A SFEJDY T0 ES'MBMSH A SCORENG KEY FOR MALE ELEMENTARY AME? SECONDARY ART FEACHERS TO 3E USED WISH THE STRONG VOCAWONAL INTEREST BLANKS'EH Thai: for Hip Dog". of EJ. D. MICHIGAN SSATE UHAVEHSITY Vnctor P. Croftchxk 1959 1.18515 0-169 This is to certifg that the thesis entitled A Study to Establish a Scoring Key For Male Elementary and Secondary Art Teachers to Be Used With The Strong Vocational Interest Blank presented by Victor P. Croftchik has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for . _F_d._lL_ degree in Mal-1?” LIBRARY Michigan State University . /‘ n chofogv-" A STUDY TO ESTABLISH A SCORING KEY FOR MALE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY ART TEACHERS TO BE USED WITH THE STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK By VICTOR PFU’SROFTCHIK A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION School of Education 1959 ABSTRACT This study was designed to develop a scoring key for elemen- tary and secondary male art teachers for the Strong Vocational Inter- est Blank for. Men. Before the scoring key could be developed it was necessary to discover the differences in interests, if any, which ex— isted between the art teachers criterion group and Strong’s “men-in— general” criterion group. If differences did exist, it would be pos— sible then to “weight” these differences and thereby establish a scoring key, which would measure art teaching interests on the Strong Blank. A review of the literature indicated nothing had been done in this area of art interests, either with the Strong or any other interest inventory. The 335 male art teachers who formed the criterion group for the study were employed in the public schools of a three-state area comprising Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. Only those teachers were used who met the requirements for a criterion group as set up by Strong. These men were asked to fill out the Interest Inventory, indicating their responses on the Hankes Scoring Sheet, and to pro— vide personal data which established their qualifications for the criterion group. Three follow—up letters elicited over 80 per cent ii I the study area. Using procedures approved by Strong, and further substanti- ated by the literature on the use of the Strong Inventory, so that the art—teachers scale would be an acceptable addition to the Strong Blank, the writer successfully developed a scoring key for male elementary and secondary teachers which could be added to the list of professions already keyed on the blank. This key was validated by the scores of ninety—three art teachers from the Eastern Arts Association who met the group cri- terion in every way. They were asked to comply with the same re— quirements as the key group, and the percentage of response was about the same. Further validation was made by a comparison of the results on the key of the men—in-general group. The findings of this study revealed that art teachers’ inter— ests were definitely different from the interests of men-in-general as measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. These differences made it possible to establish a scoring key for art teachers which could be added to the list of professions avail- able for counseling service. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT S The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the many persons who have assisted him in this project: To the art teachers who supplied the information which made this _ study possible. To Dr. John D. Krumboltz, who gave generous advice, assist- I ance, and encouragement during all phases of this study. To the other members of the graduate committee—Dr. Walter ' Johnson, Dr. Milosh Muntyan, Mr. Howard Church, and the late Dr. I Cecil Millard. To Dr. Edward K. Strong, Jr., who kindly provided informa- 1 tion essential to the study. 3 To Dr. Elmer J. Hankes of Testscor, who supplied the neces— sary materials, and who gave valuable information. To Dr. Kenneth E. Clark, who assisted in the tabulation of the data. To my wife Lela, for her optimism and patient assistance through many tedious hours. To my son Gregory, for his understanding and patience. iv Final Examination: VITA Victor Paul Croftchik Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education November, 1 95 9 Thesis: A Study To Establish a Scoring Key for Male Elementary and Secondary Art Teachers To Be Used with the Strong Vocational Interest Blank Outline of Studies: Major Subject—Higher Education Cognate Field—Fine Art Biographical Items: Born: June 27, 1917, Martin, Pennsylvania Undergraduate Studies: Central Michigan College, 1934—1938 Experience: Member of : Graduate Studies: Master of Arts, University of Michigan, 1946 The Ohio State University, Summer, 1948 Michigan State University, 1948—1959 Teacher, Clarenceville Public Schools, Farmington, Michigan, 1938—1941, 1946—1948 Assistant Professor of Art, Central Michigan Col- lege, 1948—1957 Associate Professor of Art, Central Michigan Col- lege, 1957—1958 Acting Head of Art Department, Central Michigan College, 1958— Michigan Art Education Association Western Arts Association National Art Education Association College Teachers of Art Education Michigan Department of Higher Education Michigan Education Association hurt ‘i -. 'v 'u'v. I". ."I ‘l..' CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................... '\ Purpose ............................ Statement of the Problem ................ Definition of Terms Used ................ Limitations of the Study ................. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES .............. IV. Selection of Subjects ................... Data-Collection Procedures ............... Analysis of the Returns ................. Key Construction Procedures .............. Validation Design ...................... Comparison of Art Teachers and Men-in-General ..................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................... APPENDIXE S ................................ FPFF‘APCP’? Strong Vocational Interest Blank ............ Hankes Scoring Sheet Form ME ............. Personal Data Sheet ..................... Original Letter to Subjects ................ First Follow-up Letter ................... Second Follow-up Letter .................. Third Follow-up Letter ................... Numbers and Percentages of Art Teachers and Percentages of Men-in-General Selecting Each Item Response ..................... Page I-I cooooocn 11 32 32 35 38 46 56 60 72 Page Assignment of Weights of the Item Differences of Art Teachers and Men-in-General ......... 114 J. Scoring Weights for Art Teachers Key ........ 123 K. Numbers and Percentages of Validating Group Selecting Each Item Response ......... 130 L Comparison of Percentages of Responses of Key Group and Validating Group to Each Item ............................ 143 M. Algebraic Totals of Raw Scores of Key Group and Determination of Means and Standard Deviations ..................... 157 N. Algebraic Totals of Raw Scores of Vali- dating Group and Determination of Means and Standard Deviations .................. 172 0. Computation of the Significance of the Difference between the Two Means by the t-Test ............................... 179 P. COpy of Original Letter from Dr. Kenneth E. r; Clark ............................... 182 vii VI. VIII. LIST OF TABLES Population of the Study .................... Percentage of Returns from the Original Mailing and Follow-up Letters ............... Other Information on Criterion Group .......... Tabulation of Item Responses on the Blanks ..... Number and Per Cent of Art Teachers Selecting Each Response ................... Calculation of Percentages for Item “Actor” for Art Teachers and Men-in-General Groups Fourfold Table for Determining Weight of “Like” Response to Item “Actor” ............ Comparison of Percentage of Responses to Items of Key Group and Validating Group ....... Number of Items at Each Weight Which Discriminated between Art Teachers and Men-in-General ......................... Discriminating Items in Part I (Occupations) between Art Teachers and Men-in-General ,,,,,, Discriminating Items of Part VI (Activities, Ideals, Club Offices, and Mechanics) between Art Teachers and Men—in-General ............ Discriminating Items of Part 11 (School Sub- jects) between Art Teachers and Men-in—General . . viii Page 39 40 43 49 50 51 53 59 62 63 65 Discriminating Items of Part III (Amuse- ments) between Art Teachers and Men-in-General ................... Discriminating Items of Part IV (Activities) between Art Teachers and Men-in-General Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION If it is at all possible, all students should enter a vocational field for which they possess the necessary abilities and interests. Any device which would aid counselors to provide better guidance to students would contribute immeasurably to the whole field of edu- cation—not only from the viewpoint of the student, but from that of the educator as well. It is important to all fields of learning that those who possess the requisite characteristics be guided and en— couraged to enter those professions for which they are best equipped and for which they show definite interest. In the field of art education (as differentiated from profes- sional art) there is a definite need to find these students and to guide them into art education as a profession. This guidance prob- lem appears primarily at the undergraduate level in college where the student so often is at a loss to decide where his interests really lie. In the area of art many students are torn between in- terest in art itself (professionally) and the teaching of art in the PUblic schools. Due to various reasons most male art students, t the beginning of their college training, frown upon a career in teaching and consider themselves talented and interested enough in art to seek a professional artist’s career. Hence, there is an overemphasis upon the number of women in art teaching, upon the femininity of art itself, and upon the idea that art is not a serious subject worth the time and effort of all school children. Thus, there builds up a still greater feeling in high school boys that art teaching is for women principally and that it offers very little as a suitable career for men. This emphasis upon women teachers in art has not helped to solve the continuing shortage of teachers in this area. Women often marry as soon as they are graduated (if not be- fore) and follow their husbands to the cities in which the husbands are employed. They, thus, look for whatever teaching jobs they can find; most often these are in elementary classroom teaching rather than in art teaching, since the more acute shortage occurs in the former and more jobs are available there. Coupled with this is the problem related to family rearing and the making of a home for their families. If we are to attack the problem of the shortage of art teachers in the elementary and secondary schools, one way might be to find the male students who do possess basic interests in art teaching, even though they may not think so at the time, and to I schools. There is a definite need to seek out those young men who do possess the same interests as practicing male art teachers. If art education is to continue as a contributing factor in public education, more competent young men should be guided into the art teaching field. Thus, persons who are responsible for the training of art teachers are those directly concerned with the identification of po- tentially qualified art teachers. There are, it seems, two related problems—one of guidance . and one of selection. As is well known, one of the ways counselors can assist young people in the selection of an occupation is by the use of an interest test. One of the most widely used interest in- ventories in guidance is the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Ap- pendix A). This test shows the extent to which an individual has interests in common with persons successfully engaged in various occupations. By the use of prepared keys, it is possible to arrive at scores which show this similarity in interests. Obviously, coun- selors are restricted in large part to a consideration of those oc- cupations for which keys have been prepared. There is no such key for art teaching. Therefore, we are concerned here particularly with the development of a scoring key for male art teachers in Afig???'Iitlenientazry and secondary schools. Such a key would enable coun- E selors using the Strong Vocational Interest Blank to identify young men who possess an interest in art teaching. The second problem———that of the selection of potentially qualified male art teachers—seems the more pertinent at this time. There are two important aspects of this problem: the need of the schools to find good male art teachers, and the need of the student to select a vocation in which he has some reasonable chance for \ success and happiness. Too many men select teaching as a stopgap measure—an easy way to earn a living while “they look around.” A Too many men pass up teaching because they do not think they would be happy in such work—“they have no interest in it”———only to dis- cover years later that they do possess many interests in common with men art teachers (or that they do not possess the interests and drives required in the professional art field). Thus, young men who have interests similar to successful art teachers should be the type of persons selected for this teaching field. If an adequate art— teachers key were available, the Strong Vocational Interest Blank i could be used by counselors in helping a person to gain a better over-all picture of himself in relationship to an occupational choice. Purpos e The purpose of this study is to make the Strong Vocational Interest Blank a more useful tool in both the guidance of and in the selection of male elementary and secondary art teachers. This would be useful in the undergraduate college program and perhaps in senior high schools having a guidance program. The present form of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for I Men does not have a key for identifying the interests of art teachers. There is a key for artists, but one may surmise that this key would not be suitable for the selection of art teachers in the public schools. The writer is of the opinion that the interests of those who teach public school children are quite different from the inter— ests of those who make a profession of art. This perhaps M not be so, but, because of existing circumstances, the writer feels sell and teaching school children are different. If so, the artist scale would prove quite inaccurate for art teachers. This could lead into an interesting study in the future—4he comparison of the interests of artists and art teachers as measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, once the art teacher scale is devel— the interests which compel a man to choose between creating art to oped. ‘ l \ Art education should attract more men into this field. The list of art teachers from any state will show an overwhelming ma- jority of women teachers (the Michigan Art Education membership for 1958 lists 70 per cent). Although more men are entering the art teaching field manyl'of them have as their goal a college art position which is part teaching and part creating art. If it could be pointed out to young men that they have interests in common 3 with practicing art teachers, perhaps more of them could be re- ‘1 cruited for the elementary and