20

Variable X S Variable X S Variable X S

Maudsley St rong PA 47.1 5.1

N 3.8 1.8 Art 19.7 7.7 YS 41.2 8,6

E 31.8 2.2 Psy 30.5 7.9 SST 47.9 7,9

E-N 58.0 4.6 Acht 20,3 8,4 SS 40.0 7.7

Californ ia Phy s 27.3 8.1 sw 46.2 5,4

Do 31.9 3.7 Ost 30.5 8.1 Min 38,4 8,4

Cs 22.8 2.4 Den 19,5 7,9 Mus 36.0 8,5

Sy 27.6 3.9 Vet 18.4 8.1 CPA 31.0 8,9

Sp 34.9 4.1 Mth 16.0 8,0 SCP 37.0 8,1

Sa 22.8 3.0 Pht 8.6 7.0 Acc 33.3 8.0

Wb 41.0 2.1 Engr 16.3 7,9 OM 39,1 7.6

Re 34.3 2.9 Chra 18,0 6.8 PA 26,7 8.1

So 40.4 3.6 PM 32,5 6,3 Ban 32.7 7.7

Sc 38.7 4.9 Frra 26.8 6.9 Mor 32,7 7.9

To 25.5 3.8 Avr 23.1 7.4 Pha 27.3 7.2

Gi 29.6 5.1 Cpt 18.5 8,1 SM 34.3 7.6

Cm 26.0 1.2 Pri 33.5 7.0 RES 34.9 6.3

Ac 31,7 3,2 MthT 35.3 7.3 Lins 37,5 7.1

Ai 20.4 2.3 lAT 16,1 8.8 Adv 33,5 6.0

le 41.6 2,1 AgT 25,7 8.1 Law 36,1 4.9

Py 11.8 1.9 Pol 34.7 7.6 A-J 28,8 5,1

Fx 9,6 2,6 For 24,9 8,1 Pres 27,3 6.4

Fe 19,0 3,5 YPD 40,9 8.2 OL 54,1 4.2

PD 44.1 6,1 MF 38.1 6,5

rated means (Tables V and VII) that most of both the discrim¬

inating and the non-discriminating scales are altered in the

direction of suitability, some appreciably so. The latter

scales, although not directly meaningful in terras of Parts B

5/

TABLE XVII

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR NON-COGNITIVE TEST

variables: SIMULATION GROUP - FEMALES. N = 16

Variable X S Variable X S

Maudsley St rong

N 3.5 1.9 SW 44.7 5.2

E 32.1 2.4 Psy 34.1 5.0

E-N 58.6 6.2 Law 35.2 6.8

California SST 45.1 6.2

Do 32.6 3.9 YS 39.6 5.8

Cs 23.8 2.3 LInS 30,4 6.9

So 28.0 3.5 Buy 22.6 6.2

Sp 35,4 3,6 HSW 18,7 4,1

Sa 23,2 2.3 EIT 29.1 5,8

Wb 42.1 1.8 Off 23.2 5,3

Re 36,0 3,4 Stg 25,1 3,1

So 41,9 2.9 BEdT 29,3 5,0

Sc 40,1 4,9 HEcT 24,6 4.9 To 26.6 2.4 Dtn 23.4 6.1

Gi 31.1 5.2 PEdT 26.4 6.2

Cm 25.7 1.3 OT 29.7 5.9

Ac 32,4 3,3 Nur 29,0 6.3

Ai 20.9 2,4 MthT 26.8 5.9

le 42,6 2,0 Den 21,3 6,1

Py 12,4 2,0 LT 24.6 6,3

Fx 8,9 3,0 Phys 35,1 6,4

Strong MT 31,6 6,6

Art 23,4 6,4 Mus 29,9 6,7

Ath 27,6 6.5 PhyT 34,7 5,2

Lib 29.1 6,1 Engt 24,2 3.8

ET 38.0 5,9 MF 44,6 3,1

and C, may provide confirmation of distortion on the more

relevant discriminating scales. Comparisons between High and

Simulation means are facilitated by inspection of Figures 9

to 12

XV',^0 .‘Vc- c'AA'J.H

...... ■ ■rss.jafiisiM

♦

'/O i. ii i: !

^ « ■■ !■ .. I 3 I

, .,;• I ■ . I

«-..:';’ii: XXX !xD'

\ !X I kjC

t

r .>, ;

0 - i2

o

<•'. c ■ :>'r X

X. X £

/■ ■

iX^

-1T

I ... (' ^ j ■

■ if-A ^!

_j

ii;..'.. ■ '.IP. :: ..'/o'JCj Vp’5-« ^ '■■) liiClS

.• r.r,., ~ p • <, ly. y,.. i;5 j »/& I,t

' r J. r:> fi 'i ' ©ii. a n ^3 ifj o o i ? & I mi i 3

Ul ot

58

D* C« Sy Sp U Wk R« S* Sc T* Oi Cm Ac Ai l« Ry Pi P*

Figiire 9

California Psychological Inventory High and Simulation Group Mean Profiles. Male Samples,

D«Cf Sy Sp U WblUSo Sc To Gi CwAcAi lo PyPx Po

Fip:ure 10

California Psychological Inventory High and Simulation Group Mean Profiles.

Female Samples,

^ ^ »T''; »t • •!;

: 5*'i

^ *» . _

<'■( - 0»<

•«#~- ss- ««-

t** - oz- X'%: .- ■ ■* i;.-.>*''^--<-..'^^’^ 'W- 7-v... ,» /%,.

- - . - » •;«• ••.,,,?>■ -a ^ ,. W -.._ ^ S»i.

T ! w-1

.::: I;:

:%«R« oe-

WO^gcwg-^-

(Us ©1. ...-

-■» '.., . „ 4g„ «''■ ';:^ .' ’Of,- ~ ~ _ ^1 ev” ' -

... J‘y . - :”^- ;-__;|;2. r ra " et. '■ “■ ■■■«(--"■’ '■■

Ci-

.m^SUMEKrti* ■ 04:

/f . fi»- 0 s

■C'''. .. ...

<>•5 -

Si -

.?.s;ilotH ,,„c,r) noi,M.®K h„ rfsli! .riai*v«I .taigoi'^rf'^iCrt aimolilsO »e«rqK7.;^

strong Vocational Interests High and Simulation Group Mean Profiles,

Male Samples.

0^ i , ■. '/*

H't-Hr i“f-<- ■'- (I'j f ■H'4|4+-4-f-|r5r-'i~|-,^4J-;'--*

5- +-‘H-^f-'s h-f - '■ '

r i , . f-Ht- !-!-t,* i-i -'•“jT:-t'>' l-'tfH-i T-S-

j •. »

,14^4-:.

i-. ‘ ^ r 1 ,4: ■' . ■■*■

r^;

' , ■ S,'; .'ip".' HAM. ,.i:

sii.

...l4.« 4

H -ht-i'f-f-t r-f-’l;

Ov*

H-4-7'44-f-H44<4 -!

, -is-t-i-fH -I-

^'••r~4'—J-- -j-.' J--

^4^'^ 1' 'V*? I '1^4 1 ^ s.y

••j4 j.

^4-. ,...4^,4:""'

'■"'' ' ' v ' ’ ■ ' ■

4...,. -.jp. .k 4-41-'+- "-N-!‘-Hj'

I S' nu .- -;-r':--ti !--ri- r-tj-f t-ri

(-(-'.. i ..4.., pi .jU H^...-);

■' 4 r* H + ■•■' f-4' -ijf ■’■ hf'

'■<■ t-+-T- :4 i -.■ .. 4H4_4^^,44j

-f-^ f ff- - ■)-■4 -^|_/. 4<,!l . ,,.Sj!4;

SOTaSTWHIMOa

.A.O.M.V

WHJAST J.« .OJ

.Ttua JO';n3j rTK';

■•;:...r^.-,!j4.,; •4' 1-4 ■r.4-f+-4~:l-l

■ -,.,; - 44. ,4_^, 44.4—^.44

'-4‘ -,’vS

«q'lO ' 161 cl’.eX bftsx 8 ' /f : . 4-4; J 4-r-H’:'■ f-i':--(-^H-4

1*5 ^

--■ . I I ,

{''■' *'■

H~> —‘ -H -

- ■: ; i:'4;4444._-,- ■,, L. '.,CK- • - ■ ‘

%, qqi'J bec>x}<'i'-’d;.:J:}l j ^ ' '•■ ;_■ I , -- r-.-.f,.i4«,;.., .>_(.4_.

■■" :•-• ■ ,-4 ■■ '.: 1 1 ; , . . .., ,, ;.;,_,1. 1 . . 1

, . (4«/V!iSM« Jfi'U'S MM-

'" <4 A4,.' A i S ;•. S4 AA M*Wi

.---ifi-

,. , 'V'. 1 '-Af'1^,1-' '. .

...’ . ’Oi ,

WAW Ol^jt'iT.ifSV'ri'A

A'f.vWAi,^

TjUAt4ffa0.-.-.*i,tn»'UA

4.v’>4

i 1 \

; ..;i'',M-/i:viia4ip|jrr

"■"1

i: r

60

OCCUPATION 10 70 30 ^ 40 ^ 50

AUTIST 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I T T 1 I 1 1 1

a a CKI I 1 il

1 i|i 1 1 1 i|i I 1 1 i|i r 1 1 I 1 1 1 T J 1

AUTHOR ^ W O M t N -r-N-ttl'11-1 tyt 1 t t tft t f t t I ri'rri

LIIRARIAN M I Ifl I M l)M M l|l I I I I I M I I I

INGUSH TIACHER M M|l I I I I I I M M

SOCIAL WORKER IREV.I 10 20 . :

I I I MM

PSYCHOLOGIST t r f f f M TT'f t M t 1 t M 1 |l t 1 1 1 f

LAWYER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 t

I I I l|«l^ri|l M M|l I M M M M I

SOCIAL SCIENCE TEACHER 1 1 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11

Y.W.C.A. SECRETARY I I I t|l^l•^|l M I I M I I I I

LIFE INSUR. SALESWOMAN t f 1 t f t 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 < 1

10 ^ I I > I l|M M Ifl M I I M I I I I

. 40 . 50

lUYER f f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I U^4“r 11 M t till M t|M 1 M|l 1 1 M 11 1 1 1 1

HOUSEWIFE 1 1 1 1)11 1 M|t 1 t 1 ql 1 1 1 t M 11 1 1

ELEMENTARY TEACHER

t t I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 MU 1 t 1 l|M M t|l M M 1 M 1 1 1

OFFICE WORKER < 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i^ipr'i 1 t f pi 1 1 111 1 1 t 1 ]i 1 I 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

STENOG. - SECY. 10 20 ,V '2^^. **0 50

3USINESS ED. TEACHER

HOME ECON. TEACHER t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t M It 1 1 m 1 111 Vin 11 1 1 1 1 |l 1 M 11| 1 1 M || M M 1 1 1 1 M

DIETITIAN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t M M 1 W 1 1 1 1 1 11 M 1 1|t M M|l M 1 l|l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

PHYS. ED. TEACHER ICOLU 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 MINIMI 11 1 ™ 111 M 1 t|l 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1

OCCUP. THERAPIST 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 M M |l 1 I^U 1

10 20 f 1 1 ) 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 A

t 1 1 't^^ 11)11111)11111111111

0 40 50 ] 11 I ( I I Ii I I I I )i < I i i I I I I I 1

NURSE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 ^ 11

MATH.-SCIENCE TEACHER

■ 1 1 11M 1 M |M 1 1 1 ]l 1 1 M M tl 1 1

1 1 1 1 It 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j

DENTIST 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 I II 1 1 1 1 M 1 i 1

LABORATORY TECHNICIAN ' " 1" ....

PHYSICIAN

1 1 1 iM 1 1 1 1 1 M 11M t 1 11M 1 1 1 |f 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 0 40 50

1 1 \^W\ 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1

MUSICIAN TEACHER I IM M |l ^

1 ! 1 1 t 1 M1 1 1 1 t II 1 1 1 1 M M 1

11 1 1111 1

MUSICIAN PERFORMER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

rW High-rated iiimlii /*s__ 1

PHYSICAL THERAPIST 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 M M 1 t t 1 11

. 1 1 1 1 M 1 11 1 1 1 11

*' 1^1 • uroup 1

i ^^114 1

ENGINEER

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 1 ! 1 1

1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 I%1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1

1 11 1 1

1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 I ^ M 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

10 t 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 M 111 1 )

3 . Simulation , _l_l 1 1 1 R 1 ^

1 1 1 1 1 M 1 t 1 1 1 1! 1 1 I 11

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11

1 « 1

•

c;: o

1 1 I 1 M M 1 1 1 1 t t 1 11 1 1 1 1 I

FEMININITY-MASCULINITY n—1 \ 1 mF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m » 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

F ^ >5 35 M ; LV. I i 1 1 t 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 > M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( .UJ,.!. U.l, _ ■ _i

Figure 12

Strong Vocational Interests High and Simulation Group Mean Profiles.

Female Samples.

• U

fUt

Jv. .

m

o< ''"‘■' • '’* ''' ■ ‘ ■ ■ ^s ' ' ': Ir T*r rrTw p’TTTTf*TTn‘'^i|ii‘ir *'^tri’’»“#rWri|Y«r^-^

watAius:)©

yM%A

' ' ' '. ■■ ' ■#' ll nCHIU*

■ ■ ■ 5®' ' #'/ ' . '.lijn^oMr .MJuoHli

t^vm urnow Moot

_ Ti(«;ioj4>t^ijtaii

»»i*»»iMWplltmir/ 'tv iv^iawAj

«IWMu<»M .: ,'. ■■*

•mjfjiir S3«80

;j^ fVOil« *!• ^omtt

** iHmmM^

MtOAST

■ •V/'.- i:y^ yi'i\‘\\r. ■ I

• wArrnfiw

.i '. »l'

i^^liiiLiii^'A Fm’ J/ 'V'l'i ,.. I .

'■, I ! QWOltO'.«»«'••?««.

rA«A)()iHf ..iuoAo

iiiiUM fifHOAilT “■rrri‘ii‘mif ■ ■> ■ n itninli'm mii:_ —|-. _

Ttm»o

^M&AAT

^. aaivMd'Wilri,. i)iA 0)t O.M

t.4«A)l|i«t JASHiTH^ •**■■■» — ■* ' ^|'“—‘T—frTTttl'W ■

wjuiova 1*:'^'^)

'r'I'l' ■>; - ■■■ ',I-::,m' ■ "•

j^>twtw»uri!/v»,j! .^

■ VWMWUPI T(*^«»»»»>»w*--«i....«.-.iAi ! - ’.iJiJ-VL..__ J

rpalvl qp^O ^3/.^ li^ctoXMooV

^&Qlqn^. ‘ qlAma'^

'r , ,,t\^

TABLE XVIII

0 I

SIMULa^nON AND HIGli-GROUF MEANS P'OK REGRESSION EQUATION AND

DISCRIMINATING VARIABLES V\/IT11 RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

TESTS OF THEIR DIFFERENCES. MALE SAMPLE

Variable Simulation

X

High

X t P

PA 47.1 50.7 1.38 -

OL 54.1 55.9 1.12 -

SW 46.2 48.6 1.08 -

PD 44.1 43.0 .58 -

To 25.5 27.6 1,45 -

le 41.5 42.8 1.76 -

A-J I 28.8 33.5 2.51 *

Law 36.1 38.6 1.11 -

N 3.8 13.7 5.23 **

E 31.8 26.4 3.08 **

E-N 58.0 42.8 4,16 **

Do 31.9 31.0 .89 -

Cs 22.8 22.4 ,71 _

Sy 27.6 27.2 .54 -

Sp ! 34.9 38.4 3.19 **

Sa 22.8 22,6 .24 -

Wb 41.0 39.8 1.31 -

Re 34.3 33.5 1.04 -

Ac 31.7 31,3 .69 -

Ai I 20.4 23.0 2,79 **

py : 11.8 13.2 3.28 **

Psy 30.5 34.8 1,81 -

Phys I 27.3 33.6 2.11 *

F rm 26.8 29.6 1.51

Cpt 18.5 16.5 ,91 “

Pri 33,5 33,7 ,12 -

lAT 16.1 16,4 ,21 -

AgT 25.7 25.3 .69 -

Pol 34,7 31.9 1.64 “

For 24.9 27.9 1,20 -

SST 47,9 44,5 1.41 -

SS 40.0 38,8 ,97 -

CPA 31.0 30.9 .09 -

Adv 33.5 35,2 ,36 -

= less than .01) (- = N.S. ; * less than, ,05; **

, ' ‘ • It. 1 ■ '• ■' ■'* 1. ■ i

[ 'Jl

j c";.

' r?:,. } ! ■ ■ 1 \}'l

■;

62

table XIX

blMULi^TION .\ND HIGH G20UH M*vvNS FOR RiiGROH;'. DISCRIMINATING VARIABLES WITH RESULTS OF

TESTS OF TH5IR 01 FFERENCa;>. FEMALE

ION EOUATION oND SIGNIFICANCE

S/iMFLE

Variable 3imu lation

X High

X t P

SW 44.7 48.5 2.00 .

Sa 22,2 22.8 .42 m

Phys 35.1 30.1 2.12 *

Stg 25.1 33.7 7.13 **

YS 39.6 29.8 4.47 S-N 5d.6 42.8 6.29 **

le 42.6 42.1 .61 “ PEdT ! 26.4 38.2 5.11 **

HSN 18.7 29.0 7.88 **

Psy ! 34.1 39.8 2.32 **

sp : 35.4 4r). 5 5. 19 **

Gi 31.1 18.8 5.29 **

Ai I 20.9 25.7 4.91 **

Fx : S. 9 15.1 5.41 **

£T 3S.C 39.1 1.02 - Law 35.2 35.6 .31 -

S5T 45.1 35.9 4.54 **

Buy I 22.6 13.7 3.81 **

Off 23.2 29.9 2.54 *

HEcT 24.6 20.6 1.80 - Dtn 23.4 20.2 1.56 -

PhT 34.7 39.4 2.21 *

Engr 24.2 29.9 1.91 -

j

i II

2

• on

• ; * = less than .05; ** = less than

Of the 34 non-cognitive test variables in the male

sample displaying either a significant mean difference be-

tvvc.en the High and Low groups or included in the regression

equation 29 or 85.3% i^roved .to be apparently fakable while

■ /!,

-X'' . IXIXV

X!X,iX

.IX'/lX'

.,v^x:

' ;■ :

C; 'X'Y

■ 1.',,"-:;

:l'

■'l

:i

■ ' .v,!'] :,;'■■ t"i ,.i' ';5',

'■■■ 5:.' ■ T-^r. 'i"X v

• I r '5 v^. ^ ;,;i X/f 5.;;y'I i'

''r-X: "io

X- XC:

I I

!

rx-:' '■j'.v'?'

> i T

63

16 or 70.0^ of the 23 comparable female variables proved so

(Tables XVIII and XIX). The hypothesis that the majority of

such variables would prove apparently fakable is therefore

accepted for both samples. A significant difference suggests

fakability its in the direction of suitability, not other¬

wise. Thus all variables except those marked with a I are

apparently fakable in the present context. On only one male

regression equation variable, A-J, and two female ones, PEdT

and Psy, does it appear difficult to simulate the higher¬

rated worker's scores. Discriminating variables appear

equally fakable with only Sp, Ai, Py, and Phys for the male

sample proving difficult to distort in the instructed direc¬

tion and Sp, Ai, Fx, Buy, and PhT for the female sample.

Figures 9 to 12 provide evidence for the fakability of other

variables not directly relevant to the present hypothesis but

discussed further in Chapter V.

oa bavoiq aaXdfiiasv £S sarirr-^o #':0.0V xo '^X

lo '{Xlioisiti 9fil tarfi- gxasrltoqVfl ©rft * (XXX bn4 IIX'-ZX a©XcffiT) y

&‘io3c9i9rI.X ax slcf^sjfs!^: svo'iq bXt;ow a&XdsxiBv riowa

st^^Q£>£Jts tdjsoi^xb^xa A. .asjXqii’ia® rftod, ioi 5©Jq©oo«

-x©d.to ton t y;tiJxdstxt/a lo nOxtosiib orij nl atx.li vtxIidB^ijsl

OX& 1 B rltxw b^M'xe{ff &aoiit tqsox© at^I'JjsXxBV IIm snriT ,©bxw

9Xx.<n 900 v.l0p nO , -tx^Xmp tq^asiq ni 4>Xd«3i«l ^Itwaiaqqa

Tbas (39no 9l6ifi9l owt bns ,L-A t&idaxtav noxtaup© nolaasi^st

-jBdgid 3(if sS&lsmia ot tliiaillXb :J&aqq» , fl eoob ^^{8^ baB ^

■i&oqqjs asXcfaxiiSv; i>nx,ta0i:«H;xio8xO ,. a’* isjixow bstei

bXboi ©fit lol avfi^ bas < xA , qa v^Xno ritiw ©Idajijsl YXIabps

“09xib bQtouxtanx arid ax txotaJtb ot tXuoxllJbb gnXvoxq slqiOBa

.slqmaa bIbIibI self xo± 5na '*',xA «,'q8 bOii noxt

- . :> . . i ' ■ ; ... ■■ ■ ■ ■ , ' ■■ . ■

xodto to \ftiXicJijji6l 9rit lol, sonobivs Qbivoxq SI ot\(? asxnpx''!

^ " a', '■ it ■' ■ ■ -'*.■.

two. ex as fit oq Yd tnoasxq ©dt ot twisv©!©! yJ.tpBXxb ton a^Xdaxijsv

^ '■'S|- ' V '' ' •^' "xQtqxidO nit tbdtxiijl bbasnoeib

64

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

PART A, PSYCHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF WELFARE WORKERS

1^. Int elliqence

The similarity of the welfare workers' Valentine

scores to British trainee teachers and Wonderlic scores to

fourth-year American college students would indicate intel¬

lectual ability of about (North American) first degree level.

(British university students represent a higher, narrower

segment of the intelligence continuum and are thus less compar¬

able than the American undergraduates). It might be expected

that graduate social workers would represent a slightly higher

ability level than that indicated for the present welfare

worker samples. Kidneigh and Lundberg (1958) found social

work students had academic interests and abilities similar to

fifth-year psychology, nursing, and education students. Some

difference presumably exists therefore between the welfare

and social worker groups, in this respect at least. Educa¬

tional level is not that sensitive a measure however, for al¬

though males possess less university training than the female

workers, (42% having degrees/diploraas compared with 78,6%)

they achieved scores equal to or higher than the latter.

r •

V. HaiH-AHO

],G

::Si-3.i..:'ir.kL-^-:::'J^^^'. '<o ViOi'i^ir^oa c- 'i ^.-'i '/'V'l/'.'•'-I

, ' . ^iiia^Ui£l^a -j.

: ‘:^;£ srit \o \J-ness: ;i/.,dT

■ t:-A o o .L ,,,..)'■<5.; t lifMi y ) i'/’Stiix.'S,':: f r! :■?: i t i «V: i O !i' ’i&l<'i';!«

^ i» I j b.Li.s.y:: ■!,/.;> i J 'j .as." rxsd:/; :c.fo;r)\,;-jjJt>jc;;.

7'X M')‘ .;■; .7 v. Xd.. ,■.‘ ^i,S le V'J'lisJs:. I.BUTosL

'■"■■■ ■’’"■'■ A x ijr''- i: - . .;v lis i t .•;:x.d)

■■ -'X:-'.' xsn 'i-:f.s. b/jx- ]ii 7'-'’> ,'i:;:;In xn x Ito .t/xs'j"r'yd

- , = ('-X” ,7.■ni.xri;-is'nA <Hit aj&ri:s ;isld«;

"xc;;;,'' .'j I.IV. V a'?I.ici.':70t5 i'&d'!

