approv, jor* profeafeor norrrofesaor of t aduatit©e …/67531/metadc130237/m2/1/high... · by g»...

A STUDY OF THE RJMflONSHIPS BETWEEN Till WliCHSLER-

BELLEVTJE INTELLIGENCE SCALE AID THE

KODr,R PREFBRSICS RECORD-

APPROV,

jor* Profeafeor

norrrofesaor

l3iroctor of the Department of Mucatldn

it© School aduate n of t

A STUDY OF SIS REMT10IS11PS BETWEEN THE WECHSLSR-

BBLL3VUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE AND THE

KIJDER PREFERENCE RECORD-

PERSONAL

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Come il of the

North Tejoaa Stat# College in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER Of ARTS

By

1798sG

Dorothy Carae, B. A*

Baytown, Texas

August, 1950

N. T. S. C. LIBRARY

179886

TABLE OF OOHTEITS

LIST OF TABLES. . . Iv

Chapter 1* INTRODUCTION , . , 1

General Statement 8pecl£ic Problems Definitions Descriptions of Testa Delimitations Heed for Study Related Studies Procedure In Collecting Data

IX. EVALUATION OF TfIB INDIVIDUAL WECHSLER-BELLEVUE SCORES , 8

III. EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL KlIDER . PRKFERENCB RECQRD-pfiRSOML SCORES 27

IV. RELATIONSHIPS B1TWSE1 TBI WECHSLSR-BELLEVUE IHTELLI &ENC E SCALE, FORM I, AND THE KHEER PREFERENCE RECORD-PERSONAL. * . 51

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . 54

Summary Conclusions

APPENDIX*

BIBLIOGRAPHY". 62

ill

List & tm*m

SNMMNMI 98 V®fbftl A#%## mBMifS&il 11181! #̂ iU. iSMHnJii Jt-#W» • • • • • •

2« Ave*#,.?* 'PerfawnBao# for Utetlm Sfsn# * • » « • • *

3* f%ftn4;# of IMInMitsI Ff*®f#s4«fi# 3e$r#fi ea the £lve Aetlvltl** of tli# &a&NPr imtmmmm

4# S « iaevlakJU-tie Befci»eii tfco iialw ir3»fer«s« and ulrl# i s fcti# ^ lo«avi l ie

3t»t* School far Cirla *t iiflixsa.svXXle, i©XAB • « « • » • • • » • • » • • « « • * • • • •

5* Smmwy #f Fiaetisg® as tern tf»ah*X;3r<*i}eli«vue Xnt4llis»xMM* Sc#i« and the iCttt#r tmt+rmse* fWlC ©IVi"*!1 ara033&X * » • • » * * « * • * « * • • •

fi# StJiaiijf? ©f Dmta mt th& XatellIgaaea Sesl# and th» S«4#^ imfmmm® R®e#M Msar-iag to M®gtii3l I4V91S • • » » » • * » « » • # » • • • • » • > • • O

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

General Statement;

The problem consists of investigating relationships be-

tween the Wechsler-*Bellevue Intelligence Scale# Form I, and

the Kuder Preference Record-Personal* The data were obtained

from girls In the Gainesville|State School for Girls at

Gainesville, Texas*

Specific Problems

The specific problems of this study are as follows

1* Administer and evaluate the w'echsler-Bellevue In* !

telligence Scale, Form I,1

2« Administer and evaluate the Kuder Preference Record-

Personal#®

3» Determine the relationships between the Wechsler-

Bellevue Intelligence Scale and the Kuder Preference Record-

Personal by correlations.

Definitions

For a complete understanding of the Kuder Preference

Record-Personal, the following terms of the scale are defined

by G» Frederic Kuder:

^Cf. Appendix B, 2Cf. Appendix B*

2

X, SOCIABLE* This scale measures expressed pre-ferences for personal activities of a sociable nature

preference for taking the lead and "being the center of activities involving people:,

2, PRACTICAL. This scale measures expressed pre-ferences for personal activities of a practical nature — a preference for dealing with practical problems and everyday affairs rather than interest in imaginary or glamorous activities.

3» THEORETICAL. This scale measures expressed preferences for personal activities of a theoretical nature—a preference for thinking, philosophizing,' and speculating.

4* AGKiSABLK* This scale measures expressed preferences for personal activities of an agreeable nature—-a preference for pleasant and smootn personal relations which are free from conflict.

5. DOMINANT, This scale measures expressed pre-ference for personal activities of a dominant nature — a preference for activities involving tlie use of authority and power.*

V/echsler!s definition of intelligence is used, i.e.,

"Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the indi-

vidual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal

«4 effectively with his environment."

Description of Tests

The Wechsler-Bellevue Adult Intelligence Scale is a point

scale which has been standardized on adolescent® as well as

adults. It is composed of six verbal tests: Information,

Comprehension, Arithmetic Reasoning, Digit Repetition, Simi-

larities, and Vocabulary which depend haavily upon language

for administration and for subject responses and five performance

Frederic Kuder, Examiner Manual for the Kuder Pre-ference Record Personal,' p,'T«

4David Wechsler, The Measurement of Adult Intelligence, p« 3»

teats: Picture Completion, Picture Arrangements, Object

Assembly, Block Designs, and Digit-Symbol Substitution which

require tlx© subject to manipulate concrete materials# Separata

Verbal and Performance I.Q.'s are obtained by summatlng the

appropriate tests and these in turn are combined in an over-

all measurement, the Full I.Q.

The validity of the ftechsler-Bellevue Adult Intelligence

Scale was checked by comparing the results of the test with

those of the Stanford-Binet, Army Alpha, A t e s t s and

other Intelligence Scales. Wechsler reports a correlation of

•32 £ .026 with the Stanford-Binet while other authors report

correlations varing from ,39 £ .07 to .93 £ .01.5

The Kuder Preference Record—Personal is a twelve page,

step-down booklet of preference items arranged in triads.

Item five illustrates the principles

1. Interview the author of the best-selling book

2. Interview the warden of a model prison

3. Interview the Secretary of State

The subject decides which of these three activities he likes

best and using the pin-punch answer pad marks it to show his

first choice: and then he decides which he likes least, and

marks it to show his third choice. The activities in each of

the 504 items are so written as to tap different personal

preferences in activities of social, practical, theoretical,

5Ibid., p. 134.

agreeable and dominant nature, ihero is no time limit, m

there are no right or wrong answers# Profile sheets are pro-

vided on which 'to convert the scores to percentiles and plot

them graphically.

Delimitations

It was believed that a sample would be thoroughly typical

of all girls in the State School; therefore, the number of

subjects comprising the group for this investigation was

limited to fifty who were chosen at random.

Need for Study

The psychologist working with delinquents in an institu-

tional setting is obliged usually to interpret his findings

in individual cases and group studies with the least expendi-

ture of time, energy, and resources. It was felt that any

relationships between the «iechslor-;Bellevue Intelligence Scale

and the Kuder Preference Record—torsonal would be of prognostic

value and would help to better understand the individual and

his personal adjustment* This study is an effort to make a

contribution toward this problem through an analysis of the

two scales for the fifty subjects chosen from the Gainesville

State School for Girls at Gainesville, Texas#

Related Studies

Research has not indicated a substantial relationship

between interests and intelligence; however, Many studies

5

have been aad® Investigating these relationships. ?. H. finch

and 0, 1>, Emazek studied the relationships between success

in high school, intelligence quotients, and personality traits

a® measured by the Bemreuter Personality Inventory. They 1

concluded that, nThe data at hand furnish no evidence that the

Bernreuter Inventory Is measuring any traits that contribute

in any important degree to successful achievement in the high

school.