secondary schools. Any device A I which would aid this recruitment would be a useful tool in counsel- ing. The Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men has scoring keys for fifty—one (1958) professions, but none for art teachers. This study, therefore, was designed to identify the interest pattern of male elementary and secondary art teachers. With this informa— tion it would be possible to develop a key for this test. This should implement the recruitment program on a nationwide scale. The purpose of this study was to construct such a key. Strong has found it inadvisable to differentiate the inter— ests of teachers as a general professional group.1 When H Edward K. Strong, Jr., Vocational Interests of Men and Women (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1943), pp. 20, 161, 548. l ...;._ , ., J'ODPerl suggested comparing his industrial arts teachers with “teachers-in-general,” Strong wrote: We had a scale of teachers and school administrators. The scale was abandoned when it became obvious that teachers are not a homogeneous group. The above group (teachers—in- general) cannot be accepted as representing teachers in general. It would be foolish to construct a scale contrasting the interests of the above group and your Industrial Arts teachers. You would never be sure what you were measuring. He found further that the teachers seemed to correlate much more closely with other occupations than with each other. In his table of correlations it will be noted that men social studies teach- ers seemed to be related to social welfare workers (r with YMCA Secretary = .87) and mathematics teachers resembled skilled trades- men (r with carpenter = .68, r with printer = .72); whereas the cor- relation of the two teacher groups was nearly zero (r = .13).2 Perhaps as a more detailed breakdown of the interests of teachers in the various subject areas is made available, a general pattern of interests may emerge which would differentiate the inter— ests of teachers-in—general from those of “men-in—general.” There- fore, continued development of scoring keys for different areas may 1Charles E. Cooper, Jr., “Vocational Interests of Industrial Arts Teachers” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Missouri, Columbia, 1953), p. 16. 2Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, opp. p. 716. jgubhtribute to the over—all interest pattern of teachers-in-general, although Strong holds little hope of this possibility. Speculative benefits of such research as this are numerous and easily listed. However, other professional groups have found, or expected to find, several benefits from such interest measurement. These are: (1) improved guidance programs, (2) improved selection programs, (3) more efficient training programs, and (4) less loss of I personnel from the professional field. Statement of the Problem The purpose, therefore, leads directly to a statement of the problem: 1. To determine if the interests of male elementary and sec— ondary art teachers are significantly different from the in— terests of the men—in-general group as tested on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. 2. To construct a scoring key for measuring these interests on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. 3. To determine the validity of the scale. Definition of Terms Used Art education, as differentiated from professional art, is con- cerned with education through art, or teaching art in the public schools. Art teacher, as differentiated from professional artist, means one who teaches art in the public schools. Artist refers to one who professionally and commercially is engaged in the production of art products and is not en- gaged in teaching in the public schools as a primary source of income. Men-in-general refers to Strong’s criterion group of 4,746 cases of representative professional and businessmen. Limitations of the Study This study was made within certain limitations: 1“ 1. The geographical area was limited to the three states of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. A fairly accurate list of art teach- ers meeting the required criterion could be obtained from reliable sources for this three-state area. It was felt that these art teach— ers would be representative of art teachers in general, and that a concentration in fewer states rather than a spreading out over many states would produce a more representative group. A more thorough canvas of a limited area would be more satisfactory both from a fi- nancial and time standpoint. By a systematic follow-up within a geographically limited area, all subjects could be contacted more often at a saving of time and money. Moreover, more subjects might 1Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, pp. 712—13. 10 .- is persuaded to respond, giving a total picture which would be more representative of these teachers, since they would represent a larger percentage of all teachers in the area (as compared to a like number from a larger number of contacts over a greater area). 2. The criterion group was limited to those art teachers who came within the framework of the criterion established by Strong. 3. Procedures for establishing the key stayed within the limits established by Strong for his original groups in order to make this study applicable to the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Strong Vocational Interest Blank is so well known as to need no detailed description. It does not seem worth while to re— ; peat here all the information available on the construction of scoring keys for given occupational groups. Strong’s monumental Vocational Interests of Men and Women1 contains this material in full detail. ‘ _-: 14‘3" 'TF‘~ r This is supplemented further by Strong’s Vocational Interests 18 Years after College,2 Darley and Hagenah’s Vocational Interest Measurement,3 Fryer’s The Measurement of Interests,4 and Super’s 1Edward K. Strong, Jr., Vocational Interests of Men and Women (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1943). 2Edward K. Strong, Jr., Vocational Interests 18 Years after College (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1955). 3John G. Darley and Theda Hagenah, Vocational Interest Measurement (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1955). 4Douglas Fryer, The Measurement of Interests (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1931). 11 12 in“ I 'entt Appraising Vocational Fitness.1 These volumes cover ex- tensively the nature of interests and the development of interest- measuring devices. Numerous books and articles have been written about the Strong Vocational Interest Blank—its use, its validity, its reliability, and its limitations. One needs only to consult the m1 Measurement Yearbooks2 to find this impressive list of research. The writer concerned himself with a survey of the literature dealing directly with the problem of developing a scoring key for art teachers. Little has been done with tests and measurements in the area of art. Strong has developed a key for artists for his interest blank. This key was based upon men who were professional artists (painters, commercial artists, sculptors, and cartoonists). Kuder has developed his scale for measuring preferences in broad areas of general interest—among them an area called “artistic.” But here the area is a general one and is not related specifically to art teaching. Other art tests have attempted to measure art ability or appreciation, but without too much success.3 Nothing has been done 1Donald E. Super, Appraising Vocational Fitness (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949). 2O. K. Buros (ed.)., Mental Measurement Yearbook (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1938), pp. 1179—80; ibid., 1940, pp. 1679—82; ibid., 1949, pp. 646—53. 