LEVEL OF OCCUPATIONAL ASHRATION: PROBLEMS EN IFS CGNCEPTQALEZATEON AME MEAgéUrREMENT Thesis for flu Degree 0‘ M. A. MECHIGAN STATE UNWEKSITY Irwin Wiuiam MiHer, gr. 1960 LIBRARY Michigan Stan W University LEVEL OF OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION: PROBLEMS IN ITS CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT By Irwin'Willian Miller, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements fer the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1960 LEVEL OF mCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION: PROBLEIB IN ITS CONCEPTUALIZATION AND PEASUREMENT by Irwin WillianLEflller, Jr. AN ABSTRACT SubMtted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science. in partial fulfillmnt of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1960 i . L, : Approved by: l/ f [-011.11 ['51 I - .1 J I. w. Miller, Jr. Although lacking systematic formulation, the concept of level of occupational aspiration (LOA) has been widely used in research. Techniques which have been evaluated appear to be ineffective measures of mm. The purpose of this investigation was to'evaluate empirically the Occupational Aspiration Scale (OAS), a new and easily administered eight-item multiple choice instrument designed to measure LOA. There were two major aspects of the present investigation. The first involved an examination of the LOA concept and the techniques used to measure it. This examination was approached in the context of level of aspiration—theory and research, and resulted in the identifi- cation of three central issues in the conceptualization of LOA. These were: (1) the stability of the measured LOA variable, (2) the internal structure of LOA, including the problem of differential response levels (non-factorial types) and/t or factorial types of LOA, and (3) the "meaning" of LOA in terms of its relationship with other social-psychological variables. Characteristics of a measurement technique capable of empirically clarifying these issues were specified. The second aspect involved empirical tests of the OAS based on the three conceptual issues. These OAS analyses were: (1) reliability, (2) internal structure, both non-factorial and factorial, and (3) cor- relation with other variables, including another measure of LOA. Data for these analyses were collected in school from two samples of seventeen- year-old high school students in Michigan, 11142 in one sample and 117 in 15110 Otlnr 0 iv I. W. Miller, Jr. The results indicated that the GAS is a reliable measure of what is evidently a general LOA variable. A conparieon of its: nean scores indicated that LOA in terns of preference and "ideal" goals is higher than LOA in terns of emectation and 'action" goals. However, the results of factor analyzing the iten intercorrelations failed to produce orthogonal factors corresponding to either preference vs. expectation LOA or "ideal" vs. “action" goal LOA. Rather, one general factor accounting for 75 per cent of the total matrix variance was identified as high vs. low general LOA. An examination of the correlates of the GAS indicated that: (l) the OAS is equivalent to a free-response Isasure of general LOA, and (2) the OAS has relatively high correl- ations with variables Judged to be behaviorally-relevant in terns of facilitating the occupational achievensnt process. However, over one- fourth of the GAS variance was unaccounted for by these variables. It was concluded that the GAS is a more efficient measure of LOA than either the free-response techniques or existing multiple- choice instruments. It was suggested that the OAS may be useful in research concerned with the occupational achievement process and with the general area of social mobility. It may also be useful to occupa- tional counselors. Finally, it was noted that future research should attelpt to integrate the LOA concept into the existing body of social and psychological theory. . \. Approved by L, I" l ‘6} I: -1 Date Jaw l2. . I u r I s- 1 ".4 leg; I.“ ‘n '5: ACKNOWLEDGMNTS The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract with the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and was co-sponsored by the Mich- igan State Agricultural Experiment Station. The writer wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the Social Research Service of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Michigan State Univer- sity, the Computer Laboratory and Tabulating Services of the University, as well as the cooperation of the high school officials and students of Lenawee County and Mason, Michigan. New individuals have given invaluable assistance to the writer in various phases of the research on which this thesis is based. Special thanks are due to Charles F. Wrigley, the writer's major professor, for introducing the writer to the application of comuter techniques in behavioral research and for devoting mam hours of patient criticism to this manuscript; to Archibald O. Haller for introducing the writer to the excitement of ongoing research and for providing the data on which this thesis is based; to James C. Lingoes for computer assistance; to William H. Jarrett for his ready wit and cogent criticism; to Mrs. Dorothy Tervo for her typing and for her man helpful suggestions; and to Bonnie and Mark for their patience and support while the research and writing were in progress. vii .TABIEOFCON'I‘ENTS Peso ACKNOJIEDGEMENTS.....................vii LISTOFTABIES ix LISTOFFIGUBES..... ...... ..........Xii CHAPTER I.INTRODUCTION......‘.............. 1 II. was communxnrxou AND mm or mmoroccumnommrmxou . . . . . . . . . . A III. THE (DCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION SCALE: W Ammm O 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 33 Iv. RELIABILITY, INTERNAL smucm, AND -‘ CWT” O C O O C O O O O O O C C O I O O O O O O L8 O O O O O O O '0 O O O O 0 95 V. SUMMARY AND CODELUSIONS. REFERENCES........................105, APPENDIIA........................110 APPENDIXB......................... 128 APPENDIIC........................lhl viii Table 1. 2. 3. .9. LIST OF TABLES Summary of the Relation Between.the NORC Occupational Prestige Scores andtheOASFormat................ OAS Format: Combination of Expression Levels and Goalpranges for each of the Four Questionywordings . . . . . . . . . . . . OAS Format: Distribution of NORC Occupations Among the OAS Items . . . . . . . . . Re-arrangement of Prestige Ranks for OAS Item 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 Descriptive Statistics fer the OAS . . . . . . . . . Format for Dividing the OAS into 'THOParauelHalves...............o 'Allocation of Response Alternatives in Constructing an Equivalent Form.of the OAS . . . . . . . . . ........ A Comparison of the Standard Errors of Mean.Difference for Paired. Halves of the OAS . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Error of the Means, and Standard Error of Mean.Difference for Two Forms of the OAS Based on the Total Score. mason Sample only . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability Coefficients and Standard Errors of measurement for the GAS . . . . . . . . Means for the OAS Item.Scores (Nihhl) . . . . . . - OAS Item.Correlation Matrix (N-hhl) . . . . . . . . Factor matrices and Communalities for thfl OAS Item (N‘Ml). o a o a O O O o a o e o e o Page 3h 39 Al A2 52 5h 56 58 63 65 66 Table Page 11:. Interccrrelations of Responses for a Free-Response Instrument (ll-XS) . and the as (16-113) (II-365) . . . 15. Factor Matrices and chmmalities for Vuiablefl x1, 12, ,o 'e e ‘5‘ Free- Response LOA Instrument (NI-365) . . . . . . . . 7h 73 16. Factor Matrices and Commnalities for a Free-Response LOA Instrument (XI-XS) and the OAS (X6413) (N-365) 17. Personal, Social-Situational, and Performance Variables Selected to be Correlated with the OAS Total Score. ‘ Data from Ienawee County SWIG(N'h33)eeeeeoooeee0...... 82 18. Zero-Order Correlations of 33 Variables with the GAS Total Score: Ranked hymnitud°(N.h33)oeeeooeeoeeoeee 86 78 19. Item Interc orrelations and Communality Estimates for OAS Form 1, Mason Sample(N-BS).................. 130 20. Factor Matrices and Communalities for OAS Form X, Mason Sample (N-BS.) . . . .- . . . . . 131 21. Item Intercorrelations and Communality Estimates for OAS Form I, Manson SW13 m-BS) O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 132 22. Factor Matrices and Communalities for OASForm I, Mason Sample (N-BS) . . . . . . . . . 133 23. Intercorrelations and Communality Estimates for Variables Xl-XB (OAS Form X, pro-test) and Variables 19416 (OAS Form Y: post-test): Mason Sample, m-BS) . . . . . . . . . 13h Table Page 2h. Factor Matrices and Communalities for Variables XII-X8 (OAS Form X, pre-test) and Variables X9-X16 (OAS Form'Y, post-test): Mason Sample(N385).................. 135 25. Correlation Matrix: OAS Total Score and 33 Personal, Social-Situational, and Performance Variables. Lenawee County Sample, (Nam). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 xi LIST OF FIGURES m Page - 1. Profile of OAS Item Mean Scams (FormX,I.enaweeSample)........l.... 6h 2. Profile of OAS Item Mean Scores: FWIIMI,MonSImplO........... 129 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION An individual's occupation is one of his most readily observable and distinguishing characteristics. Not only is it a means of meeting certain economic needs, but it may also be a source of great personal satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Moreover, perhaps more than any other single activity, an individual's work represents his major social role in American society. For example, Barley and Hagenah (1955, p. 191) write: For it is our major thesis now that occupational choice and measured occupational interests reflect, in the vocabulary of the world of work, the value systems, the needs, and the motivations of individuals. These choices or measured interests are, in effect, the end product of individual development and the bridge by which a particular individual pattern of development crosses over to its major 7_#,,/w- socialrple in our culture. Statement of the Problem Psychologists and sociologists have used various concepts in attempting to study the occupational decisionemaking and achievement processes of individuals and groups. One such concept is level of occupational aspiration, or LOA as we shall refer to it henceforth. The LOA concept has been used in terms of a variety of meanings and measurement situations. Nevertheless, the concept appears to lack clear theoretical and empirical formulation. One reason for this may be due to the fact that there here been few attempts to systematically design and evaluate a technique for measuring LOA. 2 The task of this thesis is to evaluate quantitatively the Occupa- tional Aspiration Scale (OAS), a multiple-item instrument designed to assess LOA. This task involves two questions: (1) does the OAS measure LOA, and, (2) if so, how efficiently does it accomplish this? Before these questions can be answered, however, we should be able to specify the conceptual and measurement properties of the LOA variable. Lacking an available clear formulation of the concept, we shall attempt to examine it from.two approaches. First, we shall consider the possi- bility of treating LOA as a special case of the level of aspiration paradigm of Iewin, M' (19%). Secondly, we shall examine the direct application of the LOA concept and its measurement in research using it as a variable. The aim of these preliminary examinations is to identify several of the unresolved issues in the conceptualization and measurement of LOA. Once identified, these issues will allow us to specify the requirements for a measure of LOA capable of empirically clarifying the LOA concept. If the OAS instrument meets these require- ants, then it may be evaluated not only in terms of certain formal psychcntric properties, but also as a tool for clarifying the LOA concept. Organization of the Thesis The following chapter presents the preliminary examination of the m concept in terms of its conceptualization and measurement. The development of the OAS instrument and the specific procedures proposed for evaluating it are presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV presents the results of the OAS reliability, internal structure, and correlation analyses. Finally, Chapter V sunarizes the major findings of the thesis, concluding with an evaluation of the OAS and the variable it measures. Orientation of the Thesis Future research must ultimately decide the significance of the postulated level of occupational aspiration variable. The underlying premise of this investigation is that present theoretical knowledge of 1.95 E available measurements of it seem to sggest that E adequate 2 attempt to evaluate the concept itself, and that these two evaluations should proceed simltaneously. CHAPTER II THE OONOEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF LEVEL OF mCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION The purpose of this chapter is to examine the various meanings attached to the concept LOA, and to review the various techniques of measurement. The conceptualization has been achieved in a variety of ways, and with several different terms. In order to provide an analytical framwork for this task, we shall first examine the concept of level of aspiration and its relation to an occupational goal-structure. The Level of Aspiration Paradigm In general, level of aspiration may be described in terms of goal levels. For example, Deutsch (1994) has defined level of aspiration as "the degree of difficulty of the goal toward which the person is striving." Iewin, gt _a_l. (19141;) , in applying the resultant weighted valence (M) model of Escalona, state that the level of aspiration will be the level of goal difficulty which has the maximum resultant positive valence.1 l‘l‘he resultant weighted valence at each level of goal difficulty is: m -[ (V, e P8) - (v: e Pf) I, mrgz REV - resultant weighted valence of the goal for the individual V I valence of success P a subjective probability of success Vf I valence of failure - subjective probability of failure The RWV model distinguishes preference (in terms of “valence") and expectation (in terms of "subjective probability"). There is considerable evidence that level of aspiration in terms of preference is higher, as an average score, than is level of aspiration in term of expectation (Levin, _e_t_ 53..., 191414; Irwin, 1951). In addition, this theory makes a distinction between “action" goals (the innsdiate, short-range goal of an action) and "ideal" goals (long-range goals which the subject my hope for). According to stin, at E. (19%), "it is the level of the action goal which is usually taken as the criterion for the level of aspiration for an individual at a given time." Thus, level of aspiration refers to the level of goal difficulty which the individual will undertake to achieve, and this level is influenced by preferences and expectations. The applicability of the level of aspiration concept appears to be determined by the characteristics of the goals to which it is applied. Deutsch (1951;) states: The concept of level of aspiration is relevant only when there is a perceived range of difficulty in the attainment of possible goals and there is a variation in valence among the goals along the range of difficulty. Thus, the applicability of the level of aspiration paradigm to occupational goals seems to center on whether or not occupations have those charac- teristics specified by Deutsch. In addition, occupations would have to be empirically ordered by level of difficulty in order to measure LOA. We shall now examine the concept of an occupational hierarchy, its measure- ment by empirical scales, and the possibility of incorporating it in the level of aspiration paradigm. The Occupational Goal-Structure Various criteria and techniques for classifying occupations have been reviewed by Caplow (1951;), Davies (1952), and Super, (1957). Some of the frequently used criteria are income, prestige or social-status, intelligence, interests, required skills and education, and personality. However, pres- tige or social status is probably the most used criterion for arranging occupations in a hierarchy. Moreover, several empirical scales of occupa- tional prestige have been constructed during the past three decades, and the results of analyses of the rankings suggest that the prestige dimension is useful for research dealing with occupations. In this section, we shall examine the ranking of occupations by prestige and the relationship of these rankings to rankings based on other criteria. _ Reliability of Prestige Ranks Davies (1952) has examined the prestige rankings of occupations in term of rater consensus, within group and between groups. He con- cludes that most studies indicate that there is a high degree of easement between different groups of raters as well as among raters in the can group. He points out, however, that within group consensus is higher at the extremes of the rankings than at the middle range of the rankims. Similarly, Centers (1953) has concluded that the class position of most occupations is unambiguous even though there is not complete unanimity among the raters. The stability of prestige rankings over time and between various modern industrial societies may be illustrated by referring to two sets of studies. The first set, cited by Davies (1952), is a comparison of the ranking of occupations in 1925 with the ranking of the same ones in 191:7. The first study was conducted by Counts, who asked respondents to rank a list of occupations "in the order of their social standing." Deeg and Patterson duplicated Count's study in 1947. They reported a correlation of +.97 between Count's rankings and their own. The second set of studies compares the prestige rankings of 88 occupations obtained from a nationally representative sample of 2,920 American adults with the rankings of these same occupations obtained in five other countries. The first study, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC,19h7) had a. national. sample of 2,920 adults fourteen years and over rank each of 90 occupations according to the following instructiom: For each Job mentioned, please pick out the statement that best gives our in personal opinion of the general standig that such a 305 has: 1. Excellent standing 2. Good standing 3. Iver e standing h. Somewghat below averge standing 5. Wand—1E- X. won't know where to place that one The occupations were assigned ranks by translating the percentage ratings on each of the jobs into a single general score.2 Inkeles and Rossi (1956) obtained rankings on 88 of these occupa- tions in the U.S.S.R., Japan, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Germany. They found substantially high agreement among the various sets of rankings, 2The resulting occupational ranks are presented in Chapter III along with a description of the Occupational Aspiration Scale. and conclude: “this strongly suggests that there is a relatively invariable hierarchy of prestige associated with the industrial system. . . ." Validity and Correlates of Prestige Ranks Blau (1957) re-studied the responses of 1,077 males drawn from the National Opinion Research Center study in an attempt to determine whether the occupational status of the rater influenced his Judgment of the rela- tive status of occupations. He found widespread consensus in ratings among raters from different occupational strata. Blau concludes by writing: Men of higher status have generally stricter standards and give lower occupational ratings than those of lower status. But since these standards are applied rather uniformly to all occupations and people exhibit little bias in their ratings of their own occupational group, the rank order of occupa- tional ratings is hardly affected by the rater's status . Hatt (1950) has questioned the possibility of satisfactorily ranking the major occupations along a single dimension of status. He maintains that clear hierarchies can be established only within occupational families. However, he concludes that the theory and method of recent phenomenological estimates of occupational prestige status seem to meet the necessary requirements for an index of societal position more nearly than an other method currently available. The results of several studies reviewed by Super (1957) led him to conclude that occupational rankings made on the basis of socifl. status correspond highly with rankings on income and intelligence. The bases on which occupational prestige Judgments are made have also been investigated. One study, that of the National Opinion Research Center (19h?) discussed earlier, asked their respondents the following question: ‘when you say that certain Jobs have 'excellent standing,‘ what do you think is the on: main thing about such Jobs that gives this standing?" The four criteria receiving the highest percentage of responses were: The Job pays so well 18% It serves humanity; it is an essential Job 16% Preparation requires much education, hard work and money 1h% The Job carries social prestige ' 11¢ Knn1.(1957. p. 75). upon.examining these findings, concluded: . . . in our culture, skill (ability plus education and training), authority, income , and prestige are a single meaningful complex. Peeple who used different criteria ranked occupations in the same way. There is no point in wasting a lot of ingenuity trying to figure out which is most important: the significant fact is that the public sees them as fitting together. Stefflre (1959) examined the intererelationships of occupatibnal rankings obtained on 10 criteria thought to be related to social status. These were: personal preference, prestige, value to community, control over other people, required education, Job freedom, required intelligence, income, security, and opportunity for self-realization. The rankings for 20 occupations made by .59 female and 62 male high school Juniors on the ten criteria were intercorrelated and then factor analyzed. Most of the intercorrelation for both groups was accounted for by one general factor. Stefflre concluded: This study suggests that high school students are either unable to clearly distinguish the various bases for the social status which they grant to occupations , or that all of the elements postulated as being important in status are in fact highly associated with each other. 1.... u... a. .I 10 Conclusions It seems reasonable to conclude that occupations ranked by prestige represent a goal structure differentiated along a continuum of perceived valence. Moreover, rankings by prestige appear to agree substantially with rankings based on intelligence, ability, skill, and training. This sug- gests that ranking occupations by prestige results in their being ranked by difficulty also. Thus, the occupational prestige hierarchy appears to be an appropriate goal-structure for the level of aspiration paradigm. logically, it is meaningful to use the term level of occupational aspiration. In addition, the stability and validity of occupational prestige scales makes prestige ratings a desirable rating system for scoring LOA measures. Such measures could be standardised for purposes of comparing groups as well as individuals with respect to a relatively invariant reference. The predictive efficiency of LOA instruments would be increased since the relative positions of occupations would tend to remain stable over time. In conclusion, the possibility of clarifying the LOA concept by incorporating it in the general level of aspiration model seem Justified. We shall now examine the various meanings attached to the LOA concept and the variety of techniques used in its measurement. The Concept Not all of the conceptualizations of LOA have been developed within the framework of the level of aspiration paradigm. For our purpose, we shall consider any concept and its corresponding measurement as LOA if its 11 result is to order individuals with respect to their behavior orientation to a hierarchy of occupational goals. In this section we shall examine the variety of meanings attached to the concept. The first application of the level of aspiration concept to the occupational field was apparently made by Lewin (1936) who studied the relation between vocational choice and the feeling of success or failure in vocational achievement. May and Doob (1937) extended the level of aspiration concept to include motivational components: The level of aspiration . . . represents as accurate as possible an estimate of a person's urge or drive to achieve certain goals or ends as he sees them.. . . . In all except grossly abnormal personalities these exact various and sundry discrepancies or gaps between the level of achievement and those ofaspiration, or between what the individual now is or has and what he would like to be or have. It is our contention that motivation is‘g function of these discrepancies. Lurie (1939), building on the conceptualization of May and Doob, made the first attempt to operationalize the concept LOA: . . . an individual's level of vocational aspiration at any given time is the Barr rating of his answer to the question, "What he you often thought that you would like to do for a living?" Apparently, Lurie considered LOA in terms of "Ideal" goals rather than at the level of "Action" goals, although Lewin, at 31. (19hh) had suggested that “Action" goals were the best estimate of level of aspiration. And the results of Lurie's study of 92h unemployed males seems to indicate that LOA in terms of *Ideal" goals is relatively independent of LOA in terms of "Actionfi goals. The correlation between.his measure of LOA and the ratings of occupations which the subjects were currently attempting to enter 3Barr ratings are the average intelligence of members of certain occupational groups. 12 was +.21. In general, subsequent interpretations of LOA continue to identify it with “ideal" goals and to give it motivational connotations. For example, in the area of vocational interest measurement the .major concern is with vocational preferences rather than plans or expecta- tions. Two standardized vocational interest inventories contain sections or scales which attempt to measure the "level" of interests. These are the Occupational Level (0L) Scale of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men (l9h6) and the Level of Interest (LI) section of the Lee-Thorpe Occupa- tional Interest Inventory (1956b). Strong (l9h3, p. hh), discussing the meaning of the OL scale, speculates: The writer has a hunch that the general level of the half-dozen highest [interest] ratings is a rough measure of the EEEEEE.2£ motivation that the individual has at his disposal for working hard and making a success. Men with low ratings have given the impression of being "drifters." This topic needs careful investigation. Additional empirical research on the meaning of the OL scores resulted in a variety of interpretations, however. 'We shall briefly consider several of these. Darley (l9hl, pp. 60-68) appears to be the first investigator to interpret the OL scale in terms of level of aspiration. His investigation, concerned with the clinical aspects of the OL scores, led him to conclude: Occupational Level, a quantitative statement of the eventual adult "level of aspiration," represents the degree to which the individual's total background has prepared him to seek the prestige and discharge the social responsibilities growing out of high income, professional status, recognition, or leadership in the community. . . . He goes on, however,to extend the concept to include academic ability: 13 . . . an excessively low occupational level score seems at present to be associated with lack of "staying power" or I'survival power" in college competition. This hypothesis should be tested as quickly as research data accumulate, by careful studies of matched groups, since it is a phase of the "level of aspiration" and general motivational problems. Finally, Darley goes on to speculate concerning the theoretical importance of LOA for the areas of vocational interest, motivation, and personality, and the need for systematic research: For in the last analysis, "interest" -- the thing that holds men willingly to a multitude of tasks of varying degrees of satisfaction within any one Job - is a powerful mainspring of behavior and therefore a powerful social force. Level of aspiration, motivation, and personality may all be hidden in the connotations surrounding our conch usage of this word, and a systematic pattern of research may evoke a clearer under- standing of these factors. Kendall (191:7) studied the relationship between the OL scores and several academic success and ability variables on a sample of 300 freshman college students. His conclusions, while agreeing with those of Strong and Barley, give little additional clarification of the concept: Without attempting to specify the precise nature of the variable measured by the OL scale, it would seem that the scale is measuring a variable related in part to academic ability . . . and in part to motivational factors . However, Kendall found that the OL scores were only a crude indicator of academic success when academic ability was controlled. This led him to suggest: . . . if used with caution, 0L scores at the extremes of the distribution should be useful to the counselor in making Judgments concerning individual chances for scholastic success. Further evidence concerning 0L scores and academic achievement is reported in two studies by Ostrom (1914931)). 'He reports a positive relationship 1h between 01. scores and academic achievemnt at the college level but not at the high school level. Additional attempts to interpret empirically the OL scale at a measure of drive is reported in a monograph by Barnett, gt 22.1' (1952). These investigations were prefaced by the following statement of the problem: What is the meaning of occupational level as measured by interest tests? Is having interests like those of executives a sign of motivation to strive to rise to high position? Or is occupational interest level simply an index of similarity of interests to those of men at various occupational levels, devoid of dynamics and unrelated to drive? The authors compare 01. scores obtained on various groups of school children with several measures of level of aspiration based on self-ratings, ratings by teachers and friends, and experimental ratings. In addition, school grades, intelligence, family social status and religion, college plans, occupational plans, and parental aspirations for the subjects are assessed. However, the monograph gives little information concerning measurement procedures and, hence, it is difficult to Judge the comparability of various measures of drive, motivation, and aspiration. Although several of the findings are inconsistent, the authors conclude: The evidence now available warrants interpretng the occimational level score as a measure of status of interests: the OL score can Mate the-socio-econonfi'c' level at‘wfi'ich a person should be able to find outlets for his interests. The evidence does not warrant interpret the OL score as a measure of drive: it has—noTt Een demonstrate 't'Et'The 01': score- can or cTnnot indicate how much a person will exert himself to rise on the occupational ladder or to succeed in his field of activity. Attempts to clarify the meaning of the OL scores have apparently met with little success. What is even more imortant, these studies have 15 focused on the OL scale as such to the relative neglect of the LOA cone cept. It is questionable, for instance, whether measurements purporting to assess formal concepts such as level of aspiration, drive, or motiva- tion are themselves valid criteria for these concepts. Is it legitimate to expect any measure of drive to correlate with any other measure of drive, irrespective of the kinds of drives involved? A wide range of interpretation still clouds the problem.of clarifying the LOA concept by using the OL scale. For example, Darley and Hagenah (1955, PP. 117-118), after examining the data in the monograph discussed above, conclude that the OL scale is in fact a measure of LOA: There seems to be a certain disjunction.between the findings of these three separate studies and.the conclusions drawn in.the mono- graph. From.one standpoint, we find the actual data quite in accord with our general interpretation of the OL scale in the counseling situation. At the extremes, it is a meaningful index of the students' occupational aspirations and the attendant status correlates of occupations. Thus, in the most recent edition of the manual for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) Strong (1959) cautions: Occupational level (0L) scores should also be interpreted with care since research has provided conflicting information as to their meaning. The other standardized vocational interest inventory which incor- porates a measure logically related to the LOA concept is the Occupational Interest Inventory (011). Like the SVIB, the level of Interest (LI) section of the 011 assesses L0A.Z$2 interests. Lee and Thorpe (1956a) give this operational definition of the concept: The results [of the scale] indicate whether the interests are associated with routine tasks, with tasks requiring considerable skill, or with tasks requiring expert knowledge, skill, and judg- ment. The latter often involve supervisory and administrative skill. 16 The meaning attached to LOA here seems to be that of skill level. .An attempt to empirically validate this interpretation was mede by Stefflre (1955). He administered the 011 and an independent measure of LOA to 1,000 male high school seniors. The independent measure of LOA consisted of asking the subjects to name their "tentative vocational objectives" (e.g., “action" goals). The responses to this question were classified as either "white collar" or 'manual' according to the Alba Edwards' scale. It was found that those aspiring to white collar occupations were significantly'higher in.LI scores than were those aspiring to manual occupations. Stefflre concluded: It can be concluded that the Level of Interest section of the Lee-Thorpe Occupational Interest Inwentory is related to vocational aspiration. . . . This section of the test would appear to be a good rough index of the direction and.extent of the student's aspiration as it will be expressed through the selection of a vocational objective. The conceptualization of LOA, however, has also taken place during the course of research employing nonpstandardized measurements. ‘we shall now consider some of the meanings attached to LOA by these investigations during the past ten years. Stubbins (1950) has made a distinction between the specific meaning of occupational choice and the generic meaning. He considers LOA as a generic meaning in terms of the need for social status. Thus, for Stubbins, LOA is variously conceptualized as a nsocial status self-concept," a “prestige aspiration," and "a social status orientation." While analytically distinguishing interest and aspiration, he nevertheless views each as important factors in vocational counseling: 17 Most fundamentally is the individual's choice determined by" his vocational self-concept or his social status self-concept? Such a question is academic, for the self-concept is a unity. Nevertheless, certain concepts as abstractions of this unity are more adequate than others in predicting behavior. Thus, one of the earliest observations of the counselor's experience is that he encounters much less resistance in helping a client to effect a transfer from.one vocational interest area to another than he does in.getting the client to accept a change which involves a loss of status. It is not a question of interest or aspiration but of how much of each. Kahl (1953) appears to view LOA simply in terms of occupational ”ambitions" or ”aims,“ and does not attempt to elaborate the concept in any analytical detail. However, he does suggest that parental pressure for the youth's social mobility is an important influence on LOA. Dynes (1956) also conceptualizes LOA as a factor influenced by relationships with the ‘parents and characterizes it as a social-mobility orientation. A related 'view is found in Essen (1959) who treats achievement motivation, certain ‘value orientations, and educationaldvocational aspiration levels as a comp plax which he calls the Achievement Syndrome. Empey'(l956) has made a distinction.between occupational plans and occupational aspirations which parallels the distinction between expectations and preferences. In addition, he has classified LOA into two types. One of these is “absolute" LOA, which refers to the status level of a preferred occupation on the occupational hierarchy. 