David Segel and S» !»• Brintle used the total score on the

American Council on Sducation Psychological Examination as a

criterion of general ability and the Strong Vocational Interest

Blank# la the six areas indicated by Strong, they found only

on® correlation, -.32, that could not be accounted for by chance*

fhis was in the area of Purchasing Agent. ̂

Dorothy C. Adkins and G. Frederic Kuder investigated the

relationships of abilities as measured by the Thurstone Test

for Primary Mental Abilities and interest of preference for

certain activities as measured by the Kudfcr Preference

Record. The array of relationships found led the authors to

state that " . . . the interpretation of preference scores as

F* H. Finch and C. L. Memsek, *Th@ Relationships of the Bernreuter Personality Inventory to Scholastic Achievement and Intelligence,* School and Society. XXX?I, (Nov., 1932), 596.

?D. Segel and 3. L. Brintle, "The Relation of Occupational Interest Scores as Measured by the Strong Interest Blank to Achievement Test Results and College Marks in Certain College Subject Groups," Journal of Idueatlonal Research. XX7XX-, (Feb.> 1934)» 445.

indicative of the presence of absence of special abilities is

unwarranted by the results of this investigation.

Procedure in Collecting Data

The subjects for this investigation consisted of fifty-

girls who had bean committed to the Gainesville State School

for Girls at Gainesville, Texas, during 1949 and 1950 because

of behavior disorders. The behavior disorders were of the

type frequently associated with girls in a training school,

such as, truancy, unmanageability at home and school, petty-

stealing and sex offenses. The subjects were chosen at random

from 150 girls who had been coasritted to this institution by

placing the name of each girl on a card and dropping it in a

box. Prom the box were drawn the names of the fifty subjects

used, forty-five of whom were white and the remaining five,

Mexican, The age of this group ranged from thirteen to nine-

teen with a mean age of sixteen. By far the largest age group,

64 per cent, was younger and 10 per cent older.

The eleven tests comprising the Vtechsler-Bellevue Adult

Intelligence Scale Form I were administered to each of the

fifty subjects under the usual standardizes conditions. Scores

for each of the subtests were converted to weighted scores

from the tables provided by Wechsler and the Full-Seal© I.Q.

%)# C. Adkins and G-» X«-. Kuder, "The Relation of Primary Mental Abilities to Activity Preferences," Psychoiaetrlka, V, (1940)* 261.

was determined for s*eh subjeet eg well m the Performance

and Verbal X*Q**0«

Inaaamch as the Kuder Preference Record*~P«rraonal 1« a

aelf-administered inventory with no time limit* the directions

for aarking the Inventory were explained to groupa of five or

eix subjects at one time and they w»re than all jwed to proceed

with their marking* th% score* were converted to percsntiles

and plotted graphically on the profile sheets provided for thla

purpose*

An evaluation was aade of the relationships in each

subjects W«6haler-»3ellevue Score and his Kuder Preference

Haoord-»-Peraonal« the subject*8 Verbal I#Q*# Performance

X*tu« and Full Boale were deternlned as well as the per»

cantile scores in the five areaa of the Kuder Preference Record

Personal*

CMF'i'EE II

EVALUATION OF THJs INDIVIDUAL WE3IISLER-

BBLLEVUB SCORES

A study of each individual's Verbal I.Q», Performance I.Q.,

and Full Scale I»Q. was made to determine whether any signif-

icant differences existed. An evaluation of each subject is

presented.

Subject 1

On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she is in the borderline group

in intelligence. Her scores as Indicated by the teat are as

follows £

Verbal ! . < * , 7 2

rerformance 1,^ 89

Full Scale I.Ci 77

Subject 2

On the basis of the Vifechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,


in Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are aa

follows:

Verbal I.ti 80

Performance 74

Pull Scale I.fci 74

8

9

Subject 3

On the basis of the "tfechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she is in the average group in

intelligence. Baa? scores as indicated by the test ar© as

followss

Verbal I.<* 105

Performance I.i*..... • 113

Full Scale I , y # 1 0 9

Subject 4

On the basis of the Yi/echaler-Bellevue Intelligence S-ale,


intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal 1,^, 93

Performance l.Q. 113

Full Scale l.Q 103

Subject 5

On the basis of the *l'echsler-£ellevuo Intelligence Scale,



follows:

Verbal I.q 105

Performance I . Q . 1 1 2

Full Scale I,Q 110

10

Subject 8

On feh.© basis of the Wechaler-Bcllevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject Indicates that she is in the dull normal group

in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as

foll3wa:

Verbal I.Q, 89

Performance i«q, 37

Full Scale I . Q . 3 6

Subject 7

On the basis of the Wechsler-Dellevue Intelligence Scale,


in intelligence« Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal l.Q 68

Performance 1 . Q . 71

Full Scale I.U*« 66

Subject 8




follows:

Verbal I.Q., 87

Performance I,Q,...... 106

Full Scale I 9 5

11

Subject 9

On the basis of the Viechaler-Bjllevue Intelligence Scale#

this subject indicates that she la in the1dull normal group

in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as

followss

Verbal I.Q. 85

rerforaance I.i*,...... 95

m i Scale I.Q,....... 89

Subject 10

On the basis of the w/echsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that aim ia in the average group in

Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as

follows;

Verbal I.i4............ 83

Performance l.Q Ill

Full Scale I.Q.,. 96

Subject 11

On the basis of the wechalar-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she ia in the average group in


foil~ws:

Verbal I . Q . 7 9

Perf orinance I.^»...... 89

iall <bcsl9 I.vi........ 92

12

Subject 12

On the basis of th© Wechslor-Bell3vue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she Is In the borderline group

in intelligence. Her 3cor03 as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal I.t*,........... 64

Performance I.Q, 89

Pull Scale 1 »Q* 73

Subject 13

On the basis of the Wechsler-iJ-ellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that ahe is in the average group in

intelligence* Her scores as Indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal 1.(4 100

i-erf ordnance I.h« „«»**• 111

ifull Scale I.Q 106

Subject 14

On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Seals,

this subject indicates that the is in the average group in


follow®:

Verbal I.Q, 94

performance l.ti....... 105

#ull Scale I.Q 99

13

Subject 15

On tho basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Seal©.,

this subject indicates that she is In the dull normal group

in Intelligence# Her scores a® indicated by the test are as

foilawa:

Verbal I.Q.. 79

Performance 1,^ 92

Full Scale 1 .Q, 83

Subject 16

On the basis of the iVechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group


follows;

Verbal I.H 85

Performance I«v*. 92

Full Seal© 1,^ ©7

Subject 17




follows®

Verbal I.Q, , 91

Performance I»Q....... 113

Full Scale 1#Q,....... 102

14

Subject 18

On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she la in the average group in

intelligence• Her scores at indicated by the test are as

followst

Verbal l.Q 82

Performance l.Q 108

Full Scale I.<4........ 94

Subject 19


this subject indicate® that she is in the borderline group

in intelligence. Her scores a si indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal l.Q.,.. 77