3Ibid., 1940, pp. 1679—82; ibid., 1938, p. 894; ibid., 1940, pp. 1323—40; ibid., 1949, pp. 171—79; Walter S. Monroe (ed.)., 13 schools. Strong’s. Vocational Interest Blank seemed to offer the best starting point for research into interests of this particular group of teachers. The blank is based upon the interests of people successfully employed in occupations and has been under— going constant refinement for nearly thirty years. It is keyed to specific occupations, and although the trend in counseling favors the use of general interest areas, the writer felt that knowledge of specific areas of interest might reveal more clearly generalized patterns of interest on the Strong blank, and that further research in art education could make better use of a specific interest- measuring device than of an instrument measuring only in the general area of artistic activity. It seemed to the writer that further refinement of the Strong inventory offered the best possi— bilities for art education. Kuder’s Record already has developed a broader “artistic” measurement which measures relatively pure interest factors in the general area of interest in artistic activities, and, although research with this instrument in the field of art Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952), pp. 64—72. 14 tles for this study. The problem under consideration was concerned with the as- sisting of students interested in art in making a decision between entering the profession as producing artists or as teachers of art. It was felt that the Strong Vocational Interest Blank offered the best possibility for counseling those students. It has been used widely and is a well-established testing device. It compares the interests of those taking the test with the interests of those already engaged in the occupation under consideration. It deals more specifically with the problem considered here than does the Kuder Preference Record which measures in the area of general artistic interest. With continued use and refinement the Strong Vocational Interest Blank offers possibilities for interest measurement in the area of art teaching—an area which has been neglected heretofore. The Strong Vocational Interest Blank and the Kuder Prefer- ence Record are the two most widely used vocational inventories among educational institutions and industrial concerns. There are distinct advantages in both, and perhaps the best counseling service is one in which both would be used. The preference of one over the other seems to depend upon the desired degree of refinement in measuring interests and upon the required saving in cost of scoring. .Ilé Lint) 15 " - are valid and useful tests, having undergone much research and practical application through use. But the two tests cannot be inter- preted as measuring the same things and, therefore, should not be used as substitutes for one another. Although Triggs,1 Wittenborn and Triggs,2 Anderson,3 and Peters4 found some intercorrelation be- tween interest tests, these similarities were so small as to make questionable the exchange of one test for the other. That the Strong Vocational Interest Blank is recognized as a valid and reliable instrument for measuring interests is borne out by the litera— ture. Among those who speak favorably to this point are Bordin,5 1Frances O. Triggs, “A Study of the Relation of Kuder 1 Preference Record Scores to Various Other Measures,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3:341—54, 1943. 2J. R. Wittenborn, Frances O. Triggs, and Daniel B. Feder, “A Comparison of Interest Measurement by the Kuder Preference Record and the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men and Wom- en,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3:239—57, 1943. 3Roy N. Anderson, “A Comparative Study of Three Vocational Interest Tests,” Psychological Clinic, 22:117—27, 1933—1934. 4Edwin F. Peters, “Vocational Interests as Measured by A the Strong and Kuder Inventories,” School and Society, 55:453— ‘ 55, 1942. 5Edward S. Bordin, Fourth Mental Measurement Yearbook ‘ (Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1953), p. 748; Edward ‘ S. Bordin, “A Theory of Vocational Interests as Dynamic Phe- nomena,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3:49—65, 1943. Super,8 and McArthur.9 In general, indications are that though the Strong Blank has faults, it is a useful tool in counseling. It would appear from comparative studies such as those of Patterson10 and Anderson11 that the Strong Interest Blank is more subtle in its in- terpretation and does what it purports to do better than most inter- est inventories. Although the Strong Vocational Interest Blank has 1O. K. Buros (ed.), The Third Mental Measurements Year— book (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1949), pp. 633—56. 2mm. 3mm. ' 4mm. 5Walter V. Bingham, Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1937), pp. 72, 357. 6Donald G. Patterson, “Vocational Interest Inventories in Selection,” Occupations, 25:152—53, 1946—1947. 7Roy N. Anderson, “A Comparative Study of Three Voca- tional Interest Blanks,” The Psychological Clinic, 22:117—27, Feb— ruary-March, 1933—1934. 8 Super, pp. 407—44. 9 Charles McArthur, “Long—Term Validity of the Strong In— terest Test in Two Sub-Cultures,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 38:346—53, October, 1954, p. 352. 10 Patterson, pp. 152—53. 1 1Anderson, pp. 117—27. (h #5.“ ‘ i 17 fhhortcomings, it is- a good available device for measuring art inter- ests. The addition of a key for measuring the interests of art teachers would make a worthy contribution to the field of art edu— cation. Since nothing else had been done in this area, the develop— ment of such a key would be a start towards further research in art and teaching. One of the questions which arose in the administration of such a test as the Strong Vocational Interest Blank concerned the degree of fakability on the returns. The art teachers used in this study gave of their time willingly. Most of them were unfamiliar with the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Furthermore, since only one teacher did not ask for a summary of the completed study, it was assumed that nearly all were interested enough to have been sincere in their answers. Because there were no personal contacts in the relationship between tester and testee, there was no reason for the teachers to favor the art responses. The literature1 concerning 1H. C. Steinmetz, “Measuring Ability To Fake Occupational Interests,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 16:123—30, 1932; Orin H. Cross, “A Study of Faking on the Kuder Preference Record,” mammal and Psychological Measurement, 102271—77, 1950; W. Scott Gehman, “A Study of Ability To Fake Scores on the Strong VOcational Interest Blank for Men,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17:65—70, 1957; G. Frederic Kuder, “Expected Devel- Opments in Interest and Personality Inventories,” Educational and P\s_&hological Measurement, 14:265—71, 1954; Edward J. Durnall, Jr., 18 A, ‘ “I" question indicated that such tests can be faked, but that, unless u motivated into a situation requiring faking, most subjects will re- spond honestlyr It was assumed, therefore, that the effect of faking was negligible upon the returns used in this study. This study followed the procedures for the construction of keys for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank as established by Strong.1 Much work has gone into the refinement of the instrument and into the scoring method since its first appearance. The litera- ture indicated some disagreement with the use of multiple scoring weights as opposed to unit scoring weights. T. C. Kelley introduced weighted scoring of test items in 1914, basing them upon the judgment of specialists. Cowdery used a formula presented in class by Kelley, and this in turn was adopted by Strong using a method based upon the interests of people successfully employed in various occupations. In refining this method, Strong reduced the range of weights from “Falsification of Interest Patterns on the Kuder Preference Record,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 45:240—43, 1954; Howard P. Long- Staff, “Fakability of the Strong Interest Blank and the Kuder Prefer- ence Record,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 32:360—69, 1948; A. L. Benton and S. I. Kornhauser, “A Study of ‘Score Faking’ on a Med- ical Interest Test,” Journal of the Association of the American Med- ical College, 23:57—60, 1948; Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, pp. 401—2, 683—90. 