';;:.7lbA;,r a.jsx:i:l- Isivsi ■ iIxdb

^ •■ ■■i.K..r ,;:d:'d;) i>T©dIa,,.!/,i 5cx;. ;'ipi'dnb hd' T-idyov.

■ii-'dXM S J .'lUi, biliS d .7 ^7:ii t fzx "7 7'•>,$, fc fti'i ti''..;;'b u:f Jft >!.:XO'.V

. o; tf;7:7: r7QAd X. :;a/ix9 .Da>5 , ’/•; .j ioi:'D'7xr 77 ri J1 i. 1

V Vi,. j oli i£;d .1 ?i .^ax.^cG \ ,1.dxinuxp V x* 1 il .rb

' -■'5 i' :j j ::::: , sq.iyj'so oiyr .C&XDOa bus

■ '■ ■• <■’■'- ■'-■■7vX),r; x fj;; j:7Soi Si a'i'j. i;-,, X ■; J .x rd:* J si I'X'/xA LSi'^si. ■

■ u XT'Xi-fl s«,:,.o .ix'x J- y t p ■■-7-'Itiii ■, 'as.ysi'Oc -sl/xd iii.:u. ■■■:’t

6- .' si.evi b£ x.':?oir.o X •::■■. sbubs goo Qnhshn xPP) (ai:&>riOW

■ 1.'-^ j ' :-i i t>r.f yiSidi j.o i .'. j sbx .;> ’.>u'A';'i;;-:36 vsiij'

It is possible that anonymity, which was hoped would

promote typical responses on the non-cognitive tests, did not

promote maximal responses on the ability tests. The reduction

of ’’ego" involvement and inability to learn individual scores

may have depressed motivation, and hence scores, a little,

although probably mostly in the duller Ss. Valentine (1954)

points out that his test requires "not only ability but con¬

tinuous concentration and a keen desire". A number of Ss did

report considerable fatigue towards the latter problems. The

time element in the Wonderlic, too, could prove too much to

"worry" about for the unmotivated. The average scores for

these workers should, therefore, possibly be even a little

higher, but this is speculative. However, to the extent that

workers can apply their capacities in practical situations

more at their own rate such test results may not reflect fully

on-the-job reasoning ability although there is undoubtedly

considerable correspondence.

i.* Personality

(a) Maudsley Personality Inventory. The neuroticisiu

factor (N) is said to be a measure of general emotional labil¬

ity or overresponsiveness indicating a neurotic breakdown

potential under stress. It is thought to reflect high

bsqoa dDXfiw rydt .>;d & x XT

r~:a, Dxb y g tas i ov i; :r .trH:K>i)~ <*0*5 od f no sdoygsx I^oxo^_t b totwcxq

.0 .;.,,, o/j;'n X 1 sjil.xdz^ orij fKi ^daooqas^l jniKOio

s.v-xoo<:r i.&dOi:vi-r'o,x o:;;6::>i .,::: y^xXiJddi baa tax.roolovr.l ”oDa’’

« oda,;v.1 bfV6 .b^•^■t^S'7i/Oln ovnd ynx;

: V. c.X ; on i Xd X , nq '10 J: i. d;b ' 9i:l X ■ ai,; y X Xsom y Id^^ioxo rJc i/orl :r ,r

■■('■■-Id vXx'xdn v_Xov. ion"' as’x ,ii.(.iai i as'S' aid Xn-iX tpo

''"^ ■ >'/ . S.' Xc'^O'ij i.iX~j':.>j‘ r.;^'U'; IdS^l jXs'y 3n<'5':J ® .UCiji'i,,*;, J'

ddX . ..aii>si,../o-X4 -X'B.ifjX .-!k,! Oijqijc- 'x X u>.i&ix txoqoj

■7..; -idxixi O'vb 3yoi., oil xdbr'oW yrij nx XdoiboXo osjxX

/iqX s.3rxooB 2..dS‘Ja'v/^i sdl > SXoX'Od'itOftino orirxoi Xxiooe •'vx^fovu'*

sidti,:! 4 nays sc! y.-di:aoo-q ,, oycioio-’j .bloofi^s -riodiow;' sssrf.y

■X.;>d T tno.xxo ani oX ,;ooioootvoi ! .swI 000^^ ai: i:,ri t x uc; ,, isriglri

«r;ox:.y4di'x& i.4.:Dx:^Od Ki d t od i t.o^iqc ■;; i isriX 'vlnoa nso xris>iiow

K ‘ d.. iJ .:.s :t .-o;. 000 a:yioeo:\ rox-:?' dojj.x •.. doj rswo x tsnt j'4

- ■•■... j,:a i »,< fqjv.'d,).), .v,’. y x t i, i./.■ f ;:'t r ri <:-'■'o-'I "i doq'-s.'iXno

, io I; 1 ''< h n o q o s x.'::. ■ j d s i 1;.; <5. ;£ a b i a n o o

" / ■' '■■|•■■'■ ■■■'■' '. 'd;":. V XxXo;—X'l.o-' ysXg:5xi.dr(i (O/

' "'"■■•' (■''■'•' ■d :q : . ::■ rxrzX,.:.:,i. O" od' 0.1 fol^y «.lo (M) xoXofil;

'■' ■('I •''('"I 'x: ■; '; x; i a^v'^nsv.ienoqasixdvo xo vti;

"' ■.. ' '-I-, V - -■ x,' j j j .oaoxXffi xohrn:; l4iJasXQv:|

60

autonomic reactivity. The bel».)w average N scores achieved by

the welfare workers is not in complete agreement with Sauna

(1963) and Roe (to be published) who found social workers

above average on this trait but does support their findings

that male workers score relatively higher than females. Non¬

professional welfare workers however may represent a less

anxious, less insecure group since they have either not de¬

sired or been able to seek the higher degree. Rettig and

Salomon (1960) found social workers aspire to a higher status

than that accorded them in the professional milieu. Welfare

workers are not in this competative climate to the same degree.

Within their own ranks however the average male welfare workers

could possibly experience some discomfort in an environment in

which the female workers are typically first degree/diploma

holders (while they are not) thus accounting in part for their

relatively higher (though still below average) N scores.

A better perspective of the actual comparability of

welfare worker and normal groups is obtained by noting the

mean scores for certain psychiatric groups, e.g. hysterics -

30.8, psychopaths -35.6, and dysthyraics (the openly fearful,

worried, anxious individual) -38.1, all markedly higher than

either. Standard deviations for the workers proved less than

17o&s's ' D ta;cC]o J a>:

.1.1 j cix et isii sisAX, Si’:'■

1 ' "i.;.,!''; l‘:i 0.1} Sc-'K Ijl'l;.! f p; 1 <,1X j

■: '■ TOO !■;:

■ - 1 '.^ : - l-OV oil::,;., I. O • oAi O^r 0 .f i ■

, - loooi,,. soAoiq

^ '0 1'’i..r , 7. J:

ci’i ■:;& a(S:S7‘ .:,o■ i':v< i: i. a

■ ' .’ '■''' ' :oio.U- A

A; OOl .AO.O J :isr; f

■ o ;r Xyc- ; ' .X. ■; 10 '.V

■■ 1 ;...:;;;;v-. O.!.,' 77. r 7 .JliJ: ti ^ : •J

''''■■ ' ■ -r~'7. '■ ‘-o .io -i,::,',! O' ■ 0 1 lo vlo! i:,55 i»oq Ai 1^0 o

.■'" ' ■ --.'l"':- i ... 0.0 ,:i o-',;... 1’lOA j 'v,:^ O.i.iS.fi'S^d &ri .0 .oiirO

Ao'i-■■A'..o o-o^'A ( ': lO' o x si ) j.. :.OA lOfi

. 10 ' A' :v‘. i,;- 'io'-''.' 1 " - .rg :"o' ' .'lo j V l£'.:'k:;.Al V'Aoo ": 'dll,’ fs A

is t -; sd- A

■ ‘'- -■■ * ■ •■. '-■ ■■■'■• .X .■) i. . • >:. ,j J :' BlJO w

' ■''-■:^> 1-I A! .■>-A ■ ■.' :■ 1^''--..a'^ ::> ' r:&Oi!i

- ■-.■ ..-1 dio; 1 ..A.l 1- '?:d.f,oiO.-o.voq p. r O'

. i , A£-* ; .£ x'jr. (:vrib:fi ,1 . a wo xxn s doo ■ ,x 1 li, cm

■ ^ ■’■' ' '■> i xi; ' :' :. ... ,1, .1iv&Xj. Ai,/:;'.b,ns AA , :t :fh(l1rxc.

normals and psychiatric groups suggesting their relative homo¬

geneity in this respect.

The extroversion factor (E) is said to be a measure of

one's outgoing, uninhibited, social proclivities with intro¬

version as its converse. One neurological basis is thought to

be the rate cortical satiation dissipates being low for extro¬

verts and high for introverts. The scores achieved by welfare

workers, placing them between English and American normals,

although consistent with the national stereotype, does not

differentiate welfare workers as a group except insofar as

their standard deviations were again less than the normative

groups. Mean E scores for the psychiatric samples were, when

compared to welfare workers, lower for dysthymics (17.9),

similar for hysterics (24.9), and higher for the psychopaths

(30.8). It is therefore apparent that comparisons are most

meaningfully made on a two dimensional basis, considering both

N and E scores together. Figure 13 shows welfare workers to

fall at a point presumably representing a minimum or absence

of dysthymic-hysteric features, i.e. calm, forthright,

confident.

The correlation between N and E, expected theoretically

to be zero, was -.303 for males and ,142 for females. Eysenck

;-;t ’c

Maudsley Personality Inventory

AOi

35-

30-

^PystJliyinlos

PsychosdBatl o s-^ Psy ohopaths

erics

S p

25-

20.

15-

10-

5-

! ^American Normals Low-rated Male ^Ssg^sh Normals - Welfare Workers^

Hale Welfare Workers#

r-rated Female [fare Workers

#F'^male Welfare Workers

l^gh-rated Female Welfare Workers

Kale Simulation Group- ^•-Female Simulation Group

"T“ 15 10 20 25

EXTRAVERSI^

30 35 40

Figure 13

Mean M.P.I. Extraversion and Neuroticism Scores for Psychiatric, Normal,

Welfare Worker, and Simulation Groups plotted on two-dimensional graph.

■•-S'.'''' 1

:i

ii*' .-t ?■' |1 „v

i

\ ;i

l-js

■yMjM iM.hM

i

’■T‘''“ U

ua

Oi. i'

-I 'i'Aaj':'

69

(1959) reports that slight negative correlations are common

and originally explained this as being due to non-linearity

of the regression lines at low ii values, where N values are

higher than expected. Separate correlations for the sexes are

not reported but possibly mixed populations would separate to

provide values similar to those above. This view is strength¬

ened by recent work of (1) Eysenck and Eysenck (1963) who

found the E scale composed of impulsivity and sociability

items (there being more of the latter) which correlated re¬

spectively slightly positively and slightly negatively with N

and (2) Siegraan (1963) who found E scores correlated positively

with impulsive behaviour in delinquent males but not in delin¬

quent females, postulating a difference in male-female re¬

sponses due to social forces and role expectations. It is

possible therefore that male welfare workers, who tend to

have low N scores if they have high E scores, check a prepon¬

derance of sociability items, especially compared to delin¬

quents, while the female workers check relatively more im¬

pulsivity items, although they average higher E and lower N

scores than the male workers. Thus by adjusting the sociabil¬

ity to impulsivity item ratio on the £ scale orthogonality

with N could result for mixed general populations but

‘ feiioqsi, (Q*''i!;>',0

: .t ii',[:,.t ('. ^ixi'xo ^(tii,

ri -'i'..,'i-i'x': (i j i':

:' ;..:“:i;X'qr:; q ]:v:,

' ■ V ,r ,!,X«Ovj j ud bv;!-:?"-. xoci

.-■ ' ■/ c,' :f j. ,g J:, a:. ';!■ :»> I,/ T fA b ■./ >)q

3 ,X ' J, 1 , 3;' ^.1 ,;'-i 'X'-.'V'i' c-'j':/: A-i b'ooo

v'-'i box ‘ X; .h 0 ■Xi? b xo.x h: i;,.u3:;,'v

J , v; ' b '.X 0 ‘:f/':f;'i:i ryv ht; b '> xoibr) srso:;rb

t XX • '{ i. ;..C ■■ ,i, J }.. 'X; ' ; ..i i 1 :p a di'xA/ x J

'■ b ( bbb'bb ) rnt:;; 'O xo (

.f i'.^3 ,r,'j qo i 3-'X/j;s b/.jq'Xl ribiw

: ' ^ :• q:;;; j 3, ,b,, Ty.-.':; . xxb,aK'X'U ;

:.; r', .-.ox/oX i-:-;-1 bo e c,X abO'bxqb

.-‘.y bi':.iib' a x.,> 3 c>'3: .G,;'U bbb.rb®ot:|

: i .i:,-b .ri b'i' C0bc:,&: noX 'svisxl

:. ,A::j .iVCi'itdl 3{,bbli/,boh0055 'io SiD,rj/B;xsb

:;■ ■ :y3b:j<.:)v.r ox/,',. r„bi ' xx' /' S J tioop

■.■v'x io O'Oib qTivl^alijq

ijbT .flbyixbW' bi'say sidt eoooDs

-I cio obb.K.x /ixoib bb,^ vbx

bbxiro xol■'iipiSbi hl'uod '^b'xitxw

70

correlations could be either positive or negative for parti¬

cular sub-groups (male, female, or mixed) depending on their

positions on sociability and impulsivity continua.

(b) California Psychological Inventory. A recent,

second factor analysis of the C.P.I. by Mitchell (1963) con¬

cluded the 18 scales or 1st order variables to be inappropri¬

ately labelled in certain cases and to represent mixed attri¬

butes. Five 2nd order factors were obtained which were also

found to underly Cattell's 16 PF test. These were: general

adjustment vs. neuroticism (Wb, Sc, To, Gi, Ac); extroversion

(Do, Cs, Sy, Sp, Sa); intellectual resourcefulness (To, Ai,

le. Re, Py); emotional sensitivity (Fe only); and superego

strength (So, Fx(-)). For the sake of parsimony and integra¬

tion with M.P.I. results some description of welfare workers

will be in these terras. Some justification for this approach

is provided by Stewart (1962) who found psychosomatics low on

all 5 C.P.I. adjustment vs. neuroticism scales but average on

all its extroversion scales. Eysenck (1959) places psychoso-

raatics at N = 35.7 (high); E = 25.4 (average) which is virtu¬

ally equivalent (Figure 13).

Reference to Figure 14 shows the male welfare workers

profile to be relatively flat and slightly above average in

j'.T is'rfjis* ri»a -bltjco anoxt/&l3iio.o

Bciuo^ig-dm iJii,lvo

I i bni> \iJ j:X rd/5XDOS cio imoiti&oq

.or'DY&'i .*s i w:tox'xIi33 (cf)

■ sfi.t xo ©i^Yl/xa^, Tof'm'X bao-os^®

I'j X11, 7:cj asl^os fell 9(ij-

ix :-NSo n r/sj’i'jv :U. fes-^11dAiSI vXs»^Xi

* :c'■r:f ;v.'nX. ■„>s>bx O’ b(iZ *■ vxH , <jd

b'. s iixjxj'oO vIxoX.o'vj ot bnoo'!);

-w) ,«■■/ Jnsxciisxjrba

7 ’’. J .1:,'' 7>X 'i'. ; ,K,',„"' , '-'j.t;’; , ^ 7-! C' n ’7’'Q J

,7 .7 Xiy j 77j 77 J, 7, > !.C X 7 (.> ' 7 i V I . %U \S'X-

--•i* 7 c ‘i . ( ( '■■ j •: 7 ,. .;. :F: ) d ;> Q,t:x> x la

bxi:w .fHaiJ"

'r:l' ',', t : :_7- ^ X iv’7?'7vX J ‘.7 .7 !7i77 7. .1 1. tV

( 7" b b i, ) 1 ’r V ■j- 2 \, (j i;' 5* i:,' XVO X q ; 7

EiU „ 7'.7 ■? 75:XJ0 j C-; :^bo , I „'’i „ D < IIs

, Sii 1 i7 Dfi; ■ iC I; S iG. vro X i K'S 72't X llS

-' U ; { *-‘t?i':i; '?„cb ~ VI 1/5 ^oxlsm

„ ( c i... S* X /J D1 %') 1IS V1 up"> ■■711«

b.L SXUpi"; ol '

j-id - ol b'li'Xoic^

71

terms of adequate social and inter^jersona 1 functioning. (The

mean profile for a socially inadequate group (prisoners) is

included for contrast). The moderately higher scores on Cs,

Sa, To, and Ai would indicate, in Gough's interpretation, that

the average male worker was "ambitious, forceful, versatile,

communicative, outspoken, fluent, self-accepting, tolerant,

foresighted, and independent". In the main these characteris¬

tics describe Mitchell's two factors of 'extroversion' and

'intellectual resourcefulness'. The relatively low So and

higher Fx scores however indicate a 'superego strength'

possibly below that expected in such a group. However this

"weakness" is even more apparent in the female sample (Figure

15) while the factors of 'intellectual resourcefulness' and

'extroversion' are apparently higher (e.g. Sp, To, Ai, le,).

There would seem to be an inverse relationship in this

occupation between the superego factor and the other two

factors mentioned which may be partially explained by consid¬

ering the terms describing high So and low Fx scores:

"serious, industrious, modest, conscientious, steady, cautious,

rigid, tradition-bound, and conforming" which somehow portrays

insufficient outgoingness and adaptability to characterize to

any extent the requirements of welfare work. The female

72

Figure 14.

Mean score Profiles on C;P.I. for Welfare Workers, Social Workers,

Psychiatric Aides, and Prisoners, Males.

D«Ci Sy SpS« WliKsW Sc To & Cm Ag Ai lo Fo

Figiige 15.

Mean score Profiles on C.P.I. for VJelfare V/orkers, Social Workers, Nurses, and Prisoners* Feniales,

^r^ioos e*T<*:?i''(ov* eialf-vi'/

♦ enf.^;: *}.ol *1*^,0 ii'..' os^TiloiH ©'lor-ift itr'C-'*'^

, :^,19noeftl bffii ^;;^blA al'ci

.crto^Moy/-^st[«i4ioW ^nfllleV; -lol ffc irsr.i‘iu¥l cviooe iiseM . fi&IfinTs''? *r.-:r:;i.osm bns 5RQ?5TyH

73

sample's "highs" indicate they are even more "enthusiastic,

imaginative, quick, informal, forceful and self-reliant" com¬

pared to women in general than the males workers are compared

to the average man. Direct male to female comparisons are

difficult to interpret.

It may be noted that the female group, with a lower

"superego" pattern has the lower, but still average, general

adjustment pattern (note Wb, Sc, Gi, Ac) in relation to self¬

sex norms. It is as though some freedom, activity, and re¬

sourcefulness are released by a lowering of normally inflex¬

ible "superego" guards only to be accompanied by a raised

anxiety level, which, being slight however, may function

merely as a motivator. The male sample displays this also to

a lesser extent. The apparent inconsistency between the C.P.I.

and M.P.I, "adjustment" findings suggests different concepts

are involved,which no doubt overlap to some extent.

Figures 14 and 15 also allow coxaparisons with the com¬

parable "helping-professions" of nursing and social work. As

might be expected welfare workers place mainly between these

two normative groups in general social behaviour adequacy.

Sp, To, Ac, Ai, Py, and Fx appear to most differentiate the

female social workers and welfare workers from the nurses

y o It e-vj. t ?. ta :14' njj'' © :r ,i j '«:.i "'5c’; ' S'ic'.tci'' S' I'/so.sa

o o ■ ’ f r;«v X X 9 :t: > 15> e brtB if/'’ , .;, .1 , / ^ ^o j. <; j.. , .i X l. ;. . @ ■.; x 4 x. a x c:-.'; ic /

'.-XS:x:.C:v a’X&A'XO'M K'^X/n ... ; ; 4-. ri,;; .,v i-

8Ctta.ixXiCf4iiO"j 0,4 o^ fxxx// .. a-^itn :';jr ,3vx ■:; ■•;s r.S

f

■ . . . /x:X f'Xi. o;j i.iA:jL/xx£

xswol fs ;,l/..i;v/ ^ sriX .4iSC!.4 :-f^A 'i&iix ;;I

.i/3i;'>n3|0 Ili.ia ^ ud, t!S>f1x x-r-t ■:'tx/„::■■ f: ‘'oosiax .‘x’

/.c^-:s 0/ i-Toi/xX^i n,t(,bA, .X/: , xa t:; ..x, dxi-x.-rs;'j;; /

••■oi'-'aa'" X ■;.*®ixr-x i- x j ■,?■■;. .Xii'XX'j

■ :-X/i x"i.,! i.:') di?.sX9V'’o.,(, a '‘f',,..x,iK’i Ix'x Ess^n.l ul.s^Div;.uo.?

.ox sbo x.r: ocicoo.:’X ■ '',' ..yJ '^.Lno 3.000 0/ '‘‘xcx'yy'xqrjs^^ oiox

',....‘X d;.) n w .I. vQJh ,. lO’^X'VfO’n /rMOJ--*® ,> r/o yj'SXXT’fx;

’od.J SV ^X/iSid. SiCroix .9;; j,>.-';. SI'/l . . OOt.e,vijOO S Siu Y£s>laiK

d " 3. iOOx'Oix^d \:Qi5o:/3.1 Kr.osn.i, 4.(125isqqjis sd/' ,;tnx»dxs ji

•■f'dq; -; .-■.3 .J3o, xxi/‘d 3 j3o^;j!-.-3 apdlbn.i;! '* ;• j:3,on,rjuio/s’; . I,.S'..M

oj I . /OiiOiO orf ' ./p lid- i>x;V,Xc-\/ni: vlX.

f- - ':'. ' !>..i - i;o3 IA gqaio 0 '/if.-J. Jig 03.1,3 cl .b'o.o Xx x uq td

.-Jo::-’ o/:-;;: Qaici.on bo '^s^no is ao l3^q^iqigr,/^ oldsxgq

O;. ■.:■ O 30.0 V 30 ./lO. D3,,O.L.:-i 3/a^-lXCyr OOOII.OVV bOOiojOOOO tdq.X!f2

'' o i XI do,,....: X .i..vo .0 ,■.■ ,:.. i ,1 / ooip X & jo fisq... n k ig 01 txo x p 9 x? i 4 &(i i o ix ow J'

.^■/3 3://s/,:] 0393:0/v: d) i 30K 0/ x,/59qqB bnG ,v/s ^ i:A ^ oA fOT ,

f di. 'o p:[', ti:.:.:-";,/ }':!Go; Tow 9i.a!l.1,9W bxm Xslooe

74

while only To and Ai are of similar value for the males. Do,

Sy, Sp, le, Py, and Fx means are considerably higher for the

male social workers than for the welfare workers and aides who

are quite alike in these regards. Educational differences

alone do not appear to account for these patterns. The low

'superego': high 'ext roversion-resourcefulness' relationship

is thus even more marked in social workers than welfare workers,

while the 'adjustment' factor remains (relatively) depressed.