'When this standard is used, individuals are compared on LOA with respect to "a monolithic definition of occupational success.“ The "relative" type of LOA, on the other hand, takes into account the class level from which the individual establishes his occupational preference. This type is operationally defined as the dif- ference between the status of the respondent's ocdupational preference and.the 18 status of his father's occupation. Espey suggests that the "relative" type of LOA is a better indicator of social mobility orientation, since research has shown that 'absolute' aspirations are positively correlated with social class levels. Stephenson (1957) also conceptualizes LOA as a type of social mobility orientation. However, although maintaining the distinction between plan and aspiration, Stephenson considers LOA only as an "absolute" standard. LOA, as a nobility orientation: . . . refers to aspiration levels within the stratification system that may serve as points of motivation in competition for position in the social structure. Unlike Empey, Stephenson found that occupational plans rather than aspirations are associated with class levels. After comparing the occu- pational plans and aspirations of youth from different social class levels, he concluded: . . . the mobility orientation pattern suggested is one in which aspirations are relatively unaffected by class and, hence, reflect the general cultural emphasis upon high goal orientations, while plans or expectations are more definitely class based and, hence, may reflect class differences in opportunity and general life chances. Recently, Alexander, g g. (1959) applied the resultant weighted valence model of level of aspiration theory to occupational preference. They found that this model was an efficient predictor of LOA in terms of "Action" goals as well as "Ideal“ goals. Apparently, they conceptu- alize LOA in terms of plans as well as preferences. 19 am In general, the various meanings attached to the LOA concept have focused on the preference or l'ideal" goal aspect of level of aspiration theory. Various attempts have been made to identify LOA as a motive or drive for achievement and social mobility. Most of these interpretations, while often based on empirical results, were largely speculative. We are led to conclude that the concept LOA has yet to be systematically clarified. This may be due largely to the fact that LOA has been measured by a variety of techniques. As Gardner (l9hO) has pointed out , "the meaning of the term level of aspiration bears an intimate relationship to the methods used in determining level of aspiration." In the following section we shall examine several of the techniques used to measure LOA. The Measurements The variety of meanings attached to the LOA concept is paralleled by an equal variety of measurement techniques. The purpose of this section is to examine these techniques and to attempt to isolate several central issues bearing on the problem of conceptual clarification. For convenience of future reference, the following set of terms is defined: I. Standardized IE: unstandardized: this refers to whether the instrument has been analyzed and evaluated as a measurement over a range of research situations or whether the technique was designed merely for a specific investigation. II. . 2_1r_e_c_t_ :3. Indirect: this refers to whether the technique attempts to assess the explicit LOA of the individual or whether the LOA is 20 estimated and/or inferred from measurements designed to assess other than the LOA variable. (e.g., interest areas). III. ‘§igglghzg. Multiple-item.design§: this refers to the number of unitary responses employed in assessing an individual's LOA. IV. Expression Levels: this is related to III but analytically distinct. It concerns the two response levels of the level of aspiration model: preference (like-hope) and expectation. Concretely, the wording of the stimulus question is the major concern.here. V. 2222 Dimension: this is similar to IV, except that it refers to existence of question wording which specifies long—range goals or short-range goals (e.g., "ideal" goals or "action" goals). VI. Free-response XE! Multiple-choice designs: this distinguishes LOA measurements which require the respondent to specify the goal from those which present alternatives from among which the respondent is asked to choose. VII. Ordering of Responses: this refers to the rationale for scoring the responses, the type and range of criteria employed, etc. Standardized Techniques The Occupational Level (0L) scale of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB) and the Level of Interest (LI) section of the Lee-Thorpe Occupational Interest Inventory appear to be the only published standardized :measurolents of LOA available. ‘we shall first describe these measurements and then attempt to point out the inadequacy of these techniques for LOA ‘measurement. 21 The development of the OL scale is described by Strong (1959): The occupational level (0L) scale was developed by identifying items which differentiated unskilled workers from.the men-in—general group. A low score thus indicates interests similar to those of manual laborers; a high score means the person has responded to the items the way nest business and.professional men do. The mechanics of the SVIB are based on preferential responses. Respondents are asked to check Like - Indifferent - Dislike (L-I-D) for a series of occupational titles, school subjects, amusements, activities, and charac- teristics of people. In addition, the respondent rates himself on a list of interests, preferences, personal abilities and characteristics. The 0L scores are then derived from.interest scores in the manner described by Strong. Strong (1955, p. 127) presents the following reliability data for the OL scale: Procedure Sample Reliability .Test - retest (5 years) ’Seniors .71 Test - retest (19 years) Freshmen .53 Test - retest (22 years) Seniors .57 Odd - even -—- .87 However, he also states that the predictive efficiency of the OL scale (in terms of occupational achievement) is poor when compared with predic- tions based on interest areas. Finally, the OL scale has not been shown to be equivalent to other measures of LOA. For example, Lee and Thorpe (1956a) find a statistically'nonesignificant correlation of +.13 between the OL scale and the LI scale of the OII based on a sample of sixty veterans. The mechanics used in the OII to obtain LI scores are different from.those of the SVIB. The OII has a separate section for the purpose of 22 neasuring level of interest. This section is made up of 30 forced-choice triads, five triads for each of the six major interest fields assessed by the OII. Each triad consists of three statements concerning activities in the same interest area but differing with respect to the degree of skill involved. For example, the instructions and one triad from the LI section are as follows: Below you.will find three activities under each number. 'IOu are to choose the one you.prefer to do of the three in each group. Indicate your choice by marking the letter preceding the activity. 1 B1. Take temperatures, give blood tests, and administer hypodermics. Cl. Treat wounds, perform surgical operations, and help sick people get well. A1. Do haircutting, hairdressing, manicuring, or shampooing. The alternatives are rated: A - low, B - average, O - high level of interest. Lee and Thorpe (1956a) report a test - retest (one week interval) reliability coefficient of +.7h based on a sample of ninetybthree twelfth- grade male students. In.summery, both the 0L and LI measures are standardized, indirect, mmltiple-item.measures of LOA with specified (although implicit in terms of occupational titles) goals. In.the case of the OL, the respondent has a choice with respect to degree of preference (i.e., L-I-D). For the LI measure, the respondent has a choice with respect to activities preferred. Both, then, are restricted to the preference level of expression. Moreover, the criterion for scoring responses is different for the two measures. The OL scoring criterion is similarity of interests with respect to two criterion 23 groups: business and professional vs. manual labor. The LI scoring criterion is the degree of skill associated with the forced-choice alter- natives. Both criteria are limited in range: for the OL, two levels are used; for the Ll, three levels are employed. Finally, both measurements are present-oriented in that they specify neither short-range nor long- range goals. In conclusion, the data examined seem to indicate that one or both of these measurements are inadequate measures of LOA.I First, they do not correlate with each other. Second, neither one allows the respondent to explicitly set a level of aspiration in terms of occupational goals. Finally, both the 0L and LI assess LOA indirectly via vocational interest areas. Again, it is questionable whether this is operationally equivalent to the individual's "setting the level of aspiration.“ For example, Super, in the monograph by Barnett, at a1. (1952), has stated: It is not unreasonable to expect a measure of similarity of interest to measure only similarity of interest. Neither is it surprising to find that fields of interest have a dynamic which may not be shared by lev5I§_3f interest, when the instrument used in measuring them Both was originally designed to assess the former e Non=Standardized_Techniques Many investigations employing the LOA concept have used non- standardized techniques for its measurement. Not all of these studies have described the design of the measurement. Of those that have, there is generally a lack of sophistication concerning the measuring instrument. This is manifested in three ways: (1) usually, a single question has been assumed as adequate, (2) these questions are worded in a variety of ways, 2b and (3) various scoring criteria have been used for ordering the responses. The only apparent continuity is the assumption that each of these different techniques is measuring the same concept, LOA. The following single-question measurements of LOA illustrate the variations in 'wording: What have you often thought that you would like to do for a living? (Lurie, 1939) If you had every opportunity to follow any career you wished but still had to work for a living, what occupation would you choose? (Stubbins, 1950) If you could have any job you wanted, as an adult, what would you like to do? (Barnett, gt al.,l952) In the above question you.have indicated what you actually plan.to do. However, often times we have to plan to do things we would not do if circumstances were different. Therefore, the following question is asked. If you could do what you really wanted to do, what would you do? (Stephenson, 1957) Several things about these questions are worth noting. First, all of them.are restricted to the preference level of expression. Secondly, some specify occupations or jobs while others appear to request a response in terms of activities. Third, some are more specific than others with respect to the conditions under which the response is to be made. Finally, they are all freeqresponse techniques rather than multiple choice. The use of single-question measurements of LOA presents several problems. First, differences in the wording of the questions may establish different frames of reference for the respondent. That is, different ques- tions may be interpreted differently. Different interpretations might involve different response dynamics. Consequently, the measurements may not be equivalent. If this is the case, then the blanket application of 25 the termhLOA to all of these operations is misleading. Secondly, measure- ments of LOA based on single-question instruments are difficult to evaluate in terms of reliability and internal structure. In addition, such instrup ments do not allow an adequate assessment of the stability of the LOA variable over time. Finally, the use of single-question techniques involves problems of coding free-responses. Some of the respondents may reply in terms which cannot be coded: e.g., responses in terms of activities or interests rather than a specific occupation. Furthermore, it is probably true that not all individuals are aware of the full range of occupational alternatives. These considerations suggest that single- question.measurements of LOA are relatively inefficient and unreliable. In fact, two empirical evaluations of multiple-question LOA measures tend to indicate that LOA may be more effectively measured by taking into account occupational plans and expectations as well as preferences. The first study is that of Sewell (1955)’4 who administered the following questionnaire to h31 Junior and senior high school boyss l. The occupations which I have thought about going into are: d. 2. The occupation that I plan to follow is: 3. If I were absolutely free to go into any kind of work I wanted, my choice would be: h. The type of work I would like to be doing 10 years from now is: hSewell,'W'. H. (1955, unpublished data) Jefferson county study: l9h8-1955, co-sponsored by the University of'Wisconsin and the Rockefeller Fomtion e 26 Actual and interpolated prestige scores based on the NORC (l9h7) ratings were assigned to the responses classified in the following way: (1) the prestige level of the highest occupational choice indicated in the answer to any of the questions, (2) the prestige level of the lowest occupational choice, indicated in the answer to any of the questions, (3) the prestige of the plan level was coded from.the answer to question two, and (h) the .3322 choice level was based on the response to question three. The Lee- Thorpe Occupational Interest Inventory (OII) was also administered to the same sample, the scores on the LI section.being included in the analyses. The highest, lowest, plan, and free choice—levels together with the LI section.scores were intercorrelated and then factor analyzed. Three factors were extracted and rotated to an oblique solution. The first factor loaded relatively high on all of the choice levels and relatively low on the L1 scores. It was interpreted as a general LOA factor. The second factor had its largest positive loading on the lowest choice level and its largest negative loading on the highest choice level. This factor was interpreted as "realistic" vs. "idealistic" LOA. The third factor was loaded substantially only on the LI scores. ‘ Several conclusions are suggested by these results. First, various types of question wordings appear to contribute to the measurement of a general LOA variable. Secondly, responses coded in terms of highest and lowest choice levels appear to correspond factorially to the distinction between "ideal" goals and "action" goals found in level of aspiration theory. Finally, the L1 measure shares little variance with the other measures of LOA. This means that, whatever it measures, it is not equivalent to the freeu response instrument. 27 The other study which appears to support the use of multiple- question.LOA measurements is that of Alexander, gt a}. (1959). Fifty" college students were asked to rank ten occupational categories along scales of valence of success and valence of failure while assuming they were employed in.each of the categories. In addition, they were asked to estimate the subjective probabilities of success and failure for each of the ten categories. This data was then used in the resultant weighted.valence (RWV) model for estimating level of aspiration. "Ideal” goals were assessed by having each student rank the ten occupational categories in the order of his preference. The "action! goals were determined by having the student list five current occupational intenp tions in the order of their preference. It was found that the RWV model had median.correlations of +.7h with "ideal" goals and e.88'with IMotion" goals. The investigators concluded: . . . the resultant weighted valence is an extremely good predictor of occupational preference, even for “ideal" goals, and as such its merits should be investigated further in problems of occupational counseling. The Criteria for_0rderingflLOA Responses The socio-economic dimension of occupational classification (and its correlates) has been used most often in.LOA measurement. A few studies, such as that of Lurie (1939), have used intelligence of occupational groups as the basis for ordering LOA responses. Nevertheless, most of these studies have overlooked two important considerations: 1) The range of classifi- cation, and 2) the representativeness or validity of the classifications. 28 The range of the criteria has ranged from.dichotomies such as manual vs. white collar to more refined rankings such as the NORC (19h?) prestige rankings of 90 occupations. In several studies, such as Stubbins (1950), the LOA responses are ranked after they are obtained. This procedure no doubt reflects the fact that most existing scales of occupational ranks are limited in range. Hence, the investigator using the free-response approach is faced with two alternatives. He may completely ignore existing occupational scales and attempt to have a group of judges assign ratings to the responses, or he may use an existing scale as a frame of reference and interpolate those occupations not included in the existing scale. In either case, the range of responses so coded may not represent the full range of occupational alternatives. Equally important, unless two studies have used the same criteria and method of coding responses, an adequate comparison between groups on LOA is impossible. On the other hand, the characteristics of the judges who assign ratings to the occupations or responses have varied. For example, Stubbins (1950) had professional colleagues rank the responses to his LOA measure- ment. At the present time, the NORC (19h?) scale appears to be the only set of occupational rankings which is based on a large representative national sample in.an.attempt to gain a full range of relatively unbiased ratings. 29 Summary: Implications for Measuring LOA While it is true that a few studies, such as that of Stubbins (1950), have attempted to determine the correlates of a particular LOA measurement, little or no attention.has been directed to the problem of evaluating the measurement technique itself. This evaluation.problem.seems to us to involve making LOA a focal variable and to use the concrete instrup ment as a tool for clarifying the LOA concept. Mbreover, no attempt has been made to design a method for measuring LOA which eliminates the diffi- culties of coding free responses, of determing reliability and stability, and at the same time of answering assumptions concerning the structure of the concept LOA. At the present time, it seems desirable that techniques for assessing LOA be considered primarily as tools for clarifying the cone cept and for integrating it into a broader theoretical base. The state of present knowledge concerning the measurement and con- ceptualization of LOA suggests that the minimum.requirements for a measurement design.capable of clarifying the concept would be the following: I. ‘22? measurement should be direct: respondents should publicly indicate their aims in terms which are operationally equivalent to "setting the level of aspiration." This is to be contrasted with indirect techniques where the level of aspiration is inferred from.interest or activity areas. II. The measurement should be_mu1tiple-item and include variations in questiondwording which reflect different "expression levels" (e.g., preference and expectation) and goal—ranges (e.g., "action" and "ideal" goals). This requirement is based on the following considerations: III. 30 A. Determination of measurement reliability and stability of the variable. B. Evaluation of the "internal structure" of the concept; e.g., are various question wordings equivalent measures of LOA. C. Comeptualization of LOA as the generic rather than specific aspect of occupational choice. That is, in LOA assessment, we are not interested in specific occupational goals but in these only as they reflect the level and range of the occupa- tional hierarchy toward which the individual is oriented. 39.9. responses M pg quantifiable: i.e., amenable to ordering by “levels." This suggests that open-ended or "free-response" techniques are inadequate, since the respondent may reply in terms which are not codable by ranking on the relevant dimension (e .g., prestige). One alternative is a multiple-choice approach for each question. This would tend to insure that each respondent is exposed to the same alternatives. Thus, responses would tend to be independent of knowledge of specific occupational alternatives. The scorlpg criteria 9.1391129. 22 obJective, relatively unbiased, _a_.n___d represent 3 full-ragge .93 response possibilities. By objective we mean that the rankings of occupations are obtained from data other than the responses of the sample being measured. By relatively unbiased we mean that the rankings of occupations selected by the respondent are based on a group of Judges whose characteristics are representative of the total population from among which groups or individuals are to be compared on LOA. A full range of response 31 possibilities means that rankings should be available over the entire range of the occupational hierarchy. In the case of multiple-choice design, this allows the respondent to choose from among the entire range of occupational levels. V. 1113 scori_:_1_g criteria 52393.3 approximate 22 closely ;a_s_ possible t_h_e_ M p_f_ p differentiated gal structure .a_l_o_n_g dimensions p_f_ Erceived valence E perceived difficult . This suggests that the criteria for ordering LOA responses should be based on the perceived hierarchy of occupations rather than on a hierarchy which is estimated from the actual or inherent characteristics of occupation or occupational groups. For example, the average intelligence of those employed in different occupations is one such actual or measured characteristic and hence does not seem to be appropriate as an LOA scoring criterion. Conclusions In this chapter, we have examined various approaches to the meaning and masurement of LOA and logically related concepts. We have found that the variety of interpretations regarding the concept LOA is paralleled by an equal variety of measurement techniques. The blanket application of the term LOA to all of these approaches is probably misleading. However, at the present time there is no clear theoretical basis for determining ‘ 'hioh concepts and measurements are LOA and which are not other than the Beneral level of aspiration paradigm. Horeover, there is no clear evidence indicating that any two techniques are measuring the same variable. w... era 32 The lack of a well articulated theory and adequate well-understood measurements for LOA pose serious problems for an evaluation of a measure- ment purporting to assess LOA. We have spelled out several problems in the masuremsnt of LOA which we feel have been neglected and the solution of which may lead to a better understanding of the postulated LOA variable. In addition, we have specified what seem to us to be certain requirements for measuring LOA. These will provide a problem-context for the remainder of the thesis. The task of the following chapter is to present the Occupational Aspiration Scale (OAS), its development, rationale, and scoring procedures. In addition, this chapter will specify the proposed empirical analyses of the GAS which will comprise the remainder of the thesis. CHAPTER III THE OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION SCALE: PROPOSED ANALYSIS The task of this chapter is to describe the Occupational Aspiration Scale (OAS) as developed by A. O. Heller, and specify the proposed analyses. The description of the OAS includes a discussion of its development and rationale, its format, its administration and its scoring procedures. The chapter will then consider the problem of evaluating the OAS and dis- cuss how the problems of LOA conceptualizaticn and measurement are related to the proposed analyses of the OAS instrument. Development and General Description The OAS was designed as a measure of level of occupational aspira- tion. However, the OAS instrument is intended to overcome several dfiufficulties of earlier LOA measuring instruments while at the same time attempting to incorporate certain conceptual components which seem-d Significant both on theoretical and empirical grounds. The OAS is an eight item multiple-choice instrument which attempts 'tCD assess the "realistic" and the "idealistic" components of LOA, each at tWVO career periods, initial (end of schooling) and mature (at age 30). 111e four possible combinations of these components are each assessed 't‘tice, thus giving a total of eight questions. The alternatives for each itern consist of ten occupational titles drawn from among the ninety Occupations ranked by the NORC (19h?) study of the prestige of CCJ’LIrL‘EithI‘lS (See Table l). Table 1 Summary of the Relation Between the NORC Occupational Prestige Scores and the GAS Format 3h NORC Rankings OAS Occupation Score Item Question Score 1) U. 8. Supreme Court Justice 96 1 R-ES 9 2) Physician 93 2 LBS 9 3) State Governor 93 3 RuES 9 h) Cabinet Member in Federal Government 92 h I-ES 9 S) Diplomat in U. S. Foreign Service 92 5 R-30 9 6) Mayor of a large city 90 6 I-30 9 7) College professor 89 7 R-30 9 8) Scientist 89 8 I-3O 9 9) U. S. Representative in Congress 89 l R-ES 8 10) Banker * 88 2 I-ES 8 11) (Government Scientist) 88 - «m u 12) County Judge 87 3 R-ES 8 13) Head of a department in a state government ** 87 h I-ES 8 1h) Minister [or] 87 5 F 70 8 15) Priest 86 ”-J‘ 16) Architect 86 6 I-jO 8 l7) Chemist 86 7 R=30 8 18) Dentist 86 8 I~3O 8 l9) Lawyer 86 l RuES 7 20) Member of the board of directors of a large corporation 86 2 InES 7 21) Nuclear physicist 86 3 RuES 7 22) Psychologist 85 h ImES 7 23) Civil engineer h 5 R-30 7 2h) Airline pilot 3 6 I-30 7 25) Artist who paints pictures that are exhibited in galleries 83 7 R-30 7 26) Owner of a factory that emplcys about 100 people 82 8 I-3O 7 *Titles in parentheses not used in the OAS. *% e ’ ' . ‘ Both are combined as a Single alternative in the OAS. [ c anti .nue d ] 35 [Continuation of Table l] " O G Rankings ‘ “H _h fiS y Occupation iLJLIl. Item Question Score 27) Sociologist 82 l R- E3 6 28) Accountant for a large business 8. 2 l- W 6 29) Biologist 81 3 R-ES 6 30) Musician in a evmphony orchestra 81 h I- «E3 6 31) Author of novels 8o 5 R-30 6 32) Captain in the army 80 6 I~3O 6 33) Building contractor 79 7 R~3O 6 3h) (Economist) * 79 - -- - 35; (Instructor in the public schools) 79 - -- - 36 Public school teacher 78 8 I~3C 6 37) County agricultural agent 77 l R-ES 5 38) Railroad engineer 77 2 I~ES 5 39) (Farm owner and operator)* 76 - -- - hO) Official of an international labor union 7 3 RmES 5 hl) Radio announcer 75 h I~ES 5 h2) Newspaper columnist 7h 5 Rp30 5 h3) Owner-operator of a printing shop 7L 6 Iu30 5 hh) Electrician 73 7 8-30 5 85) Trained machinist 73 8 1-30 5 h6) Welfare worker for a city government 73 l R-ES h h?) Undertaker 72 2 I-ES t th Reporter on a daily newspaper 71 3 R-ES h L9 manager of a small store in a city 69 h I-iS h 50) Bookkeeper 68 5 Rn3O h 51) Insurance agent 68 6 L30 )4. 52) (Tenant farmer - one who owns live- stock*and machinery and manages the farm) 68 - ~- - 53) Traveling salesman for a wholesale concern 68 7 R—30 h 5h) Playground director 67 8 I~3O h 55) Policeman 67 l RuES 3 56) Railroad conductor 67 2 I-ES 3 57) Mail carrier 66 3 RuES 3 58) Carpenter 65 h I~RS 3 [8¢"‘* 1 i3 "—1. I- ..- g—mm *Not used in the GAS. [Continuation of Table l] NORC Rankings OAS 36 Occupation Score Item Question Score 59) (Automobile repairman)* 63 - -- - 60) Plumber 63 5 R-30 3 61) Garage mechanic 62 6 I~30 3 62) Local official of a labor union 62 7 R-30 3 63) Owner-operator of a lunch stand 62 8 I-3O 3 6h) Corporal in the army 60 1 R-ES 2 65) Machine operator in a factory 6O 2 I-ES 2 66) Barber 59 3 R-ES 2 67) Clerk in a store 58 h I-ES 2 68) (Fisherman who owns his own boa’cfr 58 - -- - 69 Streetcar motorman 58 5 R-30 2 70).Milk route man * Sb 6 I-3O 2 71) (Restaurant cook) - -- - 72) Truck driver 5h 7 R—30 2 73) Lumberjack 53 8 I«3O 2 7h) Filling station attendant 52 l RnES l 75) Singer in a night club 52 2 I-ES l 76) Farm hand 50 3 RuES l 77) Goal miner L9 8 I-ES l 78) Taxi driver h9 5 R-30 1 79) Railroad section hand L8 6 I-3O l 80) Restaurant worker b8 7 R-30 l 81) Dock worker h7 8 I~3O 1 82) Night watchman h? 1 R~ES o 83) Clothes presser in a laundry h6 2 I—ES 0 8h) Soda founta'n clerk MS 3 RuES O 85) (Bartender)' Lb - -- - 86) Janitor 88 h I-ES o 87) Share cropper - one who owns no livestock or equipment and does not manage farm LO 5 R-30 O 88) Garbage collector 35 6 I-3O O 89) Street sweeper 3 7 R-30 O 90) Shoe shiner 33 8 I-30 O *Not used in the OAS. 37 Each occupation is presented for response only once in the eight items. Alternative responses for each item systematically span the entire range of occupational prestige, and are scored from.zero to nine. Operationally, an item score of 9 indicates that the respondent has chosen an occupation from. among the eight highest prestige occupations on the NORC scale, and an item score of 0 indicates that one of the eight lowest prestige occupations has been chosen. Thus, the total possible score for all eight items ranges from.zero to seventybtwo and this score is taken to represent a measure of the individual's general LOA. The OAS is designed to be used on the popup lation.of male high school students. Thus, the level and range of difficulty of the test items is oriented to subjects of this age and educational status. The OAS is a self-descriptive instrument, intended to be administered in a group testing situation. One research project, that of Sewell (1955) in Jefferson County, Wisconsin, was especially influential on the design of the GAS.5 This project investigated the educational and occupational plans and achieve- nnnts of high-school youth. Some fiftyaodd personality, performance, and social-situational variables were assessed on a sample of high school seniors in 19h7. Seven years later, in 1955, the post-high school levels of educational and occupational achievement of these individuals were determined. The l9h8 measurement of LOA was found to be the best single predictor both of number of years completed at college (r a .52) and the prestige level of occupational achievement attained by 1955 (r - .L6). The correlations of the other variables with educational and occupational 5Sewell, W} H. (1955, unpublished data), 3p. git. (It was while working on this project that Heller became interested in the LOA variable.) .5": u? ‘ 4.4., .9 "9 u Vii u.,.. . 'I“MI p .. I) .l o in: Q. Q ‘1'.“ 38 achievement were lower: e.g., college plans while in high school (.140, .17), high school grade point averages (.bl, .Bh), Level of Interest section of the Occupational Interest Inventory (.38, .28), intelligence (.32, .20), and parental socio-economic status (.28, .28). The measure of LOA on which these correlations are based was an index composed of the first orthogonal factor in a matrix of correlations of the prestige levels of the highest, lowest, free, and final occupational choices of the students .6 This study suggested that long-range ("10 years from now“) occupational goals were important when attempting effectively to measure level of occupational aspiration at the high school level. The Jefferson County instrument, like most measures of LOA, had been based on the method of coding free-responses. This technique has several disadvantages: (I) considerable time and effort is involved, (2) subjects frequently fail to respond, (3) many responses lack suffi- cient specificity for coding, and (h) since only a small preportion of the total occupational titles have been empirically ranked, the prestige of most occupations is difficult to estimate. The results of the Jefferson County study, and the problems encountered in attempting to measure LOA, led to the development of the GAS. It was designed to measure the LOA variable presumably assessed by the Jefferson County instrument while avoiding the problems encountered in the coding of free-responses. 61n Chapter II. it was noted that a second factor in this instrument was tentatively identified as "idealistic" vs. "realistic" format 39 We shall attempt to describe the format of the OAS in the terms of the conceptual scheme of the level of aspiration paradigm. The wording of the stimulus-questions of the OAS in terms of expression levels and goal- ranges is presented in Table 2. OAS Format: Table 2 Justification for this can be seen by Combination of Expression Levels and Goal-ranges for each of the Four Questiondwordings y‘— I a Impression Levels Preference (Valence) "Idealistic" (I) Empectation (Subjective- Probability) ‘Realistic' (R) W H M 1 7.: Goals Short-range ("action")gfl Longrrange (“ideal") "Initial" (ES 1 Of the Jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of them you wished when.your SCHOOLING IS OVER? (2min) Of the Jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? (1 and 3) "Mature" (30) Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you wished? (6 and 8) Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN HAVE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD? (S and 7) examining the questions and their various wordings. Thus, "really sure you can get" corresponds closely to the concepts of expectation and "subjective probability.” Similarly, "free to choose any of them.you wished" resembles to the preference or "valence" level of expression. Moreover, the distinction between short-range ("action") goals and long-range ("ideal") goals parallels the terms "when.your schooling is over" vs. "by the time you are 30 years old." However, it should be noted that this later analogy is based on the assumption that the OAS instrument is to be administered to the inéhigh-school population. The numbers in parentheses in Table 2 refer to the sequence of the items using the four types of questions. The letters in parentheses refer to the expression levels and the goal-ranges of the questions. Thus, the questions are presented in the following sequence: R-ES, I-ES, R-ES, I-ES, Rp30, I-30, R-BO, and finally I-BO. Although each of the questions is used twice, the alternatives for all eight items are different. Each question is followed by a set of ten occupational titles. These titles were systematically selected from.the ninety occupations ranked by the NORC study (see Table l). The aim of this selection was to insure that, for each question, the full range of prestige alternatives would be presented while at the same time no occupation would be presented 'hfibe. Table 3 illustrates how this was done. While each set of alterna- tives does not span the same area of prestige ratings, they do tend to Span the same range of occupational prestige. However, since several of the occupations in the NORC ratings have the same average prestige score, equality of range is only approximated. hl Table 3 OAS Format: Distribution of NORC Occupations Among the OAS Items m i? NORC Occugations OAS Items h S 6 7 8 H l\) w (High prestige) o. ,0 9° 0. c o o. co cocoon oooo \om-qggwm» 09 CD-gOU'lt‘wml-J s: 90 at (Low Prestige) *— * Ten of the ninety NORC occupations were not used in the GAS. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, several of the titles are clearly redundant and were included in the NORC study presumably as a check on the reliability of the ratings. Secondly, the titles “Minister" and "Priest" were combined as a single alternative "Minister or Priest." The reason for this is that if they were kept as separate alternatives, their selection would likely be differentially influenced on a religious ,a u' ,0 iii h2 basis which would probably not be operative for any of the other alterna- tives. Mereover, both share the same NORC prestige score. Finally, the title of "Bartender" was excluded because evidence in the Jefferson County study indicated that the rating of "Bartender" is higher in the North Central states than in other areas. Finally, the prestige ranks for each set of ten alternatives were re-distributed in order to insure that the order of presentation would not correspond to the order of prestige. Scoring All of the eight items are scored in the same way. Table h illustrates the re-arrangement of prestige ranks and the corresponding scores for each of the ten alternatives. Each item.is scored from.zero to nine. The sum of all of the item scores is taken as the individual's Table h Re-arrangement of Prestige Ranks for OAS Items Alternative Order Score 1 7 2 h 3 8 h 2 S 9 6 0 7 6 8 3 9 S 10 l h3 level of occupational aspiration as measured.by the OAS. Thus, the total score obtainable on the OAS ranges from zero to seventyatwo. Administration The OAS is intended to be administered in a group testing situation. The eight items are prefaced by a set of written instructions, which the tester reads over with the group at the beginning of the test period. These instructions and the first item are reproduced below: THIS SET OF QUESTIONS CONCERNS YOUR INTEREST IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF JOBS. THERE ARE EIGHT QUESTIONS. EACH ONE ASKS YOU TO CHOOSE ONE JOB OUT OF TEN PRESENTED. BE SURE YOUR NAME IS ON THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. READ EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. ANSWER EACH ONE THE BEST YOU CAN. DON‘T OMIT ANY. (NESTION 1. Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY'SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 1. l Lawyer l. 2____;Welfare worker for a city government 1. 3 United States representative in Congress 1. h, Corporal in the Army 1. 5 United States Supreme Court Justice 1. 6 Night watchman 1. 7 Sociologist l. 8 Policeman l. 9 County agricultural agent 1.10 Filling station attendant It is emphasized that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, and that the respondents are not bound by a time limit. Any questions concerning the Mi purpose of the test are answered by stating that the investigators are interested in the personal feeling of the respondents concerning various kinds of Jobs. The meaning of various occupational titles is not described to the respondents should they request this during the administration of the OAS. If the respondents state that they are having difficulty with selecting an occupational alternative for any question, they are simply told to do the best they can. Thus, the testing situation is left as unstructured as possible. In summary, the OAS is a direct, multiple-item, multiple-choice measurement of LOA, and includes question-wording at the preference and expectation levels as well as at the "action" and "ideal" goal-levels. The criterion for scoring responses to the occupational alternatives is based on an objective and relatively unbiased set of occupational prestige ranks over the full range of prestige. Thus, the goal-structure is one which is differentiated along dimensions of perceived valence and diffi- culty. This means that the OAS meets the requirements for measuring LOA as a special case of the general level of aspiration paradigm. Statement of the Evaluative Problem The LOA concept has been employed in a large number of studies. However, there seems to be a lack of agreement concerning both the mean- ing of the concept and the appropriate technique for measuring it. In addition, most of the LOA measurements lack information concerning their reliability, internal structure, and relation to other variables. Certain limitations of single stimulus-question designs and the coding of free-responses have left several conceptual problems unanswered. Single questions preclude an adequate assessment of the stability of the variable as well as the reliability of any particular measurement of LOA. Also, single question designs do not afford a basis for assessing the internal structure of the measurement and the concept. Are the preference and expectation levels of expression in fact merely levels, or do they represent different response dynamics so that a measure of one does not assess the other? Similarly, what is the relationship of short-range ("action”) goals and long-range ("ideal") goals, with respect to each other and with respect to the preference and expectation levels? The coding of free responses usually results in normative data which are difficult to compare with data derived from studies employing different techniques. This is probably due, at least in part, to the fact that groups of respondents differ both with respect to their specific occupational interests and with respect to the range of occupational alternatives of which they are aware. Moreover, unless the coding of free-responses is based on a generally accepted set of rankings and inter- polations thereof, the LOA measures will tend to reflect variations due to differing characteristics of the judges as well as differences in judgmental criteria. Finally, there is a lack of a systematic theory of the LOA concept which might be employed by the researcher interested in constructing an empirical measure of it. Thus, the evaluation of any technique purporting to assess LOA is made difficult both from.the theoretical side and from.the to empirical side. Because of the precarious conceptual status of LOA and the lack of adequate measurements of it, we have no definite criterion (or criteria) for the evaluation of the OAS. Even if an unquestionable cri- terionuwere available, the use of a directly operational approach in evaluating an LOA measurement would not contribute to the task of formulating a theory about a generalized concept, LOA. Proposed Analyses The OAS will be evaluated by using it as a methodological tool for clarifying the concept LOA. Three conceptual problems have been isolated for analysis. First, there is the question of the stability of measured LOA over time. This problem.involves assessing the reliability of the GAS instrument under conditions of single administrations and comparing this with estimates of reliability based on an intervening period of time between administrations. It would be expected that the results of these two reliability estimates would differ if the LOA variable tends to be unstable over time, assuming that the OAS measurement has substantial reliability. Secondly, there is the question of the internal structure of the LOA concept as measured by the OAS. The OAS contains questionewordings which incorporate four analytical elements of the level of aspiration paradigm: (1) two expression levels (preference and expectation) and (2) two types of goals (short-range "action” goals and long-range "ideal" goals). In.the terminology of the OAS, these correspond respectively to: (1) idealistic vs. realistic question wordings, and (2) end-of- schooling vs. age 30 goals. Research has indicated that level of LL? aspiration, in terms of average scores, is higher at the preference level than at the expectation level, and higher in terms of "ideal" goals than in terms of "action" goals. This will be examined with respect to LOA measure- ment by comparing the mean scores of appropriate items on the OAS. Moreover, LOA conceptualization and measurement has frequently suggested that these various elements also represent different variables or types of LOA. This will be examined by assessing the factorial structure of the OAS instrument. Finally, the problem of interpreting the meaning of the LOA concept will be treated by examining the correlates of the OAS. First, the correlation between the OAS and another measure of LOA will be examined. Then the correlation of the OAS with other social-psychological variables will be examined for the purpose of determining which of these account for the variable measured by the OAS. The following chapter describes the samples and procedures, and presents the results of the reliability, internal structure, and correla- tion analyses . CHAPTER IV RELIABILITY, INTERNAL STRUCTURE, and CORRELATES The purpose of this chapter is to describe the samples from which the data were gathered, to specify the variables assessed, the treatment of the data for purposes of statistical analysis, and the procedures and the results of the reliability, internal structure, and correlation studies. Samples and Data The Lenawee County Sample Most of the data used in the following analyses were gathered from all seventeen-year old boys in school in Lenawee County, Michigan, during the spring of 1957. The N of this sample is th. This county and its respondents were chosen on the basis of considerations important for the purposes of the larger study of which this thesis is a part. Lenawee County contains within the same ecological area good farming, light industry, proximity to the Detroit industrial area, a representative sampling of farm, rural nonfarm and urban people, and a full range of the American.social class levels. Seventeen year-olds were selected as sub- jects because of the need to study youth whose aspiration levels are fairly well crystallized, but who have not yet entered college or the labor market. Girls were omitted from the sample because of the probable differences in occupational orientations and because of the need to keep the sample small enough for certain sociometric clique analyses. 149 In addition to the OAS instrument, the following instruments were also administered to the Lenawee sample at the same time. 1. The 16 P. F. Test, Form.B (1950) 2. Test of G - Culture Free-Scale 3A (Cattell and Cattell, 1950) 3. The California Test of Personality (Tiegs, e_t 5%., 1953) h. The MSU Work Beliefs Check-List S. A questionnaire on educational plans, occupational aspirations, family data, sociometric questions, and related personal data. The non-standardized instruments (h and S) are presented in.Appendix C. All of the data used in this thesis were converted to normalized ETEEEEE form (Edwards, l95h) and were punched on IBM cards in preparation for machine analysis. The Mason.Sample. The OAS was also administered to a group of junior and senior high school‘boys in Mason, Michigan,during the winter of 1958-1959. The N of this sample is 117. The Mason sample was selected for the test-retest reliability analysis of the OAS. It was chosen because the ecological area and the characteristics of the respondents were roughly similar to the Lenawee sample. Mason, like Lenawee County, is situated near an industrial center (Lansing, Michigan) and has a similar representation of rural and urban residents, class levels, and farming activity. The raw scores of the Mason OAS data are apparently normally distributed. For this reasOn they were not converted to Tfsggre_form.for analysis. The Mason data were punched on IBM cards for machine analysis. Tentative Norms The frequency distributions and tentative norms for the OAS item and total scores are presented in Appendix A. These figures are based on the Lenawee sample. The observed total scores range from 2 to 65, with a mean of 36.20 and a standard deviation of 12.99. The distribution of total OAS scores appears to be approximately normal in shape and spans most of the range of the total possible scores of the OAS. The same fcrn of the OAS administered to the Mason sample yields a similar mean and standard deviation of 37.21; and 11.70 respectively. An alternate form of the OAS, form I, was used in the post-test administration for the test- retest reliability study on the Mason sample. Form I, which will be described in the following section dealing with the reliability study, has a man of 37.63 and a standard deviation of 11.90. Table 5 summarizes the descriptive statistics for both forms of the OAS admin- istered to the two samples. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for the OAS Sample Form Mean SD Range SEm Isnawee N-hhl x 36.20 12.99 63(2-65) 0.62 Mason pretest Nellh X 37.214 11.70 h6(17-63) 1.10 Mason post-test Nash I 37.63 11.90 53(13-66) 1.23 L 51 Reliability The problem of assessing the reliability of measurements has been discussed by Thurstone (1931), Cronbach (19149), and Tryon-(1957), among others. However, there seems to be a lack of agreement concerning the types and meaning of reliability coefficients. We have taken the discus- sion of reliability in Technical Recommendations f_01: Psychological $9325 5% Diagnostic Techniques (1951:, pp. 28 ff.) as a guide for the terminology and procedure of this section. This manual distinguishes three types of reliability coefficients: 1) Coefficient of internal consistency: "We shall refer to a measure basef on internal analysis of data obtained on a single trial of a test as a coefficient of internal consistency." 2) Coefficient of equivalence: "A correlation between scores from two form given at essentially the same time we shall refer to as- a coefficient of equivalence.'I 3) Coefficient of stability: "The correlation between test and retest, with an intervening period of time, is a coefficient of stabilit . Such a coefficient is also obtained when two forms of the test are given with an intervening period of time.“ The two reliability analyses proposed for the OAS are based on coeffi- cients of internal consistency and stability. However, there are several problems posed by the OAS format which do not allow the use of the odd-even technique for the estimate of internal consistency and which seem to suggest that the coefficient of stability should be determined by administering two equivalent form of the OAS several months apart rather than administering the same form twice under the same conditions. These problem and appropriate solutions will be specified in the next section. Construction of Equivalent Halves and Equivalent Forms of the OAS If the OAS item were divided by the odd-even technique, one-half of the test would consist of all the "Realistic" item and the other half would consist of all the l'Idealistic" item. Since the functional independence of these two expression levels is one of the problem for internal structure analyses, we do not wish to take the chance of biasing the reliability study by including this problem in the present analysis. However, since each of the four types of question wordings in the OAS is assessed twice, it was decided to split the OAS into two parallel halves, each of which contained all of the four possible question wordings. Both for: X and form I were split by this method, which is outlined in Table 6. Table 6 Format for Dividing the OAS into ho Parallel Halves Two halves of the OAS and respective items Content Assessed‘IE ___A_ B R-ES 1 3 I-ES 2 h R-30 S 7 I-30 6 8 *These abbreviations are defined in Chapter III. Thus, the estimates of internal consistency will be represented by the correlation between two halves of the OAS which are equivalent in structure and in content. For each individual, the sum of scores for item 1, 2, 5, 6 represents the score on the "A" half of 53 the OAS, while the sum of scores for item 3, h, 7, 8 represents the score on the 'B“ half of the OAS. Coefficients of internal consistency of the OAS were computed for the Lenawee sample and for both forms administered to the Mason samle. A final characteristic of the OAS format dictates a slight modifica- tion of the usual method for assessing stability. This modification required the development of the alternative form Y, which we have men- tioned before. The OAS has only eight item and eight corresponding responses. If the same form were administered to the same group with a period of only a few months intervening, it is highly probable that memory of previous responses would spuriously inflate the test-retest reliability correlation. On the other hand, it seemed desirable to retain the sam sets of occupational alternatives for several reasons. Since eighty of the ninety NORC (191:7) titles were used in the original form, it would be difficult to find eighty different occupational titles which covered the same range of occupational prestige and which, in addition, were based on the same or equivalent procedures employed in the NORC study. In short, substituting different but equivalent occupational titles in order to construct an alternate form of the OAS appeared to be too difficult, if not in fact undesirable. Instead, the following procedure was used to develop the alternate form which, while reducing the effect of learning on the retest responses, would also tend to insure that both forms share a maximum degree of content similarity. Form I of the OAS was constructed by simply rearranging the sets of response alternatives so that, for any corresponding question, a different Sh set of alternatives are presented. Table 7 illustrates the relationship between form I and I in terms of the rearrangement of the sets of alternatives. The sets of alternatives are lettered from A to H corres- ponding to the order of the items on form I with which they appear. Thus , form“! has the same format as form 1 except that the alternatives which appear with item one in form 1 appear with item eight in form I, and so on until the alternatives which appear with item eight in form I appear with item one in form I. Table 7 Allocation of Beepome Alternatives in Constructing an Equivalent Form of the GAS Sets of Alternaf tivee Content and Item Hum l * R-ES I-E R- 20 1-20 A 21 18 B 12 I7 0 13 I6 D In IS 3 ’1. ‘5 F 13 16 G 12 L, H II 18 .— __ ___. . . _ __H._._~_ ._ __ - .____._._. .— _._—.._-_.__———- ____ *The X's and 1's refer to the respective OAS form; the numerical. subscript indicates the item presentation order. The content abreviations (e.g., B-E) were defined in Chapter III. 55 Moreover, the same sequence of question wording is maintained for both forms. Form.X and Y of the OAS are presented in Appendix A. For the Lenawee sample, only the coefficient of internal consistency was computed on form X. This was done by summing the four item scores for each half of the OAS and then computing the product-moment correlation between the two halves for hhl persons in the sample. This same procedure was used for both form.X and form.Y on the Mason sample. For the coefficient of stability, the total score obtained on form.X was correlated with the total score obtained on form I administered approximately ten weeks later on the Mason sample. (These coefficients are presented in Table 10, page 59,) The means and standard deviations for each of the halves on both forms for each administration were computed. Using these data, the standard error of mean difference (SEmd) was computed for each of the paired- halves and also for each of the two forms for the Mason sample. It was thought that this would indicate how equivalent the halves were as far as their average scores and variances were concerned. Equivalence of the Paired Halves and of the Two Forms Table 8 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and standard error of the means for each of the three-paired-halves. The standard 56 error of mean difference (SEmd) was computed for the case of paired obser- 7 vations to take into account the fact that the halves are correlated. Table 8 A Comparison of the Standard Error of Mean Differences for PairedAHalves of the OAS Sample, Form, and Half Lenawee Mason X X Y Statistic fiA B A B A B Mean 18.11 17.95 17.69 17.98 19.68 18.h6 SD 6.73 6.81 6.39 6.h0 6.10 6.66 SEm 0.35 0.36 0.69 0.69 0.66 0.72 N 365 365 85 85 85 85 SEmd 0.28 0.52 0.62 t 0.57 0.56 1.97 d.f. 36h 8t ' 8h P >.OS >.05 >.OS 7See Edwards (l95h), pp. 2h6-25h and p. 278 ff. The standard error of the difference between the means of paired observations is given by: 2 2 SEmd - \[SEml + SEm2 - 2 r SEml SEm2 , where: SE - the standard error of mean 1 ml SEm2 - the standard error of mean 2 r I the correlation coefficient between the pairs of observations, and: SE _ __§2_. , where SD - the estimated standard deviation of the population m Jjg' n - number of observations For the t_test, t = .E:§E_Eg , with n - 1 degrees of freedom (d.f.) md where n a number of paired observations 57 A two-tailed t-test for the significance of the difference between the means of each paired half indicates that the null hypothesis of no significant difference must be accepted at the .05 level. An F--test8 for the significance of differences between the variances for each paired-half indicates that none of the differences is significant at or beyond the .10 level. Thus, we may conclude that because the mean-scores and variances for each paired-half are not significantly different, the two halves of the OAS for both forms and for all administrations appear to be equivalent. The same analysis was applied to the means and variances of Forms X and I administered to the Mason sample. The total scores of eighty-five individuals who had completed both forms of the OAS were included in this analysis. Table 9 presents the means, standard deviations, and standard error of the means for each of the two forms of the OAS. An F test for the significance of the difference between the variances of each form indicates that it is not significant at the (.10 level. However, a t-test for the significance of the difference between the means indicates that the null hypothesis of no significant difference must be rejected at the .01 level. 8In evaluating the difference between two means by the t test, it is implicitly assumed that the population variances from which the samples are drawn are equal. See Edwards (1951;), pp. 271-273. The test for homogeneity of two variances is based upon the distribution of F: F It 1 , where SD12 is the larger of two independent estimates of the assumd comon population variance and SD?2 is the smaller. 58 Table 9 Means, Standard Deviations, Standard Error of the Means, and Standard Error of Mean Difference for Two Forms of the OAS Based on the Total Score. Mason Sample Only OAS Forms Statistic X I Mean 35.67 38.11. SD 11.87 11.141 SEm 1.66 1.53 N 85 85 SE md 0.86 tit 2.87 d.f. I811 P< .01 In sumary, paired-halves of the OAS for both forms and on both samples appear to be equivalent in terms of the means and variances of the scores for each half. On the other hand, the two forms of the OAS administered to the Mason sample approximately ten weeks apart, while equivalent in term of the variance of their total scores, are not equiva- lent in terms of the mean of their total scores. Form 1', used in the post- test, has a significantly higher mean than does form X. This might be interpreted as meaning that the two forms are not equivalent. However, it also seem plausible to conclude that the slightly higher mean on form I is simply a reflection of the so-called "practice effect" involved in repeatedly testing the same sample on the same trait. 59 Results of the Reliability Analyses Table 10 summarizes the results of the several analyses of reliability. All coefficients were computed by the product-moment method. The coefficients Obtained by correlating the equivalentAhalves of the OAS were corrected by the Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula in order to estimate the reliability of the eight item forms. Table 10 Reliability Coefficients and Standard Errors of Measurement for the OAS W Reliability * we . ’ Form Sample SD Mathod rab rtt SEM arr X Lenawee 12.92 Parallel +.69 +.82 S.h8 (Ns365) Halves X Mason 11.87 Parallel +.72 +.8b,%‘M h.75 (NBBS) Halves 1 Mason 11.h1 Parallel +.60 +.75*** 5.70 (Nu85) Halves X and I Mason ~- Equivalent ~~ +.77 -- (Nh85) Form: Test- Retest - 10 week interval *Although complete OAS scores are available on hhl persons in the Lenawee sample, the Lenawee r was computed in a matrix together with several other variables. Seventy-six individuals were dropped from.the correlation analysis because they were lacking data on one or all of the other variables. Similarly, only 85 individuals in the Mason sample responded to all OAS items on both forms. **The standard deviation is computed from the total raw score based on the entire eight items of the DAB. 2r rtt estimated from the Spearman Brown Prophecy Formula. rtt l +rab where rtt - estimated reliability of eight items OAS, and r8;b - computed correlation between parallel halves A and B of OAS. See Edwards (195h), pp. 176-177. 60 An inspection of Table 10 shows that estimates of the reliability of the OAS range from .75 to .Bh. Although none of the coefficients are excep- tionally high, they tend to fall within a narrow range of similarity and, taken as a group, yield a mean reliability estimate of .80. The standard errors of measurement for each administration of the OAS are also presented in the last column of Table 10. Since reliability coef- ficients are sensitive to relative ranks of individuals within.the group under consideration and to the spread of scores of the group, they indicate the reliability of the test for that group. The standard error of measure- ment (SEM)’ however, is less sensitive to this variation since it takes inmo account both the reliability coefficient and_the standard deviation for each group.9 Mereover, the SEM is more useful in directly evaluating the OAS scores of individual respondents. It is, in short, an estimate of the variation of observed scores around the "true" score of the individual and as such indicates how large a margin of error should be allowed for in the OAS scores. Table 10 shows that estimates of the SE for the administrations of )4 the OAS range from values of h.75 to 5.70 with the mean SE equal to 5.31. M The significance of these SE estimates depends to a large extent on the M aims of the user of the OAS. For the present we shall simply present them 9The formula is: SEM = SD \/1 - rtt , where SD is the standard deviation of the obtained scores of a group and rH is the reliability coefficient for the same group. See Test Service Bulletin Mg:_gg|(l956) for a discussion of the SEM. 61 together with this statement from Test Service Bulletin No. 50 (1956) of the Psychological Corporation: It is not correct to say of an individual with a certain observed score that the odds are two out of three that his true score is within one SEM of the score he got. But in the practical instance, we can use the SEM in defining limits around the observed score within which we would be reasonably sure to find the true score. Whether the “reasonable limits" (as Professor Gulliksen has called them) will be one, two, or three times the SEM will depend on the level of confidence the test user desires. m The results of the reliability study of the OAS indicate that several independent analyses exhibit substantial agreement with respect to reliability coefficients and standard error of measurement. It seems reasonably safe to conclude that the reliability of the OAS is about .80 and that the standard. error of measurement is close to 5.30. Moreover, the coefficient of stability (.77) measured over a ten week interval agrees quite well with the coefficients of internal consistency (.75, .82, and .8h). This allows us to make at least a tentative inference concerning the stability of the construct LOA as measured by the OAS. That is, assuming that the reliability of the OAS instrument is .80 and taking into account the SEM and the slight difference in group means between test and retest, the LOA of individuals appears to remain quite stable over a ten week period. If the variable LOA were unstable over time, one would expect the test-retest coefficient to be markedly lower than the coefficients of internal consistency which are based on virtually identi- cal test situations and, as such, minimize the possible effects of factors other than the consistency of the measuring instrument. 62 However, the reliability coefficient tells us only that individuals tend to retain the same relative rank on the LOA variable in their group from.one test situation to another. The standard error of measurement tells us more concerning observed individual variation. The SEM estimates of the OAS suggest that classifying individuals into high, medium, and low LOA represents a fairly realistic appraisal of the accuracy of the OAS. Finer discriminations would only lead to pseudo-refinement which does not seem. Justified either by the GAS scoring system or by the reliability study. Internal Structure The analysis of the internal structure of the OAS involves two distinct conceptual problems. The first is that of differential response levels: i.e.,preference levels are thought to result in higher scores than expectation levels. This has been thought to be the case in'both general level of aspiration research as well as LOA research. An additional aspect of this prdblem.for the OAS is the relationship between long-range vs. short-range response levels. The second conceptual problem.to be considered here is that of the functional interdependence of various LOA question designs. That is, is LOA as measured by the OAS based on a single general dimension, or are there, as many have seemed to suggest, several relatively independent "kinds" of LOA: e.g., 'Idealistic" vs. "Realistic." The first problem will be handled in terms of a.profile analysis of the average item scores; the second problem will be treated in terms of orthogonal factor analyses. 63 Profile Anaiysis The mean raw scores for each of the eight OAS items were computed on the Lenawee sample using form X. These itempmeans are presented.in Table 11 and for convenience they are plotted in Figure 1. Since the eddy numbered items (1, 3, S, 7) represent realistic questions and the evenp numbered items (2, h, 6, 8) represent idealistic questions, the results consistently indicate that idealistic (preference) responses, in terms of average scores, are higher than.realistic (expectation) responses. This holds not only for adjacent items (e.g., l and 2) but also for anw'pair of realistic-idealistic items. Table 11 Means for the OAS Item.Scores (Nthl) Idealistic Level Realistic Level Item Mean Item M033 1 3.05 2 5.6h 3 2.93 h h.6o S 3.95 6 5.86 7 h.h7 8 5.98 An inspection of figure 1 shows that there is also a tendency for long-range ("ideal") goals to have higher average levels than short- range ("action") goals. This pattern, however, is not as clear as the pattern of average level of preference and expectation responses.l 10The average OAS item.scores for forms X and Y, administered to the Mason sample, are presented in Appendix B. The formtX profile is similar to the profile on the Lenawee sample. However, this is not flhe case with form I. 6h 690‘F o . .. 5.0+ 0 ‘6 . ‘3 . 5 a 14.0-— 300" U a 1 J I A _1 I : 4' '1 5 3 h 15 '6 7 8 Items FIGURE 13 PROFILE OF OAS ITEM MEAN SCORES Nevertheless, both the expectation-preference pattern and the short-range ("actionn )-long-range ("ideal") goal pattern seem to be consistent with the observations of level of aspiration research. Factorial Structure The raw scores on each of the eight items of the OAS for the Lenawee sample (Nnhhl) were converted to _'I_'-score form, and they were then inter- correlated by the Pearson product-moment method. Table 12 presmts the GAS item inter-correlation matrix. 65 Table 12 one Item Correlation Matrix (Nahhl)* w—r— Item 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 1. R-ES (hS) 2h to 37 27 26 31 28 2. I-ES (h?) 37 36 29 36 27 ho 3. RPES (56) h2 hh 3h h2 h3 u. I-ES (5h) 39 he 35 ho 5. R930 (53) us h3 3h 6. I-30 (52) 39 38 7. R-30 (51) ho 8. 1-30 (Sh) *Decimal points omitted. All signs are positive, all coefficients are significant at the .01 level. Figures in parentheses are the estimated Egmmunalities. Item.abbreviations (e.g., R-ES) were defined in Chapter The correlation matrix was factored by the principal-axes method (Cattell, 1952, pp. 129 ff.) using the Guttman (1958) technique for estimating communalities. The three largest factors, accounting for 75, 8, and 7% of the total matrix variance respectively, were extracted and rotated to approximate orthogonal simple structure by means of the “Quartimax methodn (Neuhaus and'wrigley, 195k). The rotated loadings, principal-axes loadings, and communalities for the eight items are shown in Table 13. 