1Edward K. Strong, Jr., and H. D. Carter, “Efficiency Plus Economy in Scoring an Interest Test,” Journal of Educational Psy— Chology, 262579—86, 1935. as? r «a‘gnseasrx-flu—iwebm— = . =‘ figs: 19 If. ' " ’80 to $15. Later, in 1934, after Kelley had revised his old formula, the weights were further reduced to a range of i4, since the results of Strong and Carter’s study on optimum weights indicated a negligible ef- fect on reducing the scoring weights to i4. Since Kelley believed his re- vised formula was better than the original, and since the findings of the above study tended to substantiate Kelley’s belief, Strong accepted Kel— ley’s revised formula and reduced the range of weights to £4. He felt the slight loss (considered negligible) in discrimination value from :15 was offset by the decrease in scoring time and costs. Recent investigations have attempted to simplify the weighted scores still further, using a unit weight of 41 instead of the multiple weights of i4. Dunlap1 found that the Strong Blank could be scored with the simplified keys with only a few alterations of half a letter grade and none of more than a whole grade. In addition there would be a savings of from 60 per cent to 90 per cent in scoring time. Using a test group of several hundred men from the Universities of Rochester and Minnesota and from IBM personnel, he correlated the results of their tests by both the unit—weight and multiple—weight keys. By regression equations, pre- diction of “original” scores from “simplified” scores was made. He substituted the “simplified” scores of his control groups in the equa— tions and estimated the “original” scores. Correlations between 1Jack W. Dunlap, “Simplification of the Scoring Key of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,” Psychological Bulletin, 37:450, 1940. .I-' J.. .. fbetimated'scores and the original scores in the controlgroups Iranged from .942 to .981. In 410 cases of 1,764 a letter grade was shifted a half step; in'10 cases, a whole step; advice given subjects would be altered in only one case in twenty—two. A joint study by Peterson and Dunlap1 seemed to bear out Dunlap’s conclusion. To check Dunlap’s simplified scoring method with high school students, Lester and Traxler,2 using 211 twelfth—grade boys, found correla- tions of .923 to .983 on twelve scales. About two—thirds of the letter grades remained the same, 32 per cent changed one—half step, and a negligible number changed a full grade (1/ 3 of 1 per cent). But they found, as did Dunlap and his associates, that this change, though quite small, was critical in the B+ to B— group (since im- portant positive interests on the Strong Blank are reflected in the B to A patterns only) and that these people, in counseling situations, might have to be rescored by the original method. Another study by Kogan and Gehlmann,3 to verify Dunlap’s findings, produced 1B. M. Peterson and J. W. Dunlap, “A Simplified Method for Scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,” Journal of Consult— ing Psycholog, 5:269—74, 1941. 2Helene Lester and Arthur E. Traxler, “Simplified Method for Scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank Applied to a Secon— dary—School Group,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 33:628—31, 1942. 3Leonard Kogan and Frederick Gehlmann, “Validation of the Simplified Method for Scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 332317—20, 1942. 'pproximately similar results. The scores of 208 freshmen at the University of Rochester yielded correlations of .957 to .989, with 74 per cent retaining the same letter grade, 25 per cent shifting a half grade, 1 per cent moving a whole grade. Only 3.4 per cent shifted downward from the critical area of B+ to B—, which led the authors to conclude that the simplified method was as accurate as the original method. Strong, however, has contended that the unit weights are not as discriminating as the multiple weights. One might surmise that since he consented to reducing the scale from 430 to i4, he would accept a further reduction for the sake of simplifying his scoring procedure. In a study using both methods of scoring,1 he found that correlations of the two scales on ten occupations yielded an average of .92 (ranging between .837 and .982). The unit scales did not, however, differentiate occupational groups from one another as well as did the weighted scales. Whereas 10 per cent of the architects, for example, rated A on the lawyer scale when the weighted scale Was used, 30 per cent were so rated when the unit scale was em— ployed. This represented three times as much overlapping. Of seven comparisons of A ratings, overlapping increased on an 1Edward K. Strong, Jr., “Scoring an Interest Test,” The Psychological Clinic, 19:63—72, 1930—1931. 22 n—‘--_ l . - i- i. ! I.-' 'fiverage more than three times. Furthermore, twice as many men definitely would be rated as not belonging to a group to which they do not belong when the weighted scales were used as when the unit scales were used. In another later study Strong1 took a longer and more care— ful look at the problem of weighted scales versus unit scales. Here he raised the question of how much reduction in validity is possible before reaching the invalid point; that is, how much validity must be sacrificed for convenience of scoring any instrument which had been -,I devised in the beginning for as high a degree of validity as possible. He reviewed the major findings of Dunlap and others: (1) that scores on the two scales correlated .90 or higher with one another, (2) that there was over 70 per cent agreement in the ratings on the two I scales, and (3) that such errors as did occur were relatively un— important. In nine reports these studies had yielded an average coefficient of correlation of .961; in Strong’s own studies the aver— age correlation was .945. As he pointed out: These coefficients look very high, but when expressed in terms of per cent of efficiency, i.e., per cent better than chance, they become seventy—two and sixty-seven per cent, 1Edward K. Strong, Jr., “Weighted vs. Unit Scales,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 36:193—216, 1945. respectively. On such a basis we cannot accept unit scales as equivalent to weighted scales. Furthermore, Strong2 pointed out, Dunlap and his associates used an indirect method of estimating the norms, which should'be based upon the scores of the criterion group or another similar group. In this way they showed about 3 per cent more agreement than actually occurred. Rescoring the critical B+ to B— group would necessitate twice scoring about 15 per cent of the tests. The range of variability of agreement from one scale to another was from 26 per cent to 95.7 per cent, and the general tendency was for a shifting upward on the unit scale (24.2 per cent of the students rated up one letter grade and up; 37.9 per cent of the librarians rated up one letter grade and up). He found also that there was a difference when measurement of agreement was in terms of scores and not in terms of letter ratings; i.e., YMCA secretary scores among students indicated 90 per cent agreement in letter ratings, but only 32.5 per cent agreement when measured in one—half sigma steps over the whole range of scores; the reason being that 84.5 per cent of weighted and 80 per cent of unit scores 115m, p. 196. ZStrong, Vocational Interests’of Men and Women, pp. 623— 33. 