The C.P.I. concept of neuroticism (via Mitchell) may therefore

be more comparable to that provided by the MMPI and 16 PF

tests, on which social workers were also found to be above

average, than that of the M.P.I. on which they were not.

The highest C.P.I. - M.P.I. correlations are between

Sp and E (.56), Sy and £ (.51), and Sa and £ (.53) for females

and also for males, but slightly lower (.41, ,40, and .45 re¬

spectively). C.P.I. class I variables would therefore, as

suggested by Mitchell, appear to represent an extroversion

factor. The correlations between Sc and E ^vere ,02 and -.41

respectively for males and females. Hence, although the

raised proportion of sociability E items, thought endorsed by

male welfare workers compared to delinquents, evidently did

not reflect itself in a greater absolute proportion compared

'' •■'■■'I? ■ ■:5 V ■ r,,i:,';v: iv iv- *';i, e ? A, Jivafe ot ■ ylfie . 'aX.efXf

•X'i'X'x.fi vl ',:x3d3A:,./: 3x "A XI 'x ,x ■x.ti iSf? !;;' X: '5 x, 33 ■ J

d'd v&'i ,qa',ve

:'•■■■ "!:3x“3::3'' 3‘:'/3„ ^ A'X .v.xA .(.-.'AA; /Arx.j d ":(,'A3A i ':x A;/3 .,lf'A3x6&' bI/5(T'.

’■ I''Vu i ■'! : ■. ' . .ava‘’13ax'x :3: sdoxi:) ai ' i: I:« ,'X ixip'

. '.3“''XX3V d'. ' . '-y ;::3d; ■■ .X ^.1 '.i' !X x::' A' '2 .'A^; J'A'iXi, ('d> uXXfX.'A

V . 1 ■': -JV’:’ i..: ■: .J ;>,: ,y-'.^v?o ;i' ,y '' A'C; hi : ' '

v; i' r3,3,.3:,„e :„.,:r 3:;. A ■:■■.•,''Si:;;,.:' fV'3'/3 a.iyilj- ?; (

3.VV : \,.i ;■■ w 3 ;:t ■; ‘r ./ij o i yy :>j3 / £:/AA.? 3’’

■“ ''V-'- ‘ \ . '" 1, .,; O I,;’' j',13 o ,, J ,. A , A' ''S'lr/T

33,';; :.rb ’X'r. ■' T / d 3 J ,.3',i 9’::,09:i: ad

■'■■3. ■■'• '‘333'::. X .d 3:,X3 .3:',, ; A 3 3 A.? ,.,3,v ,, 'X .ii'; d;,i j’

''•" ■ '''■ ’/xr-,: '3, 3'iy; ,j., ''Xdd; 3,.::' Jxxn :J' 3x3 j' .

‘ X 3.,'; J j X X'XO X 3d'dd • J X I d '3:;;,X,| ij ;X xr:| .Qxdi ,

, ; 3 .ixx:';-;. ;:d' '::'d; , { i A > ; A xd (dA 3 q5

.'.''X' ;■ xd.'! x'vxxd,- '3l .3':!.X'^,..',3 i'ix::! ..j-.ixl'xx :j.<}d ob L&

■' ' ■■■ ' d33 d “':■> J.X. d'Xd.i; (3'J ' 'S.;i .3;; ,, j;. . 'X„ A' „ '' V'j.svdii

3/';xx: T v3:„, XnSiP'\> laBr;. , o i :i/‘(.A) X; qX:' « A Adli 3.1 .i‘>■; s'J ■A3t?^dpd^;^

AG. ,;:';'3x .;3;..,3 3di ' 33d'*y'ix:xd'::tm>id3 Lx3d;3::>3 33.xroXasA

3'd :Ai,5.'v 3;i©d , dai 1 Jb'jra.G .sdsi..oxv xcod, wl*;-? vx jfissqasi

.?:3'3'x xrt33.'/,.dx ,di:'.3 'dx s v dxlfiO'ii'doqoiq ■

'■ i' Oddi,d3 , 3 1 03dqo J x©'b : <A . aX3A>Ixow oXsio

:.3 30XJ :yt.,..3 3A..;, A,vic:dd£ . Af'©:t^s»;E'|?3^ j j'; fott

75

to female workers, it would appear that the impulsivity pro¬

portion was reduced for males and increased for females, at

least to the extent that these same characteristics are

measured by C.P.I. scales of comparable name.

_3. Int erest s

The mean standard score achieved by each occupation

on its own scale on the Strong is approximately 50. Compari¬

son of mean welfare worker scores to this value on each scale

provides one interpretive approach. Unfortunately pure chance

responding to the Blanks results in varying scores for each

scale hence it is easier to approach 50 on some scales than

others. Inter-scale comparisons should therefore consider

this effect while inter-sample comparisons on any single scale

can be made directly.

Figures 16 and 17 show the mean male and female welfare

worker scores compared with people-in-general and social

workers. The obvious cluster of high scores for the male

sample in the social services category (Group V) are virtually

the only ones reaching the B (score 35) or higher categories.

The fluctuations within this group of occupations appear to

follow the chance response pattern similarly for all thrc„

samples indicating little real meaning in different mean scores

j 5i Ji , S'ZS'^Itcv« 9Xi>t:/S)^'cJ

'^7 ii~ X 7/ lo'i: 'X "xi'T 'Tai-i ;; i::>90J.tbw7 i-fS-vv aoXt^ocj

& 1,6 a:;;: X j t’X IS :i DAI/;-;''“■ '■ A%ii3' ssnl c:t tsfisl

.Si'I/ia S J. i:d,,v ;i a I AOE a I,.‘i , D vd bdl!.,'3Awm

3^71 :j7Cil

.^c■i:XBc ADOO ACiSb b 16r>’,'i d jf a or I

7fX.::raon ■. i .b'.o'xqqx. ax sao ;: rb x-H no oIboe d'/fv sXi A;,.)

r.oFi fb:..rr ho ob/ xv^ dli;:' oJ‘ a;i;xiGiIow xiJxon< 'to oos

-■'d Adxq vxo Jsrsx iioxod .xid,6ci.;^^„; s‘-ax ■.,Tyistk i cax A’::>.5 iv-oiq

' loX Dn.h;X5,BV ai e t.Ii:'ax-v avAAld odX v-t. dxIbaoqao-i

■', ' '■ dO OC X.! Q/SfO i •..) ■ I A t.> i 1 X' .X X? o':;„< .{;: X, . 'i .;,, S X.j.''{ j f. ,’X tdCXX

'■ ■ ■ d- ; - ■■ six;s.! xeI ,‘axodto

TddlXd a id j'

.^Ibxo'xhx d'/x:,, od CiBo

■ X ' ' ' ■ X ' OiB dl .XiAX l:d ‘ti

■ ■■ ■'. -d - o'j/.iU}'\oo o:-yxora -loxlioxv

X - - / d ■■ ; ; ■ . r.ooxvao Oi'lX .3ix:?iivv/

; d... x^-.- - b.. ^ iAid08 od,2 n,ib'oICj!i,si£

1

■' ' . ■ : ■ . . . X qo-Kiiaroi ooao viiso oiiJ

. o e M-,: ,; .u4tiw 3;7;;>xooli oril

' • X - 'X.,, .: XV.. X-'Xao-i sowAdo srft woXIo^

- > ■, . .X.;. . r :i ;£i Qbxi&oxbnx a«»Iqai«.s

Figure 16.

Mean Score Profiles on Strong Vocational

Interests for Welfare Workers, Social V.^orkers,

and Men-in-General,

-; - - .

'•'■1'' h. ■■ j

w'losv-o I

rw *

f ■: ' i

'■ "■ ■ .: ■ '! .

V, . v- v. :

1 t :.i ^ . r

'

.rjv': i

,i

..j

r-H

H •; • ■

j-t' --i •',

• ; ^:-

't

■‘ ' ' .. .■ -i"—-j Jl;

■>•■;. . 'i..-.. A ;

1

■’’ ' .■ .'■' ‘ ‘ ■

.. . . I

-roAfVr Af-r*; !

. . . ^ v:' • : •. • \ .;ai

KAr r- -r-v/

H| ,

i

.4-^-1-

V'iriirji-icc. v'’:k?uw* ; >!;

vj. If M'„:'f ,1.1^0

J

■ ''rii'Urti ^ruM^ nsoM

77

therein for any one sample. Male welfare workers fall a little

short of but approximate social workers' Interests with respect

to working with, guiding, and directing people in their inter¬

personal affairs, when compared to people in general. There

are two other similar areas of comparison: the Psychologist and

Group X occupations which together combine features of inter¬

personal activity with verbal and abstract conceptualization.

Welfare workers have interests that exceed the general public's

in this regard but again fall short of the social workers. The

one other area allowing a meaningful comparison is Group II

(physical science, non-personal) on which this group's inter¬

ests are considerably less than men in general. These findings

are very similar to that reported for social workers by Lewis

(1947) and Gravitz and Mintz (1958) on the Kuder Vocational

Preference Record and by McCornack and Kidneigh (1954) on the

Strong, Conclusions were they liked "contact with people,

verbal activities and disliked physical sciences".

The average female welfare worker displays a pattern

similar to the men with respect to the interpersonal and lin¬

guistic interests underlying the Social Worker, Psychologist,

English Teacher, and Slcial Studies Teacher scales, placing

between the general public and social workers. Scores in the

-i'-i-.c I •J'isJ,j$^ /*stiO y/j}B 'xol nxsisiij'

.:.''jo2D'i i; i &:•« 3 Jirx, y’^> x.wAi-',b'!:oiu<.j;3 tf.(C( ^o 12:002

ai yrlb^^4\-^^5:’xl;20i i:b oo.g , r: b'> i;oy , ij 11 w oobblO'/v ;

'■■'‘i'--'X .ixiioasbynX £*.IqMsq \:.j :jXi2.eqi:R.;:>o nsii-e^ ^<rxiB'j.\& iGOoaiqq

f' _■ ._

:' j ::. X\x:<i<:iaD\(S‘i sd 1 . : 2 V, .y-C' :. .-■ s.gj ,i:(': ■■’Gliwi.e ow:j oiG

■G>jr;.rj:o S9i'.r.:i.a9b r 2 loinv; aaoi jx.qiJODO X t:;Vo:[D

., f"cj i xl&X/lC^SOv''t)G J .: £.'lbOG b'l ... X?vV /■; ;■ J.’A' XVilOG J-ij ilOa'TOQ

x Idijq - I-bixsiCi-by. ':•'■■' ■ liGbl a y-G.rIt. lu.c t’.-xeXlov^ b'x/sIIsW

Gaib.vicv j.b.^-.:- ..b’b -'A 1 ■xbbo Lx jb. :i//-.^.>,~, r ■,;) hxd!^;xi. B idi ax

II vj-xoib X-y ^,'G' :;■ ■v-a'-QX’ X.-.ix:.y-g'.■; yLL:v?cAlb bsyrito ;5iiO

-XdtxiT;: s L,,yqb ; ‘: .bbxnv.: ■'::x. ' .F xooi; <':;r:n ,. b■xioobog IsDi;s\friq)

SG'Obl)'I,; .!. ‘'iax2i'l. i- V .[ i3'x boxi;y. -,;. fvx-i:: oriiil' bbsl v'I'.'G'Tcyb Fa!'5.'!’'X; sis 3lg3

y-b 8 "i i.> ■ '■■-'^x . o .1 Gb .'b b'i X b,!:b^' 'A bXjI.bala, VIS?'-'

XpinoilBOoV :-L x.bx no (xsy lL) Lnb-t

X'.-.t no (bb L' } ■ 'b;■•*•:•. y,...;. 1 Lno xiioXlL yo brjn LioooX

, 9i.f! " Lv ,:-A > .in .'■ :.y' .bn- .Li' yorit Ditov nociaxrl onoL .oaoiiJc-

oL:-r-. - xn'■ i'’x b L'x Fe:v;n‘.; bablXaiL bn^ as i:.t.bv-i.to6

TiboittBL B rn.; n';,;o -n xi t Q,.jxa9u/], sdl

•■y .'I bao i..30..:;-: ,-n ; ! •,:: n. r nj ! o x loovyab:}; b.jnfcw bioiSi ijsXx*flx3.

^ inxpoioxfbyaL tx:x.‘yxx iBiioo-b o.ii ignxylisbrox 'elabiblax oxlaxo^*

paxqqXq ^ g-s i.fcix, AioX sn-.bo.olb IsiolS bum (t&dossJ .dsitQaB.

orijt ni 2s,io.'.r-b . s xo-'insv? iBioog; boB oxiduq .t.©xs£T-S3>Q !9df a^&wisd

78

Mean Score Profiles on Strong Vocational Interests

for V/elfare VJorkers, Social V/orkers, and V/omen-in-

General.

sc 4 .,

0(

..I.... ..i.... I. . fli 5. iW , . .1 . . .“ .ic "•» I&, M Mul a. k !

irAi'(ja:3,o.''

|'4- !■ A'f ‘ , . . i

I'i . 1 ■r|

.t..j...J..j..4.A-J.,^j,^,j,4,.j^j,^rfL4^,„^„jf.4,.* j...

ti " ' : ■ ■ .' .or

VIam rjtrtsA^

dOMtlUA [

H4^i<tAiWU

WWOAiSt iiiftWrMilr'; f 4,

(.vwy ,(*•',.)>

'rM

,0> ryi

14444.4*^'^ >4*1* “if ■ !4"H'H'4.H'44-j''- ■■ , ■■ . • 4 4ii:;:«45'X'i'W■.'1. . ..

{■4*H ■?"l4n’4T'''”4 ■ ^4't4"4444»i4tH’444*A'4

Tt*ti'...'>.i«tii/3«^ i 4i,-.- r'lik.ti- •».■>*■

Ai.'rVu'A I ; »,.<>«r. .1.^.4•***''*'*'« ’••'<

HIM&ASr U.O.AUPj; I4*u ..»4, •r.'.y »^ t

■/ffATWOW 4»vy.v

iiww«oi'i

T«A)V(SAi«}« I

ajwftow i

.TOiSf .-4 «>«4l9Ti!;

' 1^,4^ ... * I H"! ' ■H7^i4'^4444+-H44'^'‘;'!''!

, ■ , _

j . ' ;..4,..;i |..,Ui ')i;i|'»|' . j44v^444'^++4^4’'+4A

)

r«W3A»r «*MMus

MW'jAilV ■.WM- •.».<«•.. .

MA)r»T)»a

._ ,. . ' . UJOpiKdMftAJt .O# 4rM;

(>f .Auayo:

V'

pTf-t-t-H-l' H4!4H:+4|tM‘'-?4'i|f’l,'' ’ [-■ •, -Ht-i' f • •f 'i4'H4“t-l“f444'4 -

"4 ''i* ‘ i'

■^‘ ’ ‘ oi ’ pififP'W'..<>fe' Of " '.' ^ .'♦.'.i: >“^f4”f4"4i4rH4’.fH''t''i4'4''r'H4'4^f''^*4i^‘H“4“<'.^(4+-ft’-t-'f4H+A-

.i-j,..4i. .A4fc4*4fv.i .4 -.*J- i.[4"4 , * i4‘4''V'*'4Tl"4‘4*44*4’^'

' otv , 'fk ..or

..■I MAKJWHoat iwrA«<j«Aj

i-ruxfksr tfAOiiiifA

■K.IVACWH'* MAJO'ifU:^

YmA)t«>IT,4AOt|yM'»1

S53,WJCJK3

.t6;l amc'.a

i';.;: IWiTA'Vlf "’‘’*** ,' .: !., 'r .'^ ^

, M: « ' » ^?. ' ''H

no jjss.'CJfcloi'? 01:00?^ n^soM ■^■it-no:a:oW bnis / ..tsi^oS iai«j>hoW' e’lJS^f.IaW '‘lol

'•f

79

negative direction, relative to the public, were mainly those

suggesting aversion to commercial, numerical and technical in¬

volvement (e.g. LInS, Buy, MScT, Den and LT scales) which

further characterizes this group as people-oriented rather

than material-oriented. Reflecting this also is their above

average score on the Occupational Therapist scale; the low

Dentist and Lab Technician scores indicating it is the personal

not the material aspects of such an activity that proves

attractive.

4. Biographical Variables

Some interpretation of biographical findings (Tables I

and IV) may be advanced. The fairly equal ratio of male to

female workers could suggest either the welfare field generally

is equally attractive to the two sexes or that particular sec¬

tions of the work call for one sex primarily thus determining

the agency's hiring policy. The larger number of men over

thirty years probably results from the faster attrition rate

for female workers due to marriage and pregnancy in the twent¬

ies. This may also account for the longer length of service

noted for male workers. Finally, the female predominance of

degree/diploma holders is partially explained by the number

of ex-police officers without such qualifications (but

o J' j.a'3X ^ riDifDi'>cib av

:vj Q(ij; U'-i 0 i'^.i.;u, ^ J./:;x v7 O f fK>.c3 xoi^nxi’e^Q^us

' rioxi/;. ..:x Oaf ■ TX'': . j dPM . v lO', ,0";^ £,.j-.. o , & ) ’}nbuss'llo\r

.>-..''o ,;i»xa c ■ rfif..! 0-0 ..,forio scdof ao;;: O-Oiao/jo- aoajao'S;

■‘■j -f 0- i' ...•; j a;x :;£.:x.i':■ ...'. ..ifOii'Golau'-Is.coo.: a;;; nsnt

fO-'. -. -.x ■':o,:, c.fi;"..f i .: - rxa i afffxof’J-j x :.: socffo- :;&v a

,r :"f::D’.c vn.^-;lo c?jiT :.i.o..i. or‘£, :i ©.£:OiitiG

■: ''•'■• ■ ■„ 0 f :o.'0 ;:. ■: ;:,f. .Oa-.-f '■■ a :■:. a ,,' ;j-

.. ir: V i. fOiiX .r.v ,a

i.fl' O' • 0 .f.c to 1. ; „ ■ . ' ", 1. OK !,;<■’

:.’"':,fd: 0.0 1 . bo ji’.ooO "OJ ,.0.0 (VT.brvd

n 0 0 r / n -x f,., o-irO'i ro oeor O'tiO ,D .;, 0 ly '■'jXOHi' '■• i./ooo'i

■■ = ■ 'f ' ■? ' '■ V.- L.^.C*., Cy i Of-'' .f O'-.i ^ i .'i .f. \- ' J. 7j, .f

•.-■ ' ■-. ff..;; ■; .': .f:' ": O/.O OOl !!'?,■„■ }■ ^'JVC OioIf'^tO «I'iO x:!

f ,: V.: f. '; ,.yfxx.;i,.. laaj:'’!,"' o'yoi'JOQ/s sni

-i-0::; o; a J'.£ / x ic. .os.sov

^ x ifoj;,-- ;, otn nor oi;L:. a oow o'iOioai xo.i

■‘' ;xJ7 fox 'riX!.jO:jo)i' cmlii, vnot. eoirlT

„iof;n:ro f .jx5fT;s;'v or: f . «: TSj,% s Oi"; r^i sin loi' bis>ton

uj vi.i .f-i .i ?■:. .sq §; i: a'iyblo.d jsinolq jLfo\di3iQS>5

oriCv' . on .ro .L j.,:wio iOoua J hw gistoiilo 5i>o.i:IoCj-x^iJ ^O'

80

considoi'able "weliai'e" ex[)eriencG) who enter the field upon

retirement from such as the R.C.M.P. There is not a comparable

source of female workers. This may also be a factor in tlie age

discrepancy. Some relevance at this point attaches to Kidneigh

and Lundberg's (1958) conclusions that neither age nor exper¬

ience were important factors in social work students' progress

and proficiency although as a group they were older than those

entering other vocations.

Part B, Psychological Discrimination of High-rated from Low¬

rated Welfare Workers

The degree to which supervisors apparently distinguish

the suitable from the less suitable in this interpersonal

occupation on the basis of intellectual ability primarily is

in agreement with studies of similar occupations e.g. Grygier

(1956), Cuadra and Reed (1957), Cliff, Neivman and Howell

(1959), Rosenburg et al (1962). This quality apparently bears

the major relationship with such a criterion unless, or course,

it was "fallen back upon" by supervisors who found the amor¬

phous nature of this complex criterion prevented more compre¬

hensive ratings. It is to be noted however that it was reason¬

ing ability (mainly deduction) rather than the more general

Wonderlic measure of ability or Educational level that most

discriminated these groups and that three Interest variables

■'on :^; ;„ ob.vUC.M orif ,«9- ifoo.:: -'/o-tb bn'CJJi:;.!i:t9-i

-'o? !.;. aibT ,. sio;3’rovj

t& 1 U . i j j ,, S, j ■ i .'','<.1 ti.i,.!!.' 1 ir ■?>'‘/■'O'i <.■'.!■• i. , .'' ■ '■ n ;'.;'7 9 3 X b

XO,,.. xsn 5£.x: r i'Hoi^jylonoo (?.ict';£) «' yvoxl'onxni b-xi^.

.! ('.< i>.f ?:'"xc.' 7.<.'0("'ij;, s'rxsvVj' s*Dn£>.i;

jx> ■ ■ qwoxg. jii :5iv TXtv qoi'9 i;oX'io-iq' 5an

.'■■■JJ j'O ,r. Jf X'fOC''/ ';', X) i i ! i',1 P(1S"J::U J ■ lO

S

vI'o:oinqt;E X'.^l^s>qi/3 bnXx'V. o / a ■orrn.-o x-bX -

si.d'Xi tiwg s^o,l . &iL f i'i'K'OT'^i; -oloi/jJ i.u-0. S(ri'.t

i.v‘ V i‘ X-i io i. [ ; : :,' ■ ' :. o i, j D1 .Ci .i; .U> •' o Ax.' ' Oi j t ;■/•;•> ooxtftqifoDC

; erK'iXnxq '.oc •. otj'.ixnXg 'lo e^i: .b rj .,?■ a / ■ -t 1 \\} j f:(«? c: s s ::t (,;> /s n- i

DA A ,■ '1 ■ ̂x::' , (X e Q1;; x, 0-0 O' : >00. 0 x ' ...o iX/ . {dtl tol)

-vn o y xJ. o ■& X :. ., (Xo tJ) i. 0. ts oxnXnoo'oq , {qtICX')

•■‘.1(0'., '.iX' ( ;x'.: ., 1 o: -X ',:jX!» t'lX'b'J . 1 ri a nc' 11 li i. 91 1 o ti>w 9 ri jT

'CiUOt Otivj ' V ■'.o-cq. '^9 '' fro. . . ■ 0/; :X xt*> XI /R :l'' av: t x

O'O X fi’XsVfyi ,0'j '",1'"., , ":ipi'‘:'u.p x^lqu.cj o •: f-it to 9;xx,tnn aupdc

J .:vaj .) . nij^avix ': -J na pd o J i : .i . a io.;■• i f&'i o o x;?ny s!

DA' &'/:]■ I'lnrix 'x.,. ■ "i i' ;■ A ( n'O ;■ to no ifb V X /.X £ 4 rri j y X .c .t i <-fs qh!

l9 7/£l l£;fi(:;r:f&x, xox \ji:.LXo 0 'lo oxnaxsOAi D.iXisbnoW

;r,'5fi t X'u;> jjAxyo '.in o&o/it 69j^rixfivxt03x.b

81

separate the two intelligence measures. This suggests that

comprehensive ratings were ap[>lied, incor{)orating a variety

of suitability facets, possibly assisted by the multi-rater

condition of the study. Consistent with the aforementioned

studies however, personality variables were generally not too

discriminating. This, and the significance of the interest

differences agrees with Abeles (1958) and Severin (1952) who

found non-personality measures predicted rating criteria sig¬

nificantly better than personality measures.