66 Table 13 Factor Matrices and Communalities% for the OAS Items (N=hhl) Quartimax Loadings Principal-Axes Loadings Item I II III I II III h2 1. R-ES 50 02 ho 51 -0h 38 hi 2. I-ES 55 -33 ~08 SS -29 -16 h2 3 . R-ES 67 02 2h 68 oo 21 51 h. I—ES 66 -1h 07 67 -1h 01 h7 5. R-30 65 27 -11 6h 31 -08 50 6. L30 6h 05 -25 63 11 -26 h8 7. R-30 63 23 01 62 2h 03 us 8 . I-3O 65 -23 .02 65 ~21 -o9 h8 ($5,322,218: 75 8 7 75 8 7 *Decimal points omitted. All figures are positive unless otherwise indicated. All eight OAS items have moderately high loadings on the first rotated factor. The highest positive loadings on the second factor are exhibited by the two R-BO items, while the highest negative loadings are held by item.two (I-ES) and item eight (I-BO). The third rotated factor is loaded by items one and three (both R-ES). The first rotated factor may tentatively be labeled as high vs. low general LOA, since it is loaded uniformly by all eight items. The second and third factors are more difficult to interpret. If anything, factor II appears to be an R-BO factor, while factor III appears to be an R-ES factor. However, neither of these two factors is amenable to a clear- 67 cut interpretation which is consistent with the remaining items. Moreover, in terms of the conceptual issues stated earlier, the results of this fac- tor analysis fail to reveal a systematic set of factors corresponding to independent dimensions of 'realismfl (expectation) and "idealismfl (preference). §EEEE5Z A profile analysis of the mean scores of the OAS items has tended to 2 substantiate the observation that average responses in terms of preference are higher than average responses in terms of expectation. In addition, there was a tendency for long-range ("ideal") goals to have average response levels higher than the response levels of short-range ("action") goals. Both of these findings are congruent with level of aspiration research. ,A factor analysis of item intercorrelations has revealed the existence of a large general LOA factor, and two small factors which are interpretable as an orientation to realistic (expectation) short-range ("action") goals and an orientation to realistic (expectation) long-range ("ideal“) goals. However, no factors were found which correspond to the realistic (expect- ation) vs. idealistic (preference) level distinction. The OAS, then, appears to measure primarily a general LOA variable with each item contributing rather uniformly to this variable. Thus, the total OAS score (the unweighted sum.of the item.scores)-may be used.as an estimate of the individual's general LOA. Finally, since the two additional factors are relatively small, it is questionable whether measures based on them would be useful. Because the general LOA factor appears to be the major variable (accounting for 75 percent of the total matrix variance) assessed by the 68 OAS,ll it would be worthwhile to examine in more detail the "meaning" of the variable. The next section will attempt to describe the differ- ential correlates of the OAS total score with the aim of putting some conceptual "flesh" on the "skeleton" of internal structure. Correlates Up to this point, we have avoided speaking of the "validity" of the OAS. One reason for this, of course, is that we have little theoretical knowledge concerning what empirical qualities a measurement of LOA should exhibit. Mbreover, a predictive criterion in terms of level of occupational achievement is not possible at this time. Finally, the question of what constitutes ”validity" and the operations involved in determining it has not been answered to the general satisfaction of many writers. For llSince factorial structure is a function of both the instrument and the sample of respondents, both forms of the OAS administered to the Mason sample were also factor analyzed by the above procedure. The item intercorrelations and the factor matrices are presented in Appendix B. Results of this analysis are substantially in agreement with the above results; i.e., all eight OAS items appear to contribute rather uniformly to a moderately large general factor. Moreover, a factor analysis of both forms together (also presented in Appendix B) suggests that two additional conclusions supporting the reliability and internal structure studies are warranted. This latter analysis indicates that both forms of the OAS administered to the Mason sample share a common orthogonal factor. For the reliability study, this suggests that the correlation of +.77 between the total scores of'both forms is largely due to this common factor. In terms of internal structure, this lends tentative support to the conclusion that the general factors isolated separately‘ for each form.of the OAS are in fact functionally the same. 69 example, Cronbach (l9h9, pp. h8ff.) distinguishes three kinds of validity: logical, empirical, and factorial. Logical validity'and empirical val- idity appear to correspond to content or face validity and predictive validity, respectively. Factorial validity means that the instrument measures Just one trait or variable. (The results of the factor analysis of the OAS tend to suggest that it has substantial factorial validity, but the results are not completely unambiguous.) Subsequently, Cronbach and Meehl (1955, p. 282) introduced the notion of "construct validity." They'write: Construct validity must be investigated whenever no criterion or universe of content is accepted as entirely adequate to define the quality to be measured. Determining what psychological conp structs account for test performance is desirable for almost any test. The authors point out that the construct validity approach' implies a critical view of the criterion: (1) The investigator may have an unquestionable criterion, but he does not wish to use a directly operational approach because he is interested in building theory about a generalized construct; (2) often, the criterion may be no more valid than.the test under evaluation. Peak (1953, p. 288) seems to share a sindlar view of validation studies: . . . It is useful to know that a questionnaire on attitude toward religion is answered differently by those who are church nembers and those who are not, but before such a concept can have any systematic significance, other steps are necessary. A theory about the structure and content of the attitude process and its interrelations with other processes in the determination of behavior must be worked out, and studies must be made to dis- cover whether the hypotheses are supported. . . . The meaning of any'measured process is given not only by a description of operations used in isolating it from other processes and in assigning some index of quantity but also by knowledge of its influence on other processes and their influence on it. Cone 7O sequently, to establish the validity of a construct and of the defining measures is to conduct experimental investigations. The Technical Recommendations (l95h, pp. l3-lh) manual recognizes four types of validity: content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and construct validity: a. Content validity is evaluated by showing how well the content of the test samples the class of situations or subject matter about which conclusions are to be drawn. b. Predictive validity is evaluated by showing how well predictions made from.the test are confirmed by evidence gathered at some subsequent time. c. Concurrent validity is evaluated by showing how well test scores correspond to measures of concurrent criterion perfor- mance or status. d. Construct validity is evaluated by investigating what psycho- logical qualities a test measures, i.e., by demonstrating that certain explanatory constructs account to some degree for performance on the test. It seems desirable, however, to take a somewhat more flexible approach to the tasks of evaluating the GAS and of clarifying the concept LOA than is suggested by'a rigorous adherence to any one or all of these approaches to validation. The task of this section is to identify the major cor- relates of the OAS. This approach is similar to the orientation of construct validity; however, it is even more preliminary in that neither the concept LOA nor the OAS instrument is the object of validation. we are concerned only with describing empirically the variable assessed by the OAS. This task will be approached in terms of: (l) .Correla- tional and factorial analyses of the relation'between the OAS and another instrument for measuring LOA, and (2) a correlation analysis of the relation between.the OAS scores and several other presumably significant social-psychological variables. 71 Relation to Another Measure of LOA In addition to the OAS, another LOA instrument was administered to the Lenawee sample. This instrument is the same as that used by Sewell in the Jefferson County study (discussed in Chapter II) with the following exception: in question four, the words "10 years from now" are replaced by "by the time I am 30 years old." The coding procedure is identical with the 'Wisconsin study.12 There are five prestige scores for each respondent: (l) the prestige level of the highest occupational choice indicated in the answer to any one of the questions, (2) the prestige level of the lggggt occupational choice indicated in the answer to any of the questions, (3) the prestige of the plan level was coded from.the answer to question two, (h) the free choice level was based on the response to question three, and (5) the maturity choice level was based on the answer to question four. These question wordings are reproduced below. 1. The Occupations Which I Have Thought About Going Into Are: 1. 2. 3. h. 2. The Occupation That I Plan to Follow is: (Indicate particular type of Job.) 3. If I were Absolutely Free To Go Into Any Kind of Work I Wanted, my'Choice‘Would Be: h: The Type of Work I Would Like To Be Doing When I am 30 Years Old Is: 12Responses were coded in terms of actual and interpolated NORC ratings of occupational prestige. 72 Correlation Analysis The total OAS score and the mean score of the five prestige scores obtained on the free-response instrument by each respondent were cor- related by the product-moment method on a useable sample of 365.13 The correlation was +.62. Thus, it seems to be reasonable to conclude that both the OAS and another LOA instrument share a substantial amount of common variance which we have identified as general LOA. However, this correlation does not tell us which items in each instrument contribute to this common variance, or if the factorial structure of the free- response measurement is similar to the factorial structure of the OAS. As an aid to interpreting the meaning of the variable measured.by the OAS, two additional analyses were done. The five scores on the free- response instrument (highest, lowest, plan, free, and nature) and the eight OAS scores were interc orrelated by the product-moment method based on the useable sample of 365 respondents. These intercorrelations and the communality estimates are presented in Table 1h. Two separate principal axes factor analyses were performed, using the highest sorrel» ation in each column as an estimate of the communality for that variable (Cattell, 1952, pp. 153 ff.). l3Seventyasixrespondentshad to be dropped from.the analyses because they failed to give codable responses to one or all of the five free-response questions. 73 .momoanoamd ca mowpflflms38500 oomeflpmm .Ho>ma Ho. cnp pm pcmofldfiQMHm new mbwpflmom one anmHOHmmooo Ham .ooaafiso menace Hmsflomq ~ awal Aemv om-H new as meal om-e New On an Aeev omuH Hex em as ea “eel em-e one om em a: as Aomv mmuH a» s s a s 3 as were we as am mm an em mm Adel we-H ex em Hm mm mm em em ow Aemv mm-m mm mm mm em on as mm en an away messes. mm mm em em mm an am an em as Real mete am an em em mm we em am mm me me Amev ease me a a a a a a a a s 2 mm as :23 ea mm am me am am an o; em as we me me Amev newness new New Haw oax me we am mm mm 4M me we ax «meaeeeeep Amemizv *Amaxuoxv mac map new Am taxv ecosdnpmsH uncommomTooAh s new momsoamom Ho msofiemflonhoonoan 4H mance 7h Factor W The first principal axes analysis was based on the matrix of inter- correlations of variables 11, 12, ,. . . 15. Three factors, accounting for 99 per cent of the total matrix variance, were extracted from the principal axes solution and rotated orthogonally by the Quartimax method (Neuhaus and Wrigley, 19514). The factor matricesand resulting commalities for the five variables of the free-response LOA instrument are presented in Table 15 . Table 15 Factor Matrices and Comnahtie3* For Variables x1, 12, . . . x5: Free-Response LOA Instrument (II-365) Minx Loadingg Principal Axes Landings Variable: I II III I II III It2 :1: Highest 79 -01 31 79 1h -27 72 :2: Lowest 55 19 oo . 6o -h3 -07 55 x3: Plan at 18 .12 85 .13 12 75 In: Free 90 -08 03 89 16 02 82 15: Nature 90 -08 -ll 88 13 16 82 as. as e 2 e9 7 a *Decinal points omitted. All loadings are positive unless. otherwise indicated. 75 For purposes of interpretation, 9. loading of J40 was arbitrarily chosen as the cutting point. The rotated loadings show that all of the five vari- ables comprising the free-response measure of LOA have loadings greater than .140 on factor I of the rotated matrix. Factor II appears to load primarily on 12, the Lowest choice level, with .a loading of .149. None of the five variables has a loading above the .hO cutting point on factor III 0 Discussion Only two factors appear to afford a basis for interpreting the internal structure of the free-response LOA instrumentn‘ Factor I may be tentatively identified as high vs. low general LOA, since all variables have loadings on it above the .ho criterion. Factor II can only be described in terms of one variable, the M choice level. This has at least a superficial resemblance to the "realistic" factor identified in the Wisconsin study by Sewell. However, the analysis presented here is based on an orthogonal rotation, while that of Sowell was based on an oblique rotation. MA recent analysis of these and other data, employing the Varimax technique for rotating to orthogonal simple structure, reveals essentially the sane structure for both the Wisconsin and Michigan free-response masures of LOA. That is, both sets of data were interpreted in terms of a clear general LOA factor and a factor identified as realistic LOA. However, the Varimax technique, applied to the same principal use data in Table 15, yielded a third factor having a loading of .59 on variable , the higest choice level. In Table 15, factor III also has its ghost 0 ng on , but it is below the .140 criterion. Cf. Heller, A. 0., W. H. Sewell, and I. W. Miller (1960), The factorial structure of level of occupational aspiration, unpublished manuscript. 76 Nevertheless, there is a fairly high degree of similarity between the factorial structure of the free-response instrument and the factorial structure of the GAS. Both instruments exhibit a clear general LOA fac- tor. Moreover, factors II and III of the GAS analysis have their highest loadings on the realistic age 30 and the realistic end-of-schooling items respectively. The second factor in the present analyses bears some COD! ceptual resemblance to the realistic component which appeared in both factors II and III of the GAS factorial pattern. That is, factor II of the free-response instrument has its highest loading on variable X , the 2 lggggt choice level. Since the profile analysis of the OAS item.mean scores clearly shows that the lowest choice levels are consistently the realistic items, factor II appears to be somewhat similar to both realistic factors II and III of the GAS. However, since factor II has a loading above .hO on only one variable, labeling it is highly tentative and perhaps dubious. Moreover, separate factor analyses of two measure- ments may yield strikingly similar patterns but this does not, as such, tell us whether corresponding factors in each matrix are in fact the same functional entities. If they are not, assigning the same labels to them is grossly misleading. The question of whether these two LOA instruments share the same factorial "space" suggested factor analyzing the complete 13 by 13 correlation.matrix of responses to the variables of both instruments. 77 Factor Analysis II The procedure used in the above analysis was applied to the entire 13 variable matrix presented in Table 1b. Connmmality estimates for variables 11, X2, . . . X , remain the same. Three factors, accounting for 87 per cent of the total matrix variance, were extracted from the prin- cipal axes matrix and rotated orthogonally by the Quartimax technique. The factor matrices and resulting comunalities are shown in Table 16. A factor loading of about .140 was arbitrarily selected as a cutting point in interpreting the rotated loadings. An examination of Table 16 shows that all of the free-response variables (X1 - XS) have loadings well above .140 on factor I. Three of the OAS variables (x7, x9, and x11) also have loadings above the cutting point on this fac- tor. However, they are not as large as the free-response loadings and several other OAS variables (notably 12 and I12) have loadings near the .140 criterion. Moreover, the variance between the loadings of all OAS variables on this factor is not great (.35 to .1414), making a clear-cut distinction among the OAS variables on this factor difficult. Nevertheless, factor I is clearly a general factor belonging primarily to the free- response instrument, although all of the GAS variables contribute moder- ately to the factor variance. Factor II is also readily interpretable . Whereas none of the free- response variables has a loading greater than .20 on this factor, all of the GAS variables, with the exception of 16, have loadings at or well above the .140 criterion. Even X6, however, with a loading of .30, contributes to this factor more than any of the free-response variables. Table 16 Factor matrices and Communalities* for a Free-Response Instrument (xi-x5) and the OAS (x6-x13) (N-365) Quartimax Loadings Principal Axes Loadings Variable: I II III I II III h2 x1 79 16 -13 76 -22 17 66 x2 55 20 h2 60 -07 -39 52 13 8h 07 18 78 -32 -Ih 73 Ih 90 -01 -07 79 -h3 11 82 x5 89 01 -02 79 -hl 06 80 x6 35 30 30 to 12 -26 30 X7 hl ho -26 53 16 30 39 x8 38 514 09 S9 31 -05 145 X9 1414 52 06 63 2 5 -02 146 x10 35 Sh 07 56 32 ~03 h2 x11 hl to ~06 57 21 10 38 x12 38 h9 11 57 26 ~07 ho x13 35 57 -10 57 3h 15 he gagzzzie: S7 25 06 69 13 05 L fi . *Decimal points omitted. All loadings are positive unless otherwise indicated. 79 Thus, factor II may be clearly identified as an OAS vs. free-response factor. Factor III has only one variable (I?) which has a loading above .hO. Again, this makes its identification tenuous. However, 12 is the lowest choice level, and in.Factor Analysis I it was the only substantial cone tributor to a factor which was interpreted as realistic LOA. Also, as in Table 15, 12 is the only variable loading substantially on this third factor. This suggests two things. First, variable X2 (lowest choice level) which was, in Factor Analysis I, tentatively identified as a realistic factor sharing the realistic components of the GAS factors II and III, appears to represent a variable which is independent of not only the remaining free-response variables but also of all of the GAS variables. Hence, one earlier interpretation regarding the conceptual similarity of certain OAS and free-response factors turns out to be unsupported by the presults of the above analysis. Secondly, the fact that this realistic factor appears when additional variables (OAS items) are added to the free- response variables (and also when different samples are employed and difb ferent rotational procedures are usedlS) suggests that the factor assessed byva‘ria‘blex2 (lggggt choice level) has substantial factorial invariance. However, it is apparently a factor which is not assessed by the GAS, although 16 (realistic end-of-schooling, OAS) has a loading of .30 on this factor. Nevertheless, its probable importance is slight, for it is a small factor (6 per cent of total variance) and is interpretable in.terms of only one variable. 15Cf. Heller, Sewell, and Miller, op. cit. 80 Mend Conclusions Two separate factor analyses were performed in order to facilitate an interpretation of the meaning of the observed zero order correlation of +.62 between the ms total score and the mean score of five variables coded from a free response LOA instrument. The first analysis indicated that all of the free-response variables clearly share a comon factor. The second analysis revealed two interpretable factors. The first was identified as a connon factor shared by both LOA instruments, although loading relatively higher and more consistently on the free-response variables than on the GAS variables. This suggests that the two comaon factors isolated separately for each instrument are in fact quite similar and, hence, my be labeled as high vs. low general LOA. However, the second factor loaded substantiale on the fig variables but had essentially negligible loadings on the free-respdnse variables. If this factor means anything, it apparently represents an OAS vs. free-response factor. It seems reasonable to conclude that the two LOA instruments are factorially equivalent only with respect to factor I in Table 16. However, this is the largest factor, accounting for 57 per cent of the total matrix variance. Equivalence of measurement, of course, is a matter of degree. The fact that both instruments share 57 Per cent of the total variance on a single orthogonal factor makes it reasonable to conclude that both instruments are substantially equivalent measures of what appears to be a general LOA variable. 81 Correlation With Other Variables The purpose of this section is to examine the correlates of the general LOA variable assessed by the GAS. The total score of GAS form 1 administered to the Lenawee sample was used as the measure of general LOA. Thirtyg-three variables from data obtained on the Lenawee sample were selected to be correlated with the GAS total score. These 33 variables were chosen from among the total data available because they seemed to represent variables which are generally considered important by sociologists and psychologists. The variables were limited to 33 because of practical restrictions imposed by available computational procedures. The variables are listed below in Table 17 under the classification of personal, social- situational, and performance variables. In addition, the instruments used to assess these variables are specified. For convenience of future dis- cussion, each variable is assigned an identification number together with an abbreviated name ’form. Table 17 82 Personal, Social-Situational, and Performance Variables Selected to be Correlated with the OAS Total Score Data from Lenawee County Sample, N-1433 Identification Description Source A: Personal Variables: 1. (CP) Number of years of college planned Questionnaire 2. (NH) Belief that work is of expressive The MSU Work value vs. instrumental value Beliefs Check-List ' 3 . (BVAZ) Positive vs. negative evaluation " of structured time 14. (BVAB) Positive vs. negative evaluation of " physical mobility' S. (BVAh) Positive vs. negative evaluation of change " 6. (BVAS) Belief in.internal.ve. external determination of events " 7. (BVA6) Positive vs. negative evaluation of deferred gratification " 8. (CC) Occupational Crystallization Questionnaire (certainty of occupational choice) 9. .(SA) Status anxiety' n 10. (CFIQ) Intelligence Test of G—Culture ‘Free-Scale’EA ll. (CTP) Personality Adjustment The California Test EfPersonaligy (Total adjustment score) *For all variables, the first named characteristic refers to a high score. [continued] [continuation of Table 17] 83 Identification Description Source 12. (PFA) Harsonality Factor-A3“ The 16 P.F. flCyclothymia v3.35fiizothymia" es , one B. 13. (PFB) PF-B: I'Genera]. Intelligence vs. mal Defect" " 11" (PFC) PF-C: "Emotional Stability vs. dissatisfied emotionality" " 15. (PFE) PF-E: "Dominance of Ascendance vs . Submissiona " 16. (PF ) PF-F: "Surgency vs. depressive F mam .. l7. (PFG) PF-G: “Character vs. lack of internal standards" w 18. (PFH) PF-H: “Adventurous Autonomic resilience vs. inherent, withdrawn schizothymia" " 19. (PFI) PF-Ix "Emotional sensitivity vs. tough _ Ina—turity" u 20. (PFL) PF-L: “Paranoid schizothymia vs. trustful altruism” " 21. (PPM) PF-Mz "Hysterical unconcern or 'bohemi- sm,‘ vs. practical concernedness" " 22. (PFN) PF-Na "Sophistication vs. rough "i—s mplicity" n 23. (PFO) PF-O: "Anxious insecurity vs. placid sefl'—confidencefl " 214. (PFQ ) PF-Ql: I'Radicalism vs. Conservativism" " 1 ..___.. 25, (PF ) PF-Q : "Independent self-sufficiency Q2 2 vs; lack of resolution" " eHéThe remaining Personality Factors are abbreviated as PF. — [continued] [continuation of Table 17] 8h Identification Description Source 26. (PFQ ) PF-QB: "Will control and character The 16 P.F. Test, 3 stability“ Form.B. 27. (PF.Qh PF-Qh: "Nervous tension" " B: Social-Situational Variables: 28. (SES) Socio-economic status Questionnaire 29. (FEB) Father's educational status " 30. (PDE) Parental desire for the youth's post-high school educational - achievement " 31. (PDC) Parental desire for the youth's high level of occupational achievement " Cs, Performance variables: 32. (GPA) High school grade point average: 1956-1957 (Academic courses only) School Data 33. (AC) Number of agricultural courses taken through 1957 W- _ The coding operations involved in indexing the variables based on the questionnaire data, on the MSU Work Beliefs Check List, and on the school data are presented in Appendix C. Four-hundred and thirtyhthree respondents had either complete data on all variables or sufficient data to allow them.to be included in the analysis. The product-moment cor- relations between each variable anduall of the others (including the GAS score) were computed on a high-speed electronic computer. by 3h correlation matrix is presented in.Appendix B. The entire 3h 85 The zero-order correlation of each variable with the total OAS score is presented in Table 18. For convenience, the correlations are ranked from those of largest magnitude to those which are not significantly correlated. Variable 1, number of years of college planned, has the highest positive correlation (+.6h) with the OAS. Following variable 1 in order of magnitude of correlation are: grade point average (+.SO), intelligence (+.h5): parental desire for educational achievement (+.hh), general intelligence as measured by personality factor B (+.38), socio- economic status of respondent's family (+.37), number of agricultural courses taken (-.30), father's educational status (+.29), belief in internal or self-determination of events (+.28), total adjustment as measured by'a personality inventory (+.28), character or super-ego strength (+.26), adventurous autonomic resilience (+.2h), parental desire for respondent's high level of occupational achievement (f.22), positive evaluation of deferred gratification (+.21), positive evaluation of physical mobility (willingness to re-locate in a modern industrial society) (+.20), emotional stability (+.l9), sophistication (+.16), will control and character stability (+.l6), independent self-sufficiency'(+.1h), cyclothymia (+.13), positive evaluation of structured time (+.11), and nervous tension («.11). The remaining eleven variables are not sig- nificantly correlated with the GAS. 'With the exception of variable number 33 (number of agricultural courses) and variable 27 (nervous tenp sion), all of the statistically significant correlates of the GAS are positive. 86 Table 18 Zero-Order Correlations of 33 Variables with the OAS Total Seero:* Ranked by Magnitude (N-ABB) ' Variable Correlation with OAS Variable Correlation with OAS 1 (GP) 6h 26 (PFQ3) 16 32 (GPA) SO 25 (P1102) 1h 3 (cm) us 12 (PEA) 13 3o ‘(PDE) Ah 3 (EVA 2) 11 13 (PFB) 38 27 (PEQh ) -11 28 (SES) 3? 16 (PEP) 10** 33 (AC) -30 21 (PFM) -08** 29 (FEB) 29 2h (PFQl) 07** 6 (EVA 5) 28 20 (PFL) -07** 11 ((CTP) 28 23 (PFC) -o7** 17 (PFG) 28 8 (00) «07M 18 (PFH) 2h 9 (SA) -07 31 (PDO) 22 5 (EVA h) 06** 7 (EVA 6) 21 2 (EVA 1) 03“ h (EVA 3) 20 19 (PFl) ~03** 1h (PFC) 19 15 (PFE) 02“ 22 (PFN) l6 *Decimals omitted. All correlations are positive unless otherwise indicated. **Not significant at the .05 level. 87 Discussion A categorical interpretation of the differential correlates of the GAS is mde difficult by the fact that the magnitude of correlation is spread along a continuum. Nevertheless, if .110 is arbitrarily selected as a cutting-point for purposes of interpretation, then the major correlates of the OAS are describable in terms of educational achievement variables and one of their facilitative factors, intelligence. Thus, college plans, grade-point average, intelligence, and parental desire for the youth's post-high school educational achievennt seem to reflect a syndrome which could be interpreted as w to high levels of occupational achievement. Moreover, this interpretation agrees inferentially with the findings of Sewell in Jefferson county where measured LOA was the best single predictor of number of years of college achieved.16 shares a general factor with the LOA instrument used by Sewell, the GAS Since the analysis of the GAS tends to indicate that it may also be found to be a predictor of post-high school educational achievement. If this is in fact the case, then one would expect the GAS to be substantially correlated with other variables which themselves facilitate educational achievement as well as occupational achievement. This is, of course, a highly inferential post-factum interpretation. Nevertheless, it seems capable of generating testable hypotheses for future research. 16Sewell, W. H. (1955, unpublished data), pp. gig. 88 The findings of three other reports based on the Lenawee and Mason samples suggest two additional conclusions concerning the behavioral correlates of the OAS. An investigation by Heller (1959) reports that farm youth who plan not to farm have significantly higher 015 score. than do farm youth who plan to farm. The data in Table 18 show that the number of agricultural courses taken. in high school (variable number 33) correlates -.30 with OAS scores. Since high school boys planning to fan would be expected to take more agricultural courses than boys planning not to farm, LOA as masured by the OAS appears to be behaviorally relevant. That is, responses to the GAS appear to be consistent with other logically related forms of individual behavior; e.g., choice of high school courses, academic achievement and plans, etc. Finally, Haller and Butterworth (1960) and Miller17 present data which indicate that high school boys choosing each other as best friends tend to have similar levels of occupational aspiration. Apparently, LOA is an orientation to occupational goals, an orientation which is functionally related to patterns of association in high school peer groups. This relationship between an individual's LOA and his reference groups is also supported by the data in Table 18. These data show that parental desire for the youth's occupational and educational achievement is positively all! significantly correlated with LOA. 17Miller, I. U. (1959) Occupational aspiration, V—achievement, and peer group membership, unpublished mamscript . 89 The remaining correlates of the OAS are simply presented without any further interpretation. This seems appropriate since (1) they have relatively low correlations with the OAS and (2) there does not seem to be any other empirical data which would tend to either support or deny interpretations based on these correlations. Rather, we shall turn our attention to one final problem: how much of the OAS variance is specific to the OAS vis-a-vis the variables which are significantly correlated with the OAS; and the converse, how much of the OAS variance is shared with tl'e combined variance of the correlates. Uniqueness of the OAS The multiple correlation, R, was computed using the OAS total score as the dependent variable and the 22 statistically significant correlates as the independent variables.]'8 The multiple correlation was found to be +.73, which is significant beyond the .01 level.” 18This analysis was performed on a high-speed electronic digital computer using a program which computed: R - \/Blrlc + Bzrzt3 + B3r3c + .... + Bnrm where: R - multiple correlation between a criterion C and n predictors. Bn '- the Beta weights. rm- the zero-order correlation between variable 2 and the criterion. See MSTIC Library Routine K2-M, Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 19The test for the significance of R based on the F distribution is given by: 2 F - i2 . N - k - l where: R - multiple correlation, l - R E k - number of independent variables, ananIN-k-l,nl-=k N=samplesize3 See walker and Lev (1953, p. 321:) 90 The uniqueness of an instrument as well as the common variance shared with other variables can be determined from.the reliability coefficient of the instrument and its multiple correlation.with other variables. Thorndike (19h9. chap. 7) states: Percentage of unique variance is . . . given by the difference between the reliability coefficient of the new test and the square of its multiple correlation with the rest of the tests in the bat-t9”. If the mean of the OAS reliability estimates, +.80, is taken as the reliability for the OAS, then: Type of Variance Estimate Percentage OAS comon + unique - reliable rtt - .80 80 Common for OAS and 22 variables R2 - (.73)2 52.3 OAS unique rtt - R2 27.7 Thus, about 28 per cent of the total variance of the OAS is unique with respect to 22 other variables and,conversely, approximately 52 per cent of the total variance of the OAS is common with respect to the 22 variables. M The OAS has been shown to measure essentially the same variable as assessed by'a free-response LOA instrument, and both instruments are quite similar with respect to their factorial structure. An.examination of the correlates of the OAS indicates that general LOA as measured by' the OAS is functionally related to certain behaviorallyarelevant variables. These variables were identified as educational.plans and achievements which 91 facilitate high levels of occupational achievement, parental desire for the youth's educational achievement, and intelligence. Additional findings from several other studies employing the OAS as a measure of LOA tend to agree with this interpretation. Finally, the OAS appears to have sub- substantial unique variance with respect to 22 other personal, social- situational, and performance measures. This suggests that the OAS is capable of making an independent contribution to measurement which is not made by these other measurements. Moreover, the multiple correlation of +.73 represents a small increment over the zero-order correlation of +.6h between the highest correlate of the OAS, college plans. This suggests that the remaining variables contribute little additional var- iance to the OAS which is not shared by the college plan variable or by the next correlate, high school grade point average (r It *.50). Finally, this lends Justification to the decision to interpret the meaning of the OAS measurement primarily in terms of the four highest correlates. Surmnary and Conclusions One form of the OAS (form X) was administered to 1:141 seventeen- . year-old high school boys in Lenawee County, Michigan. Additional data based on standardized tests, questionnaires, and school records were also obtained. Two parallel forms of the OAS (forms I and Y) were administered to 85 Junior and senior high school boys in Mason, Michigan. The data gathered from these samples were then analyzed for purposes of studying the reliability, internal structure, and correlates of the OAS. The reliability analysis involved two preliminary tasks. Parallel halves and parallel forms of the OAS were developed. The equivalence of 92 these were then checked against the criteria of statistically equivalent means and variances. With the exception of the means of forms I and I, the parallel halves for each form and administration were found to have equivalentmeans and variances. Three coefficients of internal consistency, based on parallel halves, were computed. A coefficient of stability was computed from the correlation between the total scores of forms I and I administered 10 weeks apart. In addition, the standard error of measurement was computed for each of the three administrations of the OAS. The four reliability coefficients centered around a mean coefficient of +.80, and the mean of three estimates of the standard error of measurement was 5.3. These results suggest that the OAS has substantial reliability in terms of the relative rank of individuals on LOA. Moreover, the variable LOA as assessed by the OAS appears to be relatively stable over a 10 week period. Finally, it was suggested that if the OAS is to be used for measuring individual differences on LOA, reasonable precision would be obtained by grouping scores into high, middle, and low categories. This depends, however, on the purposes of the user of the OAS. The analysis of the internal structure of the OAS iniicated that, in general, idealistic (preference) responses are higher than realistic (expectation) responses in terms of average item scores. This appears to be consistent with the findings of general level of aspiration research. There was also some indication that average response levels based on long- range (“ideal") goals are higher than average response levels based on short-range ("action") goals. However, the data for this are less clear than are the data regarding the realistic and idealistic levels. Here- 93 over, the practical significance of differential levels is questionable in the light of the factorial structure of the OAS. Only one orthogonal factor was clearly interpretable, and this was identified as high vs. low general LOA. The remaining two factors were relatively small and seemed to suggest that, if meaningful at all, they were interpretable as long and short range orientations to occupational goals. There were no factors which corresponded to the realistic vs. idealistic levels of LOA. As for the concept LOA, these results suggest that while it may be legitimate to retain the distinction between idealistic and realistic LOA score levels, the proposition that these are factorially independent dimmions of LOA is highly dubious and, for the OAS data, generally unsupported. Rather, LOA as measured by the OAS turns out to be a unidemen- sional variable which is assessed equally well by each of four different sets of questions. In fact, the LOA variable is probably masured more efficiently by several questions than by any single question alone, since the reliability of any instrument is partly a function of the number of items elployed. It seems reasonable to conclude that the OAS is essentially a factorially pure masurement of what has been tentatively labeled as general LOA. An investigation of the relationship between the OAS and a free- response LOA instrument indicated that they are substantially equivalent measures of general LOA, both in terms of shared variance and in terms of similarity of internal structure. Additional personal, social-situational, and performance correlates of the OAS were also examined. Those variables having a relatively high correlation with the OAS were college plans, high 9h school grade point average, intelligence, and parental desire for the youth's post-high school educational achievement. These were interpreted as behaviorallybrelevant correlates of LOA, since they represent either direct means to occupational achievement or facilitative factors in that achievement process. The findings of several other studies employing the Gas as a measure of LOA were also cited. These presented evidence directly supporting the behavior-relevance interpretation as well as suggesting that level of occupational aspiration is an orientation to occupational goals which tends to be shared among members of high school. peer groups. The remaining correlates were simply presented without interpretation. An analysis of the uniqueness of the OAS vis-a-vis 22 variables significantly correlated with it indicated that approximately 28 per cent of the total OAS variance, although reliable, is independent of the other noancm.variables examined. In a word, over one-fourth of the OAS variance has yet to be accounted for in terms of its correlates. In conclusion, the OAS appears to be a reliable and factorially pure measure of a general LOA variable. Thus, it is probably a more effective and practical measure of general LOA than is the free-response coding technique in either the single or multiple question format. The concurrent correlates of the OAS tend to indicate that measured LOA is behaviorally relevant. Finally, the Observation that over one-fourth of the OAS variance is unaccountable in terms of noanOA variables suggests that this variance should be examined by future research concerned with the conceptualization and measurement of LOA. CHAPTER V SUMMARY.AND CONCLUSIONS The central task of this thesis has been the evaluation of the Occupational Aspiration Scale, an instrument designed to measure level of occupational aspiration. However, the concept LOA appeared to lack clear theoretical and empirical formulation, although it had been applied rather extensively in research. In Chapter II, a preliminary examination of the concept was approached in two ways. First, the possibility of treating LOA as a special case of the level of aspiration paradigm was examined. Secondly, various approaches to the conceptualization and measurement of LOA were reviewed. This led to the identification of several unresolved issues in the conceptualization of LOA. Requirements for a measurement of LOA capable of empirically clarifying these conceptual issues were then specified. ‘With these requirements as a context, the rationale and develop- ment of the Occupational Aspiration Scale was presented in Chapter III. It was proposed to evaluate the OAS by treating it as an empirical tool for clarifying several of the issues involved in conceptualizing LOA. Three issues were analyzed: (1) the stability of measured LOA, (2) the internal structure of the LOA concept, including the problem of differential response levels and/or factorial types of LOA, and (3) the "meaning" of LOA in terms of its relationship with other variables. Chap- ter IV presented the results of the reliability, internal structure, and correlation studies. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the 96 major findings of the thesis, using these as the basis for an evaluation of the Occupational Aspiration Scale and its measured variable, LOA. Level of Occupational Aspiration The level of aspiration.paradigm was seen as focusing on the concept of a goal-structure differentiated along a continuum of per- ceived valence and difficulty; Two categories of "expression levelsn ‘were identified: preference and expectation. Research findings were cited which indicated that stimulus-questions worded at the preference level would elicit higher average scores than questions worded at the expectation level. In addition, a distinction was made between long- range ("ideal") goals and short-range ("action') goals. 'Whether or not the concept LOA could be considered as a special case of the general level of aspiration paradigm.seemed to revolve around the characteristics of the occupational goal-structure. The criteria used to arrange occupations in a hierarchy, and the relationship between the rankings of occupations on different criteria were then examined. It was concluded that prestige or social standing was the criterion most often used. Evidence was cited indicating that empirical rankings of occupations based on the prestige dimension were relatively'unbiased and stable, both within and between groups, contemporaneously and over time. Finally, rankings of occupations by prestige were found to agree substantially with rankings of occupations in.terms of intelligence, income, ability, skill, and required training. This was interpreted as support for considering occupational prestige 97 not only as a measure of valence, but also as a measure of difficulty. It ‘was concluded that it is meaningful to speak of occupational levels in.terms of differential valence and difficulty; Thus, the possibility of clarifying and measuring LOA by incorporating it in the level of aspiration.paradign seemed Justified. Historically, the concept LOA appears to be an.extension.of level of aspiration research. However, variations in question wordings and adherence to single-question measurements failed to develop and clarify the meaning of LOA. The introduction of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, containing the Occupational Level Scale, represented the first attempt to standardize a measurement of LOA. While the utility of such a scale appeared to be based largely on intuition, the introduction of the scale as part of an occupational interest inventory resulted in its widespread use. Several attempts to interpret the I'meaning" of the OL scale were made. Nest of these were speculative, and as yet there does not seem to be any general agreement concerning its meaning. Attempts at validation were usually tautological and based on poorly defined criteria. IMoreover, the OL scale has been found to be uncorrelated with another standardized scale, the Level of Interest section of the Lee-Thorpe Occupational Interest Inventory; It was suggested that both of these instruments are inadequate measures because they attempt to assess LOA indirectly in terms of interest areas. Thus, they are not equivalent to nsetting the level of aspiration." A review of nonpstandardized.measurements of LOA revealed a proliferation of techniques and interpretations. The techniques were 98 usually limited to the coding of free-responses on a single stimulus- question. Often, these responses were ranked by judges selected especially for the particular study, rather than ranked in terms of an objective set of empirical rankings. Because the various stimulus-questions were usually 'worded differently, the resulting measurements were not operationally’ equivalent. Finally, the use of single questions precluded the study of the reliability and internal structure of measured LOA. These findings led to a set of specifications for measuring LOA which seemed necessary if the concept LOA were to be clarified: I. The measurement should be direct: i.e., respondents should publicly indicate their aims in terms which are operationally equivalent to "setting the level of aspiration." II. The measurement should be mmltiple-item.and include variations in question~wording which reflect different "expression levels“ and goal-ranges (e.g., "action" vs. "ideal" goals). III. The responses should be directly amenable to ordering by levels: i.e., multiple-choice rather than free- response. IV. The scoring criteria should be objective, relatively unbiased, and represent a full-range of possible responses. V. The scoring criteria should approximate as nearly as possible the notion of a differentiated goal structure along dimensions of perceived valence and difficulty. 99 The Occupational Aspiration Scale The OAS is an eight-item multiple choice LOA instrument designed to assess two expression levels, the realistic and the idealistic, each at two goal-levels, end-of-schooling and age-30. Each of the four possible combinations are assessed twice. The ten alternatives for each question are drawn systematically from among 90 of the occupations ranked by the NORC study of the prestige of occupations. Each set of ten alternatives spans the full range of occupational prestige, and the alternatives are scored frmm O to 9. The total possible score for all eight items ranges from 0 to 72, and this score is taken as a measure of the generalLOA variable. Thus, the OAS incorporates aspects of the level of aspiration paradigm while meeting the five general specifications set forth above. The task of evaluating the OAS involved evaluating the LOA variable as measured by the OAS. Three analyses of the OAS were proposed: (1) reliability, (2) internal structure, and (3) correlates. Several estimates of the reliability of the OAS based on two equivalent forms and two different samples of 17 year-old high school boys indicated that the OAS has substantial reliability. .An analysis of the internal structure of the OAS indicated that idealistic levels are higher than realistic levels in terms of average scores. Results also indicated that age-30 goals yield higher average scores than do end-of- schooling goals. Both of these observations appear to be congruent with the findings of general level of aspiration research. However, a factor analysis of the OAS failed to produce orthogonal factors clearly inter- lOO pretable as either idealistic vs. realistic LOA or long-range vs. short- range LOA. Rather, one general factor accounting for 75 per cent of the total matrix variance was identified as high vs. low general LOA. It was concluded that the OAS was a factorially pure measure of what appeared to be a general LOA variable. The concurrent correlates of the OAS tended to indicate that: (l) the OAS is equivalent to a free-response measure of general LOA, both in terms of shared variance and in terms of similarity of factorial structure, and (2) the OAS has relatively high correlations with variables judged to be behaviorallyhrelevant in terms of facilitating the occupational achieveo ment process. However, over one-fourth of the OAS variance was unaccounted for by these behaviorallybrelevant variables. Discussion and Conclusions It is difficult to separate an evaluation of the GAS from an evaluation of the LOA variable as measured by the OAS. However, we shall begin by first presenting several conclusions concerning the contribution of the OAS analyses to the clarification of the LOA concept. Then we shall attempt to deal with the OAS instrument more specifically in terms of its application in research. 101 The Structure and Meaning of the LOA Concept With respect to structure, LOA as measured by the OAS appears to be a unitary variable which, however, may be measured by using several types of questionewording. Moreover, the term “aspiration" as used in the LOA concept does BEE refer primarily to the fantasy elements of occupatianal choice. Rather, in this context, aspiration is better interpreted as simply referring to an orientation to act with respect to some limited range on.a prestige hierarchy of occupations. ‘While the preference com- ponent of this orientation appears at a higher goal level than does the expectation component, these levels are highly correlated. This means that the various wordings of single stimulus-questions used in the study of LOA are probably equivalent although imperfect measures of LOA. Finally, LOA as measured by'a multiple-item.instrument (such as the OAS) can be expected to be reasonably stable over time, thus representing a relatively enduring orientation to action. With respect to meaning or conceptual content, the interpretive task centers around the question of the dynamics of the variable LOA. Several attempts have been made to categorically identify LOA in terms such as motive, drive, or aspiration (Barnett, EE.§$" 1952). But this is mere labeling, and as such tells us little concerning the dynamics and meaning of specific motives, etc. An aspiration as such seems more similar to the concept of attitude than it does to the concept of motive. If a.motive structure is con- ceptualized in terms of direction.and intensity'components, then either an aspiration or an attitude may serve as the directionizing component 102 for a motive (Peak, 1955). Or, put another way, attitudes and aspirations may be grouped under the rubric of orientation. Thus, when we speak of LOA as an orientation to act with respect to some limited range on.a hierarchy of occupational prestige, we are referring only to the direc- tionizing character of LOA. Measured LOA is then taken as an indicator of the occupational goal-level to which the individual is oriented rather than as a measure of drive or motivation to achieve that goal-level. In this schema, the behaviorallybrelevant correlates of LOA may be viewed in several ways:_ (1) as antecedents which influence and help to determine the direction of the LOA orientation, (2) as consequences of an LOA orientation, or (3) as factors which facilitate and sustain an LOA orientation. An Evaluation of the OAS Instrument The OAS appears to be a reliable and factorially pure measure of general LOA, and the total score may be taken as an estimate of this variable. Inasmuch as the sub-indices, such as realistic and idealistic levels, are heavily saturated with the general LOA factor, they evidently do not measure different aspects of LOA. Rather, each OAS item contributes substantially to a measure of the general LOA factor. Mbreover, the OAS overcomes the difficulties associated with the coding of free-responses while at the same time apparently measuring the same variable assessed by a free-response instrument. Consequently, the OAS is a more efficient measure of LOA than are the free-response techniques. In addition, existing multiple-choice measures (such as the Strong and 103 Lee-Thorpe instruments) were shown, in Chapter II, to be ineffective measures of LOA. Finally, the correlates of the OAS were examined and were found to be behaviorallybrelevant to the occupational and educational achievement processes. This suggests that the OAS may be a useful instrup ment for research dealing with these achievement processes and with the general area of social mobility. In addition, the OAS may have applications in the field of voca- tional and educational counseling. For example, those youth who have high levels of occupational aspiration but who do not plan to go to college may be helped to realistically re-appraise their educational plans. On the other hand, those youth who have low LOA and do not plan to attend college but'whose past performance indicates that they have the ability to achieve at a high level may be encouraged to attend college if their LOA is raised. Limitations cf the Study The results of this investigation should not be generalized to groups other than 17 year-old high school boys. Moreover, the empirical conclusions concerning the LOA concept hold true only for LOA as measured by the OAS. Perhaps other LOA measurement designs will yield different interpretations. In addition, only a few of the possible correlates of the OAS were examined. Finally, the specific techniques used to analyze the OAS, especially the procedures for the factor analyses, probably have influenced the results. Other techniques may lead to different cons clusions regarding both the OAS and the LOA concept. 10h Future Research \ Future research should attempt to examine the OAS on samples of varying age, sex, and educational characteristics. Reliability, internal structure, and correlates may be found to be different for differing samples. Broad normative data are needed if OAS scores are to be used for counseling and guidance. In addition, the predictive efficiency of the OAS with respect to educational and occupational achievement variables needs to be examined. Finally, the development and dynamics of the LOA variable need to be studied in.more detail. Additional techniques for assessing LOA should be designed and analyzed for purposes of conceptual clarification. Research ained.at integrating the LOA concept into existing theory and research (such as achievement motivation; McClelland, 32 all” 195:3) should also be attempted. It is hoped that the results of this thesis will stimulate further attempts to measure and clarify the LOA concept. When LOA has been sufficiently clarified, the question of its significance for the growing body of social and psychological research may be more completely answered. 105 REFERENCES Alexander, Irving E., Lee B. Macht, and Bertram.P. Karon (1959) The level-of-aspiration model applied to occupational preference, Human Relations, 12:163-170. Barnett, G. J., I. Handelsman, L. H. Stewart, and D. B. Super (1952) The Occupational Level Scale as a measure of drive, Psychological Monographs, 66, No. 10. Barnett, G. J., L. H. Stewart, and D. E. Super (1953) Level of occupational interest: dead weight or dynamismfl, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13:193-208. Blau, Peter M. (1957) Occupational bias and mobility, American Sociological Review, 22:392-399. Caplow, T. (195k) The sociology of work, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, Chapter 2. Cattell, R. E., and A. K. S. Cattell (1950) Test of G - Culture free - Scale 3A, Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and AEEIity'Testing. Cattell, R. B. (1952) Factor Analysis, New York, Harper and Brothers. Centers, R. (1953) Social class, occupation, and imputed belief, American JOurnal of Sociology, 58:5h3v555. - Cronbach, L. J. (l9h9) Essentials of psychological testing, New York, Harper and Brothers. Cronbach, L. J., and Meehl, P. E. (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests, Psychological Bulletin, 52:281-302. Darley, J. G. (l9hl) Clinical aspects and interpretations of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, New York, Psychological Corporation. Darley, J. G., and T. Hagenah (1955) Vocational interest measurement, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 116-118, 191-263. _ Davies, A. F. (1952) The prestige of occupations, British Journal of Sociology, 3:13h-1h7. Deutsch, M. (195A) Field theory in social psychology, in Handbook of Social PS cholo (G. Lindzey, Editor), Cambridge, Addison- Wesley Pablishing Company, Vol. I, pp. 208-209. Dynes, R. E., A. C. Clarke, and S. Dinitz (1956) Levels of occupational aspiration: Some aspects of family experience as a variable, American Sociological Review, 21:212er5. Edwards, A. L. (1951;) Statistical methods for the behavioral sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc. Empey, LaMar T. (1956) Social class and occupational aspiration: A comparison of absolute and relative measurement, American Sociological Review, 21:7039709. . - Gardner, J. W. (19140) The use of the term "level of aspiration," Psychological Review, h7:59-68. Gustad, J. W. (1952) Academic achievement and Strong Occupational Level Scores, Journal of Applied Eychology, 36:75-78. Guttman, Louis (1958) An estimate of cormuunalities that is imagewise consistent and structure-free, Research Report 20, Contract AFhl(657)-76. (May 22)- Haller, A. O. (1959) Planning to farm: a social psychological inter- pretation, Social Forces, 373263.268. . - . Haller, A. 0., and C. E. Butterworth (1960) Peer influences on levels of occupational and educational aspiration, Social Forces, Inkeles, Alex, and Peter H. Rossi (1956) National comparisons of occupational prestige, American Journal 9_i_'_ Sociology, 613329.339. . Irwin, F. w. (1951) Motivation, in Theoretical foundations of psEhology, (H. Helson, Editor), Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Company, pp. 239-2111. Kahl, J. A. (1953) Educational and occupational aspirations of "Common Man" boys, Harvard Educational Review, 23:186-203. 107 Kahl, J. A. (1957) The American class structure, New York, Rinehart, pp. 53-90. Kendall, W. E. (19h?) The Occupational Level Scale of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, Journal 2: Applied Psychology, 31:283'2870 Lee, Edwin A., and Louis P. Thorpe (1956 ) Manual - Occupational Interest Inventory - Advanced, Hollywood, California Test Bureau. Lee, Edwin A., and Louis P. Thorpe (1956 ) Occupational Interest Inventogy - Advanced, Hollywood, California Test Bureau. Lewin, K. (1936) The psychology of success and failure, Occupations, 1h3926-9300 Lewin, K., Tamara Dembo, In Festinger, and Pauline S. Sears (19hh) Level of aspiration, in Personality and the behavior disorders (J. Nov. Hunt, Editor), New York, The Ronald Press 00., Vol. I, pp. 333-378. Lurie, W. A. (1939) Estimating the level of vocational aspiration, Journal 2£ Social Psychology, 10:h67-h73. May, M. A., and L. W. Doob (1937) Competition and cooperation, New Ybrk, Social Science Research Council. NbClelland, Do G., J; W. Atkinson, Re A. Clark, and E. L. LOWGIl (1953) The achievement motive, New York, Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc. National Opinion Research Center (19h?) Jobs and occupation: A popular evaluation, Opinion News, 9:3-13. Neuhaus, J. 0., and C. F. Wrigley (195k) The quartimax method: an analytic approach to orthogonal simple structure, British Journal pg Statistical Psychology, 7:81-91. Ostrom, S. R. (l9h9 ) The OL Key of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men and scholastic success at college freshman level, Journal 2; Applied Psychology, 32:51-5h. 108 Ostrom, S. R. (l9h9 ) The 0L Key of the Strong test and drive at the twelfth grade level, Journal 2£_Applied Psychology, 33:2h0-2h8. Peak, Helen (1953) Problems of objective observation. In.Research methods in the behavioral sciences (L. Festinger and D. Katz, Editors), New York, The Dryden Press, Chapter 6. Peak, Helen (1955) Attitude and motivation, in Nebraska Symposium.on .Motivation - 1955 (M. R. Jenes, Editor), Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, pp. 1h9-189. . Rosen, B. C. (1959) Race, ethnicity, and achievement, American Sociological Review, 2h:h7-60. Stefflre, B. (1955) Vocational aspiration and level of interest scores on the Lee-Thorpe Occupational Interest Inventory, Personnel and Guidance JOurnal, March:385-388. Stefflre, B. (1959) Analysis of the inter-relationships of rankings of occupations, Personnel and Guidance Journal, February1h35-h38. Stephenson, Richard M. (1957) Mobility orientation and stratification of 1,000 nineth graders, American Sociological Review, 22:20hq212. Strong, E. K., Jr. (19h3) Vocational interests of men and women, Stanford University Press. Strong, E. K., Jr. (19h6) StrongVocational Interest Blank for Men - Revised, Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1955) Vocational interests 18 years after college, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 127-136. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1959) Manual for Stronngocational Interest Blanks for Men and women, Palo Alto, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Stubbins, J. (1950) The relationship between level of vocational aspiration and certain personal data, Genetic Psychology Monographs, A1: 327~h08. Super, D. E. (1957) The Psychologyyof Careers, New York, Harper and Brothers, pp. 1-51. 109 Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques (l95h), Supplement to the Psychological Bulletin, 51, No. 2, Part 2. Test Service Bulletin No. 50 (1956), How accurate is a test score?, New York, The Psychological Corporation. The 16 P. F. Test, Form B (1950), Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Thorndike, Robert S. (19h9) Personnel selection; test and measurement technigues, New York, John Wiley and Sons. Thurstone, L. L. (1931) The reliability and validity of tests, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Edwards . Tiegs, E. W., W. W. Clark, and L. P. Thorpe (1953) California test of personality - secondary form.AA, Los Angeles, California Test Bureau. Tryon, Robert C. (1957) Reliability and behavior domain validity; reformulation and historical critique, Psychological Bulletin, Sh3229~2h9e ' ‘Walker, Helen M., and Joseph Lev (1953) Statistical inference, New YOrk, Henry Holt and Company. 110 APPENDIX A OAS Forms and Lenawee County Normalized OAS Scores NOTE: The unmarked form.is form.X; Form B is identical to form Y. Copyright 1957 W Archie 0. Heller 'OUR NAME CCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION SCALE HIS SET OF QUESTIONS COMERNS YOUR INTEREST IN DIFFERENT KINIB (F JOBS. m {E EIGHT QUESTIONS. EACH ONE ASKS YOU TO CHOOSE ONE JOB OUT OF TEN PRESENTED. ESURE YOUR NAME IS ONTHETOP OF THIS PAGE. EAD EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY. THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. EVER EACH ONE THE BEST YOU CAN. DON'T OMIT ANY. lestion 1. 0f the Jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLIM‘: IS WEB? 1.1 Lawyer 1.2 Welfare worker for a city government 1.3 United States representative in Congress 1.1: Corporal in the Army 1.5 United States Supreme Court Justice 1.6 Night watchman 1.7 Sociologist 1.8 Policeman 1.9 County agricultural agent 1.10 Filling station attendant 425 Question 2. 0f the Jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you were FREE TO CHOOSE.ANY of them.you wished when your SCHOGLING Q1103 tion 3 0 IS OVER? 2.1_______ 2.2_____ 2.3______ 2.h_____ 2.5______ 2.6______ 2.7____ 2.8___ 2.9______ 2.10__ Member of the board of directors of a large corporation Undertaker Banker Machine Operator in a factory Physician (doctor) Clothes presser in.a laundry Accountant for a large business Railroad conductor Railroad engineer Singer in a night club 0f the jobs listed in this question which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 3.1____ 3.2____ 3.3___ 3.h___ 3.5_____ 3.6____ 3.7______ 3.e_____ 3.9 3.10 Nuclear physicist Reporter for a daily newspaper County judge Barber State governor Soda fountain clerk Biologist 'Mail carrier Official of an international labor union Farm.Hand Ques tion h . -3- Of the Jobs listed in this question, which “Miran Choose if you were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of them you wished when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? b..l_____ Psychologist h.2_____ Manager of a small store in a city h.3_____ Head of a department in state government h.h_____ Clerk in a store h.5____ Cabinet member in the federal government 14.6_____ Janitor h.7______ Musician in a symphony orchestra h.8______ Carpenter h.9_____ Radio announcer h.1o____ Coal miner Question 5. 0f the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are "“r—REAIll-SUREL’YW‘CANHAVE‘WACMM‘MM you are 39 YEARS OLD? 5.1______ Civil engineer . 5.2____ Bookkeeper . S.3_______ Minister or Priest 5 .h_____ Streetcar motorman or city bus driver 5 .5_____ Diplomat in the United States Foreign Service 5.6 Share crapper (one who owns no livestock or farm machinery, -_ and does not manage the farm) 5.7______ Author of novels 5.8_____ Plumber S.9_____ Newspaper columnist 5.1o___ Taxi driver Question 6. Question 7. I -h- 0f the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of th;m you wished? o.1______ o.2____ o.3______ s.u______ 6.5____ o.o______ 6.7______ 6.8______ o.9_______ 6.10______ Airline pilot Insurance agent Architect Milk route man Mayor of a large city Garba ge c olle ct or Captain in the army Garage mechanic Owner-operator of a printing Shop Railroad section hand or the jobs. listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN HAVE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD? 7.1______ 7.2_____ 7.3____ 7.h____ 7.5______ 7.6_______ Artist who paints pictures that are exhibited in galleries Traveling salesman for a wholesale concern Chemist Truck driver College professor Street sweeper 7’7_____I,Building contractor 7.8 Local official of a labor union 7.9 7.10 Electrician Restaurant waiter .5- Question 88 Of the Jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of T‘hrz‘. yen wished? 8il____ Owner of a factory that anploys about 100 people 832____ Playground director 8.3__;__ Dentist 8.h______ Dilberjack 8 35____ Scientist 8.6______ Shoeshiner 8.7____ Public school teacher 8.8______ Owner-Operator of a lunch stand 8.9__~__.‘ Trained machinist 8.10 D ock worker MICK. l: OAS-R STUDY February, 1959 YUUR.NAIE OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATION SCALE (FORM B) This set of questions concerns your interest in different kinds of jobs. There are eight questions. Each one asks you to choose one job out of ten presented. Be sure your name is on the top of this page. Read each question carefully. They_a£g all different. Answer each one the best you can. Don't omit.any; QUESTION 1: Of the Jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 1.1 Owner of a factory that employs about 100 people 1. 2 Playground dire ctor 1.3 Dentist 1.h Lumberjack 1.5 Scientist 1.6 Shoeshiner 1.7 Public school teacher 1.8 Owner—operator of a lunch stand 1. 9 Train" 1‘ ".3 chinis t 1.10 Dock worker QUESTION 2: QUESTION 3: Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of them.you wished when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 2.1 Artist who paints pictures that are exhibited in galleries 2.2 Traveling salesman for a wholesale concern 2.3 , Chemist 2.h Truck driver 2.5 College professor 2.6 Street sweeper 2.7 Building contractor 2.8 Local official of a labor union 2.9 Electrician 2.10 Restaurant waiter Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET When your SCHOOLING IS OVER? 3.1 Airline pilot 3.2 Insurance agent 3.3 Architect 3.h Milk route man 3.5 mayor of a large city 3.6 Garbage collector 3.7 Captain in the army 3.8 Garage mechanic 3.9 Owner-operator of a printing shop 3.10 Railroad section hand -3- QUESTION h: or the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose QUESTION 5: if you were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of them.you wished when your SCHOOLING IS OVER? hzl h.2 NJ 11.11 h.S h.6 h.7 the h.9 h.lo Of the Jobs REALLY SURE 5.1 5.2 5.3 Soh 5.5 5.6 5.7._______ 5.8 5.9 5.10 Civil engineer Bookkeeper Minister or Priest Streetcar motorman or city bus driver Diplomat in the United States Foreign Service Share cropper (one who owns no livestock or farm machinery, and does not manage the farm) Author Of novels Plumber Newspaper columnist Taxi driver listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are YOU CAN HAVE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD? Psychologist manager of a small store in a city Head Of a department in state government Clerk in a store Cabinet member in the federal government Janitor Musician in a symphony orchestra Carpenter Radio announcer Coal miner ‘fifiSTION 6: QUESTION 7: 4;- Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD; if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you wished? 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.h 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 Nuclear Physicist Reporter for a daily newspaper County judge Barber State governor Soda fountain clerk Biologist mail carrier Official of an international labor union Farm Hand Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are REALLY SURE YOU CAN HAVE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD? 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.h 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 Member of the board of directors of a large corporation Undertaker Banker Machine operator in a factory Physician (dcctor) Clothes presser in a laundry Accountant for a large business Railroad conductor Railroad engineer Singer in a night club v ‘f w . A. .. .v ....... - «a . ‘ y , . -. i . - ”so. ... i .. u .-. v '——_ o, ‘ . .., - shun... . u .5... a ..>- i -. —-,-...4‘i-- a a .7 - .i .. ' - 7..-..._v.4 .. _. ts. . ‘ ‘. .‘ ., ‘. . _....-.. . .‘ ‘ ‘. - ~ . . . . .- . . i -.....4 a u . . n- o . n... - ._ A I - I b O . A O I I a ‘. O O ‘ I a u'V 0 i . . ~u . I u I t I 6 I I C a d . - l | K I .LJ‘ -5- WESTION 8: Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you wished? 8.1 Lawyer 8.2 Welfare worker for a city government 8.3 United States representative in Congress 8.11 Corporal in the Army 8.5 United States Supreme Court Justice 8.6 Night watchman 8.7 Sociologist 8.8 Policeman 8.9 County agricultural agent 8.10 Filling station attendant * * as *- DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 1&3: (A) R: (A&C) 2&h: m) S & 7 : (c) I = (s a. D) 6 & 8 : t (D) Total Score : .t...‘ H - q . I ' -v.- _ o-.-'_. .. .' -.. 4..."- "‘ -- ->~ -'>-_ "-o- “‘w—c— "—..‘_ ‘wnr.l . Normalized Data for O.A.S. Raw Scores The normalized data for the O.A.S. scores were computed by the method given by Edwards.-]-'/ The data entitled "observed 3" represents equivalent scores having a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.0. However, the form of the "observed 8" distribution is the same as that for the raw scores. The cumulative frequencies below a given raw score plus one-half of the frequencies of that score were converted to cumlative percentages (or proportions of total N). These cumulative percentages were used to find the 3 score value corresponding to the point in a theoretical normal £13.3- tribution by referring to a table of the unit normal curve. These normalized 8 scores also have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1.0: however, the scores have been stretched in such a way as to normalize the distribution. Also, the cumulative percent- ages were converted to equivalent T-scores by means of a table of T-scores. Essentially, a T-score equals a normal 3 score multiplied by 10 and the product added to 50. Hence, the T-scores have a mean of SO and a standard deviation of 10.0. Standard scores enable us to compare measurements from various distributions of comparable form since we have reduced the measurements of each distribution to a comnon scale. Raw Scores: Mean =36.2 SeD. 3 12.99 N : Mil LII-«Scores: Mean : 50.0 SOD. = 10.0 I. w. Miller, Jr. April, 1958 k | y Edwards, A. L., Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (Now York; Rinehart and Company, Inc.: 1931;) a.) .1. a l O 1 - I o . u o n o , . .. . .e. - —-.~Ia. .. , . . I n , n n 0 I n I .‘- I C .- o u n ma..- L C . l / Normal g. Raw Score f Observed 2'! cf op T-Scor_es__ (1) 2 1 -2.63 0.5 .0011 -3.07 20 (2) 1o 2 -2.02 2.0 .0085 -2.61 23 o) 13 3 -1.79 h.5 .0102 -2.32 27 (1.) 1h 2 —1.71 7.0 .0159 -2.15 28 (5) 16 6 -1.56 11.0 .0250 -1.96 30 (6) 17 8 -1.h8 18.0 .0309 ~1.7h 33 (7) 18 3 -1.ho 23.5 0533 -1.61 3h (8) 19 7 -1.32 28.5 .06h7 -1.52 35 (9) 20 8 —1.25 36.0 .0817 -1.39 36 00) 21 11 —1.17 85.5 .1033 -1.26 38 (11) 22 8 -1. O9 55. 0 . 12218 -1. 