24 were ignored when measuring agreement by ratings. Strong felt one cannot ignore the scores lower than B—, as Dunlap and others had done. By rescoring six scales on both the weighted and unit scales, Strong found confusion in counseling would result in one of six cases, not one in thirty—three as Dunlap had proposed. He con- cluded, therefore, that percentages of agreement between ratings was consequently a precarious method of comparing two scoring procedures, for the percentages obtained had to be evaluated in terms of the mean score of the blanks used. In calculating the per— centage of overlapping between a group and the criterion group on both unit and weighted scales, he found that weighted scales differ— entiated these groups an average of 5.2 per cent better than unit scales; and that in ten of the twenty—nine comparisons made, unit scales were less valid by 6 to 16 per cent; and in two comparisons, by 12.5 per cent to 16 per cent. Kuder1 and McCornack2 supported Strong’s contention that multiple weights were as effective, if not more so, than unit weights. 1Frederic G. Kuder, “A Comparative Study of Some Methods of Developing Occupational Keys,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17:105—14, 1957. 2Robert L. McCornack, “Sex Differences in the Vocational Interests of a Professional Group (Social Workers),” (unpublished doc— tor a1 dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1954). 1' .1”: ’- I-I' .l' vi ._4 f . 7.’ la 7535*“ ' 25 an exceedingly thorough study of this problem with some 1,183 - I male. and female social workers, McCornack produced evidence from which he concluded: These results are in complete agreement with Strong’s conclusion that his multiple—weighting procedures produce keys which are superior in discriminating power to those which use unit weights. Not only were these results statistically signifi- cant, but also the differences in favor of multiple-weight keys were large enough to be of practical importance. McCornack keyed his groups to multiple weights and to two self—devised unit—weight scales. The multiple—weighted key produced 1 overlappings of much smaller magnitude which were definitely superior statistically (i.e., 16 per cent vs. 22 per cent, 15 per cent vs. 21 per cent; the smaller the percentage of the overlapping the greater \ I effectiveness). His correlations between scales averaged about .98 as compared to Dunlap’s .961, which would seem to agree with Dun— lap’s findings on correlations, but his data on overlappings definitely substantiated Strong’s argument that agreement between correlations 0f letter ratings does not mean that the two scales are as valid in terms of total scores. 26 In developing keys for industrial arts teachers and for psy- \ :fllilichologists, Cooper1 and Kriedt2 both felt that the evidence favored I the multiple-weighted procedure which they used in their studies with the Strong Blank. This apparent controversy over the weighting of keys seemed to have as its objective the saving of time and money. Evidence was lacking that the unit weight would produce better results in in— terpreting the data. Quite the contrary, some studies showed the unit weight was as good as the multiple weight at times and usually not as effective. There would be no value, then, from this stand— point, in reducing the scoring weights from the original scale. The basic objective of saving time in scoring was proposed by Dunlap and others as a sincere desire on their part to make the Strong Interest Blank more attractive to those who admit to using other . . . . 3 interest inventories because they are ea51er to score. Super felt 1Charles E. Cooper, Jr., “Vocational Interests of Industrial Arts Teachers” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1953). 2Philip H. Kriedt, “Differential Interest Patterns of Psy— chologists” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minne- SO‘ta, Minneapolis, 1949). 3Super, p. 413. 27 ' 't this was a major point among school personnel in the selection of an interest test, but he then pointed out that: When the cost is approximately one dollar per case (to use the Strong Blank) the price of greater validity does not seem unduly high. Public Schools and other institutions spend far more per pupil on things of less significance than finding out what kinds of educational and vocational activities are most likely to challenge them.1 As Strong pointed out: The conclusion must be at this time that if maximum differ- entiation is desired, weighted scales should be used in prefer- ence to unit scales. And seemingly if weighted scales differenti- ate occupations better than unit scales they should also provide better scores for vocational counseling. We do not know, but we can surmise, that the difference in ratings between the two types of scales which all investigators have found are expressions of the differences in the two scales as regards differentiation of occupations. . . . Shall we insist upon maximum accuracy with present cost of scoring or content ourselves with less accuracy and half the cost? Dunlap argues for the simpler scoring pro- cedure because it permits testing more people. . . . Another correspondent stresses the desirability of making unit scales available for the Vocational Interest Blank, else some people will use inferior tests which are easy to score. If the present cost were one hundred dollars, some decreased accuracy might be justified for the sake of cutting the cost in half. But when the present cost is a dollar, one wonders about saving fifty cents at the expense of inaccurate counselling to some people. Is it worth the chance of error? It was concluded, therefore, that although there existed some controversy over the matter of the optimum weights of scales, the 1Ibid. , p. 413. 2Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, p. 632. 28 f - teachers scale should be developed with multiple weights. The multiple-weighted scale would be as good as, or better than, a unit- weighted scale. Future research should be done in this area in an honest endeavor to reduce the cost of scoring the Strong test. Furthermore, the cost of scoring and the time saved would not be reduced when the IBM tabulator was used, for the size of weights is immaterial. Hand scoring would be facilitated by reduction in size of weights. Since this study was tabulated with IBM equipment at the University of Minnesota and since the validity of the data would not be increased by unit weights, the writer decided in favor of the multiple-weighted key. Moreover, this key should be in keep— ing with other already established keys approved by Strong. If future research warrants a change to unit scales, all the existing keys could be converted from the present i4 scale without too much dif- ficulty. For this study it would not have been more practical nor l more accurate to have used the unit—weighted scale as it is presently proposed. How large would a criterion group need to be in order to establish the most valid key for art teachers? In his early investi- gations Strong deemed 100 to 150 cases sufficient, but later he felt that this figure should be raised to 250. He1 found that in a j 11bid., pp. 639—41. 