The interest variables most discriminating the male

workers likely represents the interest of the High-rated

workers to organize and guide the affairs of others (PA) with

a minimum of direct control (SW) but in a "professional”

manner (OL). The capacity to also accept supervision them¬

selves however is indicated by the Ac variable proving con¬

siderably more discriminating than Ai (in spite of the higher

score welfare workers obtain on the latter). The similar

value of To again suggests an ability to "get-along" and con¬

form when appropriate. The relatively discriminating Cpt and

For scales (in the negative direction) seems to support this

view: the lower rated workers (who score higher on these

scales) finding it more difficult to tolerate rules and inter¬

personal conflicts, and thus seek the independence these

tedt atidX owt sriJ- ®tA^fiqs»3

s ,X>0il9qe ayiao&daiqjaoo

sdX yd b^X-slaefi yldxea.oq ^eXarOfii ytxXidAtlwa lo

.Jbs0oxt.asi):iSiixoX.e adt* dXiv< >j):tT©X2.x3aoO .„yf?«t8,.fxdt ^o. noixU^noa /■

oot fon .\iLl&t^n^Q 9‘X3w ^©Idaix/sv yX .Ujsaoaxs^q «xsvswod esJtbwia

3-§4»xs.rnl adX Xo 9Dnfi,aiiia^xa ©fit bas t.axdX ♦^nxtBn.xxaxxosib

oriw (S£©I) aixsvsS baB .() sal&dA ,dtXw a^©^©® 3©.on©x@li,x5 ■vIl,,';'?.,';■ "

-©ia ^.xi^txXD DtixlBX l>9Xox,bs'iq'),',a©x«es©flrr yXxXfinosxsq-nan JbftaoX

'.: ^\---- . .3©xa2B©m ytilBnoai^q asrit x©:tt©d yXta/soxXxa

3rfJv.©ni:t-sfj,iipi:xDsi±) Xsdcti. eeids jrxBv .taaxstnj; ©riT

; - •; 'b©iBX-^4©iH> taaxa^nx ©dX .sXd©as'iq©x yXadxX axsdxow

ritxw (kH) sxsd^b Xo axXfiX'XB ©df ^b^SJ^ 5n®K©sla^@XO oX ax©>Ixow

M ’‘-XjBaoisasloxq" s nxvX«d„(W3) Xoxtdp^ Jppxib %-q fiiwjBxnXa &

■ i ■ ■

■aQk9ivi9'qm Xq-sosi.a oaXe o,t yJxs^BqAo ©dX .(JO) x©naBw

:©aiyoxq ©Xdj^lx®v »A ©dt yd Jb-®,tje©,r&aX «i -jE^yswod^B^viss V;.^

x®dQXrf/f^©d^'!to ©Xiqs hX). iA a/^dX eax^'BdX|iixo8xb o'jeohi■■yldBi:©5x8

tsXXmia ©riT , . ( xsX ©dJ . no-al«Xdo «x©dxow ©^BXXsw'^siooa

“ftoo bdfi■ "©ao-iA*’Xs-P'* oJ ydxXxdB ns ,B.ja&rppif8 nisps oX lo ©juXav

biis ?q0 ©oiXsnXiBixoaib yiavitAXsi ©dX ^Qt&inqoiqqa asi^w ta<ixo% . V ‘ I

I4f) , -.

sxdl J'loqqaa ox 3ip©©a (qoxi’o^xrb s'/xXspsa ©dt nx) Si&L&os xo^

©Boddc no x©d©id .9iOo» odw) suc^dxow b©XAx ‘x©woX sriX iwaxv

bdA saloi ©df'A’x^Xot oX tlwoillxb ©xosi xi gnxbnil (asXso©

®®©dX ©oo©l>n©q©fon.x 9dXfj.;d©9a‘astJdx baa <8lo;il‘t«oo Xsaocisq

represent.

ci2

The M.P.I. scales were moderately discriminating for

the male sample with the derived E-N score more so than either

alone. Male workers are thus presumably relatively heterogen¬

eous with respect to the qualities underlying this value;

highly rated workers obtaining both lower N scores and higher

E scores with the latter apparently weighted more with socia¬

bility than impulsivity items (if one is guided by the High

and Low C.P.I. means on Sy, So, and Sc). He is thus a rela¬

tively calm, secure, other-person oriented individual compared

to the lower rated workers, with the deductive capacities and

interests as stated.

Personality variables (from both C.P.I. and M.P.I.)

were even more superfluous for the female sample discrimina¬

tion, only Ai and Fx proving of moderate value and Sp somewhat

less (Table VIII; Figure 7). Interest variables (Figure 8)

were of greater value, however, with Sw, Psy, Law, and SST

again quite discriminating. The Engr and PEdT scales also

attained relatively high positions in the rank order list

(Table VIII) and could relate to an energetic, active charac¬

teristic in the higher rated female workers. This is reflected

also in the high positions of Ai and Fx which, compared to Ac

and To, prove more discriminating than in the male sample.

• ■ aprftv-03 .;;Sxop,, yi£opp-:,% riXxw ^Xq^Sise ylaic ©cl#

,xi»vxJ^j6i9X. yXdf^Kpas^q-ajuilt bx& ex^^xostf- siX^m .©nolp

{■ ^

;a0X«v^, «Mx pn-Xylia^nij, ep.xtil^wp. srit ot io&qeBX rltm &uo9

x&{iQi,{i,.ta^ ^sxop^ 'd.%9.WQI ri^o<i-jQ,axaxi%}do' :8X9:flxQTff-bBtBt K^dQXti

"6Xop2 4Xiw BXOih lipfifpxpw yX^'a^Xfiqqfi. XBi : ©rfj litXw 3»‘ioos a

•dpi^S yd fesbXy.p. sx ■,sao lx) ^mil. yi Xyi®X«q<al rtsd.t yI il td

_»:audt at ©IX, .(;>a btiB <oa ,ye. no, anssai. . I, <?,.0 woJ'biue

boxcqiisop Xi&.ybivibn|;:fe&t0pXlo nosiaq-^iarito. tBxuo&a. ^Ml&o ^Isvkt

bd^ aaxlipdqjKp ©vi:r3yb©|>; pdl fltiw tSXB:?lxoy!i bsl^i low'd! ©dJ ol

■ ' ' " ’' irt ■ " ; \ ©is -slaoidXni:

FJ ''.’ ■ ■ ■' - ;.(., JiSiH bdjs *I*q,0,rilod iHOii':) ssI.djSXiov , ytiX^npgioq;

!■■'“^0i£{«,J;i©a.ijb-.©,iq(trs,© plyjKs^'i .piiJ* 3 yo#Ilieqys , piop . n©v©. ©lew

liSdw^moe q3 X».n6 ©yX.^v, ©isipbow lo , epXvoiq x'^ .bn^s lA. yXno «noil r'-

,., .(|),.©^y©!‘^).^.,,as>.Xci«,!liiv, i#px©tdl ■ ... < T si«eiy x lIIV, o-Xd^T) saoX

' X83 ;,&.n0 tWfjRj . t ysH c w3 fillw «,i©v©wor! ^ ©yXjsv . x©iBoip lo 9X9w

oglA a9X^oe,;,I'ba'^i bis* i@na odX , .. pniJsnxifixioaii:) ©liop'ni-sp©

teil, xob.xo.,^001-9:41 nx’ anoxJ'laoq dpXrUyi©yil0.X9x,b^n-xj&lXjs ' .y'; - ^

"P©;l/>do: ©yXlD^ .., pjEl9p:X9n©:i;ni5. oX. ©^is.t9X; |)!yO'0,.fenjs {!IIV ©XdfiX)

baxpoilox^ sX. «x4W '?f>;3X©j!^xdw:;*-» 14^9.1..^ di: ^ozXsixox

o4^>ox ,b©x6q)uoo. odoidw bn/s- lA lo anpxi'isoq^ripld'edx ni oais

.■oiqt£ij&g ©Xem orfx nx, n/odX . onxX/sfiXitjXxoalb ©xora ©voxq ^oT 5ns

83

Figure 5 shows the consistent, high mean values

for the male High group relative to the Low group, compared

to the frequent reversals of the female profiles (Figure 7),

in particular on So, Sc, and Gi. Thus the (relatively) low

socialization/high impulsivity characteristic noted for the

"average" female welfare worker is even more pronounced for the

"high-rated" female welfare worker. This is seen also in the

similar profile of the graduate female social \vorkers noted

in Figure 15. It is not reflected in a discriminating E or

E-N score however, for this sample, and would suggest that the

sociability to impulsivity item ratio in E did not favour dis¬

crimination for female workers (too few impulsivity items)

while it did for the males, who were evidently discriminated

by the more numerous sociability items in E. Such hypotheses

would require item analyses for verification.

Compared with the low-rated group the high-rated female

worker is thus relatively active, independent, flexible, and

socially unrestricted - these qualities being more important

as discriminators (along with the deductive reasoning ability

and particular interests) than the tolerance, conformity, and

sociability qualities which discriminated the males. Both the

male and female samples could, of course, possess many or most

bis.’Sfi'Tflioo fqi?oxg woJ'aril ot S)v.U^;Iai;-q^ox^ alftc* aril xo!t ■

t (t' axi/piq) ®©Ii^.o-iq tB-ril y6 aX^axovs^x lasrjpax'i ©rlX oJ

wol (Yl®v'i::5‘isXQii) arfl' axjdT , xD bn& , oS *08 no x£?.lwoi txjsq' nx

arit noh. b£»ton oli■^x'xx)I.oA^xA^i^ xvmLuqxi rl'^xd\.noi,l^s.sxXfiiooa

adt xox baDCim-n-jpxq axom a^vs ex xadxow s'S&'i.i&w ’'oQ.axav/s.”

aril' nx oaia riaa^ii eJ; axril .xssoixow axisliow sX/aiHe^. "''i:>!S>dr,4/-i;-rig.cri^‘

. 5aJqxT axadxow Xjij/.ooa aX-anfox.!© -s-rix lo all^oiq xjsXicii:?.

'xo U Qnii&tiSAa.ixq^kb b ni XjaloE.X’iax Son si XI ,81 ni;

aril;, XsfIX bXwow briB’ sirit xol ^ xavswori axoog W-.a

~axb tix>vri-^ Xon fclb a ril r.ioXx ,v;j'lvxaXijqxiX ot

(amat'X Ylivxo^Iwqiiil W9^ ooX). ax9dxowi?'9l^£R9'ii xo'i- noiljaniinxxo

b© Janli,-JxDe.l& \{Xin©bxvj:v axaw ori-w , eai'jsaf ofi.t xoi bib lx ©I'irlw

‘i . , :if*! ■

ga.eyritoq\ifd dong *3l nl 8x«oti '^Ixlicfiixooe ^jtnoxiSfljjytz aiora 9rit

.rtoxi^soilix^v xpi ssayxj&nAi. (xatJ: ©xxnx-^9X bXwow

sX^suai byljUi-ri^id sdl quoxQ bslAi-woX aril riiiw baxj&qifioO

X;niv tSXdix©!! «inabaaqabni ,©vilox> ylaviliaX©! gnri.t ex ts^Ixow

XaBfxoqrn.x oxom QnXsci asiXil^xip eaarJl - b©toillaainn yXlAioos io^V . . .■ '

• ,- . f ' ' ' : .v;,i,(:X-xdA qxjino@/C£»x oviloxbsb srfl t'Miiw gnoXn) gxo.f.©niinxxo3ib ax.

'^‘1

bxfi IyJx,i«3oinoo ^aonaxaXoi writ n«rii (»;)•«©x©.Ini 145Xrjoilii&q bns

aril riio.R^ .gaX^ift, ©rii balsniwx'xagib ribiriw^ gyiliX/inp v.liXideiooe

j 30X’ xo- yiiisi'-i ggogdoq . xo ,.6X.i;oo ^,&£qa(Ba slArasi ba& aXsm

84

oi the qualities which are discriminative for the oi)))Osite sex

(except where such qualities are extremes of the same continua).

For example the female workers may possess adequate tolerance

characteristics - but homogeneously.

Part C. Multiple Regression Analysis

An inspection of the variables constituting the regres¬

sion equations (Tables XII and XIII) shows the difficulty in

anticipating which variables account most for independent por¬

tions of the criterion variance. Hence R and W, especially

in the female sample, prove relatively non-overlapping while

le is a further independent contributor in the intellectual

sphere in both samples. Similarly PA, SW, and PD account, in

the male sample for different elements of the suitability

criterion, even though these scales (all Group V) appear to

measure quite comparable factors. SW and YS represent this

situation with the female workers. Although the majority of

the predictors came from the apparently more promising half of

the 30 variables considered for each group, it is noteworthy

that certain less promising variables which possessed very low

correlations with the criterion such as Sa (.22), le (.23) and

E-N (.14) for the females and A-J (.23) for the males, were

more predictive than, for example, Psy (.54) and Law (.49).

Thus neither subjective selection of the one variable

rioi'jvT., aa i:

' :l i iI>5-.op jci3 .oa a'i-ii rjfv'7

riQw o Q 'P -jJqinpx^ 'to'^

Ji:l- :'< j,<:l - ao,;:.le k.'7-3< josxjG.dy

''I.''■' ‘

n J- lo yjj r.7 ux a A

.V ■'S>T : an ;-c t^iupa aoxn

i Uo" i,n'!j:ten 1:3.1: ih,;.

;-3 ..' yx-t 1 J: ■ X xrlf lo anolJ’

■ ;Tq ■ X :‘yXsirox SH'; ? nX

Xi- b r-xxx..b>-yJ: j'7x"i c. -2 y s i

ii Q -i

'hS

ry' n;vr:

.r

-■ • xi'bj jxixx no.i: rn;.; tl;:

'i 3 ,i-j.;''3 T’

:> :a ...A; ,.i. a rix- .j I ;' i-; - :t /;

I :>. saoli

arlj- y:o'}: (bj..)

■:v..;l ■, . £■ v x I'd irbsxq' ©xont

i; *jcif X:iiI ;l''=.Ui:.'T

85

with the highest criterion correlation from each category or

class of variables, nor elimination of all variables with

criterion correlations below some cut-off point, nor variables

displaying the most significant t ratios for High-Low mean

differences, would appear to provide the best estimates of

predictors. These and other intuitive, "face-valid” methods

are however, according to Taylor and Russell (1939), Barthol

and Kirk (1956), Cronbach (1960), often inappropriately util-

izedin non multiple regression selection procedures. Factor

analysis will also indicate the same "best” predictor variables

as multiple regression analyses however (Anderson, 1953).

Even the method herein used to reduce the original number of

variables apparently did not weight the significance of minimal

variable intercorrelation sufficiently, although seemingly

enough to include most efficient predictors. A major diffi¬

culty lies in being unaware of variable-criterion relationships

after the variance due to earlier predictors is accounted for;

even the sign of such relationships may be reversed from the

original as their discriminative value for the male and female

samples. The E-N value, for example, was, when assessed "in

parallel" with other variables, discriminating for males but

not females, but in the multiple analysis the converse holds.

lo . 3 no.tx€>txdcd tSi^ciQid. »d>f, dxlw

ri^iw. ss^IcJ^jtisv ■ IXr. %o^‘ noxt&amilo- ton ,, asit&xxiXv' Ito' eas-Io

eaio'&xx^v ion ^ Jiixocj ’isto-txjo owojb woli^d srtoxJfiXaxxoa aoj:i<;ti:i;o

a/»9in woJ-riQxH xol aoitax t J asio flxfi|;?xa ^soxt^ 9ii,T enx'^fiXqe.tb

>.o. ta&d s>ri^ ©bivoxq o.t x/KDqqjs bXx/ow , aspn^i^llxb

gbort;f9!n ^'bliMV'-90BV'' ^Qvitlp^ai xorilo bn& saartT .BJQtoiJb^nq

Lodt-xBB i{QZQL) llsz^vfl loIyjiX o3 j^nxbxocos tipvswori

-XxX0 yX9i-fixiqoxqq«ni: ns>'JXo , (Od(>I) rtoednoxO , {dcCX) alxx^i bns

xoJp^i'^1- .«9xxf59 00iq noxtPpXpa nox'.’JsaiQsx aiqxll/jm non niJbes.l

a9ld.fixx*v xodpibaxq "tascf” brf.t's»Xjsoxbnx oeXs IXxw aisvljina

,(£>£QI. ,.no8^;;..vraA) isvsivori sssyisnjs noiacaiEjai ©XqXtXLfaT gj£

Xo T^Gfoiwn XxsnxQxio sdi 9oubBi of b^au .ai:9!r5>ri bodt^m &cit asjvS

Xswxcxxifi.'Jo ©oaADxXXnyxs &jdJ fdplew fcm bib \ilfa&'xj&qqs aaXdislT/BV

■f ^ •

ylQrtxrsf)-©® rit^njociXifi , yXt^fIJaxoxXli/a ■n<,uJ’^X9*4:i;opxs^ni 9Xd.®xx&v >

•'x'iXxb. xot'/^ia A , if^ofoibe^fq. Xrt©xoxl!l:9 f &om ©bwXonX of d^uocw

aqieia.noXiBiof noxx^JxiD-aXdfixXiKv Xo ©x&w/anxj gnisd njt gi&XX ytXuo

: loJ. .befdJU^^opB. ax 3^d,tpj±i9xq i^xl'ijs© of oob ©onsx-i£v .stdt ■

odj mof'± ■basBii9v©i sd ysm siqidBaoif&Ioi do.f/a “to n(?is stif nova

..biX6 s»,XAm, ,9dx aox 9wXiav ©vxtfinxfljxioa xb -xxsrit a& I&pxQxxo

nx" bofxaoeati as»dw ^sbw ,oXf.pj^x© ’xo'i t.S!.aX6\/ 5^-3- ydT. .e^Xqmxia

tud 3©X/pm. xo't .editj&nXffltx'xoaib * s©Id^x:i4iv/. xarito dfiw “XoIXjs.isq

. abi.od sax^vnop ■iid;) aia\--lsnjs, Blqif lum >adf tti fucf ton

The sociability element was evidently more efficiently repre¬

sented for males in some other scale(s) while for females the

irapulsivity element, though slight, was not.

The regression equations provide an analysis of the

qualities of importance in welfare work which in many respects

overlaps with that provided by the rank order of discriminat¬

ing variables. In the female sample however the position of

Sa (which was not in the rank order list) is noteworthy. This

C.P.I. variable was found by Rosenburg et al (1960) to be the

only non-intellective factor predicting social work course

success in a multiple regression study. It is said to be a

measure of feeling of personal worth which allows independent,

confident thought and action and is scored high by the out¬

spoken, demanding, over-confident, self-centered individual

and low by the hesitant, self-abasing, passive individual.

Figure 14 shows it to be the highest scored scale of male de¬

linquents and thus appears to represent an independent concom¬

itant of unsocialized, impulsive behaviour (note delinquents'

So scores) which is possibly represented in the female regres¬

sion by £-N, hypothesized to be impulsivity-weighted. An

opposite trend is apparently represented in the male regres¬

sion equation (in which Sa is not a factor) by To, high scores

X ■ y X.xoxi xaxors y ,£ t in&fxl-Vsa.' ■ 8,«i.vv ■ r- ;xi"'3 > y I I;. Ui/i lii DX’a S'flX

Tto'^ ',(« ),9,i.jSSOc>. XSFXXX,:; ■x.c.a a l X':?x.xwr xx;1: bi.XnssSf-

, :i'<,.';X ,{ j'fjy>i: j / . -.y' y/i ixijiiqffii

gligyl^iirqG Ci'a, x-'oxcj •>X'.^.-;X..’.'.'j izt:3:1:XfiiT

:i:XD3v;ya'i- ynsii;. xi .1, X.: ■ > i rj'x" x^,: xo;.'; xx: x'v a V xi'V'-oxJ .i.X:.'yxi: i-.; ;;x .tXri,Ij;iU|>

■■'Xo:,r?.ia.lxoe ,cu ,.'io xsxi.vr /yxxx xx. 'y; -xxxxxvoiq rf qhu QXjqXxsyq

■ XO' nw 1 i:X:xx-I xsiviXX'X/ 'XiiaXAia X’-,l; x;'’,xix y/sX nl , , £;3i.Gci?xi.XJ?\^ pnl

-.-x .i-y^ y,: ;.x,c;vcx xxex::; xrfJ' tA,i, xxx'. ..xw dyx^''w)

3 t i -! 3 »■ -i \ i v.<- .'‘j. X ^ X. I ■ vJ 3 ' ■ X '■ ', ■ f.:.- ■ X.' ’,, ,\ X' 0 (,} yj J, "i /' ■, ^ ,L 4.. X ^

Q&'luo':''■ yii,.ii ' :.x>q' XX! 1. ; X y"'x:t X, X ,sxxtxc-i ,i'.rXq X‘”fion vxuo

■X -^q'XXJS ■bXiGEXS'.,’ jI x,b xXi X X-X',!. X x. 3'XX'-j I , S X y jxjxl X‘X ,X ax.; cS:3yO’llS

, yacj.bu&xairfja\-ayy&liB.^a x: - .xa I xxxx x Xx' xnil':/*! Xo x

TbO’ xxxxri xqxo'x: X . X:-..;.:., .X'■':■:■• X . XMX-. ,.;xxx,xvj. X.t -nsb i; ir.xfx

:[,Si-feX,i:/'^XXiKIx XX . Xi'Xv;.):.; xxc X .\'x'XO yrfix'XXX'r^fc , bQi:xiDvixi

xy'i.bx; f, x ■/f': ■ G^x; ,.,. : xxtxxv,.! X'S , /x.x.xx at^j' vO wcL bnx

"“ixt)' '3Xffi£.i:> XO ' G X,, ,...■:; i , ,;X.’*.!X:, J G X'': a'i Xxn .j' Xv G 'i 'b,;x G'''■O-',! X., X-J, X.; J, Uf,!'X''?

~xjcob5?G XtXX'xX;’' - X.' X'';.:, X “'X X:.:G'xX„C X X X Xx^sx.G^^e' x xi;, ,; bxx®; ,S?JX!:3lJyXtX i

^ Bin^'Upn r. ya: ,x:x. '‘.vb.xxx'yJ X'* x xx x xx:/:! .i-, Jxxxxii x iqogXTi/ io :tas.;bi;

'•• X i ■■x',.,,ix xx.b I r i 'Xi i :x;xx;..': „;sxT , Lxxxaffxxx e j:'■ .ixxix-r' -oB

. . nb ./.•i/xj'r,' j" ybv .xxlx'.,i!? X.,.: /xy, bxxx:: x: xbJox, yri , bi-b. yd noxx'

•^■aeyy/pi’T ' :X'xb : X’X’ 'XX3iX£ x,'.,^3 X xy|, 5asxfxxxj|.Aj -si’ i;eo:xqp

ap lb ■ X . ^rxx XX ; -^.x'e xxx:;; ay xloiibG ,nx) aoxSBsxpB aole

87

on which indicate a permissive, other-person oriented individ¬

ual. Sa is apparently more discriminating of females (whether

socialized or unsocialized) than males.

The reference here and elsewhere to the "freedom from

superego restraints" which seems characteristic of female

social workers and the more suitable female welfare workers

is not to convey a comparison with the unsocialized delinquent

(from which they obviously differ) but rather the contrast

between male sample and female sample discriminators or pre¬

dictors. The more suitable male welfare worker appears to be

relatively more empathically, socially, and possibly sociably

responsive than lower-rated male workers, compared to such

differences in the female sample. The extent of absolute male-

female differences however, if any, would require further

study to determine.