15 38 02) 23 15 —1.02 66.5 .1510 —1.03 to 03) 2h 12 -0.9h 80.0 .1816 -0.91 N1 (80 25 12 -0.86 92.0 2083 -0.81 82 05) 26 10 —0.78 103.0 .2338 -0.73 83 06) 27 15 -0.71 115.5 .2622 -0.6b hh ' U?) 28 13 -0.63 129.5 .2980 -0.5h N5 08) 29 22 -0.55 187.0 .3337 -0.h3 N6 09) 30 17 -0.h8 166.5 .3780 -0.31 87 80) 31 13 -0.ho 181.5 . 120 —0.22 he 81) 32 10 —0.32 193.0 .8381 -0.16 he 82) 33 8 -0.25 202.0 .h585 —o.10 89 03) 3h 11 -0.17 211.5 .h801 -0.05 50 8h) 35 16 -0.09 225.0 .5108 0.03 50 85) 36 8 -0.02 237.0 .5380 0.10 51 Q6) 37 12 0.06 287.0 .5607 0.15 52 :97) 38 8 0.18 257.0 .583h 0.21 52 0-01.0“..4 .—~. O\ I, DO. ‘...I.... ... . I 'I r! .. . .‘~ 5 I .l \ . I ‘.P ' - . 1. ,. . ,- K. | I 5'. I . 7‘. . ‘ . l .q '1 _D|.l .I I . ). - i ._ ,1 I . I ,"‘ ‘P .. \ 1 '. . 6 . . .n.. . ‘ . ' _ . . r 1- . .. - - .. . . I. "- ~~ .. e . I . . . ‘ . o - 0 -~ . o _ ' . . . u I o ' . I . l " .o v ' ‘ I C. I ' I . . 1 ‘ ,1 g _|“ . . ‘ I I ‘ I. ’ e . x, .0 . ' . . . ,- . . . I- . o . . . . v ,' - . o ' . . .. ‘ . . . v . . t . ‘ I -- .. .. -' o o I . ‘ ~ 1 ' 0 V . . . e r . . . . .- . , " o ' o " I 4 I I . I c ‘ " ., I I A "' , . . 7 —. . . ~ ‘ .. . . - J. .‘ .- ' ‘ l~ . _ I 1 _ _.-. I I I (- " ' ' I. ‘ I - . t , ‘ -- * . ' _- I - ‘ . ' , . l I ' b . .. _\ t . 1 - . ‘ . u ‘ - . , . ' . ‘ . 'I . .- ' w . e . . ' 7 - . . . _ . _ l ‘ .. u '. 1 . - a ' ' . I . ‘ x ‘ , . Q . . - I l I ' ‘ ‘ .l ' I ' ' . ' , . . ’. . I . . 015 2 Page 2 _ Raw Score 1' Observed «75 cf cp / Normal 2 T-Scores (23) 39 9 0. 22 265 . 5 . 6027 0. 26 53 (29) ho 13 0.29 276.5 .6276 0.33 53 (30) In 10 0.37 288.0 .6538 0.110 51. (31) 82 8 0.145 297.0 .67h2 0.115 55 (32) 1:3 9 0.52 305.5 .6935 O-Sl SS (33) m. 13 0.60 316.5 .7181. 0.58 56 (3h) 15 5 0.68 325.5 .7389 0.61; 56 (35) 1:6 7 0.75 331.5 .7525 0.68 57 (36) h? 9 0.83 339.5 .7707 0.711 57 (37) 1.8 10 0.91. 3149.5 . 79311 0. 82 58 (38) 179 8 0.99 358.0 .8127 0.89 59 (39) 50 h 1.06 368.0 .8263 0.91. 59 (to) 51 11 1.111 371.5 .8833 1.01 60 (1.1) 52 9 1.22 381.5 .8660 1.11 61 (82) 53 h 1.29 388.0 .8808 1.18 62 (113) SN 5 1.37 392.5 .8910 1.23 62 (M4) 55 S 1.85 397.5 .9023 1.29 63 (16) 56 8 1.52 11011.0 .9171 1.39 61. (86) 57 9 1.60 1112. 5 .9368 1.53 65 (h?) 58 h 1.68 1.19.0 .9511 1.66 67 (118) S9 3 1.76 1122.5 .9591 1.78 67 (A9) 60 7 1.83 1.27.5 .970), 1.89 I 69 (50) 61 5 1.91 1133. 5 .9810 2.15 71 (51) 62 1 1.99 1136.5 .9908 2.36 7h (52) 63 1 2.06 1.37. 5 .9931 2.1.6 75 (53) 6h 2 2.11. 1439.0 .9965 2.70 78 (Sh) 65 1 2.22 11110.5 .9999 3.70 80 w... .- u-o .uo-c- - \ I . Q .< -.. . c, n o—. o .— "I I I ".’\ I v I i_.l :‘ . I . I .‘ . ' O , . .. -. —O-—.- Raw Score 2 10 13 1h 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Zn 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3h 35 36 37 38 Page 3 E29312 20 23 27 28 30 33 3h 35 36 38 38 1.0 111 82 83 115 ho h? be he 89 50 50 51 52 52 (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (3h) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (NO) (hl) (h2) (L3) (81) (1(5) (16) (h?) (148) (19) (50) (51) (52) (53) (51) Raw Score 39 to ’41 I42 83 M: 145 86 £17 118 89 50 51 52 53 Sh 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 6h 65 T-Score '53 53 5h 55 55 56 S6 57 S7 58 S9 59 6O 61 62 62 63 6h 65 67 67 69 71 7h 75 78 8O I (1 A. S. Individual Item T-Scores Raw T-Scores 899m 91 02 Q3 Q8 05 06 Q? 08 o 27 3o 31 25 36 22 22 21 1 8O 31 83 30 83 26 28 29 2 87 80 89 38 85 31 81 35 3 52 85 52 83 87 80 86 39 h 56 85 55 89 51 85 88 80 5 58 87 58 58 53 86 52 85 6 62 50 60 58 58 88 5? 89 7 65 58 65 59 59 52 60 58 8 72 59 71 63 66 60 63 58 9 80 68 80 68 71 69 71 63 .a.— Ina-qr... .. I ~—l‘l “- no...--o—- -.._. v‘ r ..‘. ' ' _ I ...-.. 1.... . .... . - ... U...— .u .o I . I . " .....I -- .. . . a. .. ,. - I . . I 1 . '- I , . . a ‘ - - I I". a. . _ .' . i. - 1 o , - o n. —-~ .- In». ...-...... -“tO-.—m¢- “Q . '. I-: . .- .- r _' r I \ . .. .~-. .4. ... . - I . - - «‘— APPENDIX B Correlation and Factor Matrices 12 Mean Scores 129 6.00 , ' / FORM Y 5.0:» ' 14.0.. . (a- FORM 1 300" , 1 2 3 8 5 6 7 8 Items FIGURE 2: PROFILE OF ITEM I‘l’EAN SCORES, OAS FORMS X AND Y, MASON SAMPLE, Nu85 130 TA 81.13 1.9 Item Inter-correlations and Coxmnunality Estimates“ for OAS Form X, Mason Sample. N385. 17891718 1 2 3 8 S 6 7 8 1 (39) 30 82 21 26 _'_2__g 80 30 \A’ (D‘ O C.) V r- "0 II" \o [\J \1 m ‘J I. g 4 \‘Z / .._ 8‘ , .: ‘1 'V r“ J \J D'- {A \ '2 (57) n i 3!: ) I--. --p‘.~ll-‘.- - _ —. .. “n -...-_-. - .—..-.—I-.—-.. - '—..-—.I -. ---.-.—~-——ua—..v-_-o _ p e c...— . . . -—._... .----9—.- -cI—_~ .M‘-‘-- u—wv-vu-u o:s..-,~— so ~oo-—. .. l I_ n . av. . ‘ II .- -—~_I.. . o .p .“9 u-‘q‘ub-..- .- g... .M- ._ --.~_. -. -. . .-‘__ .. 9.-.“.-. -..-_.,.__._ . .._..- ._,....,_.-__ .._‘_.~..,.__.___‘.~ ._ a ‘ ,‘_ n 0-: ()2.umn..1t‘;€...'1Mimi 051.101.1110 '1 1")" burrgh twat:h.t11'r'1'('."~=s (that-1:47:11, 13211;, If-o .1312) are in }hearse-11*I'.u“1~3(f-:-3. 183018.113 (‘Jz‘nr’rtwh A 1.]. (:tiirr'clai.1011;: élf’e“. grahairii-i‘. (Iv/elf) 31-3111». ‘t.1‘I1d."-:l‘1int-.11 arr-‘2 1* :‘.‘-3'.-'g.;1rxi.f"1(-Rub at. the .(l‘) J.~‘~:Wf~2.1o m“ 131 Table 20 Factor Matrices and Communalities* for OAS Form.X, Mason.Sample. NBBS. Quartimax Principal Axes Items I II III I II III h2 1 89 18 33 52 ~00 ~33 38 2 32 65 O9 52 -50 ~08 53 3 76 08 05 78 19 ~06 58 8 53 20 ~28 57 OO 23 38 5 68 -06 -15 62 29 18 89 6 38 18 -16 81 OO 16 19 7 78 02 18 7O 23 ~15 56 8 51 55 -12 67 -38 12 58 Per cent total variance: 65 20 6 72 13 6 f f -;_ w *Decimals omitted. All figures are positive unless indicated. 8 132 Table 21 Item.Intercorre1ations and Communality Estimates* For OAS Form.Y5 Mason Sample. N-85. Items 1 2 3 8 5 6 7 8 1 (83) 3O 26 35 83 23 26 22 2 (38) 26 36 32 27 35 26 3 (26)‘ 29 22 18_ 19 ’ 29 h (36) 35 25 28 £9 5 (86) 28 38 27 6 (25) 26 25 7 (35) 33 8 (31) *communsiities estimated by Burt's technique (Cattell, 1952, p. 158) are in parentheses. Decimals omitted. A11 correlations are positive. Coefficients underlined are not significant at the .05 level. Photor Matrices and Communalities* for OAS Form Y, Table 22 133 mason Sample. N-85. Quartimax Principal Axes Items I II III I II -III 82 l 62 ~22 ~06 59 27 ~12 83 2 56 18 18 58 ~06 15 37 3 82 ~08 28 82 .11 25 26 8 57 ~07 18 57 18 13 36 5 65 ~06 ~18 63 11 ~23 86 6 88 18 ~05 85 ~18 ~07 23 7 53 28 ~01 55 ~22 ~03 36 8 88 32 ~02 87 -27 ~02 29 Per cent total variance: 83 10 88 10 6 717‘ *Decimal points omitted. All figures are positive unless indicated. pcmowmwnmwm mmm_opm ponddhopq: mpGoaoemmooo .momoneqonmm cw one AJmH .a .Nmma..HHmppmov osvflcnoop n.9n5m hp Umpmsapmm mowpflamndesooe .o>wpflmom ohm mnoflpmamhhoo Add .HoeoH mo. one. a... 836.28 3888 Hm I I 33 0TH eHM mm 83 omum mHH mm em 85 6TH fix R an mm 33 Home mHa mm mm mm mm 33 SH NHH mm mlH .:.H. mm mm 3.3 were fix 8 mm 5 mm em 8 :3 EH 6H8 mm 8 mm 3 mm 8 em as a: an mm 3 mm mm mm .olm He .3 83 6TH mm mm om m. mm mm 3 3 5 mm 2.3 omum ax mm 4m mm NH. H; om mm em on am 85 0TH ex mm on em em as mm am he an cm as Ammv em-m ma mm mm 3 mm an 9m am. an am am he em Rs 88 he 3 om 8 an R Hm 3 Hm 13 mm 5 3 3 2.3 were me R R NH. em on em em on mm mm m elH. am 3 Re EH. «H mm. om. mm H NIH. em mm mm on 2 mm 8 Hm He om $3 mane HM eHM mHM 4H» 9W NHUH HHx QHN ex we am he mu nu me we HM .8388» a Shoshone .N shoe 28 wth mwlz «odgemm comm: "Apnoelpmom .H_Ehom mdov wax: N moanmflnm> How *mopmeepmm hpflamcquoo one meoflpmamnhooamecH mm OHQmB M 838.86 one Factor Hitrices and Com-unalitiee* for Variables 11718 (OAS Form 1, pro-test) and Variables 19416 Mason Sample, NiBS Table 211 (GAS Form Y, post-test): 135 Quartinax Principal Axe; Variables ‘I II III I II III h? .11 87 03 ~39 86 18 ~36 37 12 55 ~86 ~ll 53 ~38 ~32 53 13 68 09 ~18 68 12 ~12 89 18 57 ~07 26 57 ~18 18 80 13 65 28 08 66 '18 11 88 25 89 35 12 50 25 28 38 I7 65 15 ~31 65 26 ~25 58 18 67 ~25 08 66 ~26 ~10 51 x9 58 ~02 20 58 ~11 15 38 110 63 ~06 ~01 63 ~07 ~06 80 x11 86 52 ~15 88 52 06 51 112 59 O7 18 60 ~02 16 39 x13 55 ~05 15 55 ~12 09 32 118 81 O3 85 82 ~18 8O 37 115 55 ~18 ~08 58 ~12 ~11 32 116 88 ~01 08 88 ~08 02 19 Per cent total variance : S5 9 7 55 9 7 *Decinal points omitted. indie and e All figures are positive unless otherwise Correlation latrix: Table 25 136 OAS Total Score and 33 Personal, Social-Situational, and Performance Variables. Lenawee County Sample, N-833. . . BSSSREFSSflSemHmmruNH 21 N N l 2 3 8 5 6 7 8 '-~ 68 85 13 38 19 02 10 -v* hl 11 3h 1h ll 05 -- -02 35 10 O7 08 -- -01 ~05 03 10 -- 10 ~08 l7 ~~ ~03 ~09 9 26 28 15 ll 26 03 -- 15 ~03 03 10 ll 28 ~03 29 ~06 10 ~11 19 -O7 12 03 06 ~01 31 -O7 -- -12 NOTE: These variables are described by'variable nwmber in the variable identification form following this table. Two variables on the identification form These are do not appear on Table 25. variable numbers 31 and 36. was omitted because it is redundant, being the sum of variables 29 and 30. Variable 36 was omitted because data on it were available for a sample of only 107. 12 ~07 -02 ~09 03 -02 -17 15 12 ~05 05 Number 31 13 18 15 16 ~08 ~12 ~13 ~01 -13 ~13 06 ~02 ~20 ~08 16 02 16 17 12 02 21 O8 12 06 16 17 ~11 07 ~11 ~07 07 ~10 09 ~06 ~06 08 ~03 ~05 08 27 ~06 ~25 ~05 08 02 ~18 01 ~38 00 18 07 20 O9 01 06 ~11 O8 ~~ ~OO 17 18 15 ll 08 08 03 02 ~02 10 ~01 05 12 Ol 06 00 O6 137 [Table 25: continued] 18 19 20 21 22 23 28, 25 26 27 28 29 3O 32 33 38 35 16 ~11 28 03 ll 20 06 28 21 ~07 29 88 22 ~07 37 50 ~30 1 15 ~11 27 08 07 22 O7 28 28 01 35 88 29 ~13 81 53 ~19, 2 11 ~09 19 05 '02 17 22 3O 13 ~08 21 27 16 ~05 23 89 ~23 3 ~01 07 ~01 ~00 01 06 ~05 ~08 ~02 ~03 10 08 12 06 ll 01 ~10 8 06 ~09 19 08 08 12 17 25 12 ~01 13 18. 09 ~13 15 35 ~18 5 28 ~88 38 12 10 ~06 06 12 23 02 05 05 02 ~07 ll 17 ~10 6 ~06 05-08 01-08 18-03 08-03 07 05 07 07 ~07 05-02-08 7 425m4bwm18nmmmellwmopn 8 25 ~11 36 18 25 ~01 09 26 25 06 O9 25 18 ~03 12 26 ~07 9 33 ~29 50 17 15 03 08 23 20 21 12 23 11 ~11 18 18 Ol 10 ~18 21 ~26 ~13 ~18 ~08 ~15 ~26 ~13 ~05 ~05 Ol 00 ~00 ~08 ~15 ~10 11 ~05 19 ~18 ~06 ~05 10 ~01 08 ~08 ~07 02 ~08 02 12 ~08 ~01 06 12 ~18 16 ~28 ~11 ~13 06 ~12 ~18 ~26 03 ~01 ~12 ~09 03 ~08 ~12 01 13 10 ~03 09 08 08 03 08 18 08 02 15 17 05 Ol 17 08 02 18 ~80 82 ~85 ~12 ~09 ~01 ~08 ~23 ~15 ~16 ~05 ~16 OO 16 ~08 ~11 ~01 15 0007-02-0808080003080806~0108~00 0700-03 16 08 ~01 ~08 02 ~03 17 o3 09 08 Ol 08 08 O7 08 06 18 ~07 17 -~ ~86 87 19 27 ~03 18 20 27 10 03 O6 00 ~10 10 13 00 18 ~~ ~51 ~11 ~16 02 ~13 ~23 ~28 ~10 ~07 ~07 ~03 13 ~12 19 ~08 l9 ~~ 28 30 ~09 19 37 37 18 O9 27 11 ~28 19 38 06 20 ~~22~1309201306061509~06061108 21 -- ~13 09 16 33 06 05 18 09 ~05 09 10 08 22 ~~ 10 17 ~01 OO 11 09 ~01 -08 O7 16 ~22 23 ~~ 20 13 ~02 08 03 00 ~06 ~02 16 03 28 ~~ 20 16 17 18 12 ~18 21. 38 ~06 25 ~~ 13 12 18 11 ~09 18 22 ~02 26 ~~~~02 OO 12 ~06 01 08 02 27 -- 3O 09 ~22 65 19 ~06 28 -- 37 ~08 39 28 ~10 29 ~~ O7 O9 06 ~05 3O -- ~23 ~13 ~02 32 -- 22—05 33 ~~ ~13 38 mumix Identification l 2 3 10 13 nun—— Variable Identification for Correlation matricesl/ Description Occupational ASpiration Scale Scores College Aspiration Level C. F. I. Q. Scores 16 Personality Factor Test: Factor "A" (Cyclothymia vs. Schizothymia)2 16 PF: Factor "B" (General Intelligence vs. {ental Defect) 16 PF: Factor "C" (Emotional stability or ego strength vs. dissatisfied emotionality) 16 PF: Factor "E" (Dominance or Ascendance vs. Submission) 16 PF: Factor "F" (Surgency vs. desurgency, or depressive anxiety) 16 PF: Factor "G" (Character or super-ego strength vs. lack of internal standards) 16 PF: Factor "H" (Adventurous Autonomic resilience vs. inherent, withdrawn schizothymia) 16 PF: Factor "I" (Emotional sensitivity vs. tough maturity) 16 PF: Factor "L" (Paranoid schizothymia vs. trustful altruism) 16 PF: Factor "M" (Hysterical unconcern or "bohemianismfl, vs. practical concernedness) 16 PF: Factor "N" (Sophistication vs. rough simplicity) }/ Based on coding key for card 1.18. 3/ First characteristic refers to high score ,n ,. 7 ‘ wnmix Identification 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 28 25 26 27 28 29 3O —‘ -2- Description 16 PF: Factor "0" (Anxious insecurity vs. placid self-confidence) 16 PF: Factor "Q " (Radicalism vs. Conservativism) 16 PF: Factor'"Q " (Independent self-sufficiency vs. lack of resolution) 16 PF: Factor "Q " (Will control and character stability) 16 PF: Factor "Q " (Nervous tension CTP: Total Adjustment Score EVA 1 (Belief at work is of expressive value vs. instrumental value) EVA 2 (Positive vs. negative evaluation of structured time) EVA 3 (Positive vs. negative evaluation of physical mObility) EVA 8 (Positive vs. negative evaluation of change) EVA 5 ' (Belief in internal vs. external determination of events) EVA 6 (Positive vs. negative evaluation of delayed gratification) Occupational Crystallization (Certainty of occupational choice) Father's educational status Parental desire for ego's postnhigh school educational mobility Parental desire for ego's high occupational achievement 1 2/ First.characteristic refers to high score ".§-—. '"'§._ intrix Identifi cation 31 32 33 38 35 36 Description Parental desire for ego's'high social status (Index based on nods 29 and 30 above) Status Anxiety Sewell, S.E.S. scores Grade Point Average: 1956 - 1957 Number of agricultural courses through 1957 Agricultural GPA through 1957 APPENDIX C Questionnaire Forms and Coding Key 181 YOUR NAME_ THE MSU WORK BELIEFS CHECK-LIST Lnstructions : This check-list is made up of statements people often say they believe. You will probably find that you agree with some and disagree with others. If you agree with a statement, circle Agra; if you disagree with a statement, circle Disagree. Do not omit any. Be sure your name is on the t0p of this sheet. ’fi 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.5 3.6 -1- The only purpose of working is to make money. I believe a man needs to work in order to feel that he has a real place in the world I feel sorry for peOple whose jobs require that they take orders from others. Every man should have a job that gives him a steady income. The happiest men are those who work only when they need money: Doing a good job day in and day out is one of the most satisfying eXperiences a man can have. A regular job is good for one. I feel sorry for rich people who never learn how good it is to have a steady Job. I don't like people who are always right on time for every appointment they have. I feel sorry for people who have to do the same thing every day at the same time. . I don't like to have to make appointments.‘ I believe that promptness is a virtue. I usually schedule my activities. I'd rather let things happen in their own way rather than scheduling them.by a clock. It makes me feel bad to be late for an appointment. I expect people who have appointments with me to be right on time. I would be unhappy living away from.my relatives. I hope to move away from here within the next few years. People who can't leave their hometowns are hard for me to understand. A man's first loyalty should be to his home community. When a boy becomes a man, he should leave home. I like to see new things and meet new pe0ple. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.7 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.8 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.7 I like to try new things. On the whole, the old ways of doing things are the best. life would be boring without new experiences. I like people who are willing to change. Cn the whole, most changes mAke things worse. The happiest people are those who do things the way their parents did. New things are usually better than old things. I believe that a person can get anything he wants if he's willing to work for it. Man should not work too hard, for his fortune is in the hands of God. A man shouldn't work too hard because it won't do him any good unless luck is with him. 'With a little luck I believe I can do almost anything I really want to do. A person shouldn't h0pe for much in this life. If a man can't better himself it's his own fault. Practically everything I try to do turns out well for me. I usually fail when I try something important. I would rather work than go to school. Money is made to spend, not to save. I think there's something wrong with people who go to school for years when they could be out earning a living. One gains more in the long run if he studies than if he gets a job. The more school a person gets the better off he is. Generally speaking, things one works hard for are the best. When I get a little extra money I usually Spent it. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree SCORING KEY (Tentative) 1957-1960 MSU4Work Beliefs ChecksList l.Umkmlined responses are scored one point; all others are scored zero points- 2.'There is a score for each sub-area, six scores in all. . 1.1 1a2 1.3 1.8 1.5 ln6 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 The only purpose of working is to make money. - I believe a man needs to work in order to feel that he has a real place in the world. * I feel sorry for people whose jobs require that they take orders from.others. Every man should have a job that gives him a steady income.‘ The happiest men are those who work only When they need money." Doing a good job day in and day out is one of the most satisfying experiences a man can have. A regular job is good for one. I feel sorry for rich people who never learn how good it is to have a steady job. I don't like people who are always right on time for every appointment they have. I feel sorry for people who have to do the same thing every day at the same time. I don't like to have to make appointments.- I believe that promptness is a virtue. I usually schedule my activities.- I'd rather let things happen in their own way rather than scheduling them.by a clock.‘ It makes me feel bad to be late for an appointment. I expect people Who have appointments with me to be right on time. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 851322 15:22 Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Dis ee 2183:2252 Disagree Disagree W Disagree Disagree 3.1 3-2 383 3.8 3.5 3.6 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.7 5.1 5.5 -23... I would be unhappy living away from my relatives. I hope to move away from here within the next few years. People who can't leave their hometowns are hard for me to understand. Almnfls first loyalty should be to his home community. When a boy becomes a man, he should leave home; Ilike to see new things and meet new people. I like to try new things. 0n the whole, the old ways of doing things are the best: life would be boring without new experiences. I like people who are willing to change. On the whole, most changes make things worse. The happiest people are those who do things the way their parents did. lhw'things are usually better than old things. I believe that a person can get anything he wants if he's willing to work for it. Man should not work too hard, for his fortune is in the hands of God. A man shouldn't work too hard because it won't do him any good unless luck is with him. kflth a little luck I believe I can do almost anything I really want to do. A.person.shouldn't hope for much in.this life. If a man can't better himself it's his own fault. Practically everything I try to do turns out well for me. IIueually fail when I try something important. I would rather work than go to school. Money is made to spend, not to save. I think there's something wrong with pe0ple who go to school for years when they could be out earning a living. Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree W Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Dis ee Disagree Biases: ‘ ‘n. , .,~ -.. "g, "MA_ . 1 , ., —._ ‘ u 4 I u I \ "~— . _. , 1., ' l r x ._ ‘ _ . ‘ v ‘ . "‘ .1 . - 3 - (he gains more in the long run if he studies than if he gets a job. The more school a person gets the better off he is. (knerally speaking, things one works hard for are the best. When I get a little extra money I usually spend it. Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTI‘IENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY. THE OCCUPATIONAL PLANS OF MICHIGAN YOUTH Dear Student: This survey is an attempt to get a better picture of the problems you young geople face in choosing your life's occupation, and the attitudes you have towards 'uese problems. By carefully filling out this questionnaire you will help us to gahla better understanding of how these problems look from where you stand. This infinwetion'will be of great value in deve10ping counseling programs for high mimol youth. For this reason we are anxious to have you answer the questions on was form to the best of your ability. REESE FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS: 1. Read each item carefully. .Answer to the best of your knowledge. 2. E3 sure t2_answer each question. Where there are brackets, fill in an "X". Be sure that your "X" is squarely in the proper bracket before your choice. ‘Where only a space is left, enter the word or figures called for. If you cannot answer the question, write "I do not know." 3. There are several questions which refer to your parents. If for any reason you are not living with your parents, answer for the person who acts as your parent or guardian. 8. If you have any comment to make, if you did not understand any item, if your attitudes differ from those given, or if you have problems which we failed to mention, write about them on the margin close to the items near them in meaning. 2. ABOUT MYSELF 1.8H NAME IS . 2.MI ADDRESS IS: it MY.AGE (to nearest birthday) IS: . ‘ . THEDATE .OF MY BIRTH. WAS *1 . Month Day Year 1h MY SEX IS: ( ) male ( ) female 5.] AM A: ( ) junior ( ) senior 6. I MAKE MY REGULAR HOME WITH: ( ) my own parents. ) a parent and a step-parent. ( ) one parent only. ( ) my grandparents. ( ) an uncle or aunt. ( ) other (specify) . 7. MY CHURCH PREFERENCE IS: . Member: ( ) yes ( ) no. 8. THE NAME OF MY HIGH SCHOOL IS: . 9. THE NUMBER OF YEARS I HAVE ATTENDED THIS HIGH SCHOOL IS: . 10. THE KINDS OF EXTRA CURRICULARACTIVITIES IN WHICH I PARTICIPATE ARE: (Check the ones in which you participate regularly, and add to the list if necessary.) ) athletics. ( ) annual. ) band-orchestra. student government. ) chorus-vocal. hobby club. ( ( ) ( ) E ) dramatics. ; other ( ) ( ) ) debates. ) school paper. AAA/\AA II. C PARED TO HOST STUDENTS IN MY HI 3H SCHOOL, MY LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES ARE: ) greater than average. ) about average. ) less than average. And-‘2 ) ) in the open country but not on a farm. ) in a village under 2,500. ) in a town of 2,500 ~ 10,000.. ) in a city over 10,000. 0 ) ) ) WORKING WHILE I AM IN HIGH SCHOOL: I have a fairly regular job outside my family and home. I sometimes work outside my family and home. I do not work outside my family and home. 18. OF ALL THE MEN I KNOW 17mm, THE owes I ADMIRE MOST ABE: Their exact occupations Their relationship to me (their job titles, not the (Friend, relative, teacher, Their names company they work fOr) minister, etc.) l. 15. THE NAMES OF MI BEST FRIENDS ARE: II. ABOUT MY CHOICE OF A LIFE'S OCCUPATION —*-- 1.THE OCCUPATIONS WHICH I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT GOING INTO ARE: 1. 2. —-—- 3. b0 2. THE OCCUPATION THAT I PLAN TO FOLLOW IS: (Indicate particular type of job.) LL IN REGARD TO MY CHOICE OF MY OCCUPATION: ( ) I feel sure that my mind is made up. ( ) I'm not too sure, but I think my mind is made up. ) I'm not sure that my mind is made up. fr E2 {:0 A SJ CARD TO MY CHOICE OF AN OCCUPATION: have given the matter a great deal of thought. have given the matter some thought. have given the matter little thought. Vvv Fihihi m S O E KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORK I INTEND TO ENTER: have good knowledge because I have worked at it. have good knowledge because I have relatives or friends who work at it. have a general knowledge, but don‘t know much about the details of it. don't know much about it yet, but will find out by experience on the job. don't know much about it yet, but will find out when I go on to school. dondt know because I have not yet made a choice. AAA/\Af‘ #3 AAA WVVVV H H H H H H 6. FOR THE OCCUPATION I HAVE CHOSEN I THINK MI ABILITY IS: ) Very'much above average. ) somewhat above average. ) JuSt average. ) somewhat below average. ) venv‘much below average. ) I don't know because I have not yet made a choice. ( ( ( ( ( ( -14.. 7.COMPARED WITH MY FRIENDS, I THINK MY CHANCES FOR GETTING AHEAD IN THE OCCUPATION OF MY CHOICE ARE: 8.IN é THE () () () () () ) very much above average. somewhat above average. just average. somewhat below average. very much below average. OCCUPATION I HAVE CHOSEN I CAN EXPECT HELP IN GETTING STARTED: from.my father or mother who is in this type of work. from relatives who are in this type of work. from friends who are in this type of work. from no one. I don't know because I have not made my choice yet. 9.AS TO FOLLOWING HIS OCCUPATION, (FOR BOYS ONLY) MY FATHER HAS: ( ) tried to encourage me. ( ) neither tried to encourage or discourage me. ( ) tried to discourage me. ML IN THIS QUESTION EACH LINE PRESENTS TWO FACTS PEOPLE CONSIDER WHEN THEY CHOOSE A JOB. YOU ARE TO UNDERLINE THE FACT Ygg BELIEVE TO BE THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THE TWO IN CHOOSING YOUR JOB. 1. 2. 3. IO. Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact Fact, Fact 11. IF I wwa WOULD BED IQoTHE IS: The 1 2 The l: The 2: The The The 1: 2: The The l: 2: : The The NI—J : The : The narJ The : The “3F’ 1: The 2: The The l: 2 The O. The l 2 The money you can make. difficulty in getting the required education. working hours. social standing of the occupation. good you can do difficulty in getting the required education. good you can do social standing of the occupation working hours money you can make money you can make good you can do social standing of the occupation money you can make good you can do working hours working hours difficulty in getting the required education difficulty in getting the required education social standing of the occupation E ABSOLUTELY FREE TO GO INTO ANY KIND OF'WORK I WANTED, MY CHOICE TYPE OF WORK I WOULD LIKE TO BE DOING WHEN I AM 30 YEARS OLD \ l3. -5- REGARDING MY PLANS FOR EDUCATION AFTER I LEAVE HIGH SCHOOL ( ) I plan to get more education after high school ( ) I do not plan to get more education after high school £1: PLANNING 1Q GET MORE EDUCATION: I. THE NUMBER OF YIARS OF FURTHER EDUCATION I PLAN TO GET IS: ( ) two years or less ( ) three or four years ( ) five or six years ( ) seven or more years 2. THE NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF THE SCHOOLS I All THINKING ABOUT ATTENDING ARE: (1) Name of School Location of School (2) _ (3) __ 3. THE COURSES OF STUDY I AM THINKING ABOUT TAKING ARE: (1) (2)_‘ (3) _L 1:. AS FAR AS I KNOW NON, THE HIGHEST DEGREE I HOPE TO EARN IS: ) none ) bachelor's degree ) master‘s degree ) doctor's degree ) other degree 3: OTHER DEGREE THE DEGREE I HOPE TO GET IS: - 6 - III. ABOUT I_~D_(_ PARENTS 1. NT PARENTS ARE: 1A. MY FATHER'S FULL NAME IS: both living together. both dead. 1B. MY MOTHER'S FULL NAME IS: father is dead. () () () ( ) mother is dead. ( ) divorced. ( ) separated. 2. NY MOTHER : ( ) has no job outside the home. ( ) has a part-time job outside the home. ( ) has a full-time job outside the home. 3.}H'FATHER'S OCCUPATION IS: ( or was, if dead or retired) (Specify the kind of Tumk he does and not where he works.) __¥ IF. FATHER E. A FARI-‘IER HY FATHER IS: ( 5 owner ( ) renter ( ) laborer THE NUMBER OF ACRES MY FATHER OPERAEES IS: . L,}H FATHER CONSIDERS HIS OCCUPATION TO BE: completely satisfactory. fairly satisfactory. good enough. not very good. very poor. 5.}H MOTHER CONSIDERS MY FATHER‘S OCCUPATION TO BE: completely satisfactory. fairly satisfactory. good enough. not very good. very poor. AAA/\A kJ‘ .THE OCCUPATION OF MY FATHER'S FATHER WAS:__ ?.THE OCCUPATION OF MY FOTHER'S FATHER WAS:___ L J.) 1 THE COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF MY FATHER WAS: 9.THE COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF MY MOTHER WAS:__‘ THE COUNTRT- OF BIRTH OF MY FATHER'S FATHER HAS: 1.THE COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF MY MOTHER'S FATHER WAS:__ NH MY FATHER'S EDUCATION CONSISTED OF: ) less than 8 grades. ) 8 grades. ) 9-11 grades. ) 12 grades. ) some college. ) college degree. AAA/‘\Af-\ c: at £2 MOTHER'S EDUCATION CONSISTED OF: ( ) less than 8 grades. ( ) 8 gradesn ( ) 9 - ll grades. ( ) 12 grades. ( ) some college. ( ) college degree A. I BEAIEVE My FATHER'S EDUCATION IS: ) completely satisfactory. ) fairly satisfactory. ) good enough. ) not very good. ) very poor. A “AAA 3-5. MY FATHER TRIM-LS TFAT THE EDUCATION HE OBTAINED IS: ) completely satisfactory. ) fairly satisfactory. ) good enough. ) not very good. ) very poor. AAA/\A E IN COMPARISON TO THE INCOW OF THE PAF NTS OF OTHER STUDENTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL THE INCOME OF MY PARENTS IS: ( ) one of the highest incomes. ( ) higher than average. ( ) just average. ( ) less than average. ( ) one of the lowest incomes. 779 NY PARENTS ARE COESIDEIED BY MOST PEOPLE IN THE COMNUNITY TO BE: ) very important people. ) rather important people. ) just average peeple. ) of less than average importance. ) not at all important AA/N /\ A _ 8 - IV. ABOUT ME AND MY PARENTS 1. AS TO CONTINUING MY EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOLVNY FATHER: has strongly encouraged me to continue. has given me some encouragement to continue. has never said much about it. feels that I would be better of going to work after high school. feels that I Should quit high school and go to work. AAAAA 2. AS TO (INTINUIN-GMY EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL MY MOTHER: has strongly encouraged me to continue. has given me some encouragement to continue. has never said much about it. feels that I would be better off going to work after high school. feels that I should quit high school and go to work. AAA/\A 3. AS TO ANY FURTHER HELP FROM MY FOLKS IN GETTING A START OR IN CONTINUING MY SCHOOLIIG AFTER HIGH SCHOOL, MY PARENTS WOULD BE: ( ) financially able to help me a great deal. ( ) financially able to give me some help. ( ) financially able to give me no help. A. AS TO FULTHER HELP FROM MY T‘ARENTS AFTER I FINISH HIGH SCHOOL, MY DARENTS WOULD BE: ( ) willing to help me a great deal. ) willing to give me some help. ( ) willing to give me no help. 5. AS TO THE KIND OF JOB I GO INTO, MY FAT ER: ( ) wants me to have a very irportant job. ( ) wants me to have a job that is quite a bit better than most jobs around here. ( ) wants me to have a job that is a little bit better than most jobs around here. ( ) feels that the job I take Should be as good as most jobs around here. ( ) does not care how good the job I go into is. 6. AS TO THE KIND OF JOB I GO INTO.MY MOTHER: ( ) wants me to have a very important job. ( ) wants me to have a job that is quite a bit better than most jobs around here. ( ) wants me to have a job that is a little bit better than most jobs around here. ( ) feels that the job I take should be as good as most jobs around here. Q 2 does not care how good the job I go into is. - 9 - 70 MI FAMILY IS TOO POOR TO BUY 1E THE KDID OF THINGS I NEED: ( ) Yes ( ) No 8. THE GIRLS I WOULD LIKE TO DATE PREFER TO GO OUT WITH BOYS WHOSE F .HILIES ARE MORE D'iPORTANT TITAN I‘iINE. ( ) Yes ( ) NO 9. I OFTEN NISH MY FATHER (OR FOTHER OR GUARDIAN) HAD A BETTER JOB. ( ) yes ( ) No 10. I OFTEN WISH NY FATHER E'JA)‘ A MORE IMPORTANT MAN IN THE COTE‘TUNITY. THAN HE IS. ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. ABOUT Ml BROTHERS AND SISTERS (Write "0" if your answer is "none".) 1. THE NUMBER OF OLDER BROTHERS I HAVE IS:______. 2. THE NUMBER OF TOUNOER BROTHERS I HAVE IS:______, 3. THE NUMBER OF OLDER SISTERS I HAVE IS:______, 1.. THE NUMBER OF YOUNGER SISTERS I HAVE IS :_____. 5. THE NUMBER OF MY OLDER BROTHERS AND SISTERS THAT CRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL IS: . 6. THE NUMBER THAT QUIT SCHOOL BEFORE GRADUATING FRQA HIGH SCHOOL IS: . 7 . THE NUMBER THAT HAVE ATTENDED OR ARE ATTENDING COLLEGE IS: . - 10 - 8. BELCM IS THE NAME, SEX, AGE, OCCUPATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF EACH OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS: (Start with the oldest brother or sister and include all brothers and sisters. If in school, put "student." If sister is married and not working outside the home, put "housewife.") Male or Place of Residence Name Female Age Occugation : (town and state) 2._ _. _- " ”— 3.__ __ ,f i _ __ h.__ __ I _ 5. . Afl_ 6. IF YOU HAVE A BROTHER. OR SISTER. ( or moEe) 9. COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY FATHER MAS: ( ) much more interested in'what I did. ( ) a little more interested in what I did. ( ) just about equally interested in what each of us did. ( ) a little less interested in what I did. ( ) much less interested in what I dido lO. COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS, I BELIEVE MY MOTHER WAS: ( ) much more interested in what I did. ( ) a little more interested in what I did. ( ) just about equally interested in what each of us did. ( ) a little less interested in what I did. ( ) much less interested in what I did. ll. COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY FATHER WAS: ( ) much kinder to me. ( ) a little kinder to me. ( ) about equally kind to each of us. ( ) a little less kind to me. ( ) much less kind to me. 1.2 o COMPARED TO I'.I.OST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY MOTHER WAS: ) much kinder to me. ) a little kinder to me. ) about equally kind to each of us. ) a little less kind to me. ) much less kind to me. ( ( ( ( ( -11.. 13. COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY FATHER WAS: ( ) much more attentive to me. ( ) a little more attentive to me. ( ) about equally attentive to‘each of us. ( ) a little less attentive to me. ( ) much less attentive to me. 1U. COMPARED TO MOJT OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BEIJEVE MY MOTHER WAS: ( ) much more attentive to me. ( ) a little more attentive to me. ( ) abOut equally attentive to each of us. ( ) a little less attentive to me. ( ) much less attentive to me. 15. USUALLY I WAS: ( ) much more interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. ( ) a little more interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. ( ) about as interested in my brothers and sisters as they were in me. ( ) a little less interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. ( ) much less interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. 3;. ABOUT nix: HOUSE l. OUR HOME IS: ( ) owned ( ) rented. 2. THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO LIVE AT OUR HOUSE IS: . 3. THE IUMBER OF ROOMS IN OUR HOUSE IS: . Do not include basements, bathrodfiEI—Ebrches, closets, halls.) h. THE CONSTRUCTICN OF OUR HOUSE IS: ) brick. ) unpainted frame. ) painted frame. ) other (specify) . ( ( ( ( 5. THE LIGHTING IN OUR HOUSE IS: '( ) oil lamps. ( ) electric. ( ) gas, mantle, or pressure lamps. ( ) other or none. - 12 - THE KIND OF REFRIGERATOR WE HAVE IS: ) ice. ( ( ) mechanical (gas or electric). ( ) other or none. :JE HAVE A DEEP FREEZE LOCKER AT CUR HOTE: ( ) yes ( ) no. ‘WE HAVE RUNNING‘WATER IN OUR HOUSE: ( ) yes ( ) no. WE} TAKE A DAILY NEISPAPER: ( ) yes ( ) no. 'HE HAVE A POWER WASHING HHCHINE: ( ) yes ( ) no. WE HAVE A RADIO: ( ) yes ( ) no. WE HAVE A CAR (other than truck): ( ) yes ( ) no. WE HAVE A TELEPHONE: ( ) yes ( ) no. MI FATHER GOES TO CHURCH AT LTAST ONCE A MONTH: ( ) yes ( ) no. HT MOTHER GOES TO CHURCH AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH: ( ) yes ( ) no. (GO BACK AND CHECK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION.) THANK YOU. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University Card 1.1: Column No. 1010 1-2 1.1.3-5 10 10 6‘7 1.1.8 1.1.9 1.1.10 1.1.11 1.1.12 1.1.13 1.1.1h 1.1.15 1.1.16 1.1.17 1.1.18 1.1.19 1.1.20 LENAWEE I R. .Q. Scores-- IPAT, Test of G: B. Cattell and A.K.S. Cattell, 1950. Key,gMichigan 1 A. O. Haller COUNTY STUDY OF 17 YR. OLD BOYS Culture Free Scale 3A, by Card identification-—two digit field (2df) 01- Card 1.1 (This card is punched Ol) 02- Card 1.2 03" Card 10 3 nn~ Card l.nn Person identification- School identification- Ol- Addison 02- Adrian 03- Blissfield Oh- Britton 05- Catholic Central (Adrian) 06- Clinton Test 1, question 1 (T1, ql.) 0- wrong 1- right Y4 no answer Tl, q2: T1, q3: T1, qh: Tl, qS: Tl, q6: Tl, q7: Tl, q8: Tl, Q9: Tl, qu: Tl, qll: T1, q12: Tl, ql3: see 1.1.8 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto 07- Deerfield 08- Hudson 09- Morenci 10- Onsted 11- Sand Creek 12- Tecumseh 1.1.21 T2, q1: see 1.1.8 1L115o Th, qI: see 1.1.8 1.1551 Th, q2: ditto 1.1.22 Blank 1.1852 Th, q3: ditto 1.1.53 Th, qu: ditto 1.1.23 T2, q2: ditto 1.1;5h Th, q5: ditto 1.1.2h T2, q3: ditto 1.1.55 Th, q6: ditto 1.1125 T2, qh: ditto 1.1156 Th, q7: ditto 1.1126 T2, q5: ditto 1.1.57 Th, q8: ditto 1.1527 T2, q6: ditto 1.1.58 Th, q9: ditto 1.1.28 T2, q7: ditto 1.1.59 Th, qu: ditto 1.1.60-61 Test 1 total score 2df OO- zero points 01- one point 1.1.29 T2, q8: ditto 1.1.30 T2, q9: ditto 1.1.31 T2, qu: ditto 13- thirteen points YY- test not attempted 1.1.32 T2, q11: ditto 1.1.62-63 Test 2 total score 2df 1.1.33 T2, q12: ditto OO- zero points 01- one point 1.1.3h T2, q13: ditto : 1b- fourteen points 1.1.35 T2,~q18: ditto YY~ test not attempted 1.1.36 T3, q1: ditto 1.1.6h-65 Test 3 total score 2df OO- zero points 1.1.37 Blank 01- one point T3, q2: ditto 13- thirteen points YY- test not attempted 1.1.38 1.1.39 T3, q3: ditto 1.1.66-67 Test A total score 2df 1.1.bO T3, qb: ditto OO— zero points 01- one point 1.1.h1 T3, q5: ditto : . 10- ten points 1.1.h2 T3, q6: ditto YY- test not attempted 1.1.68-69 Total raw score 2df OO— zero points Ol~ one point 1.1.h3 T3, q7: ditto 1.1.hb T3, q8: ditto 50- fifty points YY- test 1, test 2, test 3, or test b, not attempted 1.1.h5 T3, q9: ditto 1.1.u6 T3, qu: ditto 1.1.h7 T3, q11: ditto 1.1.70—72 Total I.Q. score 3 df 000- zero points 1.1.h8 T3, q12: ditto 001- one point 1.1.h9 T3, q13: ditto 999- nine hundred, ninty-nine YYY- Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, or Test b, not attempted Card 1.2: Column No. 1.2.1-2 1:253-5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.20.8 1.2.9 1.2.10 1.2.11 1.2.12 1.2.13 1.2.1h-15 1.2.16-17 lo 2018“].9 1.2.20-21 PAGE 2 Occupational Aspiration Scale Scores A. O. Haller, 1957 Card identification 2 df 01- Card 1:1 02'- Card 102 03- Card 103 nn- Card l.nn Person identification 3 df Question 1: First Score for realistic Choice level at end of schooling 0- zero points 1- one point t 9- nine points Y— no answer Question 2: First Score for idealistic choice level at end of schooling See 1.2.6 Question 3: Second Score for realistic choice level at end.of schooling See 1.2.6 Question h: Second Score for idealistic choice level at end of schooling see 1.2.6 Question 5: First score fbr realistic choice level at age 30 see 1.2.6 Question 6: First score fbr idealistic Choice level at age 30 see 1.2.6 Questidn 7: Second score fer realistic choice level at age 30 see 1.2.6 Question 8: Second score for idealistic choice level at age 30 Sum of scores for Questions 1 and 3: realistic choice level at end of schooling 2 df OO- zero points 01- one point 18- eighteen points YY- no answer Sum of scores for Questions 2 and h: idealistic choice level at end of schooling 2 df see 1.2.1h-15 Sum of scores for Questions 5 and 7: realistic choice level at age 30 see 1.2.lh-15 Sum of scores for Questions 6 and 8: idealistic choice level at age 30 see 1.2.lh-15 10 2 0 22.23 1. 20 Zh-Zs 1.2.26-27 1.2.28—29 1.2.30-31 1.2.32—33 loZQBhPBS PAGE 1: Sum.of scores for Questions 1, 3, 5, and 7: realistic choice level 00- zero points 01- one point : 36- thirty-six points If; no answer Sum.of scores for Questions 2, h, 6, and 8: 'idealistic Choice level 00- zero points 01- one point 36- thirtyhsix points 1Y5 no answer Sum.of scores for Questions 1 through 8: level of occupational aspiration OO— zero points 01- one point a 72- seventybtwo points II. no answer BLANK Sum.of Thscores for Questions 1 through 8: level of occupational aspiration 20- twenty points 21- twentybone points 80— eighty points YI- no answer Question 1: First T-score for realistic choice level at end of schooling 20- twenty points 21- twenty-one points 80- eighty points II; no answer Question 2: First T-score for idealistic choice level at end of schooling 20- twenty points 21- twenty-one points 80- eighty points YEA no answer (I. on. .. .t. .. I .\ . . . I. (a . u r... v’ .. . . .. .. . .... ~ tr. 0. . .9. .. v-. I p\ l‘ 9 w .. .. It s. .. o . .\ n . no ' u 0.. ' \ . pi 'e 1'1 '\ ti, (1 .3. r. 1.2.36-37 102038.39 1.2.M 1.2.h2-h3 1.2.hh-h5 1.2.h6-h7 PAGE ha Question 3: Second T-score for realistic choice level at end of schooling 20- twenty points 21- twenty-one points : 80— eighty points YY- no answer Question h: Second T-score for idealistic choice level at end of schooling 20- twenty points 21- twenty-one points 80- eighty points I!- no answer Question 5: First T—score for realistic choice level at age 30 20- twenty points 21- twenty-one points 80- eighty points YI— no answer Question 6: First T-score for idealistic choice level at age 30 20- twenty points 21- twentyhone points 80- eighty points I!- no answer Question 7: Second T-score for realistic choice level at age 30 20- twenty points 21- twentybone points 80- eighty points YY- no answer Question 8: Second T-score for idealistic choice level at age 30 20— twenty points 21- twentyhone points 80- eighty points If; no answer V‘ 1‘ I V; O a \ o 1a 0 0 v... a . L .. 1 u I . ~ ~ I... . .2 1 . . v . . .. .n\ n . 1 . .y. .9 1.) A . .. o C a n .Q. .. . t . . I . .1. .I 7. 1.. . .. . .1. . . .1 .. .1 . .1 v. . I: .7. . . . .- I . \r . n I III . . n O. . n u . . . v n n. . . . . I a. . ... .. .1. u. .. . . .t . . . . t I. . a. ... . .. . a .I . r I II . (I o I l u o. .. a . e. I . 1. . o .3 .u U . I .. u. .. . nu. I. u l .. . u a n .‘I U... V u ... .11.. I . o; .. ~ v 0.. I u . . I I .8!- 1 \o I...‘ Column No. 1.2.h8-h9 1.2.50-51 1.2.52-53 1.2.5b-55 1.2.56-57 l. 2:58-59 1.2.60-61 1.2. 62-63 1.2.6h-65 1.2.66-67 PAGEhb T—sccres for realistic choice level at end of schooling. (2dr) Comted from 1.2.1b-15 20 - twenty points 21 - twenty-one points : 80 - eighty points yy - no answer T—eccrcs: Idealistic choice level at end of schooling. (2dr) Computed from 102016’17 506 1020188489 T-scores: Realistic choice level at age 30. (2d!) Computed from 1.2.18-19 See 1.2.h8-h9 T-scores: Idealistic choice level at age 30. (26!) Computed from 1.2.20-21 See 1.2.hB-h9 Toscores: Realistic choice level. (2dr) Counted from 1.2.22-23 See 1.2.138-449 T-sccres: Idealistic choice level. (2dr) Comted from 1.2.2b-2S See 1.2.h8-h9 Sum of scores for questions 1, 2, S, 6: Split-halt A 00 - zero points 01 - one point : 36 - thirty-six points H-nc answer to one crall of Q1, 2, S, 6 Sum of scores for questions 3, h, 7, 8: Split-half B See 102060-61 T-Scores: Split-half A Computed from 1; 20 6M]. 20 - twenty points 21 - twenty-one points : 80 - eighty points n-noanswertoone crallof sumadquesticns T—Sccres: Split-half B Conputed from 1.2.62-63 See 10 Zea-145 PAGE Card 1.3 IPAT, The 16 P.F. Test, Form B, 1950 Column No. 1.3.1-2 Card identification 2 df ' 01" card 101 02- card 1.2 03- card 1.3 (This card i_ punched 9_3_) nn- card l.nn 1.3.3-5 Person identification 3 df 1.3.6 Question 1 (ql) 0- zero points 1- one point 2- two points Y- no answer 1.3.7 q2 ditto 1.3.26 q21, ditto 1.3.8 q3 ditto 1.3127 q22 ditto 1 1.3128 ‘q23 ditto 1.3.9 qh ditto 1.3.10 qS ditto 1.3.30 qZS 1.3.11 q6 ditto 0- zero points 1- one point 1.3.12 q7 ditto Y- no answer 103013 QB ditto 1.3.31 q26 see 1.3.6 1.3.1h q9 ditto 1.3.32 q27 ditto 1.3.15 q10 ditto - . 1.3.33 q28 ditto 1.3.16 qll ditto 1.3.3h q29 ditto 1.3.17 q12 ditto 1.3.35 q3o ditto 1.3.18 q13 ditto 1.3.36 q3l ditto 1.3.19 qlh ditto 1.3.37 q32 ditto 1.3.20 qlS ditto 1.3.38 q33 ditto 1.3.21 ql6 ditto 1.3.39 q3h ditto 1.3.22 q17 ditto 1.3.ho q35 ditto 1.3.23 q18 ditto 1.3.h1 q36 ditto 1.3.2h ql9 ditto 1.3.h2 q37 ditto 1.3.25 q20 ditto 1.3.h3 q38 ditto 1.3.hb 1.3.h5 1.3.b6 1.3.h7 1.3.h8 1.3.h9 1.3.50 1.3.51 1.3.52 1.3.53 1.3.5h 1.3.55 1.3.56 1.3.57 1.3.58 1.3.59 1.3.60 1.3.61 1.3.62 1.3.63 ‘ 1.3.6h 1.3.65 1.3.66 1.3.67 1.3.68 1.3.69 1.3.70 1.3.71 1.3.72 939 9h0 9h1 9&2 9&3 qhb th 9&6 9h? 9&8 qt? 950 951 952 953 95h 955 956 957 958 959 q6O q6l q62 963 96h 965 q66 967 see 1.3.6 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto see 1.3.30 see 1.3.6 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto PAGE 6 1.3.73 1.3.7h 1.3.75 1.3.76 1.3.77 1.3.78 1.3.79 1.3.80 q68 969 970 971 972 973 97h 975 ditto 'ditto ditto ditto ditto see 1.3.30 see 1.3.6 ditto PM 7713 7 Card 1.h IPAT, The 16 P.F. Test, Form.B, 1950 (continued from Card 1.3) Column No. . l.h.1~2 Card identification 2 df 01— Card 1.1 O2- card 1.2 0h- card lsh (this card is punched 93) nn- card l.nn l.h.3-S Person identification 3 df l.h.6 Question 76 see 1.3.6 1.h.7 q77 ditto 1.t.29 q99 see 1.3.6 1.h.8 q78 ditto 1.h.30 q100 ditto 1.t.9 q79 ditto 1.h.31 q101 ditto 1.h.10 q80 ditto 1.h.32 q102 ditto 1.b.11 q81 ditto 1.h.33 qu3 ditto l.h.l2 q82 ditto l.h.3h q10h see 1.3.30 l.h.13 q83 ditto l.h.35 q105 see 1.3.6 1.h.1h q8h ditto 1.h.36 q106 see 1.3.30 1.u.15 q85 ditto 1.h.37 q107 see 1.3.6 1.h.16 q86 ditto 1.h.38 q108 ditto 1.h.17 q87 ditto 1.h.39 q109 ditto 1.h.18 q88 ditto 1.h.ho qllO ditto 1.b.19 q89 ditto 1.h.h1 qlll ditto 1.h,20 q90 ditto 1.u.u2 q112 ditto 1.h.21 q9l ditto 1.u.h3 q113 ditto 1.h.22 q92 ditto 1.L.bb qllh ditto 1.h.23 q93 ditto 1.h.h5 q115 ditto 1.b.2h q9h ditto 1.h.u6 q116 ditto 1.h.25 q95 ditto 1.h.b7 q117 ditto 1.b.26 q96 ditto 1.h.h8 q118 ditto 1.h.27 q97 ditto 1.b.b9 9119 ditto 1.h.28 q98 ditto 1.h.50 q120 ditto 1.h.51 1.h.52 1.h.53 1.h.5h 1.h.55 1.h.56 1.h:57 1.h.58 1.h.59 1.b.60 1.h.61 1.h.62 1.t.63 1.h.6h 1.b.65 1.h.66 1.b.67 1.h.68 1.b.69 1.h.7O 1.b.71 1.b.72 1.u.73 1.b.7h 1.h.75 1.h.76 1.h.77 1.h.78 1.h.79 1.h.80 q121 q122 q123 ql2h 9125 ql26 q127 q128 9129 ql3O q131 QI32 9133 913b 9135 q136 9137 q138 9139 91h0 qlhl qlh2 qlb3 qlhh qlhs 91h6 91h? qlh8 q1h9 q150 PAGE 8 see 1.3.6 see 1.3.30 see 1.3.6 ditto ditto ditto see 153.30 see 1.3.6 see 1.3.6 ditto ditto ditto see 1.3.30 see 1.3.6 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto see 1.3.30 see 1.3.6 ditto ditto Card 1.5 Column No. 10301-2 10503-5 1.5.6 1.5.7 1.5.8 1.5.9 1.5.10 1.5.11 1.5.12 1.5.13 1.5.1h 1.5.15 1.5.16 1.5.17 1.5.18 1.5.19 1.5.20 1.5.21 1.5.22 1.5.23 1.5.2h 1.5.25 1.5.26 IPAT, 1.h) Card 01- O2- 05- I111" PAGE 9 The 16 P.F. Test, Form.B, 1950 (continued from Cards 1.3 and identification 2 df card 1.1 card 1.2 card 05 (This card is punched 95) card nn Person identification 3 df Question 151 see 1.3.6 q152 9153 qlSh 9155 q156 9157 q158 9159 q160 q161 q162 9163 q16h 9165 q166 9167 q168 9169 ql7O Q171 ditto 1.5.27 q172 see 1.3.6 ditto 1.5.28 ql73 see 1.3.30 ditto 1.5.29 q17h see 1.3.6 ditto 1.5.30 q175 see 1.3.30 ditto 1.5.31 q176 see 1.3.6 ditto 1.5.32 ql77 see 1.3.30 ditto 1.5.33 q178 see 1.3.6 ditto 1.5.3h q179 ditto ditto 1.5.35 q180 ditto ditto 1.5.36 q18l ditto ditto 1.5.37 QI82 see 1.3.30 ditto 1.5.38 q183 see 1.3.6 ditto 1.5.39 918h ditto ditto 1.5.h0 q185 ditto ditto 1.5.b1 q186 ditto ditto 1.5.h2 q187 ditto ditto 1.5.h3-hh Factor A, raw score 2 df (Cyclothymia vs. Schitzothymia ditto OO— zero ditto 20- twenty YY- one or more questions ditto unanswered l'SOhS’h6 1.5-h7“h8 1°50h9‘50 105051-52 loSoSB‘Sh 105055-56 1.5057”58 1.5.59-60 1.5.61-62 1.5.63-6h 1.5.65—66 1.5.67-68 1. 5. 69-70 1.5.71-72 1.5073”7h PAGE 10 Factor B, raw score 00- zero 13- thirteen 2 df (General intelligence vs mental defect) YY- one or more questions unanswered Factor C, raw score 2 df (Emotional stability or ego strength vs dissatisfied emotionality) OO— zero 26- twenty-six YY— one or more questions unanswered Factor E, raw score see 1.5.h7-b8 Factor F, raw score anxiety) Factor G, raw score of internal standards) see loSohB‘hh Factor H, raw score 2 df (Dominance or Ascendance vs Submission) 2 df (Surgency vs desurgency, or depressive see 1.5.h7-h8 2 df (Character or super-ego strength vs. lack 2 df (Adventurous autonomic resilience vs. inherent, withdrawn schizothymia) see 1.5.b7-h8 Factor I, raw score see 1.5.h3-hh Factor L., raw score altruism) see 1.5.h3-bh Factor M, raw score 2 df (Emotional sensitivity vs. tough maturity) 2 df (Paranoid schizothymia vs trustful 2 df (Hysteric unconcern or "bohemianism," vs practical concernedness) see 1.5.h7-h8 Factor N, raw score see 1.5.h3-hh Factor 0., raw scores confidence) see 1050h7-h8 Factor Q1, raw scores see 1.50b3‘hh Factor Q2, raw scores of resolution) see 1.5.h3-hh Factor Q3, raw scores see 1.5.b3-bh Factor Qh, raw scores see 1.5.h7-h8 2 df (Sophistication vs. rough simplicity) 2 df (Anxious insecurity vs placid self- 2 df (Radicalism vs. Conservatism) 2 df (Independent self-sufficiency vs lack 2 df (Will control and character stability) 2 df (Nervous tension) EOE—2.3 .1; Card 1.6 MSU'Work-Beliefs Check-List, 1957 Column No. 1.6;1 2 Card identification 2 df 01— card 1.1 O2- card 1.2 05- card 1-6 (111.18.- 22:9 12. 9.99.9129 96.) nn— card l.nn 1.6.3-5 Person identification 3 df 1.6.6 Question 1.1 1.6.2? q3.6 see 1.6.6 O~ zero points 1— one point 1.6.28 q8.l ditto Y— no answer 1.6.29 q8.2 ditto 1.6.7 ql.2 see 1.6.6 1.6.30 q8.3 ditto 1.6.8 q1.3 ditto 1.6.31 qb.u ditto 1.6.9 q1.8 ditto 1.6.32 q8.5 ditto 1.6.10 q1.5 ditto 1.6.33 98.6 ditto 1.6.11 ql.6 ditto 1.6.38 q8.7 ditto 1.6.12 q1.7 ditto 1.6.35 95.1 ditto 1.6.13 q1.8 ditto 1.6.36 q5.2 ditto 1.6.18 q2.1 ditto 1.6037 qSOB ditto 1.6.15 q2.2 ditto 1.6.38 q5.8 ditto 1.6.16 q2.3 ditto 1.6.39 q5.5 ditto 1.6.17 q2.8 ditto 1.6.80 q5.6 ditto 1.6.18 q2.5 ditto 1.6.81 q5.7 ditto 1.6.19 q2.6 ditto 1.6.82 q5.8 ditto 1.6.20 q2.7 ditto 1.6.83 q6.1 ditto 1.6.21 q2.8 ditto 1.6.88 q6.2 ditto 1.6.22 q3.1 ditto 1.6.85 96.3 ditto 1.6.23 q3.2 ditto 1.6.86 q6.8 ditto 1.6.28 q3.3 ditto 1.6.87 96.5 ditto 1.6.25 q3.8 ditto 1.6.88 q6.6 ditto 1.6.26 q3.5 ditto 1.6.89 q6.7 ditto 1.6.50 1.6.51 1.6.52 1.6.53 1.6.58 1.6.55 PAGE 12 Belief Value Area 1. raw score (Belief that work is of expressive value vs. instrumental value) 0- zero points (instrumental value) 1- one point 8- eight points (instrinsic value) Y - one or more 1. questions unanswered Belief Value Area 2. raw score (Positive vs. negative evaluation of structured time) 0- zero points (negative evaluation) 1— one point 8- eight points (positive evaluation) Y- one or more 2. questions unanswered Belief value Area 3, raw score (Positive vs. negative evaluation of physical mobility) 0- zero points (negative evaluation) 1- one point 6— six points (positive evaluation) Y— one or more 3. questions unanswered Belief Value Area 8. (positive vs. negative evaluation of change) 0— zero points (negative evaluation) 1- one point 7- seven points (positive evaluation) Y- one or more 8. questions unanswered Belief Value Area 5. (Belief in internal vs. external determinants of events) 0- zero points (external determination) 1- one point 8- eight points (internal determination) Y- one or more 5, questions unanswered Belief Value Area 6. (Positive vs. negative evaluation of delayed gratification) 0- zero points (negative evaluation) 1- one point 7- seven points (positive determination) Y— one or more 6. questions unanswered PAGE 13 Card 1.7 California Test of Personality, Secondary Form.AA, 1953 revision, E. W. Tiegs, Wt'W. Clark, and L. P. Thorpe Column No. 1.7.1-2 Card identification 2 df 01- card 1.1 02- card 1.2 07- card 1.7 (This card is punched 91) nn- card l.nn ‘ 1.7.3-5 Person identification 1.7.6 Question 1 o. wrong ("maladjusted" response) 1— right ("adjusted" response) Y— no answer 1.7.7 q2 see 1.76 1.7.27 q22 ditto 1.7.8 q3 ditto 1.7.28 q23 ditto 1.7.9 q8 ditto 1.7.29 q28 ditto 1.7.10 q5 ditto 1.7.30 q25 ditto 1.7.11 q6 ditto 1.7.31 q26 ditto 1.7.12 q7 ditto 1.7.32 q27 ditto 1.7.13 q8 ditto 1.7.33 q28 ditto 1.7.18 q9 ditto 1.7.38 q29 ditto 1.7.15 q10 ditto 1.7.35 930 ditto 1.7.16 qll ditto 1.7.36 q31 ditto 1.7.17 q12 ditto 1.7.37 932 ditto 1.7.18 q13 ditto 1.7.38 q33 ditto 1.7.19 q18 ditto 1.7.39 938 ditto 1.7.20 q15 ditto 1.7.80 q35 ditto 1.7.21 q16 ditto 1.7.81 q36 ditto 1.7.22 q17 ditto 1.7.82 q37 ditto 1.7.23 q18 ditto 1.7.83 q38 ditto 1.7.28 q19 ditto 1.7.88 q39 ditto 1.7.25 q2O ditto 1.7.85 980 ditto 1.7.26 q21 ditto 1.7.86 q81 ditto 1.7.87 1.7.88 1.7.89 1.7.50 1.7.51 1.7.52 1.7.53 1.7.58 1.7.55 1.7.56 1.7.57 1.7.58 1.7.59 1.7.60 1.7.61 1.7.62 1.7.63 1.7.68 1.7.65 1.7.66 1.7.67 1.7.68 1.7.69 1.7.70 1.7.71 1.7.72 1.7.73 1.7.78 1.7.75 982 983 988 985 986 987 988 989 950 951 952 953 958 955 956 957 958 959 q60 q61 q62 q63 q68 965 q66 967 q68 969 Q70 PAGE 18 see 1.7.6 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto 1.7.76 1.7.7? 1.7.78 1.7.79 1.7.80 971 972 973 978 975 see 1.7.6 ditto ditto ditto ditto PAGE 15 Card 1.8 California Test of Personality, Secondary Form AA (continued) Column No. 1.8.1-2 Card identification 2 df 01- card 1.1 02- card 1.2 08- card 1.8 (This 22£Q_1§ punched 98) gn- card l.nn 1.8.3-5 Person identification 1.8.6 q76 see 1.7.6 1.8.30 q100 see 1.7.6 1.8.7 977 ditto 1.8.31 q101 ditto 1.8.8 q78 ditto 1.8.32 q102 ditto 1.8.9 979 ditto 1.8.33 q103 ditto 1.8.10 q80 ditto 1.8.38 q108 ditto 1.8.11 q81 ditto 1.8.35 9105 ditto 1.8.12 q82 ditto 1.8.36 q106 ditto 1.8.13 q83 ditto 1.8.37 q107 ditto 1.8.18 q88 ditto 1.8.38 q108 ditto 1.8.15 q85 ditto 1.8.39 q109 ditto 1.8.16 q86 ditto 1.8.80 q110 ditto 1.8.17 q87 ditto 1.8.81 qlll ditto 1.8.18 'q88 ditto 1.8.82 q112 ditto 1.8.19 q89 ditto 1.8.83 q113 ditto 1.8.20 q90 ditto 1.8.88 9118 ditto 1.8.21 q91 ditto 1.8.85 q115 ditto 1.8.22 q92 ditto 1.8.86 q116 ditto 1.8.23 993 ditto 1.8.87 q117 ditto 1.8.28 q98 ditto 1.8.88 q118 ditto 1.8.25 q95 ditto 1.8.89 q119 ditto 1.8.26 q96 ditto 1.8.50 q120 ditto 1.8.27 q97 ditto 1.8.51 q121 ditto 1.8.28 998 ditto 1.8.52 q122 ditto 1.8.29 999 ditto " 1.8.53 1.8.58 1.8.55 1.8.56 1.8.57 1.8.58 1.8.59 1.8.60 1.8.61 1.8.62 1.8.63 1.8.68 1.8.65 1.8.66 1.8.67 1.8.68 1.8.69 1.8.70 1.8.71 1.8.72 1.8.73 1.8.78 1.8.75 1.8.76 1.8.77 1.8.78 1.8.79 1.8.80 9123 9128 9125 q126 q127 q128 q129 q130 Gl31 q132 9133 9138 9135 q136 9137 9138 9139 9180 9181 9182 @183 9188 9185 9186 9187 9188 9189 q150 PAGE 16 369 107.6 ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto 'ditto Ca:d.1.9_ '"Column No. It9ol~2 10903-5 1.9.6 1.9.7 1.9.8 1.9.9 1.9.10 1.9.11 1.9.12 1.9.13 1.9.18 1.9.15 1.9.16 1.9.17 1.9.18 1.9.19 1.9.20 1.9.21 1.9.22 1.9.23 1.9.28 1.9.25 1.9.26 1.9.27 PAGE 17 Californiargoetmof Personality, Secondary Form AA (continued) Card identifioation- —2*dr ‘" 01- card 101 . 02- card 102. 09- card 1.9 (This card ig.gggphed 99) nnp card l.nn Person identification q151 see 1.7.6 1.9.28 q173 see 1.7.6 q152 ditto 1.9.29 q178 ditto q153 ditto 1.9.30 q175 ditto q158 ditto 1.9.31 q176 ditto q15; ditto 109-32 Q17? ditto q156 ditto 1.9.33 9178 ditto q157 ditto 1.9.38 q179 ditto q158 ditto 1.9.35 q180 ditto q159 ditto 1.9.36—37 subtest 1A (Self-reliance) raw scorei 2 df q160 ditto _ OO- zero points 01- one point q161 ditto : 15- fifteen points q162 ditto YY- one or more questions unanswered q163 ditto 1.9.38-39 SubtestilB (Sense of perscnaf q168 ditto worth) raw score 2 df see 1.9.36-37 q165 ditto 1.9.80-81 Subtest 10 (Sense of q166 ditto personal freedom) raw score 2 df q16? ditto see 1.9.36-37 q168 ditto 1.9.82-83 subtest 1D (Feeling of belonging) raw score 2 d3 q169 ditto see 1.9.36-37 ql70 ditto 1.9.88-85 Subtest 1E (Withdrawing tendencies) raw score 2 df ql7l ditto see 1.9.36-37 ql72 ditto 1.9.86-87 Subtest 1F (Nervous s;m.;:t<:m;—; raw score 2 df see 1.9.36-37 1.9.88-89 1.9.50-51 1.9.52-53 1- 9o Sb“55 1.9.55-57 1-9.58-59 1.9.60—61 1.9.62-63 1.9.68-65 PAGE 18 Subtest 2A (Social standards) raw score 2 df see 1.9.36—37 Subtest 2B (Social skills) raw score 2 df see 1.9.36-37 Subtest 20 (Anti-social tendencies) raw score 2 df see 1.9.36—37 Subtest 2D (Family relations) raw score 2 df see 1.9.36-37 Subtest 2E (School relations) raw score 2 df see 1.9.36—37 Subtest 2F (Community relations) raw scores 2 df see 1.9.36—37 Personal adjustment raw scores — sum of Subtests 1A-1F 2 df 00- zero points 01- one point 90— ninety points YY- one or more questions unanswered Social adjustment raw scores - sum of subtests 2A—2F 2 df see 1.9.60-61 Total adjustment raw scores - sum of all subtest scores 3 df 000- zero points 001- one point 180- one hundred eighty points YYY- one or more questions unanswered PAGE 19 Card 1.10 1.8. Scores- Content Responses to IPAT Test of G, Culture Free, Scale 3A, R.B. Cattell and A.K.S. Cattell (continued from Card 1.1) Column No. 1.10.1-2 Card Identification 2 df 01" card 101 02- card 1.2 10- card 1.10 (This card is punched 19) nn- card l.nn 1.10.3-5 Person identification 3 df 1.10.6 Test 1 question 1 (T1, ql) 1- response a 2- response b 3- reSponse c 1.10.28 T2, Q6 see 1,10,19 8- response d 5- reSponse e 1.10.25 T2, q7 ditto 6- reSponse f . Y- no response 1.10.26 T2, qB ditto 1.10.7 T1, q2 see 1.10.6 . 1.10.8 T1, cg zitto 1.10.27 T2, q9 ditto 101009 Tl, q ditto - . 1.10.10 T1, cg ditto 1-10-2§ T2. 9;0 dltto 1.10.11 T1, q ditto ‘ . -; . 1.10.12 T1, q7 ditto 1.10.29 -Tz, qll ditto 1.10.13 T1, q8 ditto ' ' . 1.10.18 T1, q90 ditto 1.10.30 T2. 912 ditto 1.10.15 T1, 1 ditto 1 1.10.16 T1, qlé ditto 1-10-31 T2. 9 3 ditto 1.10.17 T1, q ditto 1 . 1.10.18 T1, q13 ditto 1.10-32 T2, 9 “ ditto 1.10.1 T2 1 double res onse 9 0..., aqané b p ) 1010033 T3, Q1 886 101006 1- a and c 2 . 2- a and d 1.10.38 T3. 9. ditto 3- a and e ' . 8- b and . 1-10.35 T3, 93 ditto 5- b and d 6- b and o' 1-10-36 T3. 911 ditto 7- c and d . 8- c and e 1.10.37 T3, q5 ditto 9- d and e 8 j 6 . Y— single or no response 1.1003 T3: q ditto 1.10.20 T2, q2 see 1.10.19 1.10.39 T3, q7 ditto 1.10.21 T2, q ditto 1.10.22 T2, qS ditto 1.10.80 T3, q8 ditto 1.10.2 T2 ditto 3 ’ q 1.10.81 T3, q9 ditto 1.10.82 T3, q10 ditto 1.10.83 T3, qll ditto 1,100,411 T3, ql2 ditto 1.10.85 1.10.86 1.10.87 1.10.88 1.10.89 1.10.50 1.10.51 1.10.52 1.10.53 1.10.58 1.10.55 1. 109 56‘57 1.10.58-59 1.10.60-61 PAGE 20 T3, q13 see 1.10.6 Th: ‘31 1- response a 2- response b 3— reSponse c 8- reSponse d 5— reSponse e Y- no response T8, q2 see 1.10.86 T8, q3 ditto T8, qll ditto T8, qS ditto T8, q9 ditta T8, 97 ditto T8, q8 ditto T8, q9 ditto T8, q10 ditto Test 1: Total number of questions attempted (i.e., total number of questions to wnich ego responded, whether his response was correct or incorrect.) 2 df 01- one attempted 02- two attempted 13- thirteen attempted , YY- Test 1 not taken (i.e., none attempted) Test 2: Total number of questions attempted (i.e., total number of questions to which ego responded, whether his response was correct or incorrect) 2 df 01- one attempted 02- two attempted : 18- fourteen attempted YY- Test 2 not taken (i.e., none.attempted) Test 3: Total number of questions attempted (i.e., total number of questions to which ego responded, whether his response was correct or incorrect.) 2 df 01- one attempted 02- two attempted 13- thirteen attempted YY- Test 3 not taken (i.e., none attempted) 1:10.62463 1.10.68-65 1.10.66-68 1.10.69.71 1.10.72-78 10100 75’77 1.10.78.80 PAGE 21 Test 8: Total number of questions attempted (i.e., total number of questions to which ego responded, whether his response was correct or incorrect.) 2 df 01- one attempted 02- two attempted L 10- ten attempted YY- Test 8 not taken (i.e., none attempted) Test 1 throu h 8! Total number of questions attempted (i.e., total number of questions to which ego responded, whether his response was correct or incorrect.) 2 df 08- four attempted 05~ five attempted 50- fifty attempted YY- no answer in either Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, or Test 8 Test 1 Ratio: number right divided by number attempted 3 df COO-0.00 000-0 0 O]. loo-1.00 YYY- Test 1 not taken (i.e., none attempted) Test 2 Ratio: number right divided by number attempted 3 df COO-0.00 000 "Oo 01 100-1 0 00 ' YYY-Test 2 not taken (i.e., none attempted) Test 3 Ratio: number right divided by number attempted 3 df COO-0.00 001-0. 01 loo-1.00 YYY- Test 3 not taken (i.e., none attempted) Test 8 Ratio: number right divided by number attempted 3 df COO-0.00 OOl-0.0l loo-1.00 . YYY- Test 8 not taken (i.e., none attempted) Test 1 through 8 Ratio: number right divided by number attempted 3 df COO-0.00 GUI-0.01 loo-1.00 YYY; no answer in either Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, or Test 8 Card 1.11 , Column No. 10 1101-2 1.11.3-5 1011. 6"? 1.11.8 1.11.9 1.11.10 1.11.11 PAGE 2 2 Questionnaire- Occupational Plans of Michigan Youth Card identification 2 df 01- card 1.1 02- card 1.2 11- card 1.11 nn— card l.nn Person identification 3 df Age in months to nearest month (OPMY 013) 00- sixteen years, 11-12 months 01 seventeen years, 0 months 02— u u , n 03 u n n on n n n 05 II II 06 II n 07 II II 08 II II 09 II II 10 II II 11 II II 12 II II YY— no answer HHWCDNO‘U‘IJZ’WNI—J I—‘O MVUMVHH‘OVM Class in school (OPhY Q15) 0- seventh grade 1- eighth grade 2 ninth “ (High school freshman) n 3— tenth ” ( " sophomore) 8— eleventh" ( " " junior) 5- twelfth " ( " “ senior) "I make my regular home with:" (OPMY Q16) 0- my own parents 1- a parent and a step-parent 2— one parent only 3- my grandparents 8- an uncle or aunt 5- other I— no answer Church membership (OPNY Q17) 0- no 1- yes Y— no answer Church preference (OPMY 017) 1- Roman Catholic 2— Anglo-Protestant High Prestige Churches Episcopalean Presbyterian Congregationalist 1.11.12 11 o 110 13-1’4 1.11.15 1.11.16 1.11.17 1.11.18 P11. GE 23 w I Anglo-Protestant Low Prestige Churches Methodist Baptist Others 8— Protestant Sects 5— Continental Protestant Lutheran Evangelical Reformed 6- Jewish Y- No answer or no preference Migration status (0PMY Q15 compared to OPMY Q19) 0— migrant seniors attending same high school 1,2, or 3 years juniors attending same high school 1, or 2 years sophomores attending same high school 1.year 1— non-migrant seniors attending same school four or more years juniors attending same school three or more years sophomores attending same school two or more years Y- no answer to 05 or Q9, or insufficient information. Number of extra-curricular activities 2 df (OPHY 0110) 00- zero 01— one 99- ninety nine YY- no answer but not "no extra-curricular activities" Leadership activities self-estimated (0PTY QI11) 0— less than average 1- average 2- greater than average Y— no answer Place of residence (0PMY Q112) 0— on a farm - 1— in the open country but not on a farm 2- in a village under 2,500 3- in a town of 2,500-10,000 8- in a city over 10,000 Y— no answer Outside work (0PMY 0113) 0- I do not work outside my family and home l- I sometimes work outside my familyzand home 2- I have a fairly regular job outside my family and home Y - no answer Number of adult male model-figures (0PMY Q118) 0- zero 1— one 2- two 3— three 8— four 5- five Y- no answer 1.11.19-20 lo 11. 21—22 1.11.23-2h 1.11.25-26 1.11.27 1.11.28 10 110 29—30 1.11.31-32 1.11.33-3b PAGE 2h Mean occupational prestige rating (North-Hatt) of adult male and model—figures personally known to ego (0PMY Qllh) 2 df Bh- thirty four points 35- thrity five points 96- ninety six points YY- no adult Proportion of Gemeinschaft—Gesellschaft reference groups - adult male model figure (0PMY QIlh) 2 df (total gesellschaft figures divided by total figures) 00- 0.0: zero gesellschaft, all gemeinschaft responses 10- 1.0: all gesellschaft responses, zero gemeinschaft YY— no relationship data. Mean OAS score of best friends (OPKY QIIS friends OAS toatal scores) 2 df 00- zero points 01- one point 80- eighty points YY- no best friends listed Mean number of years of college planned by best friends (0PMY QIlS, best friends QIIlB) 2 df 00- 0.0 years 01- 0.1 " 99- 9.9 " YY- no answer Number of best friends (OPJY QIlS) 0— zero 1- one 5- five or more Y— no answer, but not zero Number of different occupational choices (0PMY QIIl,2,ll,l2) North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score; Highest choice (0PMY QII 1,2,11,12) 2 df Bh- thirty four 96— ninety six YY- not answer North—Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Lowest choice (OPMY QII 1,2,11,12) 2 df North—Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Final choice (0PMY Q11 2, or OPMY QII 1) 2 df If undecided between two 9£_more choices in QIIl, average the scores of the two being considered see 1.11.29-30 1.11.35-36 1 o 110 3.7-'38 1.11.39-hl l.ll.h2 1.11.h3 1.11.hh 1.11.h5 1.11. ’46 PAGE 25 North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Free choice (0PMY QIIll) 2 df see 10 11029—30 North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Mature choice (0PMY Q II 12) 2 df see 1.11.29—30 Mean occupational choice prestige level: average occupational prestige Scores for all different occupa+ional choices among 0PMY Q II 1,2,11,12 3h0- thirty four point zero points 3hl- thirty four point one points 960- ninety six point zero points YYY~ no answer on 1.11.29n38 Type of final occupational choice (0PMY Q II2) 0— nonfarm 1- farm Y— no answer Degree of crystallization of final occupational choice (OPMY Q II 1, 2, 3 0- completely uncrystallized: no final choice in (Q II 2) and no alternatives implied for (Q II 2) 1- almost uncrystallized: one or more choices in or implied b, (Q II 2), and "I'm not sure my mind is made up" in (Q 113) 2- almost crystallized: "I'm not too sure, but I think my mind is made up" in (Q IIB) 3- completely crystallized: "I feel sure my mind is made up" in (Q11 3) Y— no answer to (0PMY Q II 3) but clearly not identifiable as "completely uncrystallized" (Q II, 2) Amount of thought regarding occupational choice (0PMY Q II h) 0— "little thought" 1— " some thought" 2— "great deal of thought" I - no answer or not applicable Amount of knowledge regarding occupational choice (0PMY Q II 5) 0- low: Does not know much about it, but will find out in school or job 1- medium: general knowledge, lacks details 2— high: H as good knowledge Y— no answer or no occupational choice Self estimate of ability for chosen occupation (0PM! Q II 6) 0- very much below average ‘ l— somewhat below average 2— average 3- somewhat above average h— very much above average Y -no answer or not applicable l.ll.h7 l.ll.h8 1.11.h9 1.11.50 PAGE 26 Self estimate of upward mobility potential (0PMY Q II 7) 0- very much below average 1- somewhat below average 2- average 3~ somewhat above average h- very much above average Y- no answer or not applicable Index of self-confidence in occupational competition (OPHY Q II 6, 7) sum of scores for 1.ll.h6 and 1.ll.h7 0- zero points; low self-confidence 1- one point 8- eight points: high self-confidence. Y- no answer or not applicable on either or both 1.11.h6 and 1.ll.h7 Amount of primary group support for choice of farming. Coded only for farm resident boys choosing farming. (0PM! Q I 12, II 2, 8, 9) Scoring procedure Q II 8. IN THE OCCUPATION I HAVE CHOSEN I CAN EXPECT HELP IN GETTING STARTED: A. (2) from my father or mother who is in this type of work. B. (l) from.relatives Who are in this type of work. C. (1) from friends who are in this type of work. D. (0) from no one. (Y) I don't know because I have not made my choice yet. (I) no answer Q II 9. AS TO FOLLUNING HIS OCCUPATION, (FOR BOYS ONLY) MY FATHER HAS: E. (2) tried to encourage me. F. (1) neither tried to encourage or discourage me. G. (0; tried to discourage me. (Y no answer Code: 0- zero points: (D + G) 1- one point: (B + G), (C + G), (D + F) 2- two points: (A + G) (B + C), (B + F), (C + F), (B + C + G) ’ (D+E) 3- three points: (A + B) (A + c), (A + F), (A + B + c) (A + C + G): (B + E): (C + E): ( B + C + F) h- four points: (A + B + C), (A + E), (A + B + F), (A + C + F) (A + B + C + G), (B + C + E) 5- five points: (A + B + E), (A + c + E), (A + B + c + F) 6— six pOints: (A + B + C + E) Y- not a farm boy or not a farm Chooser; no answer or not applicable in either or both Q II 8 or Q II 9. Goal value transitivity‘ (OPHY Q II 10) 0- not transitive l- transitive Y- at least one question in Q II 10 unanswered 1.11.51 1.11.52 1.11.53 1.11.5h 1.11.55 1.11.56 1.11.57 1.11.58 1.11.59-60 1.11.61 1.11.62—6h PAGE 27 Importance of "money you can make" (0PMY Q II 10) 0- zero points 1- one point b- four points Y— at least one relevant subquestion unanswered Importance of "difficulty in getting the required education" (OPMY Q II 10) see 1.11.51 Importance of "working hours" (OPHY Q II 10) see 1.11.51 Importance of "social standing" (OPHY Q II 10) see 1.11.51 Importance of "good you can do" (0PMY Q II 10) see 1.11.51 Level of college aspiration in years (0PMY Q II 13) 0- zero 1— two years or less 2- three or four years 3- five or six years b- seven or more years Y- no answer or insufficient evidence Completeness of nuclear family (0PMY Q III 1) O- incomplete (due to death, divorce or separation) 1- complete (both living together) Y- no answer Father's occupation (0PMY Q III 3) 0— not a farm operator 1- part-time farm operator 2- full time farm Operator Y -no answer or not applicable North—Hatt Occupational prestige status scores of father‘s lowest prestige occupation (0PMY Q III 3) 2 df See 1.11.29—30 Father‘s farm tenancy status: farm owners and part or full—time farm workers only (0PMY Q III 3) 0- laborer 1- renter 2— owner Y— no answer or not applicable Number of acres operated by father, farm operators only (OPMY Q III 3) 3 df 000— zero acres 001— one acre 999- nine hundred ninety nine YYY— no answer or not applicable 1.11.65 1.11.66 1.11.67 10 11. 68-69 PAGE 28 Parental satisfaction with father's occupation (0PMY III Q h,5) (An index of parental status anxiety) Scoring procedure: Q III h. MY FATHER CONSIDERS HIS OCCUPATION TO BE: (h) completely satisfactory (3) fairly satisfactory (2) good enough (1) not very good (0) very poor. Q III 5. MY MOTHER CONSIDERS MY FATHER'S OCCUPATION TO BE: (h) completely satisfactory (3) fairly satisfactory (2) good enough (1) not very good (0) very poor. Coding: Sum of points for Q III h and Q III 5. 0- zero points 1- one point 8- eight points Y- no answer for one or more questions Number of first and second generation progenitors born outside the United States (OPMY Q III (~11) An index of noneAmerican culture status of family. Coding count each "don't know" or blank as if born in the United States, unless, the Q III 6—11 was ignored. 0- none 1- one 6- six Y- no answer to any one of Q III 6—11. Mexican versus non-Mexican cultural origins (0PM! Q III 6—11, Q I 1, Q V 8) 0- non-Mexican 1- Mexican Y- insufficient evidence Parental educational status (0PM! Q III 12-13) 2 df Scoring procedure: 12. MY FATHER'S EDUCATION CONSISTED OF: (0) less than 8 grades (h) 8 grades (6) 9-11 grades (8) 12 grades (10) some college (12) college degree 13. MY MOTHER'S EDUCATION CONSISTED OF: (0) less than 8 grades (h) 8 grades (6) 9-11 grades (8) 12 grades (10) some college (12) college degree I‘ x h. 1,11,68v69 (contiiued) 1.11H7O 1.11.71 1.11.72 1.11.73 coding: 8 00m zero p Ch» four t sin twent; our neirts Yf- no answex to either or both Q 111 12 or Q III 13. I. ducational status (0PM! Q 111 1d) . I. .l ’ ~ 3' 12 gzaoc: hw some coliege b~ co11egc eagrse 113 713L516: Anther‘s Educational Status (UPMY Q III 1}) Sue l»11 70 Parental educational discre any} 10PM- Q III 12—13} ' ' u :.'C: uni-#11111). T A '- - :1, .~,w. “l,?- r , - ‘ , _- _ n * , ,H . .- (if c inc 'Iop ejeca.ion for eit.ei parent 4: o giades or Leah (.11 (2} define ”medium QHJLJI:OL for either parent as 9 throigh 3? grade: (I) define ‘high education” for either parent as some college a: college digzce _ intS' mother's edu ation high, father s ecu ation few ]« tie point mother s edtc1dion medium, father s odueation :aw o. mother‘s education hich, father's education medium 2» two points: both paients low, botn pare.ts medium r both parents high. 3~ th~ee p01nts. father's education medium mother s secession lo», or father-s ecucation high, mother‘s education medium Ln foxc points: fisher 8 education high, mother's education low Y— no answer for either or both Q III 12 and Q III 1%” -t. (3 I Paternal desire for ego 5 post high school educational mobiliiy (OPhY Q 1V 1? 