29 a .I. .I-é-éttnmarison of lawyers only 64 per cent of a second sample would ‘ " "rate A instead of 75 per cent on the original scales when the norms were based upon the first sample of one hundred cases. In addition to his own findings, he was supported by the research of Manson.1 Eight of her scales were based upon 250 cases and two upon 500 cases. She found that 250 cases were sufficient for a criterion group as new cases obtained 97 per cent as many A ratings as the criterion groups. Strong’s2 most convincing investigation involved eleven groups of engineers of 50 cases each. He chose these groups carefully so that there would be equal representation from the various branches of the profession. Nine scales were developed, based on groups ranging in size from 50 to 500 cases. As the criterion group was increased in size, the correlations betWeen the scores of this group and the scores of a group of 500 independent cases increased in size from .85 (scale of 50 cases) to about .99 (scale of 400 cases). The scale for 150 cases produced a coefficient of .956 which might have appeared as sufficient as those of larger groups. However, 1G. E. Manson, “Occupational Interests and Personality Re— quirements of Women in Business and the Professions,” Michigan Business Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1931. 2Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, pp. 642—49. — .¥;n.az3 = 1 When the correlations were converted into coefficients of forecasting efficiency, a group of 400 forecast the results to be obtained with a group of 500 much more accurately than did a criterion group of 50 (.839 vs. .475). This correlation was .71 with 150 cases, .74 with 250 cases, .80 with 300 cases, and .84 with 400 cases. He found that the error in using a criterion group of 250 instead of 400 or 500 cases amounted to from one to two standard scores, and in— creased to from two to eight standard scores with 100 cases, and to larger amounts with a criterion group of only 50 cases. He also compared the percentages of overlapping between samples from two different occupations and found that differentiation between two occu- pations could not be accurately determined by scoring both on a scale based on less than 250 cases. Strong, therefore, concluded that criterion groups of 300 to 500 cases were needed in order to decrease the sampling errors, and that scales using 400 to 500 Cases. would yield more accurate results. This study used some 335 cases as the criterion group. This is as large a number as some which were used to establish k(i‘ys, but it is smaller than others. Kriedt and McCornack used Over a thousand, but Cooper used only a few over two hundred. Strong expressed an opinion that the greater the number of cases the better the study would be. His investigations of optimum 31 fiftnnbers of cases would bear this out. However, for this study, the 335 cases fell within the range of satisfactory numbers and repre— sented over 80 per cent of eligible cases in the three—state area canvassed. The cross-validation group of 93 could be added in es- tablishing norms if so desired, giving a total of 428 cases. This could be done since the scores of the two groups correlated so closely. A review of the literature indicated that this might be the better procedure for establishing the norms for the art-teachers scale, but that 335 cases were sufficient in number for establishing the scoring key. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Selection of Subjects The criterion for selecting the subject group was that set up by Strong.1 Accordingly, the art teachers used in this study: . 1. Had at least three years’ experience as art teachers in ‘ elementary or secondary schools. 2. Were less than sixty years of age. \ 3. Were college graduates. 1 4. Were earning more than $2,500 a year as teachers (al- . though this is no longer a meaningful restriction). 5. Indicated that they intended to remain in the occupation. The male elementary and secondary art teachers in the states of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri were chosen as the group i to be surveyed for the development of this scale. The group was ‘ Considered to be sufficiently large in numbers and appeared to be ‘ representative of such art teachers as to serve as a satisfactory \ 1Edward K. Strong, Jr., Vocational Interests of Men and WOmen (Stanford, Calif: The Stanford University Press, 1943), pp. 63, 694. 32 33 basis for the scale. This three-state area was selected because name lists were available and effective contacts could be made with the state art supervisors in Illinois and Missouri, and with the secretary of the Michigan Art Education Association, since no state art supervisor existed in Michigan. Although the population was lim— ited to this three-state area, one may surmise these teachers were representative of teachers throughout the nation. They came from large and small schools, from cities, towns, and villages of various economic levels. They represented teachers working in areas of great art interest and in areas of little art interest. They included teachers working individually without supervision and teachers work— ing with many colleagues under supervision. Although this study was limited to the three-state area of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri, it Was felt that the criterion group was representative of art teachers in all states. Super1 suggested that interests may differ regionally \that Midwest teachers might not respond similarly to Eastern teach- ers—and that studies should take this into account in their samplings. The completeness of the sampling for this study (as shown in Table 11) established the criterion group as representative of this group of 1Donald E. Super, Appraising Vocational Fitness (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), pp. 417—18. N44395:: 7 l.- art teachers. The close correlation of the results of the cross- validation group of Eastern teachers and this key group suggested that insofar as these two groups were concerned, Super’s regional differences did not manifest themselves. However, this suggests the possibility of a study of interest patterns of specific occupations in various regions. A. presurvey was made of the possibility of using those teach- ers from every state who could meet the criterion. This was not feasible from a financial and time standpoint. Contacts were diffi— cult to make and little incentive to answer the test was to be found for those from faraway states. Another plan was to use a larger geographical division, but this was rejected in favor of using a more limited area and in concentrating efforts toward securing a more complete return of those polled. A more complete coverage of a smaller area was thought to yield a more representative sample than a less complete coverage of a larger area, since a greater per- centage of the total population could be secured. The selected three-state area offered the best possibility and became, therefore, the subject area for this study. For cross-validating purposes a group of art teachers from the Eastern Arts Association was selected by the same criterion used for the key group. This list was furnished by the secretary 35 _.;"'at the Eastern Art Association (at the time, Mrs. Lillian D. Sweigart of Kutztown, Pennsylvania). This group was considered sufficiently large in number and similar enough to the key group to be repre— sentative of the same type of teacher and teaching situation. Al— though they came from a different region, which according to Super might effect results on interest tests, the results correlated so closely one might surmise that, at least with art teachers, this scale tended to show that art teachers, even though from different regions, were inclined to have the same pattern of interests. Data—Collection Procedures The state art supervisors of Illinois (Mr. William Bealmer of Springfield, Illinois) and of Missouri (Mr. Alfred Bleckschmidt of Jefferson City, Missouri) and the secretary of the Michigan Art Edu- cation Association (Mr. John Linden of Midland, Michigan) were contacted and asked for lists of art teachers who met Strong’s cri- teria in their respective states. This was the first step in select— ing those teachers who qualified for this study: a selection made by men who knew these teachers. This was easier to do in Illinois and Missouri since the state supervisors had access to the offices of the State superintendents of public instruction. However, because of his Personal contacts with art education in Michigan, the writer was able '36 . 