The possibility of curvilinear predictor-criterion re¬

lationships should always be considered but are frequently

discounted (Ghisselli, 1963). However, Thorndike (1949) and

Ferguson (1959) claim that though possible, they are in fact

rarely encountered in personnel research, Thorndike finding

none in several years of military selection research. A test

of linearity for those predictor variables selected for the

ab

present regression equations was nevertheless made. Results

(Tables XIV and XV) confirm Thorndike's and Ferguson's view

since only two proved non-linear.

Some adjustment for these might be warranted only if

this finding held up in cross-validation and where the multiple

R was reduced to a point w^here improvement following such ad¬

justment was significant. Also, Creager and Miller (1961) found,

in reviewing many regression studies,that no significant con¬

tribution to prediction of leadership criteria vjith cognitive

or non-cognitive measures was made by interaction variables,

while Cronbach (1960) states "nothing is gained by configural

formulas (in any case) unless data are uncommonly reliable".

Thus the linear model for both individual validity coefficients

and for multiple regression equations appears justified.

Since any large pool of items, variables, scales, etc.,

would likely provide, by chance, some which vjere discriminating

for any group of individuals, a "holdout" group or other com¬

parable samples for cross-validation purposes is necessary in

order to determine the degree of shrinkage of the multiple R

values. In the absence of such these may remain spuriously

high (McNemar, 1955). This effect is somewhat neutralized how¬

ever when the original validation sample does not represent

89

that to which the findings may eventually be apjjlied (i.e. a

heterogeneous applicant group) but rather the more homogeneous,

pre-selected employee group.

Part D, Fakability of the Non-coqnitive Tests.

The findings of those studies assessing various tests

fakability were confirmed with respect to the "artificial"

faking situation (Tables XVI to XIX). All measures taken on

the M.P.I. proved fakable with E no more resistant than N

(Figure 13). On the C.P.I. 5 male and 7 female scales were en¬

dorsed in excess of the High-groups while the majority of the

other scales approximately equalled those groups (Figures 9

and 10). Only 5 male (Sp, To, Ai, Py, Fx,) and 4 female scales

(Sp, Ai, Py, Fx) were apparently not scored as ’’much” in the

suitability direction as the High groups. Some scales are thus

available on this test which may be of value even where motiva¬

tion to present typical responses is not maximal.

The Strong scales are remarkably simulated in terms of

the criterion, especially for the male sample, with Groups II

and V in particular closely "copied". (Figures 11 and 12).

The effects of the chance pattern must however be considered;

it tends to promote the semblance of profile similarity and

minimize differences that, under inspection, exist.

.'3 H X ) Qsxlziq/i Gd- rr/'i ild. sni .riDidv/ of '}‘^d:l'

nf>oooosi- ojon. 5iif ■iorl;'j£t (c;,L..'.iy jui.;:u.!CS'!Ti;ooj:5d

Q ifi-j V t'> i c;j . '.Oj :• ■ Xoi'S’X-■ :i

* :'. .^r;-rXO>^I IQ Y J X X ..^,-1, J'^LSui

-;:S'd' eiioi :o,A/ !->,? r? syorlt ic' ^onxcrvii

xB’ll'-i. x j. t' Oh ‘ :.'rii tosi xxj .r-i^ bsisi i;ii:v,'::.i i:‘ii,;.>V'< v J'j-i

^ 'j~!cIJA (XIX o/ .;7X ao Xf v.r:;

X r/,,:;^-;+ t rv-t0.(1 X ;X.;j.. v T'dj-vd.sX .T.XXI

'XX j. ".u'v i ''. S/X-; - ,; , xXr.w OX^X aO . cl 3 IX)

■X^ ■ ■ c;j C'‘C/ - .'/"'''• f- '01 >j; X rl .f iv X r::^ j'V: ir n I XjOB'lob

..txox-r ■ ■■ c-..c i "/v-l .'j.. ... ..v;:-' -.X xIsit; i>;o'Ji jq-,:. ?; cixx:’,;;: ::<-qi ;

■-■ XX(- ' i _ Li-i (.oT ,. q<i.) oxLcr: ■:: y liX) . ( Oi

- X. rX:!.;,'; fc;- . Xc-OCc . .3; v I trxX!; 0'.;qX (>•':. ,, \i.X t X.C ■

'X'X'' XxJcIjX ox.o:,^ . <• ■ c ic ; ,c '.' i i'i cX;- c;;, .;ol ? "'S X xb V b .11 I i;,;; t i. c X

PX'/;, .oiX,:\/ bo p.j voo X-x.;iy. .rxxb sxjib no oldxilifto.G

- --30- ; 'v o'x ucq.,/. i i:.G::>Iqqx jO/Prsic; '•■^b aol'x

xy-x.xd r 'on o-x-;yoo - .-oxy X: , rxo--'- xy.Loy,o qc/c^x.id od'T

/i- ^ .„<c.;:oj 0 biO: / ix:- odb

• ■■■■ <' ' X oX r ;i c X ■.,• G q a i: V .u ax-

■..;oi aqc:o -x-.:' ■‘v.;''c c.c X'cxi-' • sq conpcq ■ybb bo sbqqblGt odl

x.x ":-’ o: y.l s.!x: IX! ql i. xob'.; ‘‘;o cox q:ro'o:),;o 'C i abqx'ij j .1

..'oc.-,.o . a--:c -bcrir oooooixXlUb xx fiiolo'i xcn

90

The equivalent fakability of the non-discriminative

variables in addition to the regression and discriiuinitive

variables suggests that rather than conclude the tests con¬

cerned to be worthless when certain scores are thought by

testees to be desirable, it may be of value to consider just

how recognizable is such gross faking. When all scales on all

three tests are analyzed a faked pattern emerges. For example,

when compared to the High-group profile a combination of very

low N, high E, very high Gi, high Wb and Sc, low Sp, Ai, and

To, low Avr and A-J, and high YPD and YS in relation to PA

and SW would appear to identify the simulation of concern for

male testees. For females the pattern is similar except that

high Re and So and low Fx are additional C.P.I. signs while

To is not discriminating. On the Strong the SST, YS, Buy,

and LInS are over endorsed while HsW, Off, PT, PEdT, and Engr

score too low by the fakers. Finally, it may be recalled that

some research at least would suggest that "real” situation

faking is minimal.

„!v IJ'A nou aUJ' lo i .:■■■',Ix;ds tofi'l'

£ r spj;:.. rr •.■:) <u> i 3 i uJ ito.i:,^ fbfcs ni .„/■

i'dt ".'*:■ i?.!, ".iif*:;' rt.fji';:’' r'f 7,0, x .iCily ?7 ibj'-? vj-P'i '7'" b.',v7; :

vd :i'j MPI.1.J-S; /di t:.i-';);■:/ Ai^.-dv; sp dJ id vd .;>:l n ip

IPd 7:f'f ^ O J QUA.. i P ■ ■' ■' t.;• Aj 7 '7'- ■> y J

P -PC .-pid/y.' ilx-. d'-i'e i: P rapppp i ;?Ori

'■..lir. P-XT’ '.A ..' '1 . J 7, -!

V ,'i, X

fr<x (ip id vIaP'/ ;,-i. .7i. 5

do... :,fx Vvi..;,;, ..j i

■-'■Oj, iXX;' y iOX!?

.! D 7P';.!7< ■■’p X Ui!.‘‘CZ't

i£ £. pPi..d;S,'i

91

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study has dealt with a psychometric analysis of a

particular category of "helping-profession" - the welfare

worker. Since few similar studies, if any, have been reported,

little information is available regarding the qualities char¬

acteristic of or most suited to this apparently growing voca¬

tion. Five paper and pencil type group tests were administered

to 69 male and 76 female welfare workers and analyzed separ¬

ately for the two sexes. The tests used were: the Maudsley

Personality Inventory, California Psychological Inventory,

Valentine Reasoning Test for Higher Levels of Intelligence,

Wonderlic Personnel Test, and the Strong Vocational Interest

Blank. In addition, different samples of 20 male and 16 fe¬

male workers were given the three non-cognitive tests only

with instructions to attempt to simulate the responses of a

social worker taking such tests when applying for a desired

position in welfare. These samples were referred to as the

Simulation groups and again analyzed separately. All tests

were taken anonymously with scores and ratings aligned by a

coding system.

IV' ■ ■

Vr'iHClOXIW aV5A_

f > .1>') 11 .© J!:i «r .c» ri b./,! 13 & i ri 1‘

■;> b ij. S :& "X n,X1 ,*'!* L ? Vt'ii. ’X >!!;fJ ,10; „ :;. xw

1 sXd^&IJ-/jy'.s, si noi■5.i'ij;:..l.

t -t ijyli.ua lo Ic ::)i;:i'axisIDjS

ijxq; ; foa,^; i^vj/aq .. aoi. J

o ’.i;-=iw ,r ,<:■«;;> X oV ..'lAii -jf ii&m Qd ol

3 3 X X. T . 3y ,1.;3 0\N t v,^^ 2 ol V xD I £

V i. .’-• j. C'-i-tj ,_* ',. y 1'. OnV IT j,. /'i'£ ,£iS flCB T yi'I'

w il~’ 'id qn Xfj >'..)£?^>;1X I fi&j. ^

^T.... oa? , x^?©l oilxsbaoJ)!;

i- a la-oaoi ijOT nl ,. Jnxiia

Boxdl 'Bdf i'O'a/TT »To:>-oow 9X3-01

o Xq-aatla oX £(iciXobxjan.L xiXiw

o aXssX dox/ir 9«b:s1 xoaiow. .l,«^X008

fiAasniX" •.©:;:/»3;i£>9? ai aollispq

\ ni.,£ig&. ba/r. eqwoTty aoxXuIpfuiS

Tooa i’VtxW qXawOflJN^iJOXliX iiBA£,t 9X9W

gaifaoD

92

Four hypotheses were advanced which organized the in¬

vestigation into four somewhat independent sections. The

first, Part A, was concerned with a description of the aver¬

age male and female welfare worker in terms of the variables

measured. The relevant hypothesis stated that 'welfare

workers would achieve scores on the tests given comparable to

the other "helping-professions" but different, in many respects,

from those of such as salesmen, scientists, and the socially

inadequate, where such norms are provided'. This afforded

some structure to the otherwise "shotgun' approach to this

aspect of the study. It was concluded that the hypothesis

could be accepted since welfare workers did approximate the

responses of social workers who, as a group, satisfy the other

stipulations of the hypothesis , although the present samples

also possess characteristics of their own.

Male workers achieved mean scores which would describe

them as of senior undergraduate intelligence, having high in¬

terests in verbal and social service activities and little

interest in technical, scientific, and selling activities,

while being above average in general social behaviour adequacy

and below average in neurotic breakdown potential when under

stress.

fo'yiiciruiQ'io doJrrtw- b®.o«^vb4

9MT V snoxi c'uj-:; t

• £>fli io ■ li ?xw: 5i9;iX:t®00?q^O:-a4W'' A txfl^

.'-'.cl x£.\' xc ^LC’x^s nl tBAxavf 9lAm-^:»^A'.

i.sxisiw’ t£vd:'' 03 ■ fflxs&rti'C/qyrf, . wJb9i4449‘«i!

./ 'i i d .:■ -i .i?,q.«vQ o a. v' i <> a f a® JT’ ®d x ao - ai © x o.Da ■ 4 vi*® 'bi i>o«r, ■ ow.

i. vnx:vi::, tl }: , z ib ■. t ud '’SClO X3 39^0lq■‘^^n^qi®ri^h;«»rf■^6:;: ^4i■

I i«i I.o'-'ie or r has , ^t&±tnQXo^ 5-'094H39l6iS= .sts. rioi^.3 ^o 9a'0^fi’'-:'Hi<a'»'lC'

h-jo-ioiXX ...ivXjixq ssfaon■-riot/8 ■ 939riwif, *,9J4vp®£»#4i

xldi. u:x^ X •■o-i.aqs - * rj5j^jo,da^* ©& i'viarli'o, ©rit ^

.X30ri/4.:..yx; sid? is-rl^ b^buLocioo sm fl ,vpuf9 ®ri,3f ^O' lbt9q»4-'

on^ btb p.s-xaAi.o^ b®-fq9S^9M Ad

:ij:!> <x.i:it '^ll^ iXhis . , s SJi, Xfi-xoo®

:<..? txissoxq h£iS- dqx/odX-Xa , sia^ritOiq'^dv j^ri

^:-mo X ioriX ^Q 8o.i:'t8Xi:®#q4^C.4^0..'«,a»'i8«pq;;©«|j»"

d,ltoax*6 rioi:.riw- ;>a n^rnm M04

ai riq,fri Dnx'.:'iv!i (s4Dn!i»s>iii,^tf!ii-

i nvX^OA-

,, a s x X XV i j o ’■■: :,■. u i i i s> a 5 a.8 ,., '$90M0iy

s«oiv&ri£>d.

'vs>qf;jx5^;^'' qariw ■ Lb xtn® t&q - ' ' > < ' '. ' . .■!' ■■’ . ."•i'*.'-. '.'/'v.^'.^'V'/v' '••■■X- .."■d'.r-'' ,'’, ' ■'^!■V.^tf,^iX*^;Z'

Female workers achieved mean scores similar to the men

so may be similarly described. They scored a little lower in

deductive reasoning however, and, compared to women-in-general

placed lower on the neuroticisin scale and higher on measures

of intellectual resourcefulness and extroversion. Their Fx

to So ratio and high Ai score suggested a greater impatience

with social restrictions than the male workers that was some¬

what confirmed by correlations between extroversion and cer¬

tain C.P.I. scales. This was supported also by various inter¬

est findings (e.g. low Librarian, high Phys. Ed. Teacher)

which pointed to an aversion to restriction, inactivity, con¬

formity .

The second section of the study. Part B, was concerned

with identifying test variables which might discriminate the

more suitable workers from the less suitable in terms of a

numerical rating criterion. The relevant hypothesis stated

that 'the difference between test score means of those workers

in the High-rated group and the Low-rated group would be signi

ficant on the majority of dimensions measures’. This was

accepted for the male sample, for which 55.7% proved discrim¬

inating (p = .05), but not for the females, for which only

47.3% proved so. The tests chosen thus appeared to provide

Sil£jns>'H :£i

I . ' vI:ijsXb'b.a £>d ysiff oa

;_.n b■ bv X j oubbb

ox: jxol':'j :fo'" ran so:?, rio lawol bsoriq

;.'.o •: 'X ; s-ivS^iJX i'sxlXoaX Is tnl

.r;’':'* x xr>/> dg li.:. Xxvb axX4%:i o'd. \^;i'

a d J r /:; •'■ ■ -1o b ■ - 1; "■ j aa 7 X £!. .l ;xo£; ■ ii 7 Lw

x:x'" r :.:b: ■ X '■' gd bv^x/rti!'noo- f&dAg

’...■.:i'g. r,-.’ 'i-i.e,}

X X.vr'xa ,. 7,^) -ap a io nib jES

.; . X... ;aa:.Mavs ax x:.t biJ:? n Xox] nDidV-?

..viiffi'xai

:,-: ‘yfdr io aoiibra &aoD>/x.

.:X7 e0 I .j o X V,;, V j- 3-I |.j]• V X x ;!• mS.b .1 b S xw

aaJ- xnx i(:.,;'XX rxoxi'vrw aibatlx-a ©ica

7 xr 'T . ax.: xxr ! xao pn rtaa i:foOXi9.;;:j;n

(;sftx^b<>b a an sx o'!;, bib gdt’ ssdf

o.j 'ybJ' bax. qxioxp bsxai*-bp i.n arlJ ni

c-iaa^ihib io vjixorxuT' &d7 no diiBozi

.,i i.x ^ -.V’* *i. ^ ^ ,Cb •islj&ffi' salt ici fo»rxi»ooi;.

:-i.flt ;;:o!!, ioa ibd ,(50* == q ) ' oa jJe>ni

rvoacd-o ei5J9i ddX . o® b©voiq

Q4

enough variables to justify their selection for the particular

discrimination concerned, although the M.P.I. and C.P.I. were

of less value for the female than male samples.

The most discriminating variable in both samples was

the total Valentine score. It appeared the deduction sub¬

score accounted for more of this position than did induction.

The male sample was discriminated next best by three Strong

scales - SW, OL, and PA while SW, Psy, and Engr were of equiva¬

lent value for the females. The Wonderlie followed next in

both samples while Ac and To for the males and Ai and Fx for

the females proved to be the more discriminating personality

variables but of less value than the aforementioned cognitive

and interest variables.

The higher-rated male workers' scores would thus describe

them as possessing deductive reasoning ability, concentration,

and general intelligence; an interest in helping to administer

people's affairs and problems on a professional level; toler¬

ance; and the capacity to perform under conditions requiring

restraint, to a higher degree than the lower-rated workers.

They possess less interest than the latter in technical, non¬

personal, isolated activities while of course sharing with

them many of the non-discriminating characteristics typical

^ ' I ^’:: l:->r/., vo:it-2t'r . o.;i , fi;sv,rd;3 lijsv

■ ' :• - ■<; .'^v;- L ^ . > bo£;;r^ noi ts:!( i:ui±'3:3a i5

' ' : ■ ■■':'>• ' :■■ ::.i!j\ ''r X l:o

‘ ‘ ■"■ ‘ ^ ':ya-i^I/;.V' .i si/.l

^ ‘ ^ . -''xj -■ y ',.5 T.l C) fOt l'i‘ J ^ ^

- ' ' ' ■■ - • ■ •- ' ' ' ' ' - . A - ;,••■- ".-1., .■'.;y;,y iy L/ii"i O)'' .!'

'■ ■ ■ ’■ ■' ■-•■ •' ■ ■ ' ' i.'J'r , . i.,,;:,' ■• jL'Cy

' ■■ ■ ■ ' ' '■ ■' ^ ■'■ ''■ ' .' . .. “■'.ly . ,;■ y .> y

, -...r' y :, yy.. y ,L h’y q y.y, y y ■ y>d

'■■■'■■ y ,'y " ■, ]’ "y-r./cy,, y; yv:;'/.yicy't, yy:;.

y-ry-y ..:..yy y y; y y. yyfij.i yy /yy.q i'yie j j.sv-

- , ^.yidy. Gy ./y-.df:i: dy.y

■ -'■■■• ■ -• -■ ; .yy" . ' yy'-y y- y 'Gvi :dyG' --/y ■ y■‘.^,y y.yM;> ■■■.; wy. ;yyxi:J-

■■■■■.-’yd- y--'. ; yyyy. :y. g.g , y.'g ..x lyy f gg': ;^yy::.yyy- l:n/6

' '■ ■ - - G ■ : G.^ K . yyyyr y,''G:,,.; y;'-:- .yy; y'xyicoy>c/

- ■ - >•> -• ■•■.i .j .yj' .'yy !'„><.,( Vj ' ■t,;‘ri. .? ■ I. > '.i\.'LSj

■ ' - ^ "y-y , y- ■ ■> ' ::-y ; yy yryiy y- xsd'qiy'; x;, vd , toiqy-ixyji

■_ . -^'y:^ ■ ' - y- -yyr:',:. ' Git ; y,..^G^ J aias^saj’oq. yqdl

■yy ■ .i .,y :.y y.iyny a.GxyGy.rdG^ LiiSn tbIosi^ i , .i&x;oai©q

Ui' .; ‘ y ;;yy. y G X a yjGn.iiKi;-; GGii dij-nofi. Dd,." '%o qnBiC jjiisjiil

95

of welfare workers generally.

The higher-rated female workers appear to possess, to

a greater degree than the lower-rated females, those cognitive

abilities mentioned Above, inductive reasoning, an interest in

working with and understanding people, flexibility, and the

capacity to perform under minimal direction. They possess

less interest in domestic and commercial activities but share

certain of the typical welfare worker characteristics with the

lower rated workers.

The third section of the study, Part C, was concerned

with the determination of multiple regression equations for

the prediction of the criterion. The relevant hypothesis

stated that ’the multiple correlation between the ultimately

selected predictor variables, as weighted in the regression

equation, and the rating criterion would be significantly greater

than zero’. This was accepted for both samples. Of the 74

original male variables 11 were incorporated in the multiple

regression compared to 13 of the original 59 female variables.

Approximately one half of the criterion variance was

accounted for by the total Valentine score in both samples

with PA for the males and SW for the females contributing the

next major proportions. The only personality predictors were

:''r j. ■" tjAjiiV! 'jr' • ■ ,> ; /a. . •

4 8Xs>>[iow ax^llsve lo

I'i^ ' OJ, ,;ee^3aoq ot, ■ xssaqqfi »y.&:4-^ow bsjJ‘^-irx«»riDiri &dT

' .K

yvitxneOD. asudi b^.^sx-xsiwol cistlt a9Xi5>.yb istjsq.hq b

al J-ssi9Jni (i& , eninoafi^t sviJrotibox «s>voq& t»saoita?t>Jin as>ii’xXids

snx 5ni» < ytxJ. xdlx^X^ ,9iqo9q gnxbn^GXsxsjibnr^ bpjt* dtiw t>nx:Xiow

229eeoq . .ito|Jfo€»xib iBaiioxiB isfona itiio“±xyq ot ritxojeqSD

Bi&d& tud 89x-^xviJoiS IiiXDXs«juaoD bHiS. oiXaswob nx aa^X

■4Xxw .eojci'8xi9Ja/SXvSdo“x9>liow; 9Xr,XXsw l.e^xq^^^ sdt 'io pxs^i^d

.31S.3410W baJiSi X£>woX

bi^nxaDaoo 8dw ,D ,\^bpJa sdx \o nox?D©e b3:xdt sdT

xoi anoxJ;fit/p9 noxs3!5):£e>9‘x syXqxtXiifrB Xo ncX^AnxmiaXab dixw

, t ^i3S>dj-oqv:d XPiS'/Ql^.i ®dT .noxxsJxao srtt lo aaltoxbsxq

9dX na^SirXsi'd doiJsXaixoo sXqx^Xuin ®dt' t&dt bot^Ja

■aoissoi^©! ®rit fil.'bsdri^x^w-,,®9Xg(bI1‘-jSv loXoibsiq fo®^o®X®2

xs^r-isit^-yl^rtiSpxlxnQi'e ^®d, bXfJOW iioXxsXi.xD-QflExX;SX ©dJ bfjs ,poxt-sx;p©

Bdr iO .aaXqw&a rlxod xol bsXqsoos ar^w aidX .^oxss nsdj

©iqltXwia ©dX ni: bajisxoqxooax ©i©w IX a9Xq'«x.XE‘/-< ©Iboi I^snlQiio

.a&XdBL'iGv ®X/>jR»9l IfiixXgx'XO ©riX lo Gi ot b^xsq/^oo noxa;39i5©x

, 2JSW ®onj5ixx4V floi’x©txXD ©d't 1o llBd '3Uo''\£bBmixo-iqiqAt '• ■

ebiqiBSa. dlod ni; ©xooe ©ditasXsVMst'OI ©dX V;d 'xo’5: bsXnoooos

.. . ' .:d' ... db'.! '. '..* ■ ^>n.XjdcfixX«OD ssXiSJCax ©riX xol .W£ bdis aslBsn adX .io\ Aq dixw

©x^'iv axoJoxbo xq y t iilimoaxoq v:Ino odX , anoitxoqoxq xotsm J-xs>n

96

To and le for the males and Sa, E-N, and le for the females.