Performance I , * * . 6 1

i-Till Scale i«vi« •***••• 66

Subject 20

On the basis of the ttechsler-Bellavue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she is in the bright normal group

in intelligence, Her scores as Indicated by the test are as

follows;

Verbal I. si 90

Performance I,Q,...... 125

M l Scale I• Q «,. 112

15

Subject 21



in intelligence* Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows 5

Verbal !•(*............ 83

Performance 1»Q, 86

Full Scale I.Q. 03

Subject 22

On the basis of the wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale#


In intelligencet Her scores as indicate-; by the teat are as

follows:

Verbal I • w ...... 66

Performance 1»Q....... 104

Pull Seals iW... 83

Subject S3



in Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal I.w 75

Performance J.w,....... 90

Full Scale I.Q SO

16

Subject 24

On the basis of the kVechaler-Bellavue Intelligence Seal©,

this subject Indicates that she is in the defective group in


follows:

Verbal 1.4*. • 56

Performance .,..., 76

Full Scale 1.^.. 61

Subject 25

On the basis' of the Wechalor-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she ie in the borderline group in


follows s

Verbal I.Q. 73

Performance 1,Q 86

Full Scale I.i; 77

Subject 26

On the basis of the 'ft'echsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that aha is in the borderline group


follows;

Verbal I.Q 81

Performance i.(4* ...... 78

Full Scale I.t* 73

17

Subject 27

On the basia of the ftechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she is in ths average group in

intelligence. Ear scores as indicated by the test are as

follows s

Verbal X.Q.. 99

Performance I.(4....... 91

Pull Sbcstls X.tj..««***. iJo

Subject 28

un the basis of the ««echaler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,


intelligence. Her scores aa indicate^ .by the test are as

follows t

Verbal l*tfc. • 96

Performance I.Q....... 106

full Scale 1.v,......• 101

Subject 29

On the basis of the Wecbsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that ah© is in the average group in


follows;

Verbal I.'«<,»• 85

Performance 1.*....... 112

Snail Scalo 1.^........ 98

18

Subject 30


this subject Indicates that ah© la in the borderling group

in intelligence* Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal I.<* 67

Performance I„Q,» 98

Full Scale I.k 79

Subject 31


this subject Indicates that she is in the defective group in

intelligence. Her score® as indicated by the teat are as

followss

Verbal I«<4. « 66

Performance I»Q. 71

Full Scale I»Q 64

Subject 32


this subject Indicates that she is in the average group in

intelligence* Her scores as Indicated, toj the test are as

followat

Verbal I.Q.. 92

Performance I.Q*...... 103

Full Scale I.Q 103

19

Subject 33

On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale*

this subject Indicates that ah© i® in the average group In

intelligence* Her scores as indicated, by the teat are as

follows:

Verbal I.<* 90

Performance 1 ,Q. 98

Full Scale ...» 95

Subject 34

On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale#

this subject indicates that she la in the dull normal group in

intelligence# Her scores as Indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal I»Q 72


Full Scale I,w,....... 85

Subject 35

On the basis of the Wechsler-Belle vue Intelligence Scale,


intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as

followsl

Verbal I.ft*. . 88


Full Scale I.Q,....... 92

go

Subject 26


this subject Indicates that she la In the dull normal group

In Intelligence# Her scores as indicated by the test are aa

foilowa:

Verbal I.Q, 77

Performance I.Q 104

Pull Scale I.Q. 89

Subject 37

On the basis of the Wechaler-Bellevue Intelligence Seal©,

this subject indicates that she is In the average group in

Intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal I.Q 90

Performance I.Q. 119

Full Scale 1.^. 105

Subject 38

On the basis of the "Wechsler-Bellevue-Intelllgence Scale,

this subject Indicates that she is in the bright normal group

in Intelligence. Her scor«a as indicated b;, the test are as

follows:

Verbal I.v*. 109


Full Scale l.Q 119

21

Subject 30


this subject indicates that ah© Is In the bright normal group

in intelligence# Her score a® indicated by the test ar© as

followa;

Verbal !•(*• ........... 116

Performance i,4i....... 115

i-Nill Scale I.Q 119

Subject 40

On the basis of the 'Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject Indicates that she la in the average group in


followss

Verbal I.Q 80

Performance 1*0,,.,.., * 116

Full Scale l.Q, 97

Subject 41


this subject indicates that she is in the average group in,


follows:

Verbal I.Q 91

Performance I . Q , 8 7

Full Scale 1 » ^ » . 9 4

22

Subject 42

On the basis of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale#

this subject indicates that she is in the dull normal group in


follows *

Verbal I.Q... 79

Performance l.Q 85

Full Scale I.Q 80

Subject 43

On the basis of the Weehsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

this subject indicates that she is in the defective group

in intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the teat are as

follow®{

Verbal 56

Performance I. <4*...... 50

Full Scale i.Q, 47

Subject 44

On the basis of the Wechsler-BelleTO© Intelligence Scale,


In intelligence. Her scores as indicated by the test are aa

foil ws:

Verbal I.Q. 70

Performance I.U...... 82

Pull Seal© I.w 73

23

Subject 45

On the baals of the ¥i/echaler~Bellevue Intelligence Scale,

a aubject Indicates that she is An fell© average group in

intelligence, Hejp scores as indicated by the teat are as

followat

Verbal I#Q 92

Performance I , Q . 9 5

m i Scale I.Q## 94

Subject 48


the subject Indicates that she is in the borderline /?,roup in

intelligence» Her scores as indicated by the test are as

follows:

Verbal I . Q . 7 2

Performance 1*Q*•*«.,« 82

Full Scale I.Q, 74

Subject 47


this subject indicates that she is ih the dull normal group

in intelligence# Her scores a© indicated by the test are as

foilovat

Verbal I«Q. 82

Performance I . Q . 9 8

full Scale 89

24

Subject 48


this subject indicates that sbe la in the borderline group

in intelligence, Her scores as indieatea by the test are as

follows:

Verbal •»»*•••««•» 59

Performance I,Q.*#.»•• 95

full Scale I.Q. 72

Subject 49




follows:

Verbal I,Q**••*••»*»•» 98

Performance I»Q,...... 91

Full Scale I,<i 94

Subject 50

On the basis of the Wechslor-Bellevue Intelligence Scale,



follows:

Verbal I.Q..,.. 95

Performance I . Q , 9 8

Full Scale I*Q , 95

25

In order to batter present; comparisons of the individual

scores, a summary is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1

RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL 30ORIS ON VERBAL I.Q., PERFORMANCE I.Q., AMD FULL SCALE I.Q.

Subject Verbal Performance Full Scale I.Q. I • * I.Q.

1 72 89 77 2 80 74 74 3 105 113 109 4 93 113 103 5 105 112 x 110 6 39 87 87 7 68' 71 6© 8 87 IOC 95 9 85 98 i 89

10 0S i n ; 96 11 79 89 92 12 64 39 73 13 100 111 106 14 94 105 99 15 79 92 83 16 85 92 87 17 91 113 102 18 82 108 94 19 77 61 66 20 98 125 112 21 83 86 83 22* 68 104 83 25 75 90 80 24 58 76 61 25 73 86 77 26 81 78 73 27 99 91 95 28* 96 106 101 29 65 112 98 30 67 98 79 31* 66 71 64 32 92 103 103 33 90 90 93 34 72 102 85

25

TABLE 1—Continued

Subject Verbal X# Q«

Performance I«k.