0° zero points (low desire); "quit high school and so to wo;>' ~ one point. "go to work after high school” — tWo poin s' =never said much about it” three points. "acme encouragement to continue” four points. (nigh desire) *stro-giy encouraged me by continue” no answer MP‘A‘NI— 1.110718 1.11.75 1.11.76 1.11.77 1.11.78 1 .11 0 79-80 PAGE 30 Maternal desire for ego's post high school educational mobility. (0PMY Q IV 2) See 1.11.72 Parental psychic support for post high schooleaducational mobility. (0PM1 Q IV; C IV 2 ) ‘Sum of scores from 1.11.72 and 1.11.73. 0- zero points (low support) 1- one point a 8- eight points (high support) 1- no answer for either or both Q 1V 1 or C IV 2. Parents financial ability to assist ego in achieving mobility. after high school (BPMY Q.IV 3) 0- " able to give no help" 1- "able to give some help" 2- "able to give considers ble help" Y- no answer Parents willingness to assist ego in achieving mobility after high school. (OPMY Q IV A) 0- "willing to give no help" 1- "willing to give some help" 2- "willing to give a great deal of help" Y- no answer Parents' propensity to assist ego in achieving mobility after high school (OPMY Q IV 3 and C IV h). (Means or "ability" times motivation or "willingness") Scoring procedure: score 1.11.75 multiplied by score 1.11.76. 0— zero points 1- one point 2- two points (3)- not possible h- four points Y- no answer to either or both 1.11.75 or 1.11.76 Mean North-Hatt occupational prestige of best friends' fa thers (ego's 0PMY Q I 15, best friends' 0PM! Q III 3 lowest occupation of father) 3h- thirty four points 96- ninety six points YYe no answer to ego's OPMY Q I 15 or best friends' 0PMY Q 111 3. . ~ . , 1. n ‘7 . a V. I c I .. , . . Card 1.12: Column No. 1012 01-2 1.12 03"; 1.12.6 1.12 .7 1.12.8 l .12 99-10 1.12.11 1.12.12 PAGE 31 Questionnaire--Occupational Plans of Michigan Youth (continued from card 1.11) Card identification 2 df 01- card 1.1 12- card 1.12 (This card is punched 12) Person identification 3 df Paternal desire for ego's high occupational achievement (0PM! Q IV 5) 0- zero points (low desire): "Does not care how good the job I go into is." 1- one point: "Feels that the job I take should be a 8 good as most jobs around here." 2 - two points: "Wants me to have a job that is a little better than most jobs around here." 3- three points: "‘Wants me to have a job that is quite a bit better than most jobs around here.” h- four points: "wants me to have a very important job.” 1- no answer. Maternal gesire for ego's high occupational achievement (0PM! Q IV 6) See 1.12. Parental psychic support for ego's high occupational achievement (OPMY Q IV 5 and 0 IV 6) Sum of scores from 1.12.6 and 1.12.7. 0- zero points (low support) 1- one point : 8- eight points ( high support) Y- no answer for either or both Q 1V 5 and Q IV 6). Parental desire for ego's high social status. (OPMY Q IV 1, Q IV 2, C IV S, C IV 6) sum or 1011073 and 1.1208. 2 df 00- z are points (low desire) 01- one point 16- sixteen points (high desire) YY- no answer to anyone or more of Q IV 1, Q IV 2, Q IV 5, or Q IV 6. Status anxiet (SA): Ego's satisfaction with father's education. 0PMY Q 111 1 ) 0- low SA- "good enough" or "satisfactory" 1- high SA- "not very good" or "very poor" Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): Ego's estimate of family's relative income. (0PMY Q III 16) 0- low SA- "just average" or "high" 1- high SA- "less than average" or "low" Y— no answer 1.12.13 1.12.1h 1.12.15 1.12.16 1.12.17 1.12.18 1.12.19 1.12.20 1.12.21 BIL 32 Status anxiety (SA): Ego's estimate of community importance evaluation of parents (OPMY C III 17) 0- low SA- "average" or "important" 1- high SA- "less than average" or "not at all important" Y— no answer Status anxiety (SA): " My family is too poor to buy me the kind of things I need." (0PMY Q IV 7) 0- low SA- No 1- high SA- Yes Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): " The girls I would like to date prefer to go out with boys whose families are more important than mine." (0PMY Q IV 8) 0- low SA- No 1- high SA- Yes Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): "1 often wish my father (or mother or guardian) had a better job." (0PMY 0 IV 9) 0- low SA- No 1- high SA- Yes Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): "1 often wish my father was a more 1 important man in the community than he is." (OPMY F IV 10) 0- low SA- No 1- high SA- Yes Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): "Do people seem to think wehl of your family's social standing?" California Test of Personality, Seconda ry Form AA, 1953 revision, E. w, Tiegs,'W,'V, Clark, and L. P. Thorpe; Question 23. (CTP C 23) 0- low SA- Yes 1- high SA- No Y- no answer Status anx iety(SA): "Ib you feel that people recognize your social standing as they should" (CTP Q 28) ‘0- low SA- Hes 1" high SI; "' NO Y- no a nswer Status anxiety (SA): "Do you feel that your relatives are as attractive and successful as those of your friends". (CTP Q be) 0- low SA- Yes 1- high SA- No Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): " Are things difficult for'you because your folks are usually short of money? (CTP Q 1&0) 0- low SA- No ' 1- high SA; Yes Y- no answer 1.12.22 1.12.23 1.12.2h-25 1.12.26-27 1.12.28-29 1.12.30 1.12.30 PAGE 33 Status anxiety (SA): "Do you avoid inviting others to your home because it is not as nice asisheirs? " (CTP Q 1h?) 0- low SA- No 1- high SA- Yes Y- no answer Status anxiety (SA): "For the most part, are your neighbors the kind of peOple you like?" (CTP Q 178) 0. low SA— Yes 1- high SA- No Y— no answer Index of Status anxiety (SA). Sum.of all SA responses, 1.12.11 to 1.12.23 2 df OO— zero points - low SA 01— one point 13- thirteen-high SA YY- no answer to any or all of 1.12.11 to 1:12.23 Number of siblings in ego's family, including ego (OPMY Q V l, 2,3, h) 01- ego only 02- two nn- the largest family YYé no information but ego is not an only child Ego's ordinal position in the sib group (OPMY Q V l, 2, 3, h) 2 df Ol- eldest (or only) 02~ second eldest nn- youngest in the largest family ' YY— no information, but ego is not an only child. Summary variable of ego's sib group structural position (0PMY Qv1, 2, 3,11) Wego is an only child 1- ego is a member of a small family: sib group size is three or less. 2- ego is the eldest child in a large family (sib group size is four or more) 3- ego is the second child in a large family (sib group size is four or more) h- ego is the youngest child in a large family (sib group size is four or more) 5- ego is a middle child (i.e., neither eldest, second eldest, nor youngest) in a large family (sib group size is four or more). Y— no information, but ego is not an only child. Number of siblings graduating from high school (0PMY Q V 5) 0— none ‘ 1- one 9- nine or more Y- no answer or no sibling 1.12.31 1.12.32 1.12.33 1.12.3h 1.12.35 1.12.36 1.12.37 PAGE 3h Number of siblings quitting high school before graduation (0PMY Q‘V 6) 0- zero 1- one 9- nine or more Y— no answer or no siblings Number of siblings attending college (0PMY Q V 7) 0- zero 1- one 9— nine or more Y- no answer or no siblings Parental concern (0PMY Q V 9) COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY FATHER HAS: (h) much.more interested in what I did. (3) a little more interested in what I did. (2) just about equally interested in what each of us did. (1) a little less interested in what I did. (0) much less interested in what I did. (Y) no answer (include only children). Parental concern (0PMY Q V 10) COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS, I BELIEVE MY MOTHER WAS: (h) much more interested in what I did. (3) a little more interested in what I did. (2) just about equally interested in what each of us did. (1) a little less interested in what I did. . (0) much less interested in what I did. (Y) no answer (include only children) Parental concern (0PMY Q V 11) COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY FATHER WAS: (h) much kinder to me. (3) a little kinder to me. (2) about equally kind to each of us. (1) a little less kind to me. (0) much less kind to me. (Y) no answer (include only children) Parental concern (0PMY Q V 12) COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY MOTHER WAS: ()4) much kinder to me. (3) a little kinder to me. (2) about equally kind to each of us. (1) a little less kind to me. (0) much less kind to me. (Y) no answer (include only children) Parental concern (0PMY Q V 13) COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY FATHER WAS: (h) much more attentive to me. (3) a little more attentive to me. (2) about equally attentive to each of us. (1) a little less attentive to me. (0) much less attentive to me. 1.12.38 1.12.39-ho 1.12.141 1' 120,42 1.12.h3 1.12.hh 1.12.hS PAGE 35 Parental concern (0PMY Q V IL) COMPARED TO MOST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, I BELIEVE MY MOTHER WAS: (h) much more attentive to me. ' (3) a little more attentive to me.‘ (2) about equally attentive to each of us.“ (1) a little less attentive to me. (0) much less attentive to me. (Y) no answer (include only children) Index of Parental Concern (PC) (0PMY Q V 9-lh) 2 df OO- zero points (low PC) 01- one point : 2h—twenty four points (high PC) YY- no answer to any or all of OPMY Q V 9-lh (include only children) Inter-sib concern( SC) (0PMY Q V 15) USUALLY I JAS: (h) much more interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. (3) a little more interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. (2) about as interested in my brothers and sisters as they were in me. (1) a little less interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. (0) much less interested in most of my brothers and sisters than they were in me. (Y) no answer (include only children) Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (838): House ownership (0PMY Q VI 1) 3- rented 6- owned Y— no answer (but not no) - Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale— short form (SE8): House construction (0PMY Q VI h) 3- unpainted frame, artificial brick, trailer house 5- brick, stucco, painted frame, block (concrete on cinder), aluminum siding, shingle; combinations of these Y4 no answer (but not no) Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (333): Roomeperson ratio (0PMY Q VI 2, Q VI 3) 3- below 1.00 S- 1.00 - 1.99 7- 2.00 and up Y- no answer Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): lighting facilitieg'KOPMY q VI 5) 3- oil lamps, types not mentioned under 6 or 8, none 6— gas, mantle or pressure. 8- electric Y- no answer (but not no) PAGE 3Q 1.12.h6 Modified Sewell socig:ecgnomic status scalc- short form (SE8): running water facilities (EPLY Q VI 8) h- no 8- yes Y- no answer (but ndzno) l.12.h7 Mbdified Sewell socigzgconojic_§tgtus scale-short form (SE8): power washing facility (OPLY Q'VIIMIY—-_" 3- no 6» yes Y— no answer (but not no) l.l2.h8 Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): refrigeration facilities (0PMY Q VI 6, Q VI 7) 3- none, or types not Specified under 6 or 8. éh ice 8— mechanical, including deep freeze Y- no answer (but not no) l.l2.h9 Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): communication facilities- radio (0PMY Q VI lI) 3- no 6» yes Y— no answer (but not no) 1.12.50 Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale-short form (SE8): communication facilities- telephone (0PMY Q VI 13) 3- no ' 6» yes Y— no answer (but not no) 1.12.51 Modified Sewell socio—economic scale- short form (SE8): communication facilities— automobile (0PMY Q VI 12) 2- no 5- yes . Y- no answer (but not no) 1.12.52 Modified Sgwell socio-economic scale- short form (SE8): communication facilities- daily newspaper (0PMY Q VI 9) 3- no 6p yes Y— no answer ( but not to) 1.12.53 Modified Sewell socio-cconomic scale- short form (8E8): education- father (0PMY Q III 1h) 2- 0-7 years of school completed )4- 8 u n u n 6_ 9-11 I: n u n 7__ 12 u u I! n 8_ 13 n u n n Y- no answer ‘ 1.12.5u 1612055 1.12.56 1.12057‘58 1.12.59-60 1.12.61-62 1.12.63—6h PAGE 37 Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (8E8): education - motherI(OPMY Q III 13) 2- 0-7 years of school completed h_ 8 u n n u 6_ 9-11 II n u n 7_ 12 n n n n 8_ 13 I: II n n Y; no answer Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): church attendance- father (0PMY Q IV 1h) 2- father does not attend church at least once a month. 5— father attends church at least once a month Y; no answer (but not no) Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): church attendance- mother (0PMY Q IV 15) 2- mother does not attend church at least once a month 5- mother attends church at least once a month. Y4 no answer (but not no) Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): Total Score 2 df OO— zero points (low 838) 01- one point 99- ninety nine points (high SE8) YY; no answer to any of 1.12.h2 through 1.12.56 Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SE8): Total score for home quality, home facilities and communication facilities. (0PMY Q VI 1 through 13) 2 df OO— zero points (low SES) 01- one point 99— ninety nine points (high 8E8) YY- no answer to any of 1.12.h2 - 1.12.52 Moaified Sewell socio-economic status scale- short form (SES): Total score for home quality (Sum of scores for 1.12IE2, 1.12.h3, 1.12.hb) 2 df O9— nine points 10- ten points 18- eighteen points YY- no answer to OPMY Q VI 1, 2, 3, or b. Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale— short form (SE8): Total score for home facilities (Sum of scores for l.12.h5, 1.12.h6, 1.12.h7, l.12.h8) 13- thirteen points 30— thirty points YY- no anSwer to OPMY Q VI 5, 6 7, 8 or 10. 1.12.65-66 1.12.67-68 1012 069-71 1.12.72 1 .12 0 73-75 1.12.76 PAGE 38 Modified Sewell socio-economic status scale - short form (SE8): Total score for communication facilities (Su. of scores for 1.12 .h9, 1.12. 50, 1.12.51,1.12.52) 11 - 11 points 23 - twentybthree points YY - no answer to OPMY 0 VI 9, 11, 12, 13 Composite Index of Social Status (0188). Based upon parental education, home equality, home facilities, communication facilities, and parental occupational prestige. Grade point average for years 1956-1957 - 3df Scoring procedure. (1) Only grades for academic and vocational semester-courses* are counted, physical education, etc. is not counted. (2) Four points are given for each A. Tllree H II II II N B . Two " n H I: II C . One N H H N N D . Zero N I! H l' H E . (3) The total number of points for 1956-1957 computed. (h) G. P. A. equals total points (from 3) divided by total academic and vocational courses taken during 1956-1957. 001 - n n " equals 0.001 YYY - no data Number of agricultural semester coursesk taken in high school through Spring, 19579 O - none 1 - one 9 - nine y - no data Grade point average for all agricultural semester-coursesw taken through 1956-57 - 3df. Scoring procedure: Same as 1.12.69-71, except that only agricultural courses (see 1.12.72) are counted. 000 - Agricultural G. P. A. equals 0.00 001 - " " 0.01 hog - n n n b.00 xyy - insufficient data yyy - no agricultural courses taken Number of siblings graduating from high school (0PMY Q V 5) O - none 1 - one *One semester course equals 1/2 a unit. PAGE 39 lu12.76 (cont.) 9 - nine or more Y - no answer or no sibling 1.12.77-80 School record data 1.13.15 1.13.16 1. 13.17 1.13.18 1.13.19 1.13.20—21 1.13.22 10 13023 PAGE hi Item 2 (Plans not to be a farmer) Question 1 (I2:_Ql) O - Yes 1 - No 2 - Contingent (depends on .....) Y - No answer - Item 2, 02 0 - Yes 1 - No 2 - Contingent (depends on .....) Y - No answer Item 2, Q3 ditto 1.13.16 Item 2, Qh ditto Item 2, Q5 ditto Categories of specific remarks to Q5 (2 df) 01 Experience oriented ) 1h Both experience and education 02 Formal education ) Instrumental - ) (Task-oriented) Oh Both experience and ) education ) 11 Experience ) 12 Formal education ) Very likely g instrumental ) V 21 Experience Clearly expressive 22 Formal education ) (Self fulfillment oriented) YY No remark Comparison of ideas on educational requirements: Planning to farm YE planning not to farm Planning to farm O - More 1 - Same 2 - Less Than 531; planning to' farm Highest indicated schooling for those planning to fem O - does not need to go to high school 1 - needs to go to high school 2 - needs to graduate from high school 3 needs an agricultural short course h - needs 1 or 2 years of college 5 6 ~ needs to graduate from college -needs some Special training beyond college PAGE 112 1.13.21: Highest indicated schooling for those 293 planning to farm: 0 - does not need to go to high school 1 - needs to go to high school 2 - needs to graduate fran high school 3 - needs 1 or 2 years of college 1; - needs to graduate from college 5 - needs sane special training beyond college Card 1.1!: Column No. 1 0 1’4. 1‘2 1.1h.3-S 1. 111.6 1.1h.7 1.1h.8#9 1. 1h. 10-11 10 1h. 12’13 1. 1h. 113-15 1.11:.16—17 PAGE h3 Normalized Data in the form of TBScores. incomplete data)* (Includes estimates made for Card identification (2 df) 01 - Card 1.1 : 1h - Card 1.1h (This card is punched 1h) Person identification (3 df) Residence: father's occupation. 0 — not a farm.operator 1 - part-time farm operator 2 - full-time farm operator Y - no answer or not applicable Occupational choices: Farm vs. nonfarm O - nonfarm 1 - farm Y - no answer Occupational aspiration T-Score. (2 df) 20— twenty-points 21- twentybone points BO-eighty points College aSpiration level T-Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.11.56 See 1.1h.8-9 I. Q. T~Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.1.68-69 SOC 10 1’40 8'9 16 PF Test ThScores: Factor “A". éggdf) Computed from 1.5.h3-hh See 1.1h. 16 PF, Factor "B" T-Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.5.h5-h6 See 1.1h.8-9 * Nine persons on whom data were either invalid or incomplete to the extent.that they could not be estimated were not included in this deck. Hence, there Ira h33 cards in this deck, none of which have Y or X punches with the exception of l.lh.28-fl9. ,- .A. A .1 X , .. :.‘ ‘- I \ f-f‘f v i" In ' ' u- '. ' . \ . _'-. . . . .‘ -0. .1 ' f . ' u ‘ 4 ‘1 t.’ so I- .“ .. J . ~.. 3 k u I ..t ' f) I . ..., 1~.. . A . . . ‘n O. ‘ . - ~ ~ ' ‘ C. . .-, A . . e “ i..- . I I. 'I . f x , . ,.. . . . . -r s .> ‘ . a J i .I.. ‘ I- . . . .. cl ‘. .'_.'e' \. . i ,. ... . " . I ‘ " \ , . .- _... .v' . 1' . u ‘1 ___,..-‘.- I A. ' . 4 ’I . .. . ‘1. '1 . .. . 7' .. . l. . u . II -‘ ;‘ - sow ‘ -0 . o .. ii -. ..o. I _ . :- l .. an. .\ . .. .. .‘..- c- a. \o .- . .- I '. . . . M. , . . -o -. . , -- n . I f . . I’- .. _ 0‘ O... O . pl - . . v .H n . -. - .o ‘ D‘ ”a '- .tv-O' . I ~ ; “ . -.‘ l I 0‘,\S - "" -‘.- .-‘ 41“ . _.1‘o4--~ .' - ' -- ‘ _’ . . I .~ ' u .- ' ‘ ‘.. _.'—¢ _ . . . . O—s " . to. "- . .. . . ~‘ . .3 .n u - . D .' I ‘ . .- . I 'U" . .‘ .- ‘ _-. 1" _. ,n. t _-. we ‘ ‘ a. r I ' . n . u’ l . a_ .‘- .‘ .- n I" ‘ I.“ ‘ . O .-— .., I .“.‘,| '. . 0' ' _- p . T ‘f‘ _'1, ‘)..-I : ' ' ‘ '1»; T .' ~' -.-»5" ' " Column No. 1.1b.18-19 1.114.20-21 1.1h.22-23 1.1h.2h-25 1.11.. 26-27 1.1h.28-29 1.1h.30-31 1.1h.32-33 1.1h.3h~35 1.1h.36-37 1.1h.38-39 1.1h.ho-b1 1.1h.h2-h3 1.1h.hh-h5 1.1h.h6-h7 1.1h.h8-h9 1.1h.50-Sl 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from 16 PF, Factor Computed from California Test of Personality, Total Adjustment T—Score. Computed from EVA 1 T-Score. Computed from EVA 2 ThScore. Computed from PAGE M: "C" Tchores . loSOh7-h8 "E" ThScores. 1.5.h9-50 "F" ThScores. (2 df) 105051952 See lolh08.9 "G" T-Scores. (2 df) 1.5.53-5h See 1.1h.8-9 "H" T-Scores. (2 df) 1.5.55-56 See 1.1h.8-9 "I" ThScores. (2 df) 1.5.57-58 See 1.1h.8-9 "L" T-Scores. 1.5.59-60 (2 df) See 101h08.9 (2 df) See 1.1h.8—9 (2 df) See 1.1h.8-9 "M" T—Scores. 1.5.61-62 (2 df) See lelhca‘g "N" T-Scores. (2 df) 1.5.63-6h See 1.1h.8—9 "0" ThScores. (2 df) 105665.66 See 1.1h.8-9 "Q " ThScores. (2 df) 1. 067-68 366 101h08‘9 "Qz" ThScores. 105069.70 (2 df) See 1.1hoa-9 "Q " TEScores. (2 df) 10 071.72 See 1.1h08‘9 "Q " TnScores. 1- . 73‘7’4 (2 df) See 1.1h.8-9 1.9.6h-66 (2 df) 106050 See 101h08‘9 See lolh08‘9 (2 df) 1.6.51 See 1.1h.8-9 -0 h~ . . . , . n . t I .. . .. , . . .v n s u ' .- I p I. a . . I \ I l . I l I c l I a t . . ' 1 . f .. o . . O . . . . . l O . e V . O . a . .. ... .. . . o . . . u . e . o 5“ w . . Q . I . . v I . 1 . .. a . . o 1.. . \ O o b. . a . . . . ‘ n u C . . . It . . l s 0 I a . I . . . . .. u . .. .. a a w . I . ~ - . Jr . .l .1 II II:- D . .1 . . . . I . . n . . , . 3. m . . . . _ . . .. w .. . y _ . _ . .' I. . I . O . .n. .. . . . 1 ._ - . . . . . I |‘ ' | o I . « u . u t .. .u; . n , a. . -. . . v . . \ I. u n . I a . . , pL .- . . .. r I n . . . . I Q . t . a .e h I v I .. . . .1 . . C » > . . . a 1. ‘ l r .. v: o . L. . .. . .4. .. . . . h I n I C. . a U I l ' h 0 I. s I I .. n I. I 1. .. . . .. . 0 .nd .. . . I I I . v 'u A 0 . J l 4 .l' . '. -.|- u. . u 0 .. 2. . . \ e . o . - . .. - . O ... . . n O I I . ‘l I l u . . . 1 .1. . .:.. C I ' ' o 11 v II a n I I I . ~ . I \ u . l . . a . u . . . . . -- I a v u . . b O f.‘ \- . I . o . 1 . . . II - . O 4 . s n I a . Q , I I . v v ‘ 0“ .| I . .- , . . _ \ v. .- u . s Q-.. Column No. 1.1h.52-53 1.11;. Sh—SS 1.114.566? 1.114. 58-59 1.1h.6o-61 l.1h.62-63 1.11;,614-65 1.1h.66-67 1.1h. 68-69 1.1h.7o-71 1.1h.72-73 1.1h.7h-75 1.1h.76—77 1.1h.78-79 PAGE us EVA 3 ThScore. (2 df) Computed from 1.6.52 See 1.1h.8-9 BVA h T-Score. (2 df) Computed from.l.6.53 See 1.1h.8-9 EVA 5 TbScore. (2 df) Computed from 1.6.5h See 1.1h.8-9 EVA 6 T-Score. (2 df) Computed from 1.6.55 See 1.1h.8-9 Occupational crystallization T—Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.ll.h3 See l.1h.8-9 Father's educational status T-Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.11.70 See 1.1h.8-9 TbScores: Parental desire for ego's post-high school education. (2 df) Computed from 1.11.75 See l.lh.8-9 T-Scores: Parental desire for ego's high occupational achievement. (2 df) Computed from 1.12.8 See 1.1h.8-9 T-Scores: Parental desire for ego's high social status. (2 df) Computed from 1.12.9-10 See 1.1h.8-9 (2 df) See l.lh.8-9 Status Anxiety T—Scores. Computed from 1.12.2h-25 Sewell SES T-Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.12.57-58 See 1.1h.8-9 GPA 1956-1957: T-Scores. commd from lo 12 a 69.71 (2 df) See 10 1'4. 8'9 Number of agricultural semester courses through 1957: ThScorcs. (2 d!) Computed from.l.12.72 h6- no agricultural courses taken 56— one agricultural course taken 76- nine agricultural courses taken Agricultural GPA through 1957: T-Scores. (2 df) Computed from 1.12.73-75 20- twenty points 21— twentybone points 80- eighty points YY- no agricultural courses taken \ .. .. u o r u . . . . .- I; my .5 r I 2.‘ .. . 7 ll 7 . ,n '4 "l Q n . . . a .. i. a. , . . u s c v n- ',I On. I] ... . O Q a , . . rl . — . . a . . . . I . o‘ 4s . . a ll 0 . u a . . O p on. ' I D I l.‘ a . . . . . . . . f. . ,. . . ‘ d I _ . b I . — . . . . a o I I II a o C .. . I .. 4.0 '13. . \i, I: ~ ~14 Card 1.15 Column No. ————————fi- 1, 15 o 1-2 1.. 15 .3-5 1.15.6 1.15.? 19 1598-9 1.15,10-11 1915,12-13 19 15 9 ILL-ls PAGE h6 Additional normalized data in the form of T-scores. Card identification (2df) Ol - Card 1.1 02 " card 192 15 - Card 1.15 (This card is punched 15) Person identification (3dr) Residence: fathergsmpccupation, Based on 1.11.58 9 - not a farm operator 1 — part~time farm operator 2 9 fullvtime farm operator .y - no answer or not applicable Occupational choices: Farm vs. nonfarm Based on 1,11.h2 0 - nonfarm l - farm y - no answer T-scores: Number of different occupational choices. (0PMY Q II, 1, 2, 11, 12) (2df) Computed from 1.11.28 20 - twenty points 21 - twentyeone points 80 - eighty points yy - no answer T-scores: North—Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Hi hest choice (0PMY Q II, 1, 2, ll, 12) (2df) Compute rom 1.11.29—30 See 1.15.8-9 T-scores: North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Lowest choice (0PMY Q II, 1, 2, ll, 12) (2df) Computed from 1.11.31-32 See 1.15.8-9 T—scores: North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Final choice (0PMY Q II, 2 or 1) (2df) Computed from 1.11.33-3h See 1.15.8-9 ,--_r‘- V“ . I I I I . O ‘ v . v. . o .‘_ .,_ ‘ . . . 'h ..V ‘ . c . . . o. . , ‘ ~ ‘ < -I~¢-.‘ . . I - , ..- ( ... A ...-...... .... 1,. ‘7 V ' 1 '~ I ' -- ' o o. I . o “ ~I ' ' ‘. . 4. a . " . o . . , ~‘. I .'I 2 I I- . c - ' : ’.‘- ~ ~. . . . ." ' . 4- ' . , . ‘ . . I ...;L... a . . a . .. .. . ._: '- . . . . -.. Q. _ . a . on I' .u- f v,. . ... , . -. "-_ ‘ . ' ‘ - . . . V. ' , , - .‘f.1 .. “ ~'u c '_~ -. I . b' . t ' -_ . 9‘ . 'f' .\ "- ,. ..I Q . .. .f . .. . . . , O .1 u .r- . . - - . \ ., ., . ‘. ' 0 v _ . . . . a ‘ v a‘ l . -. a .- ,7 I v, , .. I Mn 0. .A On. . ‘ ‘ . ._1 . ' , . u o - ..a . ., . if . .' '. t I. . .. ~ -- ' e -‘I . . ' ' . , . - - s ' . - .' o - ' - .. .0 ‘ . 1 ‘ - - . o ,. Ox . . . u - (I .~.' . . ‘ : ...' . , , I - . I I . ' . ‘ . I. . .. . 4 ’f .. ' .. n . I ' ‘ " .ct ‘ .. I . on! . ,. . a ’ ‘ . . I. .' . ~ - . . . a . ' -‘, . _ . _ . . .‘ no I ' .0~ . u u . . .... . . ...- ., ... V. . I. . O O ' a . . IOI ‘ ‘ . I O ‘ .- "Lh'" ' ’ " 90 ’ ... - . all. . . , ~,. 0 . 0.. -'. ' 3r], ' I -.-..- .1 .-.. ... .. . . .. 1 ”‘1: ‘- ' ...; .... 7' ! ‘ » . ‘ . , ,--.,.a\ . . .I . '- ' ' ‘- " . o . _. o . ,1 . . . I I I .1 . , . .1 w .- Column No. l.15.16~l7 1.15.20~21 PAGE 1:? T-scores: North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score: Free choice (0PMY Q II, 11) (2dr) Computea from 1.11.35-36 See 1.15. 8-9 T-scores: North-Hatt occupational choice prestige score: mature choice(OPMI.Q II, 12) (2dr) 60m $3 from 1611‘37.38 See 1.15.8.9 T-scores: Mean occupational choice prestige level: average occupationaI_§Festige scores for all different occupational choices among OPMY Q II, 1,2,11, 12 Computed from 1.11.39-h1 See 1.15.8-9 MIG-1:1: OAS-R STUDY PAGE hB IWM Feb. 1952 CARD 1. 16 COLUMN N0. ~ 1116b1-2 16 160 3.5 l. 16.6-7 161608 1". 16 o 9 1.. 16. 10-11 1. 16. 12 MASON HIGH SCHOOL BOYS) DEC. '58 to FEB: '59 mason Questionnaire and OAS Data, let and 2nd tastings. Card Identification (2df) 01 " Card 101 02 - Card 1.2 16 - This card is punched 16 Person identification (3df) DECEMBER, 1958, QUESTIONNAIRE DATA Age to nearest birthday (2df) (Question 2) 16 - sixteen years 18 - eighteen years YY - no answer Grade in school (Question h) 0 - junior (11th grade) 1 - senior (12th grade) I - no answer Father's occupation: farm vs. nonfarm (Question 5) 0 - not a farm operator 1 - is a farm operator Y - no answer North-Hatt Occupational Prestige score of father's occupation (Question S),-(2df)l 3h,-'thirtyhfour ' 96 - ninetyhsix YY - no answer Number of best friends mentioned (Question 6) O - none 1 - one 5 - five 6 - six or more Y’- no answer . . , . ‘;.rv , .... _ ... . , .( u ' I .7 , ' u v ' '.. I'. ‘5 ‘ v‘.-II .- l‘u - Q- at 1- -.i I. 'h' - ‘05- a C 0 ~ - a -- I ' M . ~- . . , ' I ‘I " I. <"‘.- .v Q . I \ '- g' : I U. . ' ' I ,. l . .‘. ad -. .. I a .7. . ... ‘ 1 ' a ' . l -. -- - v , . . . . ' . ' I r t '| £16..“ ..‘...- .4 .. f. . 1' - ...-.r.-.......-.-..»--. .~ -—..- --.., . .. -....n- .. ...—.--. . . , ' . . . " ' 'A no - ' A A. - ‘a l . . \ . ~ 1‘ ' l . .y. , o .. . . - .. - -. I . o - _ . . . . ' .. s ' . '1 ., ~ _',-. u. . .. -- .. ‘ u '-‘ . I .:‘~ . 1 , I_ . 2": n5, .__ 4 . a ' . . t . - KI " A .“IU \.‘ .. ' , . . Q ' ‘ c' rp ‘ I- ‘ a O“ of . O ‘ '4' ' ‘, ._. _ “ ... . , .. .._‘ ‘ ‘--" - r ‘\ I I ’ P o ' .. C.:.J‘ll,» . "' . -o J .. ‘ u; I 9. 7"." ' ; {Lu _ .. - . - r .\ .‘ frag ,,.—. -7',‘- - . ~ v .A‘J ‘ ',."(“ .. a ' '4 -- .. - . ‘ r “ .-': , . ' ‘N ;_\ - a. ' a I I. ~4J u..- . u 'w ’ .. Q .'.' ' a. -- a... .. . g . . a r- - J - . - " .. A ‘1’. ' c '- 0". :4|.( -" ._ 0 '.- Urn. ,- <'+:: ‘O- . ‘-r-Ir‘lrl"'v-rl\n 0’ .‘-\'_'Av‘ I.I . ",. \‘T :- . u .. . g . A . - 'x l .- ... A . a ' I . ' - ,-_' , ..4 >1... ‘ A .. I~ . n I ‘ 't [A - ‘ ' . - ,a ‘ . z ' ' 'n o ..;r.._ Q~.-"’ _ ..." .- ‘ - . . - . . . l b ' s .'I_'- ... " n '1' ' l" 1.‘ " .. « . . u - . _ . n . o . . 'fi - ..* ... r“ . ’.‘*' ‘r. ’- V . fv‘ .. _ l-n _ ..-,‘n ‘ ..-” , , . l. . . ' v n. . - : . ‘ ‘ . . . "'l I o i D . . .3” ; .. A . . “t. .I»\ .. . - .. .4 1.16.13 1e16¢1h.15 l.16.16~17 1016.18.19 ‘1.16.20-21 .1016022-23 m 19 Number of best friends mentionedm&'who also choose respondent (Question 6) (e.gk, mutual choices within the sample) Os-none 1 - one 5 - five or more I - no answer Chain group1 identification number (group to which the respondent belongs) (2df) 01 - chain group one 02 - chain group two nn - chain group nn yy A does not belong to any chain group in sample Peer groupA2 identification number Ol.h-p eer group one 02 ~ peer group two nn - peer group nn ' Q yy'- does~not belong to any peer group in sample Peer groupB identification number 01 - peer group one '02 - peer group two nn - peer group nn yy - does not belong to any peer group in sample Peer groupc IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 01 - peer group one 02 - peer group two nn - peer group nn yy - does not belong to any peer group in sample Peer groupD identification number 01 9 peer group one 02 - peer group two nn - peer group nn yy'- does not belong to any peer group in sample 1 Defined as a linked chain of individuals 2 Individuals who choose and are chosen by eachother as best friends. (Two or more) . a $n deli- ‘ ~ ‘0‘.. . .. '30 '5 r ~.l .1 i .3“ a. . -. .J- -- : -. — 41.. .. - -. . ;:,I ..-;_,CC;;.) "1.... ..u. .. .4-F-.-..'.‘.J ‘ D‘- 1. 0 l“'- . . ..A ". :' min: a Va; 3133:; 4.13:19 ; .“l . . L ‘.I r V I ‘V' ' " .: .’ .f ' .l o- 1",, .“ ' ."' . 4.31.2... v. 1",”)‘(7-3 1 rumba. 1 . 1’ l ‘ .. ‘-,,~:. .f\' . ".‘, . I v(; ‘v ..‘J.al..‘7 -A-' ind-I I ‘ ' ’ 1‘." rr "I P ", . V -o'.) ! :r‘qu;\ .2. r1 ,-v7!a\~v ql'f‘o- 1 'gL" i.¢ . 3 .. .‘A\J L... A ‘- no 0": not rv r1 _. damn A .. . «awe-n If; ‘ffffi-“ft‘ - ‘~.:- ' 'I An. -I ...‘ cc.“c '..-. l ..y.“ .3. . ‘ iv '. . . ‘ -‘A U-Isi ' . ‘1 ‘ . f I "1: '.‘- x- .~ 7v wing}; ! -..-.f 1 1.; a1 .- . l .- I tl"‘r.-f:-.- v X -'i‘1 ..‘- ..-.... '» ~.,p. .—c ..' ‘ v I. .' '.I' ‘ _ . . -. ...‘. u ' . - i .0 . . . .w-znx -, : '1' ."1 n c " Jul - 0“ ;‘ ‘A . o . .‘. Q I ... 8 . I.Pv l'h, .. ,. 4 . 5Q ‘. ..a n. - z o . ‘. _‘ "1' s-' . ... o . . I 1" ‘f( 'Jup ‘ l qr“; ,. “f _'. -. ,i' I z . ‘J. ' ...“- ... r' \ 'C - Nix), ”filo ‘ . UK >:_ .- r.—- T- .' 12:21.1. ."l ' (I. ' "'- ‘1 . ‘ It, "{';'\ - 1". T . c ,, ' . . . . ‘ .. . d 3‘ ' ' l '- . ' O l-‘.,. ' , _or .' .1 ""3 a- r 2. .' oa- \ .V . ... I I. l‘ . , H I ’ h 3' I... -l - n . '1‘ ' Q - . ,- L2. . _. . .'-._r“. N ‘ ‘ ‘1. . ,’7,‘. . o_ . . . I, . I .‘ . ~‘IO I _‘ f. ‘ o .. . . ‘ ' IN . I i l a ' ' V' o. “ v. 0 l ‘ . ‘ ',\ (b 2 ‘ - . . a . . . l' \. _ '; - n _ ... ' .A‘ -“ fl .' . "' ‘ .\ - h , I A ‘ . . . O . ‘- . . , ‘ , .- ._-.. .I. - ’ . a ‘P “ . _ 9 - r v.31 -. ' . '1 I. . I - . 9U ‘ -.‘~' I. .3 . ' .- K = .' a 4“. g " '7’» ’ 'q'( u... : P. a M J.- .-, ,. .... ,, . g .- fl»! . ' . d A x ' o . ‘.I-.;. .» .rv a: a,“ . .r} ' '\! all + ' . nrv .- l‘ -- ‘ v -‘ .ILA -.\) ‘ .- - - t ~"f"\' II _“n . .' '-34-“~. {3‘ J .1 a A ... .: u‘-'-; o .‘ ‘ 1 ‘ . ‘ 1 '- _. ,, \ . (‘f'\ Qak' . I "f —- "'l‘ ' II I I - l 'V ... .V,‘ ‘ .a.: n .. _‘ ., ' ya . . p I ' .... . . - ".0‘ U" ‘ .. L -'. '. . “-‘.A~."\ ~ A 1‘ o' . .7 . .. ,1 \F‘ vi ' vrf - ' 2 n . . ' ' .. f ... ," ' \ . '1 III: . .u‘ .- 1V. '. >- .4 ...-.-....“ .- a .. -_, . . . . . , ‘ - . ' r _ ,3! - ,‘ n. ‘J. L a. I- ... ,‘.. o -' e “ .u , {... '3 b: t -. » .- -' ’.. - ~ '. P .E ,Q A -- r ‘- .O | :v. . - o ...-L x . “ “ .- — . - -'-l .'_-a‘ .4 ‘~ - .l'fi ‘- K b - .... - ‘- o . c . ...... ...._. -.- r. 1. .‘fr' -- i 0 ‘ V ¢L+ 1.16.2h 1.16125 1116526 1.316. 27 1.16.28 1. l6.’ 29 1.16.30 1. 16.31 1016632‘33 1.1663h'35 1.16.36-37 10 16.38.39 .1.16.h0-h1 PAGE 50 OASgR Scores: Firet testing; 12—58 Question One score (lst score RnES) 0 - zero points 1 - one point 9 a nine points I . no answer Question Two scores (lat score I-ES) 86b 1‘ 160 36 Question Three score teed score RHES) See lo 160 36 Question Four score (2nd score I—ES) See 1. 16636 Question Five score (lst score R-30) See 1.16.36 Question Six Score (lst score I~30) See 1116.36 QuestiOn Seven score (2nd score R-30) See 1016. 36 QueStion Eight score (2nd score I-BO) See 1.16.36 'Sum of scores for Q 1 a. 3: R-ES (2df) 00 - zero points 01 - one point 18 .. eighteen points YY-noanswer to one or both of Q1813 Sum Of scores for Q 2 &.h: I-ES (2df) See léléohh‘hs ‘Sum.of accres for Q S.& 7: R~30 (2df) See 1.16.hb-h5 Sum.of scores for Q 6‘& 8: I-30 (2df) Seeel,16,hh~h5 Sum of scores for Q 1,3,S,7,: realistic choice level (2df) 00 - zero points 01 - one point . 36 - thirty-six points YY - no answer to any or all of Q l,3:5:7 I." ‘r e' 9 ".An. . r e i " . 1 . . o . ~. 1 .l u n . . . 0 Ox . I I I '6 O . I u . .‘. \ o ..i 'l . 'V I r 'e'. . . ‘ . 1'! ' ‘ _ l l u . II ‘PC. . . .. . .. n.- . . 3'1 1016.hh‘h5 1.16.16-h7 1.16oh8‘h9 1.16.50 1.16.51 1.16.52 1.16.53 1.16:5h 1.16:55 1.16.56 1:16.57 PflGE 51 Sum of scores for Q 2,b,6,8: idealistic choice level (2df) See 1. 160 52.53 ‘ Sum of scores for Q 1,2,S,6: Splitehalf A1 00 - zero points 01 — one point 36 - thirtyhsix points YY - no answer to one or all of summed Questions Sum of scores for Q-3,h,7,8: Splitéhalf'Bl See 1.16.hh~h5 Sum.3f scores for Q 1 through 8: level of occupational aspiration 2df 00 - zero points 01 - one point 72 - seventy-two points YY - no answer to any one or all of Q 1 through 8 OAS~R Scores (Form B) and I Achievement Scores Second testing, 2-39 Question One score 366 1016636 Question Two score See 1.16.37 Question Three score See 1.16.38 Question Four score See 1.16039 Question Five score See 1.16sh0 Question Six score See l:l6.h1 Question Seven score See 1.16.h2 QUQstion Eight score See 1.16.h3 . l \ l ‘. 1" ' n . , ' I .' . . ‘ pi'. I ‘1’”. O", . ‘ -- ' ' 5 ‘ | ‘ ’ .1 ‘, qu . C - o '. . . . ~' '-. " . ' . r' , ... . - . ~ 3. . ' I . . .— v . . fir '. n . .1 lb 0 ‘ 1 . ' . I '- _ . - ' ... . ' I. . . v ‘ .. I . " o 'J - r . “ .. ..- ‘. . r- . 4... .3“, g . . . . v I. ‘ . an - a '."I . ..1;V. .' . . «c U . ,‘a'o f; A '. ’- -‘ -' - e» 1‘ .‘v A - :..e . .‘- 1‘.) 1 ' Q.” lL‘-.J\l ...". :. ..--».I-IIII *—C“I-O wnl "r~ "I'l >. u. *C" U *1..- --.IF“C*“.I- --‘-'- ... “Au—”r..- . .‘v 0 L ' .. I - I , I‘ v-u .- . a. ' ‘ 'I‘OA- t'r . , I °' 1" -l ' ‘, _ .- .,; 21c"... . . e- "..r ...“... . .. \ ~. .\. . ~,,~, - . I . rl I W1 - 5:”132 o'- l . . “C R O ‘ .x r ‘ ,‘ n1. .. ‘ _ . . .. .. .. , . . , I '» N.“ [2"‘1 l‘ 1‘0 II . I." . n‘ ' _ ... _ . - .-_ ta . 1 . ' b 4 v . a. . . -(_,’ I.’ ' " - - ., . ‘ .‘ . 1!.- | I c.' I... 1'. ‘1 I" A .‘l . "' , .., 1‘ I - ‘ - I u . . ‘.‘b. ‘1 g . ..f‘ . Iv"_".- a: .‘J '. -' . , “ j_ ._.' 3 . .) . . , ' ¢ I 9 a '\ I g . II . 0.. . . . . .. . .,,. . l. .... . IA . ‘ , ‘ . ." ,~I' . I 0' '7 y c C J .‘ ‘ . ‘o . é- , O 0. I .41 '- a 0 Us“ 1.16.58-59 lll6.60-61 1.16.62~63 l.16.6b~65 1.16.66-67 1.16.68h69 1.16.70-71 1.16.72-73 1.16.7h-75 l;16.76-77 l. 16.78-80 PAGE 52 wmdQl&3:R£S(%fl See lo 160 “4-4-15 Sum of Q.2 &.h: I-ES (2df) See 1.16.h6-h7 Sum of Q 5 & 7: R—30 (2df) See 1;165h8-b9 Sum of Q 6 8r. 8: I-30 (2df) See 1516.50-51 Sum of Q 1,3,S,7: realistic choice level (2df) See lo 160 52.53 Sum oflc 2,b,6,8é idealistic choice level (2df) Sum of scores for Q l,2,5,6: Split-half A2 See l.16.hh-h5 ‘ Sum.of scores for Q 3,h,7,8 Split—half’82 See l.16.bh—h5 ' Sum.of scores for Q 1 through 8: level of occupational aspiration (2df) See lo 16. 56-57 I Achievement scores (2df) 00 —-zero points (low 3 Achievement) Ol - one point 02 - two points 36 - thirty-six points (high I Achievement) Grade Point Average for school year 1958-1959 000 - zero points 100 - 1.00 (D average) 1 200 - 2.00 (C Average) 3 300 - 3.00 (B Average) : hOO - h.00 éA Average) YYY - no data on grade point average 5539“? ”a“! x”: "'3‘4 .1 it. x ' ~. JUNAaJQSI y 3 H“ y . ‘ M ‘ . r" NIH? 1 I lllllli