Some of these male-female differences were again discussed in

terras of restraint and impulsivity. It was noted that antici¬

pation of predictive variables was difficult since it is in¬

dependent aspects of the variance which must be accounted for.

The final section of the study, Part D, was concerned

with the fakability of the non-cognitive tests. The relevant

hypothesis stated that 'the majority of Simulation group mean

scores on those variables shown to discriminate the High/Low

groups or included in the regression equations would either

not differ significantly from or would fall beyond, the com¬

parable High-group mean scores'. This was accepted for both

the male and female samples for which 85.3% and 70.0% of the

pertinent variables were shown fakable respectively. Many

scores not relevant to the hypothesis were also distorted in

the "desirable" direction. It was suggested a "faked-pattern"

analysis would identify such distortion were it to occur in

"vested-interest" situations.

This investigation has thus been an exploratory enquiry

of surface-level phenomena the findings of which should be

considered tentative, especially until a cross-validation study

dv

. £ 3 i X f;>0 1 0 d X 1 c>0- ■7.1 J, xHXjT. , .iici bni 33X£iiC Ci'dl oT baxi oT

X.X :,>sa-3 3 3X0 l;'.7£itqX V'/. iodOib © J ; ^ 9li>0 Oitry .-' ' X J

X -i- sf /X*> / .-- d 1 0 3 1 O f* asv.’ 11 . Y j-L'i/: ai. w;q;.ii bai- IniiCi ^’a-y.. lo 0:.Oi.x; ..<■

(ti ^ i .. .r^ -..S i i '0 i 3 01 i i lb c«w £oXdsiifiV ©vclnibsiq 0; :.((■• aPb^

0 i-r:.' ■'i & i 1 P'OC. r :; .idv^ 3xin/5..';i£v o-xil 7.(3 eJ£j34®j5 r:.7 x:0 ■

Ja/L.ystXs'i sfiT .Ux;jOo~ f^. .; '•i-ij '-c, XlUd/ivlBi si,.! silXv?

ouc-xn ,'X Xo '-i.r :■• aXE::.,,M-::...-/d

wQj\ar>xH Bat a i;Tr."^ K: :>;r r..-.-,,H,;^ «£sldti:£u.sy> oso/'j no ,;dj'iooa

‘ x-'i?ri.S'Xnj blsjow 3o.o.rXai/'r:Si) ri3'...j:'.:0' i ii.x. bs'fotfJ.30t.c xo S'.;'Jo?/■■■.■

- if'OD Bdj. .beio\cB^i II-sl -bii/6w 7'-. vX XnooxJ: XnQxa xalc'J lb

i,UOQ -IOa .bJ3Xq90::3£ SjBW a,ldT . ’ ^3 Xi7;>S qOOlp-'ilglH- 3X<j£.7fiq

sri i-7o.5irO.Ot bHyg. doxd^ i='‘\ e.yiqni&i^ igsl/a?;; o:U‘

■ '/ofifTi:- .'.il3vxtos>cjs3X awiiriz- 'O isw 'es-ldxJ-'x&v . tr£s>nx-t aSC'

nl bs-rxoXeXb gsIjS tsisw-aisonXoqvw onx o v .ic.x.vsl.sic Xon a3X'.;33

rii©J-tsq~C)33;/Bl;'* ,'3 D^Xasqxix-; jX . •v-.O, 7 ©sx rO 0'3idsii«3.£>*’ ©fft

■lu: 'rx:;'j.j ;:■ X :, : or/3w ,i537>:!-3 .0,:. v:cX7i'’'7:b.i' bluoo a

. -o't.'.. o: n :.:■ I 3 ■ Xasis:''’O;;- b© Ja©v"

V 7.: 1 ;oiO .5. ,;oo .>.6 ris3c: aoiio no c J'*.u 7.t33v,> i -e ka'l

A'..odc X ?' aparoa.lc'iit onf ^inDtconoxlq isvoi-'oo^.'lxoe io

; I-;'. ;,' 07“ a? 313 4i ii^rio vil£,io©qa© j © v ii-x. la© X bsisoianpo

97

can be made. Provided one has sufficient subjects, and time,

it would seem that the double cross-validation design, where

each half of the total sample serves as the "hold-out” group

to assess the multiple regression of the other, is the method

of choice in such validation studies. Confirmed findings may

then suggest directions for deeper probes into "helping-

profession" characteristics and motivations, especially of the

non-professional category. Such information could be of value,

for example, in scholastic or vocational counselling situations.

Possible areas for further investigation include anal¬

ysis of the reasons for welfare workers* apparent preference

for personal contact, verbal, and abstract activities and

aversion to the technical, concrete, and isolated fields. It

would be of related interest to determine to what extent their

relatively high social presence, tolerance, and achievement by

independence characteristics are not reflections only of in¬

telligence and/or educational levels. The importance of rea¬

soning ability for those involved in seeking solutions to

personal and social living problems should, since this func¬

tion was given considerable weight by raters, also be explored

further. The use of the Valentine test in studying the more

and less proficient of other "helping-groups" (e.g. nurses)

.1.

- cn.ii

■ L O 1 'wi

■FjilOhi

(--

' oru:-' , ?n,v 1:oi;.ito® ^&fi Cv/no bubi^/o^H .ob&sj Bd n/j::?

„ ar no i: U'sv • 9ldtJo5 sn.r tjzdt t'li:;ow t.i

■ v: '■ 3 yc ' s^rv c.yyysa .s^Iqmes lii jof Bdt '3:o .

■:■' ■-. f. yji:? ’to yolaas:ip?-A alqi^Iuin Brf?

-'•b'-',;'! o" .',j j.yrTC' j ,ay.i:bu-S ao ll &o i S.dox^a ni ^jq-rody lo

^Ddo■^:g yaqssb lo^ aoc .uJ yyii.; :yoi.!;:: nt,d.'

’.by;, .:... , ynf...!; j ■ it >3i 5oh ad ; a 1 ’ y..-yfix'i y ' biOxafeo"':'y q

do yd b.L.;' :;v ,sy 7&5HXoln ji; fl,C5i.'2 . qiLOi: y :■ .sy Idrio,: aayioix^'-av_.n

' ■:I,i. y y ?!i u:oo X.sry: j. 3'x$C'Ov :t n yi. j a.6lorioa nX , e.Uy iyy.y y. i:

DDX<Xy.'yj ■ ’, ■. -X'.'£v pX J •? S'Vri 4. 'I'V J'i j’X ii 1 '.' Ol adS'XB y J.cixJiv Db

. ;i.£>Xt3‘iy ■.; ysx/i.ji.ixj * aisrXx jv/ Is>«; . xoX 3nos*.9X drix xo a xav:

■yy y V xj’-cv i j c» tpKXXsd's .bufi , Xsdiyv , -Ixsnoa-xsq xbx

.xbXx'x'v -ory:;. , s ono-;;; , xnil x o3' noiaife-VB

.brr^';b o X-'/'y. yt ii :; yb oX Xgy iy .X bs ixil<;. x xo x^r. bit'ow

xy^yXily.- ,,'.'.xHto ..y xc'X ,-;,5 yasasxxx l£i;Doa ripix! v'^y/iy/iXsx

xo '/X.'.; .X V ' X i-XX; f X ■> -■ jOTJ 9Xiy a O i :■ £ X Xq X OX> X iSdD S £ ITS bnsCj£>bn X

xo s xxui j X'-' y'i: yrbi' .3'y'7;si I S'lo i;-^y6:iX!bs xo\5:::b sqnapxIIsX

'T 7:ixo,h b.. i>,.x ^- ' ::iou^ \il Dsv.' ovrtl aaor'X xyX y:?■ i Ixbii , q-; i^oa

X a;db so-3 .'^ b'i yo.bc a^asirioxx; pci j / ij; xx.xD;.:'y bns Xxinoa'x&q

xb y;,i osl/s ^axyjBX P'd ^ripix-v:' i dBXiviji xaxioo rtsvip c.'s'*' no it

: Si/id pcixyb/.ba nl .];=£»:; v ioai y V adt do ssxj od'l' ..lorixiol

xyba ) “sxixxx X - yr , qi-jH■’ xoiito to dn«>iDiioxq assi boB

98

where problem factors may be less obscured, less intangible

and where more formula-type solutions are expected, would pro¬

vide further comparative norms and thus give more meaning to

present findings.

Further investigation would seem required to clarify,

in particular, the apparent differences (relative or absolute)

between male and female workers with respect to irapulsivity,

independence, and flexibility vs. socialization, tolerance,

and conformity. (These two clusters are not necessarily

"polar" to each other.) Item analyses of the Extroversion

scale plus the administration of other measures of impulsivity

and sociability (and/or their converses) to both socially ade¬

quate and inadequate groups would hopefully assist such an en¬

quiry. A related enquiry might also be made on the male/fe¬

male discrepancy on Sa discrimination, possibly in terms of

Taylor and Combs' (1952) findings that self-acceptance (i.e.

of the reality of one's imperfections) was more characteristic

of the well-adjusted than the maladjusted.

The ambiguous relevance of personality variables gen¬

erally to the helping-professions (compared, for example, to

the role of intelligence) could possibly be clarified by ask¬

ing supervisors to rate workers in terms of suitability.

S'XSifiW

i yn. i . Stuw ba.n

o

I.

.'■* ■>

.j;

' ■ ■'■ H ■-j ,Lt'

XB

• . K"' '■ •• 'X'. I. / 6:j<i

■ ■: I.-:-

A sf ‘'-'j'-. .1 -. -X j O

cn :: rf.n .o;;- : r.; u A .-. \'... .1;^):.

wV.5 A'.’- r

t 1 i-i/l..

J

’i; Q

1

? (■; o

\ -I '-j _ i :.■■ i:,. j: o ,1 o x 9 n t

X ^>1 loi;; ., ; 9.j'_ s raa? .nvisq/ia gnz

99

according to "personality" only, and ignoring as much as

possible intellectual differences (even though the latter, if

incorporated, may markedly alter any comprehensive rating

assigned). Those personality test variables displaying high¬

est correlations with such "restricted" suitability ratings

may thus provide a clearer measure of these characteristics.

Another approach to this problem is that of Norman

(1961) who constructed, from pools of relevant items, tests

which measure only the personality factors determined by

factor analysis to underly rating criteria. Various studies

(e.g. Tupes and Christal , 1958) indicated that the same set

of five personality rating factors invariably emerged regard¬

less of the group rated or rating procedure used. These were

Surgency (get-up-and-go), Agreeableness, Dependable Conform¬

ity, Emotional Stability, and Cultural Appreciation, Factor

analyses of established personality inventories frequently

conclude very similar factors. It would be of interest there¬

fore to instruct raters to rate Ss on these 5 particular dimen

sions as well as on intelligence and interests, separately,

and compare results with the overall rating procedure findings

(The present test battery, which incorporates the factors con¬

cerned, could be utilized.)

a.f-j s,s?. !,>-'T i;'0nrvi: ' '• 7 1 £,ao.?;i "t c-t ?5nib"i:0';:JD£i

-*• i ; 'yQj' j,di :9y :b'ADi.;y; 1J" ,/isi','; y:hv-yi';a xai y,iA' yBiAb:;;yIXoi cii. sXci jssjoc;

y A A • yv ij> y y/,.^iSiA:yi , 'M'la Z Zy ■; . ZZ y .i.;!:: A.Ai ;X '.; tvi'"' / bi.> XB'XOCCl O D A X

. -X '■■' A;", lA A-i <,!S X.A Ab fcBt y J X i A A A £ IXK,' ■;s<B>AT . ( C’&)‘I'xi; bCfi f .

Aysy: . a. '/.'i x. ■. xj;:j;/;'.: j,,.,;''-X-s ''.rAA, i' X' i :5i,:j■ ?: G I ’ ’’ aa s :: .i! t iw h rs o i i h 1 x? x x ■; - x . :x:.

, AAxiE ' :r; ::r:/(ri,c:lA; axGibt io xsxAaio jS bblvaiq xux'x yaa

XA;A'.Ay: jXCA t ^ ^ .XOiiJO'lQ lb j O T A ASO yAj:',nS j-Oi JA

,yriXA.i.‘ 'aAvalA;;: la elcxiiq 'Aoyx. ,.b-islxuiXaxjo:) oxlw (XdqJ)

ya vxyraixaxx'xssr ' aiotOAi v;X'i,X&BOAXBq «xriX ylao £>:uir?

S'-'yl'US-ii BuoiusV: ,„AXAA:ri;xA yi.rsfcbw '.a; e.xaql.A'UA .■xoXdjiSX

ix?ir AABSf bslX' tjsdx 5&i-iSX.lb',AL ■ x'-'A A i' , ista i::irt:> bnB aoy'i'T . .ID ,,s)

.i:>AAD:xi baqiSiKs,, ;y\Ic^s,i:TBvni Bz-crosJ qalfst v d xXbaoax va isvib la

31XAV., Aft-,d1.; .bS'gxi'£>;^ x;bsDOxq (,;fvl XAx' 70 baby, I 'qaoxq lo ®esi

"iftiolXiiol .&iCBb'asqbii' < sasdo JAxao&tdA, , ( Oiyl-y::,..-q,i„.- z^g ) qDnaqTX'S

:s;oXs>Bl ■ ,,7-ioX'tA,i;o9-xfi|q.^ IsxaxI rb I:„ax> ^ q;)" i J xA'rbb IXinoxXoaiE ^vfl

qlX Aq.!xp£>.il. e©iiO'Xnx>vd i: yX-bXAiiiObioq X'O'Ay ildfeiab %o esaylAns

~-3 Xbf'i^ jSBXqOAi' lO' ©d bi'AOW 11 xaX:Cf *0£.l: ■ ,isi Xtttla V’la V. ©.bX/'Ia/tOY)

Asalb' ijaiiBoiiXBq c ae xY oXxx;: ot cYoX-bx Xoixiilani ' ot'blol

■ < k:qXi?o:.o ' ■ v -'j x da ; oo 3B ■ llsiW .'iOGia

Ay.,,::,II:.j:;xi .'OYcbaociq 1' 1,:.,/, ' x ■ :■ ;xi Jo .Dr.; ;' ©x£,qao';.i b.ri,q

■ ■ '■, 'A ■: , „;v'> , Y/;; X'YA-'"' : A X .rf'IOSO'iq adT)

( ,.,0X7 1 :?z! .::aY,.,ox: , XxxniSO'

U)U

The relevance and application of the present findings

or their cross-validated "residue” to other similar situations

requires an estimate of validity generalization. For example,

the slowly-gathered test data available from an applicant

population without the vocational experience of welfare work,

could be correlated with ratings given subsequent to the in¬

fluence of several months of such a milieu. This would allow,

when compared with present results, a measure of such an in¬

fluence, if any existed. In addition, an analysis of such

test profiles for "fake-patterns" could provide evidence

either in support of or contrary to studies suggesting "real-

life" faking to be minimal. The effect of the absence of

anonymity also on cognitive test results could be examined

and compared with that under the anonymous condition.

Finally, it is to be noted that the present research

dealt with the concept of the overall, general welfare worker.

The value of particular traits for particular specialties (e.g.

adoption work, court work, public assistance, ward supervis¬

ion, etc.) is widely recognized. Further research, where the

selection problem extends into the classification problem is

therefore undoubtedly required.

jr- r;i; 5 :<. <4. S>£iX X .■ ..;:■ Xy ;,:iav3 J-y t P.u'l

/ .1:•XXi.i. Xu'iX?! 79i.i:/i, ::- "'pys:'' Xy:-j X d';J ,:.V“P>£r,Xij:£i'i:r y.o

a 'J o"i . itv* i TXirc X -■ . - ■ . : .'X -C’pv yr ... ypinx. j

iah.D.L.L^'^.C. l'.loH £>,i :.3i ..' ■'d ; .P'Pf /xp.iixlvlwola prlt

■,,y.v fl/yryy .1.ppo i X.s;.'‘v :.:i y > j*f'lp poI,iyjXx!v;oq

< A .1 Xi'/J Oj .T (S, CJ'i- 'X;''i; 0 Xj itt XiS V j. P p p VL.r ai-.x> X d t L'.! ■. ;:■. „- .J ls i i r;. o cv t.S f.> J, i.‘o d

^ /.Jir«i;oT ' 'js' iXofje Z.o tj'XXr/i.i;; T.c;' SDnsiilJ.

3x "io :>vxJ3j5S»ai .{^tIkss'I ;tn;:>:j iCi ' . ;!'.Xw .[:>sx.taCitaoo nodv'j

ppyy: /o y ■; c yJ-pnx. p.6 p'sr-.iy jX>bp ('l l d-'P'- .y.c..' ,;' !P lx 5 El

1.. ' i '■:> ■ ) .' . ^ ^ 2 (. i. vi':-' X .X iO V, 4 wf

.y y ppo ye txo:y.x.'ii oj. iDdtxa

x . n:y:,: qdr, nt ' 10 erix „ JdXir Lfex'X y.; ■' .^ 'y^x,. ',(xt '^s1x.L

:" ■'' .'. y ..f d .' .yo:, y :rX j:

.. y X y idj'poy s y, . tr <■.

;) y .?' ' > j / iy: ;■ oro c;:».X /s v t i;<„:vnoi"! js

e,'. ' ''y^xXM'iP tp.dt rxllw bs^'xaqtri'OD briB

- yyy ■ ■y..y.-:yi4 yrlJ tpp - : ©xi ot e.;: Xi

i.!'/,, ■:• i .'j i ;..■., ;. x/xorrp^ , x fyp- -vo DdX 'to Xqnonoo ©xit dA.iw dljG^b

j ._'■ i-.i .C f i x.i l.-'._’ ... ,■' ' i i-' T' i, -j : x; Jt J i s lla:.' i:) i/ao Xo o ul e v oxi ?

v' iv A y: ■ ■ .:;'a; L» .x ..p/.,oi'j ,..-:xo’A> XXXOD ^yI^^CX\l oOiXqObP

'■ l■■ o X y: (:: ■■o.:' y. s ^ e 1 xj XX l;.; P o ,h :j' X <i y

., y o x X tips :£ v.). £.- > .r ac, X> r-' ■ o :t o 1 e y s fi X

101

REFERENCES

Abeles, N. A study of the characteristics of Counselor

trainees, Ph.D. thesis. University of Texas, 1958.

Albee, G., and Dickey, M. Manpower trends in 3 mental health

professions. Amer. Psychol., 1957, 2, 57-70.

Anderson, R. A comparative study of factor analysis and

multiple correlation. Ph.D. thesis. University of Texas,

1958.

Barthol, R.P., and Kirk, B.A. The selection of graduate stu¬

dents in public health. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 40,

159-163.

Bass, B.M, Faking on the Gordon Personal Profile. J. appl.

Psychol. , 1957, 41, 403-405.

Berentgarten, S. Criteria for selection of social work stu¬

dents. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the Amer.

Assoc, of Schools of Social Work, Boston: Jauiaary, 1949.

Bishop, Margaret E. The selection and admission of students

in a school of social work. Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn.

Press, 1948.

Borislow, B. The E.P.P.S. and Fakability. J. appl. Psychol.

1958, 22-27.

Borgatta, E.F., and Stimson, J. Sex differences in inter¬

action characteristics. J. soc. Psychol., 1963, 60,

89-100.

Buckner, D.N. The predictability of ratings as a function of

interrater agreement. J. appl. Psychol., 1959, 4^, 60-64.

Burns, E.M. What’s wrong with Public Welfare? Soc. serv.

Rev., 1962, June, 11-18.

Buros, O.K. (ed.) The 5th Mental Measmts. Yearbook. New

Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1959. pp. 534-535.

Carlson, E.R., and Carlson, R. Male and Female subjects in

personality research. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960,

61, 482-484.

' « • 'if.'' w ’lri.

•xoXaanuoD lo i'l&fa&'XBdo sxrr lo ypuSB A _.n . «£>l9dA

,85eX ,e&x9T lo y fiaiav iinU fSissjrfX ,as9nij£ia;.1

fitl/isn' la^vioiii ?■ nx Bli-yxt xswoqnjaK ,M , dKi brui , . D ,DsdIA

.0\'*’'c < , .lofipy-gq . x^onA , aaoXsas^^'ioiq

bns xoioBi lo ^baia ItRXBcmoo A *5i ^ aosxobnf,

,bexqT lo ytxsT^vi nU , a ,..G..d8 .iioxXBlDXioo slqxXXtfm

.6c v? X

“bXa alBitiBXD I.) noxtos.r^e Bdl .A.d <>.'xxyi brm ,.^.5^ ^lofiixEE 5 ,0x01 , .Xodoygq . XqqB ,q .ih'lBsri oiXdoq nx aJ-nisb

.EdJ-'Qc'.X

.IqoG .c .olxliXiS IsnosisiS dobxoO srij no g.ahi/s‘H

.eof^-eo^ ,X^ ,veqx ..lodovaSl ^ '"iwiwmili ■W«a»»Ati I «Mr«iir

“ij^a AlOW Xx.j:oo8 lo noxXosfivg xcl b .r IxD .8 ^ n© X:£Bqtn*3X98 . xsxia obJ a'-: 3oc3xc!lao0 i/3t;j.M.A 7.s boJa&eaxq i3q.jeS .afn&b .

. irioXaod ,mxcVv J'bxoo^ lo eLootioB lo .ooaeA

3 nob tits lo noxL. y i»iifo£. fens noi tos> J^e pdT , a 191ssq i bM , qoii^ X8 , na&H lo .vxflO :£ixd!7isb^iX idS . d iow X&/.Cioa 1 o ' j.oodoa b nx

.Si^^X (Sa&i'x'^

. iorinyaS > Igga . L , y t iIxciB>iis"i bne .B,S.4.a ariT .8 ^woIaixoH

,Ti;-’SS ,£± ,8c^:l

-j&tai nX asynol^ll xb X3i?. .c no^ra i t2 ' bns ^altsoioa ( , £ d^ I , . Iqdpvaq . oog ,L . a o x t a i xs t ob i AxXo noi 1 ob

. , ■ .OOX-C^S

lo aoxtOQbX X as a^'nitax lo ytxlidjGloiibsxq 9,dX .W.Ci ,'xsajionS , ^d'Cd , , ,XofiDvg4 . IqgB .b .j n®ia»3X(^s x.© tBxxolax

. vioa . oqS foxolXsW olldnq dlxw ondxw ;>* t.sriW ,M,H f.actxsjS .8£-11 jOqX'L <.£■,>;:){?i ^

woW .lioodX so V^ , s.taxai^af.-. ^ [s dig odT ( . b©) . H, O ac.xij6

.<2£S-’i*f-c .qc]^ . yc^I , sasi*^! nf^dciyiO oiiX ;y©ax3b

al £j*’D©cbna oXx>fooq bnB oXa;M .5i ,ao:2liBD boB ,,51.3 ,noaXie.i; ,Cb9X , . lodoygq poa , L nioiBoasi ytxXs^yaaxoq

. &oi*^ , Id

102

Cronbach, L.J. Essentials of psychological testing. (2nd Ed.)

New York: Harpers, 19oO.

Cliff, N., Newman, S.ll., and Howell, M. Selection of sub¬

professional hospital care personnel. J. appl. Psychol.,

1959, 42-46.

Creager, J., and Miller, R. Summary of regression analyses

in the prediction of leadership criteria. Document No.

ASD-TN-61-41, USAF, Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical

Systems Div., 1961.

Cuadra, C.A. , and Reed, C.F. Prediction of psychiatric aide

performance. J. appl. Psychol., 1957, 41, 195-197.