Full Scale X

35 86 93 92 36 77 104 89 37 90 119 10S 38 109 122 119 39 110 115 119 40 80 116 97 41* 91 37 94 42 79 85 80 4S* 56 50 47 44 70 82 73 45 92 95 94 46 72 82 74 47 82 98 89 48 59 95 72 49 98 : 91 94 50 95 98 95

•Wlaxioan

The Full Scale I .Qa . range from forty-seven to 119 with

a mean of 88*2* The Verbal i»<4s. range from fifty-alx to 116

with a mean of 83.6, The jferf orraance i«Q,a« range from fifty

to 125 with a mean of 96*6* I'he results for the total group

are given in Table 2*

f ABLii 2

AVBRAGS PERFORMANCE FOR ESTIRE GROUP

Mean Median S» D*

Full Scale X.Q. 88 #2 89.5 15.5

Verbal I.Q, 83»6 84»5 13.5

Performance 1 98 • 6 98 f 7 14.0

CHAPTER H I

EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL KtJDIB PREFERENCE

RECORD-PERSONAL SCORES

A study of each Individual's KUder Preference Record-

Personal was made to determine her preferences In activities

of a aocial, practical, theoretical, agreeable and dominant

nature. An evaluation of each, subject's preferences is pre*»

seated, using Kuder'a recommendation that the 80th and 20th

percentiles be used as cutting points to identify high or

low scores*

Subject 1

This subject shows a high preference for activities deal-

ing with practical problems and everyday affairs rather than

interest in imaginary or glamorous activities. Her scores on

activities of a sociable, theoretical, agreeable, and dominant

nature are within the average range• Her percentile scores

are as followss

Sociable . • • . , 75

Practical. # # # * $1

Agreeable. . . . . 53

Theoretical, , , , 76

Dominant . 71

27

28

Subject 2

This subject shows no preference for a particular type

of activity# Her scores all cluster around the fiftieth

percentile and ar© as follows:

Sociable . » . • 58

Irractlcal. • » . 55

Theoretical• • , 51

Subject 3

Thia subject shows a high preference for activities deal-

ing with practical problems and everyu&y affairs rather than

interest in imaginary or glamourous activities# She also

shows a high preference for personal activities of a theoretical

nature and a low preference for personal activities of an

agreeable nature. Her percentile scores ar® as follows:

Sociable

Practical # t * • • 94

Theoretic al. * • # 83

Agreeable * • • • • 9

Dominant

Subject 4

This subject shows a high preference for activities deal-

ing with practical problems and everyday affairs rather than

29

Interest in imaginary or glamourous activities. Her scores

on other activities ar© within the average range and are as

follows:

Theoretical. , . . 69

Agreeable* « . , • 55

Subject 5

This subject shows a high preference for activities of

a social and dominant nature and a . vory low preference for

activities of a practical and agreeable nature. Her percen-

tile scores are as follows

Sociable , , , . ,100

Practical, , , « • 1

Theoretleal, , , , 44

Dominant , • » . 35

Subject 6


a practical ana theoretical nature* Her scores on other

activities are within the average rang®# Her percentile

scores are as follows?

30

Sociable 71

Practical. . . . . 89

Theoretical, » • • 95


Dominant * « . * • ©5

Subject 7


a dominant nature. Her scores on the other activities are

within the average range, Her percentile scores are as

follows:

Sociable • • * . • 58

Practical. . • » , 35

Theoretical. . . . 73

Agreeable# • . . . 30

dominant . . . • . 82

Subject 8 '

This subject ahowa a high preference for activities of

a sociable nature and a low preference for activities of a

theoretical nature. Her scores on activities of a practical,

agreeable and dominant nature are v?I thin the average range.

Her percentile scores are as follows:

Sociable . . . • . 94


Theoretical. • , . 10

31

Agreeable# . . . . 30

Dominant . • • • * 63

Subject 9

This subject shows a low preference for activities of

an agreeable nature# Her other scores are within the average

rang© and are as follows

Sociable » . . . . 36

Practical* . . . . 67

Theoretical. • « , 43


Dominant . . . . . 67

Subject 10


a practical nature* Her scores on the other activities are

•within the average range and are as follows:

Sociable . . . . • oO

, Practical. . . . . 13

Theoretical. * . • 39

-Agreeable. . . . . 25

Dominant . , . . . 63

Subject 11


an agreeable and dominant nature» Her scores on the other

activities are within the average range. Her percentile

scores are a® follows s

32

Sociable . . « . « 65

Practical. • . . . 42

Theoretical. • • * 4


Dominant . . . . . 18

Subject 12

This subject shows a low preference for activities of an

agreeable nature# Her other scores are within the average

range * Her percentile scores are as follow®.

Sociable 75

Practical, .

Theoretical.

ilgreaable. «

Dominant » .

. 52

• 73

. 12

. 63

Subject 13

This subject shows a high preference for activltiea of

a practical, theoretical, and agreeable nature. She shows a

very Ion preference for activities of a dominant nature. Her

percentile scores are as follows:

Sociable , 45

Practical,

Theoretical

Agreeable.

Dominant ,

. 95

, 85

. 97

. 1

33

Subject 14


a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of ©

practical nature. Her other preferences are within the aver-

age range. Her percentile scores are as follows?

Sociable • • • • . 74


Theoretical, » * • 60

Agreeable * . » • 45

Dominant . . . . . 85

Subject 15


a practical and agreeable nature* Her other preferences are

within the average range# Her percentile scorea are as followst

Sociable .

Practical#

Theoretical

Dominant ,

Agreeable#

* 57

* 84

. 79

. 46

. 85

Subject 16

This subject shows a low preference for activities of a

sociable and agreeable nature. Her other preferences are within

the average range. Her percentile scores are as follows:

Sociable • » » , • 7

. Practical# • . . . 52

M

Theoretical. . . • 23

Agreeable* * # * « 1

Dominant , 24

Subject 1?


& practical nature and a 1preference for activities of &

sociable* agreeable, and dominant nature. Her percentile

scores are as followsi

Sociable » • • • • 1

Practical# . , . • 99

Theoretical. » # . 64

Agreeable# » . . . 12

Dominant • » • • • 6

Subject 18

' M s subject shows a high preference for activities of

a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of a

practical and agreeable nature. Her percentile scores are as

follows:

Sociable 72

Practical# » • • » 9



Dominant . , . . • 92

35

Subject 19

This subject glioma a low preference for activities of

an agreeable nature# Her preference* for other activities

are within the average range. Her percentile scores are as

follows!

Sociable • • • • • 5*7


Theoretical* . . . 64


Dominant . . . . . 67

Subject 20


a sociable nature and low preferences for activities of a

practical and agreeable nature. Her percentile score® ar© as

followsJ

Sociable • • • • * 84

Practical. . . . • 1

Theoretical. . • . 45

Agreeable. • . . « 4

Dominant . 52

Subject 21

This subject shows a low preference for activities of a

theoretical and agreeable nature. Her scores on activities

of a sociable, practical and dominant nature clustered around

the fiftieth percentile. Her percentile scores are as follows:

36

Sociable • ,

Practical# •

Theoretical,

Agreeable, •

Dominant • *

• 57

. 52

• 14

• 18

• 42

Subject 22

This subject shons a low preference for activities of &

sociable and agreeable nature# Her preferences for other

activities are within the average range# Her percentile scores

are as followss

Sociable • * . • • 16

Practical* • • . » 60

Theoretical* • • • 48

Agreeable# * * * • 4

Dominant * » , » , 71

Subject 23

This subject ahow® a low preference for activities of a

sociable and agyeesble nature and a high preference for

activities of a practical nature* Her preferences for activ-

ities of a theoretical and dominant nature are within the

average range« Her percentile acores are aa follows

Sociable # • # * * 1

Practical. • , • • 95

Theoretical# • , • 39

37

Agreeable * * • * • 4

dominant * » . * » 49

Subject 24


of activity* Her scores all cluster around the fiftieth

percentile and are as follows:

Sociable * *

Practical# .

Theoretical,

Agreeable. #

Dominant . •

* 50

. 65

. 26

. m

. 65

Subject 25

This subject shows a 1 >w preference for activities of

an agreeable nature. Her preferences for other activities


follows:

Sociable . . . » . 71

Practical. „ • . , 80

Theoretical* . • • 77

Agreeable• « • • • 15

Dominant • . « • • 75

Subject 26


a practical nature and a low preference for activities of an

38

agreeable nature. Her preferences for other activities are

within the average rang©* Her percentile scores are as

follows:

Sociable . , . . , 15

Practical. . , , , 92

Theoretical, . . , 43

Agreeable. , , , , 6

Dominant « . , , , 46

Subject 27


a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of an

agreeable nature# Her preferences for other activities are

within the average rang©, Her percentile scores are at

follawa:

Sociable . , , , , 55

Practical, . . . . 15

Theoretical, « « „ 58

Agreeable . , . , 1

Dominant . , • , , 84

Subject 28


an agreeable nature. Her preferences for other activities


follows s

59

Sociable . • • • • 82



Agreeable. . . . » 14

Dominant * . . . . 52

Subject 29

This subject shows a low preference for activities of an

agreeable nature* Her preferences for other activities are

within the average range. Her percentile scores are as

follow#s

Sociable » . . . . 50

Practical. .

Theoretical,

Agreeable* .

Dominant • .

• 65

. 55

. IS

. 67

Subject 30

Thia subject shows no preference for a particular type

of activity. Her preferences for all activities are within

the average range. Her percentile scores are as foilowe:

Sociable . • > • « 46

Practical. .

Theoretical.

Agreeable# .

Dominant « «

. 76

. 39

. 21

* 87

40

Subject 31

This subject shows a high, preference for activities of a

dominant nature• Her preferences for the other activities

ars as follows:

Sociable . . . . . . 36

Practical* . . . . 79 :

Iheoret ical• • • . 7o

Agreeable* . . . . 24

Dominant 88

Subject 52


a practical nature. Her preferences for other activities

are within the average range* Her percentil scores are as

follows:

Sociable # . * . . 40

Practical. » . . . 96



Dominant . . . . . 24

Subject 35



practical and agreeable nature. Her percentile scores are

as follows:

41

Sociable SG


•Theoretical, . • . 25

Agreeable.. . • • . 1

Dominant . . . . . 99

Subject 34


a social and practical nature• Her preference® for other

activities are within the average range* Her percentile

scores are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 92



Agreeable# . . , . 24

Dominant • . . . . 52

Subject 35


a dominant nature and a low preference for activities of an

agreeable nature. Her scores on the other activities are

within the average range and are as follows!

Sociable 37




Dominant . . . . . 82

42

Subject 36

Shis subject shows © low preference for activities of

an agreeable nature* Her scores on the other activities are

within the average range and are as follow*:

Sociable « 51

Practical. • . » • 65

theoretical. « » , 23

Agreeable* . . . . IS

Dominant • 24

Subject 37

'This subject shows a low preference for activities of

an agreeable nature* Her scores on the other activities are

within the average range and are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 68


Theoretical. , • # 43

Agreeable* . . . » 5

Dominant • 52

Subject 38


of activity. Her scores all cluster around, the fiftieth

percentile and are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 75

Practical, . * * , 80

Theoretical. . . • 27

43

Agreeable, „ , . . 27

Dominant • . • » . 65

Subject 39


a practical and theoretical nature and a low preference for

activities of a sociable or agreeable nature. Her score for

activities of a dominant nature is within th® average range#

Her percentile score© are as followss

Sociable « , « • , V

Practical,

Theoretical

Agreeable,

Dominant •

• as

. 83

• 0

. 58

Subject 40


a practical natur«» Her scores on all other activities are

within the average range and are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 68

•Practical. . .

i'heoretical# •

Agreeable « .

Dominant » . .

» 85

. 31

. 43

. 46

Subject 41



44

social nature* Her scores on other activities are within

the average range and. are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 5

fract ical• . . * . 72

Theoretical* . . , 34

Agreeable. * . . . 60

Dominant . . . . . 85

Subject 42

This subject shows a high, preference for activities of

a sociable, practical, and dominant nature* Her scores for

activities of a theoretical and agreeable nature are within

the average range. Her percentile scores are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 33

Practical•- . . . . 91

Theoretical. . » . 73

Agreeable, . . . . 55

Dominant . . . . . 85

Subject 43

This subject snows a high preference for activities of


theoretical nature. Her scores on the other activities are

within the average range. Her percentile scores are as

foilo»as

Sociable . . . . . 58


45

Theoretical. . • . 5

Agreeable, , 45

Dominant . . . » , 91

Subject 44



practical, theoretical, and. agreeable nature. Her preference

for activities of a sociable nature Is within the average

range. Her percentile scores are as follows:

Sociable . . . . . 75

Practical. .

Theoretical.

Agreeable, .

Dominant , •

. 4

. 15

. 4

. 84

Subject 45


a practical nature and a low preference for activities of a

dominant nature. Her scores on the other activities cluster

around the fiftieth percentile.* Her percentile scores are

as follows*

Soc iable 65

Practical, .

Theoretics!,

Agreeable# .

Dominant , »

90

47

65

5

48

Subject 4©

This subject shows a high preference for activities

of a dominant nature and a low preference for activities

of a practical and agreeable nature. Her preference scores

for activities of a aoclabia and thaora11cal nature ara

within the average rang©. Ear percentile scores ara as

follows:

Sociable . . . . . 29


Ilieoretical. . . . 31

Agreeable, » . . . 11

Dominant . . . . . 98

Subject 47

Siis subject shows no preference for a particular type

of activity. Her scores all cluster around the fiftieth

percentile and are as follows!