Dale, R.R. A critical review of Valentine's Reasoning Tests.

M. Burok, O.K. (Ed.) The 5th Mental Measmts. Yearbk.,

New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1959, 509.

Dickens, C.F. Simulated patterns on the C.P.I. and E.P.P.S.

J. counsel. Psychol., 1960, 7, 24-31.

Distefano, M.K., and Bass, B.M. Prediction of an ultimate

criterion of success. J. appl. Psychol. 1959, 43, 40-41.

Dunnette, M.D. et al. A study of faking behaviour. Personnel

Psychol., 1962, 15, 13-24.

Dunnette, M.D. et al. Relations among scores on the E.P.P.S.,

C.P.I., and Strong. J. appl. Psychol., 1958, 42, 175-181.

Edwards, A.L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research,.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, and vVinston, 1962.

Eysenck, H.J. Manual for the Maudsley Personality Inventory.

London: Univ. of London Press, 1959.

Eysenck, S.B.J., and Eysenck, H.J. On the dual nature of

extraversion. Brit. J. soc. din. Psychol., 1963, 2, 46-55.

Ferguson, G.A. Statistical analysis in psychology and educa-

tion. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

I'

.t,>cK'i' , ■ .:r:i:c';:"- vr';;!/'i

’:r : 1, :t •:;j a , ...i;.,,3 n6«:[W9y' 4 . I'l ^ I'ix (, D

I'''-:'''v^V; ^lA j - qaad . X,|K:;;;■:;

i ,1, J:e s:?,-. r;Aj';• .swu’ijg . .u . I, ^

;;,Xi.:C;i‘:';Xu,'XX ■ ''S':'XC' :i.ui'Xoibs'Xq SfclU’ ux iX’.;:;-i.'r,;,;(,!'i,/.r; .Li/i . ^-naos x^v>'i, <,''XAiXl? ,

' , i . \'x:0. kflisj j 8^8

- ^ :a:.> XXXux).'JX/l „A.D ^/sacbswO

-'b; : V r. , /xcPI - .,^iXAJXX.,„x.i: ,OAAi'’'*: f-’Xioq

XX '.'A \,i; '-;■., „0 X',.; „,, v 'x D- 'X O r «/ , ■ ' ixxxtlxo A . 5l ., h, , .t sXjSQ

. rX'xUiA^.. .xxyAx\AAl:^.M:x .xlx [ x: A''^ „„>L,0 ,„>;[o':fi.a .,M ' Ac T , iA:b.;' „ "cyox'i .lox-x-nO odX waVI .

A''A'A. - :■: - „:.. ex::c. ,':r -c;,^ bi, i.x; Xc ' .'h( * D ,, q bG

-'A- :' -: Ar i ■■

i :':XixXvAtxxx , „,A A'^ „^po&baGe.,KI

, •' .:: : y 1 i.i xo i: .'tiJi J ix p'

.. .j' ' > C "" X ,:■ , ', AJ.K,. , V c.'";'. : „ V' X ,, ■ i'cO ’; ^ .„ lodsvabi . '

•, '':n A" „ .sb ,l£, fs ,CA,A e sG' J'sfinrjjCi

yxd’.'iA'^X:.-.. b. Up XX-H^XXd A 'Ci‘X ii .

'_ ■.jj;,.; X.; .X,::' X::,'X. ._j':, ,b. *, Ad: X.' A’: A X!/'J! ...I „ /c , p A’T'pw,b3 ' '■■■ ■'; Lb , Lu-b ; bibo- 's' 'iM<, :b

XX i.:b;. ^ , u A /’.,LA '■ ■: ...-Aa AAA)A ♦ L,. H v;::,ij"'\i;iG '1<'; . \,.'xx'?Vf t rujbnio J

■ A.:■ x..A.s.:AAl..^..xL J. '.:’.’.A'Xii.' ..tx xXi , nolEipv.®iXxc>

AbAi.AiSb. .,,b..:'. b'..Xj: A:!..r,b.X.■' .,AA]) t noeuiyxs^ . „ x'-^x-x,, , 1:iXAii-AriX'A ^ o■«■«•;>loT Xnoct

103

Fisher, P.S. Welfare personnel. Address to Winnipeg Welfare

Planning Council. June, 1963.

Garry, R. Individual difference in the ability to fake voca¬

tional interests. J. appl. Psychol. , 1953, 37, 33-37,

Ghisselli, E.E. , and Kahneinan, D. Validity and nonlinear

heteroscedastic models. Personel. Psychol., 1963, 15, 1-12.

Gehraan, W.S. A study of ability to fake scores on the Strong.

Educ. Psychol. Measmt., 1957, 17, 65-70.

Goldstein, H.K. Prediction of success in a school of Social

Work. M.A. Thesis, Washington University, St. Louis, 1959.

Gordon, L.V. Fakability of a personality test under realistic

conditions. J. appl, Psychol., 1956, 40, 253-262.

Gough, H.G. Manual for the California Psychological Inven¬

tory. Palo Altao: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.,

1957.

Gough, H.G. Simulated patterns on the MMPI. J. abnorm. soc.

Psychol., 1947, 42, 215-225.

Gravitz, L., and Mintz, M. Interests and performance of social

workers. M.A. Thesis, Washington Univ. St. Louis, 1959.

Green, R.F. Does a selection situation induce testees to bias

their answers on interest and teraperment tests? Educ.

psychol. Measmt., 1951, 11, 503-515.

Gripton, J. An analysis of some American public assistance

programs. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univ, of

Toronto, 1960.

Grygier, Patricia. The personality of student nurses. Int.

J. soc. Psychiat., 1956, 2, 105-112.

Grygier, T. The use of objective and projective tests in

social work research: Discussion. Paper presented at the

90th Annual National Conference on Social Welfare,

Cleveland, May, 1963.

104

Guildford, J.P., and Lacey, J.I. Printed classification tests.

AAF aviation psychology research program report No. 5,

Wash. D.C., 1947.

Guion, R.M. Criterion measurement and personnel judgements.

Personnel. Psychol., 1961, 14, 141-149.

Heron, A. Effects of real-life motivation on questionnaire

response. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 40, 65-68.

Holt, R.R,, and Luborsky, L. Personality patterns of psy¬

chiatrist s. A study of methods to select residents. New

York: Basic Books, Inc., 1953.

Jackson, D.N., and Messick, S. Content and Style in Personal¬

ity assessment. Psychol. Bull. , 1953, 55, 243-252.

Jay, R., and Copes, J. Seniority and criterion measures of

job proficiency. J. appl. Psychol., 1957, 41, 58-60.

Kelly, E.L., and Fiske, D.W. The prediction of performance

in clinical psychology. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Mich.

Press, 1951.

Kelly, E.L. et al. Ability to influence one's score on a

typical paper and pencil test of personality. Charact.

and Pers., 1935, 4, 206-215.

Kendall, K.A. Education for social work. In Kurtz, R.H. (Ed.),

Social Work Yearbook. New York: Amer. Assoc, of Soc.

Wks.. 1957, 12, 170-215,

Kidneigh, J.C., and Lundberg, H.W, Are social work students

different? Soc. Work, 1953, 3, 57-61.

Kirchner, W.K. "Real-life" faking on the Strong Vocational

Interest Blank by sales applicants. J. appl. Psychol.,

1961, 45, 273-276.

Kirchner, W.K. "Real-life" faking on the E.P.P.S. by sales

applicants. J. appl. Psychol., 1962, 46, 128-131,

:r o X'X Xx a .x.5£>.' I ici:t% .-f 'xt:«■ ^■'^^:'*

’; 'T X'USXDO Xi'Datxr};dli’*|it^'■ ^kA ' ■ ''' 'a. '■ .. " ‘ ■""• ■••' ' —'n--*'*.'., ■

■>QX5l^)>X bt*S

'bbX> ix.l p b ix . xb ' ^ ’‘.i

oix! b’EXixi'’, i.o iio i:l&r},it ^Si X'asx ig1''b©(,^tBx'x , A ' ■ .uciyi , -. ix>irio:va^ij; . x,.£9^;a^li^'a>i '

'■ ■■■X .bxfxgbX,.#-... a-X xJv.^.noiXxjx5'.. ,.'J V’^4:axodx;J ■

fxyi:. xxs'i Josl^x ox sborijBM xo vIxwXs •, '

'..xji'dX ,v oo;ol f4jj;c-,xd3. XUa.«H. x

I'X; rXv.j-r. Lxixxv XfsrxxxxfcCV V:B ; '0 bri/s «

lid) ,io.- .X'-X'd ,4xxs>®aaaa@'il, v'tib : X , X.xO:,A

r;xrxxx- ;,x>iio Xxio 1X1X4 xtoln'airt . t ' ^ asqoB' bo# ' .

.lb;xb..PdiL ^ P tt' b'm ; ,d>!x S :

‘X- --''" > ^yb:>kn --,xoo:Ui aah ' ..

...■„x:'' : :; , .i,< vH @$'»X£5 .,:

X' XUX'X x ’ soo scnsi'f ;,a].- Ol b^v xi |d4 . dl# ' ' ,4^

dx ' ■ x',a )• bsfiC'g i4Xj Xo I xbHXsq /X^lx-iXd' XrffipXqlcX X '

.soXiob, alx . ^xoxxoxv , Xolpqe ;;xo)fc; xXlQiw1^f»q'q^ ; ,

XO-. , cxxpsd. ., xpbA -xfidY' '!i'i/s.M)/x )' ' ;■

^ '^' .1, 'X ii'i ']; 1 ',

SOO'J oauXX;,',:, pri r no' ,■ x

'-'b ,^x-x,,oii.^qs -^tci ^miB 3se>^9^j?i|;/

bil.blib-W /dX ou t^ax^IjS)!

Xxvl:'",xA !..„ ^ f bddixq, .„

X t

,: v' I'^d X;.,) d''v''\ ^.'.d!,

Ki. ,'.^(..i:i

lu'j

Krug, R.E. The effect of specific selection sets on a forced-

choice inventory. J. appl. fsychol., 1958, 42, 89-92.

Leigh, Ann. Social casework and its administration. Paper

presented at Annual Conf. of Institute of Public Adminis¬

tration, Ottawa, July, 1963.

Lewis, J.A. Kuder and MMPI scores for two occupational

groups. J. consult. Psychol., 1947, 11, 194-201.

Longstaff, II.P. Fakability of the Strong and Kuder. J. appl.

Psychol.. 1948, 32, 360-369.

Lundberg, H.W. Some distinctive characteristics of students

entering graduate Social Work education. Ph.D. Thesis,

University of Minnesota, 1957.

McCornack, R.L. Vocational interests of male and female

Social Workers. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 40, 11-13.

McCornack, R.L. and Kidneigh, J.C. The vocational interest

patterns of Social Workers. Soc. work J., 1954, 35, 161-163.

McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics. New York: Wiley, 1955,

Maher, H. Studies of transparency in forced-choice scales.

J. appl. Psychol., 1959, 43, 275-278.

Manson, F. Utilization of welfare personnel project report:

Research on staffing. Paper presented at Annual Confer¬

ence of Canadian Welfare Council, Ottawa, May, 1963.

Marin, R.E. Relationships between three psychological tests

and social work grades. Ph.D. Thesis, University of

Pittsburgh, 1953.

Mayo, G.D. and Guttman, I. Faking in a vocational classifica¬

tion situation. J. appl. Psychol., 1959, 43, 117-121.

Messick, S. Dimensions of social desirability. J. consult.

Psychol., 1960, 24, 279-287.

Mills, D.H. and Hanhum, T.E. Fakability of the M.A.S., J.

appl. Psychol., 1959, 43, S-11.

iiL>r:'isc. , anA

' ;c' .1 r; m' 1;' A j n "■- ,J -; j;/ rj y V q

. . ;UM T

■w:?' - T r:, so^^ci .b!i’j.& l£>.bw„''{

■ ■■: i. •. ■ j;,

. v/aJ

iX id&. 4 . t. .1

; .-d 'i V K

:; :l X :■ :■ V n':; ojv x.l on I y •; JX, o/i' . '.■!■ /' 4 :: , ■; .1 9i.:il..■-.i

.-9'i c)x .'JOi':- xx.XiX i.'X-x'fwS

•. ■'<: i ; 'V I'C.xs n;>") xM o, X ; ; • 91 au

ciXiOoV ■> J, i/i f .

.L .a'la^AicjVI .LGi^ioX;!

L. , r:4;-j:;;;iu.oX>'l bajs ,.j.h , .4 oxiaaoDaM

, : xaW XE,i3o8 '^o cio .*;s J; isq

ioil'o '0'''jc,\ <;.sVl - g.b.bXg.b^V;'Xc .l'.60XqoIoribv.gS( .i,

s.'.'5 aaiax;::'n j.; '/.:■'59-'i.BCis.ia.S'S t ^,0 t&oibvtii , ,. H .j,'laxXaK

.4Vb-XT4 , „ i?evU (.loriDVa^ ,. lqx|/> ,L

i.inc;,;'sx. •-' 9 a ;l-i 9 V/ lo r/OxJ'asii , ^;ioanaM

O.-.OOO' .'. J. X''' 41 ;X',i , '-.yn j. 'jdLk'.' y fi. t"/'0 i'.'. O’X JSirXS X'Jsi

.'a J i'. j ^ i.a .4 io o 9 ki-xV'i n,"'-.'..c''.£>v7X/'X X o siorii?

10 V/ix .19'X ,j t a ig-SrX' C .(t.o. x-.'-.v;/ Xj;a;:-oo2 bviB

.. X. X i., X / d; ? "i. y>6.o. j X 1:4

xxx. ^ 0 j. ^x j ov '0 o i x , . ■ , ..xrxlx/ .'4 .4a':- ,.G.X) ,

X 4-X [ r , x.a t i , ,;4'- .;4x.,44, :X4.x.X - ''' a:-xi / ri .'. x no it

X , I'xxixxxXi baa , X.,C ., a j.lj:!'-;

'■ ' ^ ■' 'X^44'i.i4 4 a

106

Mitchell, J.V. A factorial analysis of the C.P.I. and 16 PF

test. J. soc. Psychol., 1963, 61, 151-165.

Nachman, B. Childhood experiences and vocational choice: A

study of social workers, dentists, and lavv'yers. D.

Thesis, University of Michigan, 1957.

Nefzger, M. and Drasgow, J. The needless assumption of norm¬

ality in Pearson’s r. Amer. Psychol., 1957, 12, 623-625.

Newman, E.L. An American looks at British social service.

Soc. serv, >juart . , 1961, 35, 5-9.

Nicholson, J.H, The Younghusband Report: Comment. Soc. serv

Quart., 1959, 33, 55-56.

Norman, W.T. Problems of response contamination in. personal¬

ity assessment. Doc, No. ASD-TN-61-43, USAF Aero, Systems

Div. Personnel Lab., May, 1961.

Norman, W.T. Development of self-report tests to measure per

sonality factors identified from peer nominations. Doc.

No. ASD-TN-61-44, USAF Aero. Systems Div, Personnel Lab,,

May, 1961.

Norman, W.T, Validation of personality tests as measures of

trait-rating factors. Doc. No. PRL-TDR-62-4, USAF Per¬

sonnel Research Lab., Aerospace Medical Div. April, 1962.

Palermo, D.S., and Martire, J.G. The influence of order of

administration on self-concept measures. J. consult.

Psychol., 1960, 24, 372.

Paterson, D.G. Vocational interest inventories in selection.

Occupations, 1946, 25, 152-153.

Prien, £,P. and Liske, R.E. Assessments of higher-level per¬

sonnel: Rating criterion. Personnel Psychol., 1962, 15,

137-194.

Rettig, S. and Pasamanick, B. Social workers’ status aspira¬

tions. Ment, Hyq. N.Y., 1960, 44, 48-54,

Rimland, B. Personality test faking, Educ, psychol, Measmt,

1962, 22, 747-752.

o;-YG . £>|{J io L&i'ioio&'l _A .V,L ^ XIi»Ad

, c: ,i'-'Ic*.! ,16 ,'t.dQl' ./l odpv.a^’j! .'r>o^ _ . L- . tgat

I&iX'l j'/;Aa ;xf e^unwiisipcst oco^bXxiiO „S < riemrio^H

j..j.:lJ. . ^''.-''\/‘^r<.L 5 aj '6-> ( 3:XSva IOV.( Ijsxooa !ro

/V'-.o! ^ xt* \(t Xciiiav i;nU ^ a.Xai^jtiT

X :' ■: aasiby^n sr'X .(,. .v'/ogesia bns .W ,

-LX6 .; - ••' ^ 0j,: vj ll^

iXxiv'lxa XXi.X'i'^a f.,o:.M.X-": '>,(■'r, i. j'X-ffs, ■ >; '!, . ,', Xi < HiSiDWOl'l

, .b(!XXi::i.‘C.b : ^ :; s.i, 7 X. ^ nx ■:• I O/lOXVl

Hiiiu j. o;'l

a 0 a a 6 Y X i

.xiO

jr.l£cias

. .'.6CX ,, v.Si'i

Xia- i xBVf X

xorx';oa

‘ 11 70); G^ll b J , Z. 1 l! 0;^^': .OCTX , ^ ^ , 0 ,OiaX£>X);il

, <?i0tx>s/.'GA!; :;'q;;>:'i',o:--- ...J.X'X ji;, 0 : ,'j *x 7 2 Inixirb;;:,

- ''■'' .■-’111 .; •Ai'llV'l?

0.7 .'G-^.'07 : ,':s>v'fl„i; . 0 ■ i v.X'x xi.0,O.Q ,.

• ' •■ '- , a '101 :i' .0 0, L00/>j

OaXGCi ;.;; ■ 0:0' ;'•... ••■ax,' ;. '; uiG ,ilj.' •'" H

'•■' '<.'"1 X';^ ; ''X'' ■ ■ ■' I '. ■ ■' ''''0'X'v.0

> V. X' ■; > ^ . 7 ,. j ,«'.■■» i...i ,1. (7 0 ^ ,■' I

.... -v 0 0:./X. I. ■ ‘ ..' •.. 7x’'' i :■ ■; ■'• ,.'x' .:' / . "X^'V >■''0'X j. ;0 .■■xC'

• • '• '■'- -» < ' - - / : • ' .l[ I ".,• •. . . . ■ 1 ,. . 1 ' j .1, - : A , ' , A .*.. X

^ ■■ ^ ' '■ '■■ A X X-’ \ c .1-^..^ r.: .1 ■; ' '' ’ . 1. .,' , , ; > -.'0‘ r ..I kJ ”"'

0 .: u,;:.,'.G..-; 00 sass-X q t .ll'.X xx/0 Ixi 00 / .5 .Xx.. j;. .r;sV

■ 'l-l- l' > IQT-Jl'l . 7:'; ,.: ^0 .a ToXx xl vnA. -I- ,| ' . ' ■ ; » ■■/ :'.l .'. ,G G ''-'XX;'’! Xx.; r.';x X XX;'''x0. , ., rix>’..;j'.'X.y;

..Xx:'Grxx ..ix' /x .) ■*'■■; ;, . ., , . ^, ■ .x ',.j b''xx, ,'I.. 1. .. i^sx i'x

■■ ■• ■• •■' '■ -Aboys"-). .‘.'X ■' : ■ i.'.xx ' X-0 ' ’ '

, / ' ‘L .1 - \ V., .1

'XX' iX Xi i .'X X'X. , I , .;:

X ;0 J., -LiAib - ^ I

, b , 6xa.h.ux: i;,V^ Xi XXC;;. :):xXi

107

Roe, Anne. Personal communication to V.D. Sanua (1963), to

be published.

Rosenburg, L. et al. The prediction of academic

with the C.P.I. J. appl. Psychol., 1962, 6,

achievement

46-51.

Rusmore, J.T. Fakability of the Gordon Personal Profile. J^.

appl. Psychol., 1956, 40, 175-177.

Sanua, V.D. Problems of selection of candidates for schools

of social work: Review of the literature on the applica¬

tion of psychological testing. Paper presented at the

90th annual National Conference on Social Welfare, May,

1963, Cleveland.

Schmidt, D. The protective service caseworker: How does he

survive job pressures? Child Welfare, 1963, 3, 115-117.

Severin, D. The predictability of various kinds of criteria

Personnel Psychol., 1952, 5, 93-104.

Shively, M.F, An analysis of the construct "Relationship" as

used in Social Work. D.S.W. Thesis, Washington Univ., 1961.

Sidney, G.P. A study of psychological and biographical vari¬

ables as possible predictors of successful psychiatric aide

performance. Unpubld. Doctoral Dissertn., The Pennsyl¬

vania State University, 1957.

Siegman, A.W. A cross-cultural investigation of the relation¬

ship between Extraversion and anti-social behaviour.

Brit. J. SQC. din. Psychol., 1963, 2, 196-208.

Smillie, K.W. Multiple Linear Regression. Unpubld. Mnscrpt.

Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Nov. 1962. /Pers* Commtn#1963

Steinraetz, H.L. Measuring ability to fake occupational in¬

terest. J. appl. Psychol., 1932, 16, 123-130.

Stewart, L.H, Social and emotional adjustment during adoles¬

cence as related to the development of psychosomatic ill¬

ness in adulthood. Genetic, psychol. Monoq., 1962, 65,

175-1.

iOii

strong, E.K. Manual lor the Strong Vocational Interest

Blanks. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.,

1959.

Sorenson, A.G. Faking on the M.T.A.I. J. appl. Psychol.,

1956, 40, 192-194.

Sorenson, A.G. and Sheldon, M.S. Further note on fakability

of the M.T.A.I. J. appl. Psychol., 1958, 42, 74-78.

Sydiaha, D. Interviewer consistency in the use of empathic

models in personnel selection. J. appl. Psychol., 1962,

46, 344-349.

Taylor, C. and Combs, A.W. Self-acceptance and Adjustment.

J. consult. Psychol., 1952, 89-91.

Taylor, H.C. and Russell, J.T. The relationship of validity

coefficients to practical effectiveness of tests in sel¬

ection. J. appl. Psychol., 1939, 23, 565-578.

Tibbie, J.W. Problems in the training of teachers and social

workers. Social rev. Monoqr., 1959, 2, 47-57.

Thorndike, R.L. Personnel selection. New York: Wiley, 1949,

Topetzes, N.J. A program for the selection of trainees in

physical medicine. J. exp. Educ., 1957, 25, 263-322.

Towle, Charlotte. The selection of students for social work

education. In Selection of students for Schools of Social

Work. New York: Council on S.W. Educ., 1955.

Valentine, C.W. Manual for Reasoning Tests for Higher Levels

of Intelligence. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1954,

Viteles, M.W. The aircraft pilot: Five years of research; a

summary. Psychol. Bull., 1945, 42, 489-526.

Wasserman, S. and Gitlin, P. Child care worker training ex¬

perience. Child Welfare, 1963, 42, 392-398.

109

Watson, E.E. Utilization of welfare personnel project re¬

port: Background. Paper presented at Annual Conference

of Canadian Welfare Council, May, 1963. (a)

Watson, E.F. Exec. Secty., Connnission on Educ. and Per¬

sonnel, Canada Welfare Council. Personal coniinunication,

Aug. 6, 1963. (b)

Wesman, A.G. Faking personality test scores in a simulated

employment situation. J. appl. Psychol., 1952, 36,

112-113.

Windle, C.S., and Dingman, H.F. Interrater agreement and

predictive validity. J. appl. Psychol., 1960, 44,

203-204.

V\/onderlic, E.F. Manual for Wonderlic Personnel Test.