Sociable . . « . . 2b



Agreeable, . . . . 27

Dominant » . . . * 42

Subject 48


a practical and agreeable nature. Her preferences for

activities of a sociable, theoretical, and dominant nature

47

are within the average range# Her percentile scores are as

follows:

Sociable . . . . . 54

Practical. • . . . 13



Dominant . . . . . 56

Subject 49


a practical nature. Her preference for all other activities


followss

Sociable . . . . . 66

Practical. . . . » 2


Agreeable . . . . £4

Dominant * . . . . 58

Subject 50

This subject shows a 1 jw preference for activities of

a sociable and agreeable nature. Her preference for activi-

ties of a practical, theoreticalt and dominant nature are

within the average range* Her percentile scores are a®

follows:

Sociable . . . . . 16

Practical, . . . . 41

48


Agreeable* t , , , 5

Dominant » . • , • 50

In order to better present comparisons of the individual

scores, a summary Is presented In Table 3:

TABLE' 3

RANGE OP INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE SCORES ON THE FIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD-PERSONAL

Subject Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant

1 75 91 76 53 71 2 58 55 51 55 47 3 32 94 83 9 33 4 71 92 69 55 28 5 100 1 44 0 85 6 71 89 95 22 63 7 58 35 73 30 82 8 94 64 10 30 63 9 36 67 43 12 67

10 50 13 39 25 63 11 65 42 4 25 18 12 75 52 73 12 63 13 45 95 83 97 1 14 74 10 60 45 85 15 57 84 79 85 46 16 7 32 23 1 24 17 1 99 64 12 6 18 72 9 52 8 92 19 57 71 64 13 67 20 84 1 45 4 52 21 57 52 14 18 42 22 16 60 48 4 71 23 1 95 39 4 49 24 50 65 26 36 63 25 71 80 77 15 75 26 15 92 43 6 46 27 55 15 38 1 84 28 62 52 39 14 ' 52 29 50 65 55 18 67

49

TABLE 5—Continued

Subject Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant

30 46 76 39 21 67 SI 36 79 76 24 88 32 46 96 87 65 24 33 66 5 25 1 99 34 92 92 69 24 52 35 37 35 12 82 36 51 65 23 15 24 37 68 24 43 J** o 52 38 75 60 27 27 63 39 7 82 83 0 58 40 68 85 31 43 46 41 3 72 64 60 85 42 83 91 73 55 85 43 58 77 5 45 91 44 75 4 15 4 84 45 65 90 47 65 5 46 29 11 31 11 96 47 26 32 35 27 42 48 54 13 47 12 56 49 66 2 47 24 38 50 16 41 60 5 50

Kesulta for the total group showing the deviations from

the norma In the rive areas of the Kuder Preference Record-

Personal are,presented in Table 4#

so

lABLs €

mm ifeirimums i^jiSb m»,xm»?m&MM, Ali) ;UELS IS fHS W-M1SS?!M,S S M S SCHOOL m

wists Af saisssvuju# m x M

Percentile Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant

•

/ \ / \

\ / \ / \ I / \ I

50th / t /

\ V \ \ \

I / /

i \ i SOth \ i \ i \

\ / \ l •l \ \

l 1

\ l 1 \ l 1

\ / \ / \ / \

/ \ / \ / \ /

V 20th

— Subjects

CHAPTER I?

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN T1IE Y/ECHSLER-BELLEVOE INTELLIGENCE

SCALE, FORI! I, AMD THE KUDER PREFERENCE

RECORD-PERSONAL

In order to ascertain relationships between the Wechsler-

Bellevue Intelligence Scale, Form I} and the Jtuder Preference

RecoJPd-Personal, the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation was

computed from a acattergram., The Wechsler Full Scale l.i*.

was correlated with each of the five areas of the Kuder Pre-

ference Record.

Scores measuring preferences for personal activities of

a sociable nature ranged from one to one hundred with a mean

of 60.4. A correlation of /.06 was found between Sociable

and Full Scale I.Q.

Scores measuring preferences for personal activities

of a practical nature ranged from one to ninety-nine with a

mean of 60.4. A correlation of -.13 was found between

Practical and the Full Scale 1,(4,


of a theoretical nature ranged from four to ninety-five with

a mean of 45.2. A correlation of /.10 was found between

Theoretical and the Full Scale I.Q.

51

52


of an agreeable nature ranged from zero to ninety-seven with

a mean of 25.6. A correlation of —•06 was found, between

Agreeable and the Full Seal® I*ft.


of a dominant nature rangea from one to ninoty-nine with a

mean of 57*7* A correlation of -*57 was found between Domin-

ant and the Full Scale I.Q. Those r-eaulta are summarized in

Table 5.

TABLis 5

SUMMARY OP PI1DIIGS 011 TUB WECHSI^-ESLLEVUE Iimi«IGSHOE SCALE AND THE XHDii* PBEFEREUCJS EECOIiD-PEHSONAL

r Mean Median S. D.

Full Scale I.C*. 8 8 . 2 89.5 1 5 . 2

Social /»OS .. 60.4 56.1 2 5 . 2

Practical -.13 59.8 65.8 3 2 . 5

Theoretical y . i o 4 5 . 2 4 6 . 5 22.5

Agreeable - .06 25 .6 1 8 . 3 2 3 . 2

Dominant -.37 57.7 5 9 . 5 2 4 . 6

Inspection of the correlations reveals no significant

differences between the tfechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale

and the Euder Preference Records-Personal# In only one area#

Dominant, was there a correlation that could not be accounted

for by chance.

53

It was felt that comparisons by mental levels would prove

more significant. In order to make these comparisons, the

subjects were grouped on the basis of individual test results

according to Wechsler's groupings: Bright Normal (111-119);

Normal (91-110); Dull Normal (80-90); Borderline {66-79);

Mentally Defective (65 and below) • Only three subjects vrere

classified in the bright normal and mentally defective groups;

therefore these two groups were not considered. Correlations

by mental levels are presented in Sable 6»

TABLE 6

SUMMARY OF DATA ON TEB WSOHSLiSR-BSIiaWE INTELLIGENCE SCALE AND THE KUD&R PRiiPERllGfi RSCORD-PEHSONAL

ACCORDING TO MENTAL LEVELS

Social Practical Theoretical Agreeable Dominant

Dull Normal -#09 -*07 -•28 -.OS -.40

Normal -•16 -.25 -.61 -.02 -.49

Borderline -.05 <

-.41 -.22 -.31 —.04

CHAPTER V

SUGARY AMP JQIICLUSIONS

Summary of findings

In the study of the relationships between the Wecfasler-

Bellevue Intelligence Scale* Form Ii and the Kuder Preference

Record-Personal, as determined by an examination of fifty

subjects in the Gainesville State School for Girls at

Gainesville, Texas, the findings are as followss

1» Results of the administration of the Wechsler-

Bellevue Intelligence Scale placed 6 per cent of the subjects

at the Bright Normal level, 44 por cent at the Horraal level,

22 per cent at the Dull Normal level, 22 per cent at the

Borderline level, and 6 per csnt at the Defective level.

2. For the entire cirotip the mean of the Full Scale

I»Q» was 88.2; the mean of the Verbal I.Q« was 03*0; and the

mean of the Performance I„%. was 96,0.

3» Results of the administration of the Kuder Preference

Record-Personal revealed a wide deviation from the norms in

three areas: Practical, Agreeable, and Dominant.

4» Correlations showed no significant relationships

between the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, Form I,and

the Kuder Preference Record—Personal•

54

55

5, When subjects were grouped on the basis of Individual

teat results according to Yiechsler'• mental level*, correla-

tions repealed no significant relationships between the two

scales*

Conclusions

An analysis of the data included in this investigation

leads to the following conclusionst

There are no significant relationships between the

Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, Form I, and the Kuder

Preference Record-Personalj therefore, botli types of data

are necessary for adequate prognosis# fhese data indicate

that evidence of lack of interests in certain areas may give

important clues for vocational counseling.

A P P E N D I X

•v \i * > IV.

WECHSLER-BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE RECORD

FOR ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS FORM I N A M E .

0CCUP._

PLACE OF EXAM.

-AGE_

..EXAM. BY

_EDUC._

-NAT-

-DATE O F EXAM.. -NO. .

_B1RTHDATE_ . C O L O R .

-PREVIOUS EXAM.

TABLE OF WEIGHTED SCORESf

m RAW SCORE "O

Equ

ival

ent

Wei

ght*

S

core

Info

rmat

ion

Co

mp

reh

ensi

on

Dig

it S

pan

Ari

thm

etic

M O

Hi JO E

CO Vo

cab

ula

ry

Pic

ture

A

rran

gem

ent

Pic

ture

C

om

ple

tio

n

Blo

cic

Des

ign

Ob

ject

Ass

embl

y

Dig

it

Sym

bol

Eq

uiv

alen

t W

eigh

t*

Sco

re

18 25 20 14 23-24 41-42 2 0 + 3 8 + 18 17 24 19 17 13 21-22 39-40 20 38 26 17 16 23 18 16 12 20 37-38 19 35-37 25 66-67 16 15 21-22 17 11 19 35-36 18 15 33-34 24 62-65 15 14 20 16 15 17-18 32-34 16-17 14 30-32 23 57-61 14 13 18-19 15 14 • 10 16 29-31 15 13 28-29 22 53-56 13 12 17 14 9 15 27-28 14 12 25-27 20-21 49-52 12

II 15-16 12-1? 13 13-14 25-26 12-13 23-24 19 45-48 11 10 13-14 II 12 8 12 22-24 11 II 20-22 18 41-44 10 9 12 10 II 7 11 20-21 10 10 18-19 17 37-40 9 8 10-11 9 9-10 17-19 9 9 16-17 16 33-36 8 7 9 8 10 6 8 15-16 7-8 8 13-15 14-15 29-32 7 6 7-8 7 9 5 7 12-14 6 7 11-12 13 24-28 6

5 6 5-6 5-6 10-11 5 8-10 12 20-23 5 4 4-5 4 8 4 4 7-9 4 6 6-7 10-11 16-19 4 3 2-3 3 7 3 3 5-6 2-3 5 3-5 9 12-15 3 2 1 2 6 1-2 3-4 1 4 1-2 8 8-11 2 1 0 I 2 0 1-2 0 3 0 7 4-7 1 0 0 5 I 0 2 5-6 0-3 0

SUMMARY

TEST R.S. WT.S.

INFORMATION

COMPREHENSION

DIGIT SPAN

ARITHMETIC

SIMILARITIES

(VOCABULARY) ( ) ( )

VERBAL SCORE*

P. ARRANGEMENT

P. COMPLETION

BLOCK DESIGN

OBJECT ASSEMBLY

DIGIT SYMBOL

PERFORMANCE SCORE*

TOTAL SCORE

'Proration is necessary if four or six Verbal tests are given or four Performance tests.

VERBAL S C A L E 1 Q .

P E R F O R M S C A I f 1 Q .

FULL SCALE I.Q.

tClinicians who wish to draw a "psychograph" on the above table may do so by connecting the appropriate raw scores; however, one must recognize the relative unreliability of these subtest scores when they are thus treated.

TEST ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS

5 0

|. INFORMATION Score

(PRESIDENT)

1 BEFORE

2 THERMOMETER

3 RUBBER

4 LONDON

5 PINTS

6 WEEKS

7 ITALY

8 JAPAN

9 HEIGHT

10 PLANE

II BRAZIL

12 PARIS

13 HEART

14 HAMLET

15 POPULATION

16 WASHINGTON

17 POLE

18 EGYPT

19 H. FINN

20 VATICAN

21 KORAN

22 FAUST

23 H. CORPUS

24 ETHNOLOGY

25 APOCRYPHA

2 . COMPREHENSION Score

1 ENVELOPE

2 THEATER

3 BAD COMPANY

4 TAXES

5 SHOES

6 LAND IN CITY

7 FOREST

8 LAWS

9 MARRIAGE

10 DEAF

3, DIGITS FORWARD

5, 8, 2

6, 9, 4

6, 4, 3, 9

7, 2, 8, 6

4, 2, 7, 3, I

7, 5, 8, 3, 6

6, I, 9, 4, 7, 3

3, 9, 2, 4, 8, 7

5, 9, I, 7, 4, 2, 8

4, I, 7, 9, 3, 8. 6

5, 8, I, 9, 2, 6, 4, 7

3, 8, 2, 9, 5, I, 7, 4

2, 7, 5, 8, 6, 2, 5, 8, 4

7, I, 3, 9, 4, 2, 5, 6, 8

DIGITS BACKWARD

6, 2, 9

4, I, 5

3, 2, 7. 9

4, 9, 6, 8

I. 5, 2, 8, 6

6, I, 8, 4, 3

5, 3, 9, 4, I, 8

7, 2, 4, 8, 5, 6

8, I, 2, 9, 3, 6, 5

4, 7, 3, 9, I, 2, 8

9, 4, 3. 7, 6, 2, 5, 8

7, 2, 8, I, 9, 6, 5, 3

4. ARITh METIC T RorW SC. T RorW SC.

1 (15") 6 (30") 2 (15") 7 (60") 3 (15") 8 (60") 4 (30") 9 (120") 5 (30") 10 (120")

5. SIMILARITIES Score

1 ORANGE —BANANA

2 COAT — DRESS

3 DOG —LION

4 WAGON — BICYCLE

5 PAPER—RADIO

6 AIR —WATER

7 WOOD —ALCOHOL

8 EYE—EAR

9 EGG —SEED

10 POEM —STATUE

II PRAISE—PUNISHMENT

12 FLY —TREE

VOCABULARY 5A. Score

I APPLE

2 DONKEY

3 JOIN

4 DIAMOND

5 NUISANCE

6 FUR

7 CUSHION

8 SHILLING

9 GAMBLE

10 BACON

II NAIL

12 CEDAR

13 TINT

14 ARMORY

15 FABLE

16 BRIM

17 GUILLOTINE

18 PLURAL

19 SECLUDE

20 NITROGLYCERINE

21 STANZA

22 MICROSCOPE

23 VESPER

24 BELFRY

25 RECEDE

26 AFFLICTION

27 PEWTER

28 BALLAST

29 CATACOMB

30 SPANGLE

31 ESPIONAGE

32 IMMINENT

33 MANTIS

34 HARA-KIRI

35 CHATTEL

36 DILATORY

37 AMANUENSIS

38 PROSELYTE

39 MOIETY

40 ASEPTIC

41 FLOUT

42 TRADUCE

RT. Vt RT. TOTAL

60

1V101 •la ZI\ •JL*

L £ 9 P S I 9 Z L £ S P 6 S 9 P I £ 8 Z 6 I s Z 9 .

CO

I P 8 S 6 I 8 Z L £ 9 P S 8 Z L S £ 9 L Z p S I

CO

9 P I £ Z S £ Z P I Z £ I Z I £ S £ P Z I £ I Z ajdureg

— X V o n "i IZ 1/1 —

6 8 L 9 s p £ Z* , * I isai loams usia #0I

6. PICTURE ARRANGEMENT T ORDER SC.

1 HOUSE (|"J

2 HOLD UP (!•)

3 ELEVATOR (1')

4 FLIRT (2')

5 TAXI (2")

6 FISH (2*J

8. BLOCKS

CARD T AC. SC. CARD T AC. SC.