Northfield, 1111.: Wonderlic Personnel Test Co., 1945,

Zubin, J. The appraisal of applicants to medical schools:

A brief survey of ”the interview". Evanston, Ill.:

Assoc, of Amer. Med. Colleges, 1957.

r ■ : , I

' ' ‘ ^- v ' : J V'; . ;li . ,, !, eW

\ > i ‘• i.o

Ir.:-'ijc:'' r;/:-‘ix:'' lo

■y'} ., o©x3 /gv‘

...:.X ::j‘3 .'..■ x aoi'.: (d) , ■") DJXA

11> f usimc-VJ

< d ., :vo 1: .i’B I.,' X i;a t ao sk v :: T qiris»

.t:,r i>-S:x,I

a,rCi box ,;5jXjbai:W

X , . V ;; IbI fcv t d .::bx iq

. ^o:;;“eo£ ■

,;... ...;’Xbi. ....LililbbH'j » 3.3, < o i ,C I lyb aoVv

i.:i.jbncy ;.ii.CI ,bisxidj’loK

■;'} .^.^A■^ bx x';'-'•b , axcii/S .; Kj. I s-dj '' io v»vx.:.!a i&xxd ,A

.1X o b' . b-i j:o , oa ^ < -'i

110

iLppt$fM% 1. * Tostractfi6n3 lo

d©p»r\iaent ’ia«. i.*ocn i -■ r io ■* '-

f^ro.'Ject <;;ri'.-‘.l lo i ■''v. w ^i 0 I - or. a^O.J I

WOfA4>r9« Vour i»S';i *\i.v... ... chajji jstea i.t;:. i;*)ly ij» pi:ovici_„,

Itjr md PTofj .

Aft only ip.. . rai. i.>l;o>a<Aai: i ow oX an occw ^ a' or9 I category ift requlKocl, ar oot ir ; rwaiion of specific ; yo*.*. ftg;« asKed to raniic'iuly ar v: ;m a codft numbci ii,^.Tcaciit wc: S6l«ct#d , itc^i a ran^a ot nuat r?:*. i rbitturiiv asEi,{j|^<(j|4.:,^5c/ o,",:;;-**, "Tarings (and later cMit:.- ;lata) sviOiKi ttfrcl itill thvj.3 . . ^.^50C•* , ^’

laio;-. vriih ftuch anor.vi» coda Tiu*ibeyft la^t <*'.1.tb worxfjr'a

roono-f. • ,

4#/ Nu-'.>ri.o- L 3:ttiu9ft ajTA to bv^ (ar^ if gj:b.d?n^ out of

ibO'i*) bu ^ r.-./-v’. r j.-: ti t ':. th« particular vaXa«y ‘*v ♦ Pleaso that cmcloycici elsiewhi^Te may b*i? ^detjaat-e

\wrkcr#.,,l?ti<^ ♦ «*>■ tbi^ ApppMnTrpc;'^ xoceivo ratiagt. frbra 5D to b.'; wo * ^ ^ ^ is . M-wce ratings

of ?)p^ and abovo rdi’r“ »o conslijlorabiy werkors. ■ ■ . f-

' ■.•.■■ <1

r.n fcXiiill.l.- M' Vr..vt ;..'i. h'. be rscel''ed, c '-yM'efeco, fxo^ft 7 ^ an. of f i c e yr f h ^ aJT -. o.y 5 i ^y:; r -.1 v h<> codc -..s^^ft^ t unge 230 - .■’' _'

240 is: i .r«. , ‘ b.i'n 1^- ■ *' ’'

231

'■<: 234 • ■ iib ' ... 77

9 - \9^S‘ . 7Q

Itr -.ii.'. /, H » « D , . / ?«

23a • ^ t . . V 73

239 f W 9 * ... 74

Hencei neither tu« unr 4^ aityon'® could possibly

to Whom any partlcrjiS^ iv.j-ts (other than each

^bbpazvlsor for his ov.n oib. .v, . W<:t v -is re^^fi jn and the fact

^K^^|ftuch information . t; - r i • 13.i3t<ei5 for general pur-

the raiiags show d p<„>t Lw: :^©untersigner'’' hy or rade

Ill

Appendix 1. - Instructions to Raters.

"The department has been asked to cooperate in a re¬

search project designed to provide information about Welfare

Workers. Your assistance is requested initially in providing

individual ratings of each of your worker’s overall suitabil¬

ity and proficiency.

As only general information of an occupational category

is required, and not information of specific workers, you are

asked to randomly assign a code number to each worker selected

from a range of numbers arbitrarily assigned each office.

Ratings (and later other data) submitted will thus be assoc¬

iated with such anonymous code numbers and not with worker's

names.

Numerical ratings are to be used (as if grading out of

100%) but restricted to the particular values 70 to 79.

Please assume that employed elsewhere may be quite adequate

workers v;ho, on this basis, would receive ratings from say 50

to 69, but that we have none in this department. Hence ratings

of 70 and above refer to considerably comp etent workers.

An example of what might be received, therefore, from

an office with 6 workers, assigned the code number range 230-

240 is:

Code Number Rating

231.73

234 . 77

235 . 70

237 . 78

238 . 73

239 . 74

Hence, neither the undersigned nor anyone else could possibly

know to whom any particular rating refers (other than each

supervisor for his own office). For this reason and the fact

that such information can only be utilized for general pur¬

poses, the ratings should not be countersigned by or made

available to the respective workers.

:iO ::

-i. V>.! t

.: 1 c:; '.V

r: . .■

'■

- 'U j

' S‘

[ I e

!'■

\

; " ■' -i i X.: ■; i t a n; I ■“ .1 >; xbnxx -:k! A

' ■■■■ ■ -• i !' 'S. w X

■ :' ■ - - ■ ■ . ^ ' ■ j , ' ■■j j S' ^> A.v;

a-'- ^ ■ ■' si - :ia lea s.uos ,. a

■'' sa O' :;.c , a < ..o i axibiv j±in.i;

aoi: toola;’. J.oia n:3i[> \(;XnQ iaA

oo' aj.'.laa...-;a i :joa ba» ^i:)si ^

Soaio a:! .S;biaii;^j;L„aX;„ba rrolaaa- a^Irwohnsi o:r ba^3£

s boo-ai:aas v;i I'ls'i 7 a. .! :■. s-ia'.:u~,un: lo r q 'X'x'i'l

s --b: ca. j .( a‘7,7'i.13 (atra,-) lo.'iXo baab sQr.x 'j:.}'.

Ibb '-i'^ a a a-; .bairn a ao.ua j'Ubo .boTai;

.aoaiao

ta aa) oo or sss aion.ljo'v JbioiiQiuaW. ,

a.aoioa ial;:oij-a.o..7 oolt c :i boX-.:as:Xa©:£ tab {^001

^■11 'vb-s- 'O'xa ri>v3 3.Io bsy olbsio :bob-,; ouioa oao.7j.[b

bioaov t a laia'*’ a A :■;■> , omy a'l/v/r-:,'.'

;> o.on;:, ;.:r.. Gie e-b:/ r,,c onoa 701: ' loo ,00 o.^

,,/o-ro qii.:uo v .ibii'xsbiano.o C1 'lo'lox 7.: v oba baa b'\ lc>

'b , 07'visoio:: Ob . rbb;, .) .•■■ - i'ar'v; X7:'i

g:.'0 Gb oD bo'. -' ivs aq i£ ^, 3 lo.b low d /itlo tbo aa

... bob

' -' '« '• i » . « ^ '... 7... l:^

o\ ....... XbS

....... be 77 ‘b'■' ."ivlb*

4 • • f » ■ b -w '.'A

Sy^Jo •■!■•;(;'-o;:’, -xoa .la'7;;'O'Ga Oj-it t i:o;.b:£>rb teraoeab

.aloo; ii'i-:xlx'x no x's xxx o a X r.i.o 7 .r a a..'.; ■ qao xuo'br? oJ W'.oo.-

oasoa i;:'b..7 .. (r..-.: ybbo■■ .'a-'o a .ai oot; 'xoa.Ivio'roa

■': 7 n i;.,-; \;^x:ix.j arr X tx./r;7: Oiftl doira .lo.it

7'0 ■ .!'■;■ vb;. r o'G, a yxf Tnii .o.bxcxxa apa,r;rBi od;r ,3.7307;

.--o.;;',; b' G- t:::;.: aaa adJ' ot oii'-io ! i.^-v.3

112

Appendix 1 - (cont.)

Once all ratings are received two short sets of psy¬

chological tests for each worker will be mailed to your office

with any necessary instructions. It is important that as each

unsigned test is completed by a worker, it be handed directly

to the supervisor who will write that worker's code number in

the NAME space, unseen by that or any other worker or staff,

then placed in an evelope to be mailed with other such tests,

to the undersigned. A total of five tests will be sent; one

set of three followed a week later by a set of two. Each set

will require less than a 2 hour session to complete.

The apparent over-concern regarding anonymity is felt

vital in order to guarantee (1) valid, accurate ratings and

(2) honest, uninfluenced test data. It can not be over

stressed that neither the ratings nor the test responses

could ever be related to any one worker or supervisor.

Kindly submit ratings next to appropriate code numbers

on attached form. Select any _ code numbers from the

range _ to _. The only rating criterion is that

of overall welfare worker suitability and proficiency deter¬

mined on the basis of your experience and judgement. Thank

you for your cooperation."

Appendix 2. Instructions to the Major Groups.

"Your department has been asked to cooperate in a re¬

search project designed to provide information about Welfare

Workers. This will involve the completion of five psychologi¬

cal tests to be aistributed in two sets. All necessary in¬

structions for these are as printed on the tests themselves.

They should not bq perused until actually commenced nor dis¬

cussed with others who have yet to complete them. Your super¬

visor will arrange for the timing of the two tests which

have time-limits.

It is important that all workers realize that this re¬

search seeks to discover the true interests, personalities, and

abilities of Welfare Workers generally and does not seek in¬

formation of specific individuals. For this reason you are

asked to not identify yourself by name on any of the answer

sheets. However, since test results are to be correlated with

proficiency ratings, a coding system is being utilized to align

tests and ratings, the latter having been already obtained,

identified only by such code numbers. Hence neither this re¬

searcher nor any higher administrative staff could determine

the specific source of any particular test or ratings.

Supervisors have been asked to place each completed

test in an evelope immediately after writing (out of all

workers' view) the appropriate code number in the blank name

space. Only your supervisor should know to whom any particu¬

lar code number (or rating) refers. They will then be mailed

directly to the researcher. Since these tests will be en¬

tirely anonymous, it is hoped each worker will allow as true

a reflection as possible.

Cooperation with Regional Offices, thus far excellent,

is very much appreciated. Thank you."

\

-• ,S Klbc\&aq/K

1 ■■: ■ :Viiq:.'b ■ :;: -:oy‘'

■ ■■,:. .'■•ryii'o : u :r: (] ryy'ZC^Or;

^ i’ i w o .r , B xyy-so^

■ ■ y'-i.K, v:k,i -/„r B ‘T;;: \ ;;,

■; - BBO/.l i ■;:> • '■ I BHG ^ , ■,. Z

‘■y.y-> yy'- yza b/izcry.. ■, ;v.'''

y. '. "l BBJ :. fi t Hs '--v ;j

^ I.LIb:

. c :' .1. ■ r .i,I,La.'- ■

TB'' bb ■ y,

'v—tio-!BOZ

■ ./'-'V; i-: b :::c y -:< yy yS x:'y

' •■•■■■-. :J .;'Bx;s <:.y bQ; : .;

■■ ■' : - J:b . ly'^'X ^xxiA .

‘{ r,;'^; fb I'B x10:2a

' ' X. , ' I : . ^ , ,, ' .: ' . . ' ,, / . ; ,, ;(

* c- f.^yy „t. ' !.■ 'XX',> ■ v

yox X':.''Ip IX. ■ ".•■■)- !■:. y’:j :■ P.x- v- I'.' . .-.-IT .,;x:,:-; X:.1 -'.pi 1/

‘r;'-'(XX\ .;X AXy>:-J .XX, ; ‘ _

b, - rxpii;-B/;X- 'IQ .,.i: 1-xp i

'. ■■; X Ip:':" ■ :x 1' ' ,wii .r. 'x . ' x-11.11 o vi

x x '.qi.B X, .. y j p i aO ':x.fiqvX

{ .'Xii: bx:..;. ^ yy buny. sfcxjy; j&r

■ : - ■■ bx i. oi i oi pPtoqi Pp

- =■ ; - P.no.i-nofii 'x .:’px ■■,' '-'X.:.: .Xl«p IX;. BO X y X' Xt x

:yS>P rb' X ': .GX:„■;>

X OP PC! qi rlo'yx:? qxpv pi

)

114

Appendix 3. - Instructions to Simulation Groups.

"A research project which has involved the completion

OX' five psychological tests by welfare workers in the larger

regional offices, is presently underway.

The final phase of this project requires the collec¬

tion of a smaller number of three of the tests used which are

to be purposely completed in a faked manner. Workers in the

smallest regional offices are being requested to complete

these three tests, anonymously.

Specifically you are asked to complete the tests as

you tlilnk xvould most guarantee your acceptance as an applying

welfare worker with the knowledge that such test results were

to be taken into consideration. In other words you are asked

to purposely fake in a particular direction - even though, in

a real application situation you personally might not distort

your responses at all. Try to imagine you are the world's

most mature, educated, warm, outgoing, stable, professional

social worker and answer the questions accordingly.

The three tests to be completed are: (1) Maudsley Per¬

sonality Inventory; (2) The California Psychological Inventory

and (3) The Strong Interest Test. These will be provided by

your Supervisor. They should not take more than 2 hours to

complet e.

Thank you for your cooperation."

x.tbas>qqA

1,.: v. v;L;.:i/ivr”i9:t i\’‘

y." J !/• Di;iL>o.ror]Dvs:'[ s>vix 'io

i y^^olYxf. li’inoigD:!

.4.'!^^:./,.,n'i ■;I5.^R^ & k-.s

bo; ?■ qX&aoquu,; od S'

i ..' i .i'; o ■ 4,,:; :• iq©:-! 'i&sIi cu.a

jn\\or:, io: ^ irj o; j s"ii:QiSf-q-ri -•

,.:ii.:o„..^b:o';'.‘^,....v: b ifoy j i' :■ ■ -■ A ■-

'> ’■';0' ; or*: J g 3 ■ 3d' ■ • o,;q o.r

,L{:. I'G 3Son;;qKb: ::i3.y{

.. 03 :■ ’•■. 'ubo;' „ o.> 'i i.: 7 o/n X3 '''•'■r't.i VI Oi's;!>.71 c*; Xii..03*O

O jOl:'' ©©'.::01.' '■niX

VX [3) ; niovv!I diir^Moa

0 i' 1 ‘> j' fj I q rio !■ ,'■ ci, •:- 0) X , ( X i. ,b f; ;7

io ,); uo ,• jon^ribT'

115

Appendix 4. - Names for Test Scale Abbreviations.

TEST ABBREVI- FULL NAME

AT I ON

Valentine I Induction

Reasoning D Deduction

T est R Reasoning Total

Wonderlie W Wonderlic Total

Personnel

Test

Maudsley N Neuroticism

Per sonality E Ext raversion Inventory

Do Dominance

Cs Capacity for status

Sy Sociability

Sp Social presence

Sa Self-acceptance

Wb Sense of well-being

Re Responsibility

California So Socialization

Psychological Sc Self-control

Inventory To Tolerance

Gi Good impression

Cm Communality

Ac Achievement by conformity Ai Achievement by independence

le Intellectual Efficiency Py Psychological-mindedness Fx Flexibility

Fe Feminity

Art Artist Strong Psy Psychologist

Vocational Acht I Architect

Interest Phy (Creative- Physician Blank for Ost Scientific) Ost eopath Men Den Dentist

Vet Veterinarian

116

TEST ABBREVI

ATI ON

GROUP FULL NAME

Mt h Maihematician

Pht II Physicist

Engr (Physical Engineer

Chm Sciences) Chemist

PM III Production Manager

Fiur Fariiier

Avr Aviator

Cpt Carpent er

Pri IV Printer

MthT (Technical) Math-Science Teacher

lAT Industrial Arts Teacher

AgT Voc. Agriculture Teacher

Pol Policeman

Strong For Forest-service man

YPh YMCA Physical Director

Vocational PD Personnel Director

PA V Public Administrator

Int erest YS (Social- YMCA Secretary

SST services) Social Studies Teacher

Blank for SS School Superintendent

sw Social Worker

Men (Cont ) Min Mini Ster

Mus VI Musician

CPA VII Certified Public Acctnt.

SCP Senior Cert. Pub. Acctnt

Acc Accountant

Off VIII Office Man

PrA (Professional- Purchasing Agent

Ban clerical) Banker

Mor Mortician

Pha Pharmacist

SM IX Sales Manager

REs (Selling) Real Estate Salesman

LInS Life Insurance Salesman

Adv X Advertising Man

^ Law (Verbal- Lawyer

A/J linguistic) Author-Journalist

Pres XI President - Mfg. Concern

OL Occupational Level

MF Masculinity-Femininity

N.

dll'

awAH 4J:ya ■■ :*1U0aD - kVBHaaA'. mixA ^

^>^^ h? itsms if f-jsM iitU T1 fdH

XJSOxr^vidS) ,■ icgnia

M. aa m> '** •* '^V-.-ka •..•*?• ■*- •»• ■»• .(eson9i'D§ * sfdO isg'BasM nt3J!:lD£ifeo'.'icd III m

Xiiii ■10t£lvA .:■ i. xvA .

■ ■■' ' v“; '■ - VI ixs

,(IfiD ihp!3s>T) TridM aJaA I'fSi:’! ia wbfil tAt ■

Iuo cipA ^ 'i; ooV XoA astry^SkloH ioa

n&x ■XO'-i io 1 It xG i «i» i a ’ AGMV 'rBY

• ‘'-'’■ tdJ'DSli'C ■iilpt0?10.S19‘^ .. .:m xoJs'l^';^.b'’flaffeA V ;

“ie.xoo8) ■ev ^ 1 jsIboS ' (j®9C<ivi32 xaa .

# a.is.fo'tio tfii ix<g. ■'i'OodsjS aa - xaf:^l'joV? XfetooS wa-'

'.". xaXaiiiiJV) .

- „ 1 « . I 3 I aL'th T tnIooA 3 I' I I 11^?

trTx,Xrr£f003A odA

■.;: soTkltO. . ■ IIIV XiO . iA ;.:' ., _ ' ' -kao-QA ^rtxajefsOfXii'X’ - i£aox3aa»^o'j:a) A'xH

(, XBOXiMitX9 'asrdXtioM- ^ -XCiM,

•t s Xdi^tHisda £(Xi ; xi

a x>£U e s Ijsa ■ s J s 1 ;£ 3 i I aH£ n&mn'sLfs.'d s>Di‘x£,iiJ£.il sXid - daXJ

njsM '^a'xaxX'xsjVi^A X ■‘V£>A i9\i5yjsJ. -ijGdxsV) wr>J. ,

^ J e X X a £rx x(0 L~ xod tiiA^ n'j.^onoh '■«!, IX a©!"*!

Xit^VQj Lbcio ktiquodO JO 'x n X Cl X iro'l, -X xn xX xjoa m

• -•- - .. ,„ _ . ___ V-* : ^

X6noi:tjf5ooV

tsi*s>‘x3jnl

■xo’i siiiisXXi '■ .

{ )noO) ,'

m .; j

117

T EST ABBREVI- GROUP FULL NAME

AT I ON

Art Artist

Aut h I Author

Lib Librarian

ET II English Teacher

SW Social Worker

Psy III Psychologist

Law IV Lawyer

SST V Social Studies Teacher

YS YWCA Secretary

Strong LJnS IV Life Insurance Saleswoman

Buy VI Buyer

Vocational HsW VII

Housewife

ElmT Elementary Teacher

Interest Off Office Worker

Stgr VIII Stenographer

Blank for BSdT Business Educ. Teacher

HEcT IX

Home Econ. Teacher

Women Dtn Dietician

PEdT X Physical Educ. Teacher

OT Occupational Therapist

Nur XI Nurse

PhT Physical Therapist

MthT XII

Math-Science Teacher

Engr Engineer

Den Dentist

LT XIII Laboratory Technician

Phy Physician

MT

Mus XIV

Music Teacher

Musician

MF Masculinity-Feminity

HMAK Xim

lOdfiyA

i’&Jti 1 oW r'X £i;o?>2

X® xtfOXoxipxg'X^

. i©rfo4DX laskbiii'^ l4j;oo8

. yiiBi'f'idSfC

i^YUS *» ffr» «» .«> fMt ttg*) M Mr <•■ «■» '-m ‘Mr

ii>'tiw£>KWoH '

TiarloasT tna>fij©X'3,^^

ia;(/:roW SDX^tlsO

i'if£fq4l'??on& tS:

-do£)£! ssaaiguS -rpr M> MV Mr AM'Mr ir^M’l Mr M»M

xoi'lD4©T .aoo^l .0«JoH'

X^riofi'-uT ■ *ox'Wi X4,:>i:8YfN

' taX/SfJOxX^qijrjiiO

ja iq^'Xf^dT

■ i^fiDje©! ©Dnsiaffi-dtsK

: , ^ 'a:fe'©«xenil_^

, Xsitffo'Q

■ ctteipxnriosT 'iioSiviod&d

nakos.B’^id^

pj-0JL(IH

■ ii£. i D Xa pt-l

Y X i'.fi - Vi t X n xX'iJiba 4M

■'?i-U05ia .:' ^Mvss-i'aaA taax

WXTA

I riXuA ,• • ,;'\,C',’f ;.r'T',>, ;

' r ' ,

cfxJ . ]K.::::''

I IK 1'» “xi •”' • ■,- ■'■ •! '■ •. ; ■ • ■■ ■"".'""we- “

III _ s«3 -

VI* ‘'; *■ w^J- *v“ T8S-.,,

^ a Y ^ * VI* "' )•« ■••*• -Mr rMM Mt

,]”anXJ * •’ '©rso'xVB L ■ \'UB '

‘ ■■IIV,.., WaH * _^T£aia

Xfii'.soit£boV

'l"i.O iirv TQfB ..

„'TtM ^ xoi.' .^fd-sXa

XI “x^M *

nYQ «, ttstfioW

"' •“' "xo

IX ■ 'MS

IM> «f «•• M

Ml «m ' ■• , Mf •“J;,v'>^,M''|4’ ■v .’fV xi©d *”

IIIX ^ ■ T,J,

“ m

auM

''"'m

118

Appendix 5. - Statistical Formulae.

FORMULA WHERE USED

2 Y(O-E)^ X. =2.—E with 1 df.

t = Xh-X,

appropriate

where ^

since N N 1 i

N^+Nl was

and High and

Low means and variances were available

as "by-product s" when these two sub¬

groups* intercorrelation program cards

were sorted out and rerun.

Part A

Part B

Part D

= N(AD-BC)‘

(A+B) (C+D) (A+C) (B+D)

Part B

r pbi

^p~^q with dichotomous

Part C

categories assigned weights of 0 and 1

(in co»-,pt.ter

The significance of r , , from zero was pbi

determined by calculating

df = k (numerator)

= N-k-1 (denominator)

lyx - 1 -

- ^ S 2 where S 2 =

ay i \y-yY

N Part C

_ (q^-r)(k-2)

^ - (1-1^2) (N-k) where k = 5 = rows in

bifrequency tables

df = k-2 (numerator)

_= N-k (denominator)

Part C