1 (75") 5 (150") 2 (75") 6(150") 3 (75") 7(195") 4(75")

7. PICTURE COMPLETION

1 NOSE 9 HAND

2 MUSTACHE 10 WATER

3 EAR I I ARM — IMAGE

4 DIAMOND 12 TIE

5 LEG 13 BASE THREAD

6 TAIL 14 EYEBROW

7 STACKS 15 SHADOW

8 KNOB

9. OBJECT ASSEMBLY

OBJECTS T PLACE SCORE

MAN (21)

PROFILE |3')

HAND (3')

FOR CALCULATING DETERIORATION (see Measurement of Adult Intelligence, Chapter VI)

"HOLD" TESTS

INFORMATION

VOCABULARY

P.COMPLETION

OBJECT ASSEMBLY

SUM

Score "DON'T HOLD" TESTS

DIGIT SPAN

ARITHMETIC

BLOCK DESIGN

DIGIT SYMBOL

SUM

Score

"HOLD".

CORRECTION.

% OF LOSS (Deterioration)

-"DON'T HOLD" VHOLD"_

% LOSS

AMI- AGE. . S I X . Print Last First Initial M or F

GROUP. DAT! OF TEST

P R O F I L E S H E E T for the

KUDER PREFERENCE RECORD-PERSONAL Form A

MEN and WOMEN

DIRECTIONS FOR PROFILING

REPRODUCTION BY ANY MEANS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

APPENDIX B

1. Copy the V-Score from the back page of your answer pad in the box at the right. If your V-Score is 45 or less, there is some reason for doubting the value of your answers, and your other scores may not be very accurate. If your V-Score is 53 or more?

you may not have understood the directions, since 52 is the highest possible score. If your score is not between 46 and 52, inclusive, you should see your adviser. He will probably recom-mend that you read the directions again, and then that you fill out the blank a second time, being careful to follow the direc-tions exactly and to give sincere replies.

If your V-Score is between 46 and 52, inclusive, go ahead with the following directions.

2. Copy the scores A through E in the spaces at the top of the profile chart. Under "SOCIABLE" find the number which is the same as the score at the top. Use the numbers under M if you are a man and the numbers under F if you are a woman. Draw a line through this number from one side to the other of the column under SOCIABLE. Do the same thing for the scores at the top of each of the other columns. If a score is larger than any number in the column, draw a line across the top of the column; if it is smaller, draw a line across the bottom.

With your pencil blacken the entire space between the lines you have dr^wn and the bottom of the chart. The result is your profile for the Kuder Preference Record—Personal.

The five scores represent the following preference areas: A. SOCIABLE—preference for taking the lead and being in the

center of activities involving people.

3.

4.

B.

C.

PRACTICAL—preference for dealing with practical prob-lems and everyday affairs rather than interest in imaginary or glamorous activities."

THEORETICAL-and speculating.

-preference for thinking, philosophizing,

D. AGREEABLE!—preference for pleasant anci smooth per-sonal relations which are free from conflict.

E. DOMINANT—preference for activities involving the use of authority and power.

5. If your score in a column is near the top, it means that you have much greater preferences in the area than most men (or women). If your score in a column is near the bottom, it means your preferences are much lower than those of most men (or women). If your score in a column is near the middle, it means that you have about an average preference for that activity.

6. For a more exact interpretation of your scores, refer to the percentile scale at the side of the chart. For example, if your mark in a column is exactly half way up, it will be even with the 50th percentile mark. This means your preferences in the area are about average. If your score is even with the 20th per-centile mark, it means that 20 per cent of men (or women) have lower preferences than you and 80 per cent have greater prefer-ences.

1. Your score is not a measure of ability, but rather shows how your preferences compare with those of others. Remember, too, that a high score is not necessarily better or worse than a low score. Some preferences are characteristic of people who enjoy

1 1 ••» * •

80 •

70 •

60 — =

50 •

30 •

10 •

6 1

u O

M

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53 52

51

50

4 9

48

47

46

45

44

4 3

42

41

4 0

39

""38"

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

"W 29

28

27

26

25 24

- 2 3 -

22 21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

59

57

56

55

ss if 50

n 47

46

4 5

4 4

4 3

4 2

4 1

4 0

39

- 3 8 -

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29 28 27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

B

< u H-u <

M

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

. J>L 50

4 9

4 8

4 7

4 6

4 5

- 4 4 .

4 3

4 2

4 1

4 0

39 38

36

35

34

33

32 31 30

29 28 27 26

25

24

23

22

21

20

57

56

5 5

54

53

52

51

50

4 9

4 8

47

4 6

4 5

4 4

~43~

4 2

41

4 0

39

38

"37"

36

35

34

33

32

31

30 37

—29- '

28

27

26

25 24

23

22

21

20 19

18

17

16

15

< u

O IXI X

M

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

4 9 4 8 47

4 6

45

4 4

4 3

4 2

41

-40-39

38

37

36

35

34

- 3 3 -

32

31

30

29

28

JZ-26

25

24

23

22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

9 8 7

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

4 9

4 8

47

46

45

44

4 3

-42"

4 1

4 0

39

38

37

"36" 35

34

33

32

3 1

30

""29"

2 8

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

16 15

GQ <

0 <

M

47

46

45

4 4

4 3

4 2

4 1

4 0

39

38

37

34

33

32

31

. 3 0

29

28

27

26 25

24

23

22

21

20 19 18

17 16 15

73

72

71

70

68

67

~ 6 ~ 6 ~

65

64

63

62

. 6 1 .

60

59

36

-35"j--55'

54

53

52

51

5 0

4 9

4 8

4 7

4 6

45

4 4

42

4 0

38

36

34 33 32

31

30

29

28

Z < z

I Q

M

71 70 69

68

67

66

65

64 63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

4 9

4 8 4 7 46 4 5 44

43

4 2

4 1

4 0

39

38

37

"36"

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

It 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15

14

13 12 11 10

9 8 7 6

63

62

61

60

59

58

57

56 55 54 53

52 51

50

4 9

4 8

47

46 45

4 4

4 3

42

- 4 1 -

4 0

39 38 37 36 35 34

*33* 32 31 30 29

2? 26

21. 24

22

20

19

18

17

15

14

13

n m Z

90

80

rr— 60

Published by SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, 228 Sooth Wabash Aven.m A ki:—

BIELlOGRAFfflf

Books

Kuder, G* Frederic, Examiner Manual for The Ruder Record Personal, Chicago, Science Research Associates,

Wechsler, David, fhe Measurement of Adult Intelligence, . Baltimore, The Williams & WiXEins Company, 1944*

Articles

Adklns, D, C* and Kuder, G* P., *The Relation of Friiaary • Mental Abilities to Activity Preferences,* Psychoraetrlka,

V (1940), 251-262*

Pinch, F. B* and lemzek, C» L», wThe Relationships of the Bernreuter Personality Inventory to Scholastic Achieve— ment and Intelligence," School and Society, XXXVI (1932), 594-596*

Segel, D« and Br in tie, S. L., "The Relation of Occupational Interest Scores as Measured by the Strong Interest -Blank to Achievement Test Results and College Harks la Certain College Subject Groups,* Journal of Educational Research, XXVII (1934), 442-445. ,

62

approv, jor* profeafeor norrrofesaor of t aduatit©e …/67531/metadc130237/m2/1/high... · by g»...

Documents