34"?"- compile an accurate and complete list for Michigan with the as.- I sistance of the secretary of the Michigan Art Education Association. The tables on returns verified the thorough canvass made and the accuracy of the predetermined lists. Each subject was mailed a Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Appendix A), a Hankes’ Answer Sheet (Appendix B), a per- sonal data sheet (Appendix C), a stamped return envelope, and a letter explaining the study (Appendix D). The personal data sheet requested data for verification of the criterion group—age, salary (above or below $2,500), years of college'training, degrees held, years employed as an art teacher, and a statement of intent to con— ) tinue teaching. A definite figure for salary was not requested be- ) Cause the writer felt the $2,500 criterion minimum was no longer I Valid. Today most teachers make over $2,500 and nearly all teach- , ers are on an automatic salary schedule. (Only one reported less, and he taught as a Brother in a parochial school.) The only re- qmrement here was to check the salary as being above or below the $2,500 criterion. Many returns gave exact salaries, but, though interesting, these data were not pertinent to the study. The original mailing was made March 7, 1958. All corres- pondence was kept on a rather personal basis with the hope that this would elicit a more prompt reply. Three follow—ups were made 37 ‘ the key group; two to the validating group. Toops1 developed . I this method of repeated follow—ups to maximize the percentage of returns. It was successfully used by McCornack in his study of social workers.2 The first follow-up was made March 26, 1958, to all subjects who had not responded to the original letter (Ap— pendix E). The second follow-up was made April 25, 1958 (Ap- pendix F). The third follow-up was made May 17, 1958 (Appendix G). In all cases the content of the letter was “personalized” as much as possible. In several cases duplicate materials had to be sent to those who responded to the follow—up letters because the original material had been misplaced or thrown away. The follow—up procedure definitely brought greater response than waiting would have done. Although it was not pertinent to the study, it was interesting to note here that only one person in the several hundred respondents did not want a summary sent to him when the study was completed. This might be interpreted as indicating a sincere interest in the study on the part of those who participated in it. 1H. A. Toops, “Validating the Questionnaire Method,” Jour- rlal of Personnel Research, 22153—69, 1923. 2Robert L. McCornack, “Sex Differences in the Vocational Interests of a Professional Group” (unpublished doctoral disserta— tion, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1954), p. 22. Both Erlandson1 and McCornack2 suggested that in the in- structions for Part VI of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Ap- pendix A) the words “three,” “three,” and “four” be marked in some conspicuous way in order to decrease the number of mistakes made in filling out this section of the blank. This was done, and the results proved very satisfactory. There were few errors made in these items. Analysis of the Returns The complete list of teachers to be contacted included 196 from Illinois, 154 from Michigan, and 52 from Missouri, making a grand total of 402 from the three-state area. Of this number 345 were returned, of which 10 were unusable for various reasons. This left a total of 335 returned blanks which could be used for developing the scale, as indicated in Table I. The low number of unusable returns was due, perhaps, to the careful screening of the subjects before the material was sent to them. 1F. L. Erlandson, “The Vocational Interests and Personality Traits of Male Social Workers” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1951), p. 23. chCornack, p. 28. TABLE I POPULATION OF THE STUDY Or' 'nal Total Pct. Unusable Total Pct. 11f: All All Returns Usable Usable ls Returns Returns Returns Returns Illinois 196 Michigan 154 Missouri 52 Totals 402 The effectiveness of these data-collection procedures is shown in Table II. The blanks which were returned by the post Office as undeliverable for various reasons were not included in the number of returns. Only those which actually reached the Subjects were considered as contacts and were included in the 402 names. Thus the percentage of returns was based upon the mAmber actually contacted. This has been done here, and the aCtual denominators used in computing percentage returns are 40 TABLE II PERCENTAGE OF RETURNS FROM THE ORIGINAL MAILING AND FOLLOW-UP LETTERS . . No. of Pet. of Mailing Group Returns Returns Original letter Illinois 104 61 Michigan 86 63 Missouri _32 fl . a2; a 4.- _— -. First follow-up Illinois 57 34 Michigan 37 27 Missouri _2_ 5 =2: .32 Second follow-up Illinois 7 4 Michigan 12 9 Missouri __4 i0 _._2_3 =7 Third follow-up Illinois 1 1 Michigan 1 1 Missouri _2 ___5_ :5 =1. Totals Illinois 169 Michigan 136 Missouri 40 W Ila-i (’1 41 Vila. shown in Table I. It is impossible to say exactly how many individuals responded to each series of letters because a re- turn and a follow-up letter may have crossed in the same mail. However, by allowing for a reasonable period to pass after each follow-up letter, the writer could approximate the number of re— sponses to each letter. The percentages were approximately those shown in Table II. Strong does not publish routinely percentages of returns for his criterion groups. However, in 1929 he indicated that he re— ceived 37 per cent, 38 per cent, and 31 per cent from three groups of engineers, and that he considered these percentages to be remarkably high. Erlandson received 83 per cent returns from a group of 75 social workers who were asked to take the Strong Vocational Interest Blank and the Minnesota Multi— phasic Personality Inventory. However, the men in Erlandson’s study received the request for cooperation from the school Where they had received their MA degrees. McCornack re— ceived about 87 per cent returns from some 1,183 social WOrkers used in his study with the Strong Vocational Inter— est Blank. These subjects had no particular ties with the re- unsting organization, although all correspondence was sent over the 42 ,Isi'gnature of the director of the School of Social Work at the Uni- versity of Minnesota. Seder1 sent both forms of the Strong Voca- tional Interest Blank to groups of women physicians and life insur— ance saleswomen. She received only 28 per cent returns from the physicians and only 34 per cent returns from the saleswomen. In his study using 1,201 psychologists, Kriedt2 received 89 per cent returns. Cooper3 received some 80 per cent returns from 303 industrial arts teachers used in his study. With the studies cited as background, it may be concluded that the percentage of returns for this study was satisfactorily high in comparison to these studies. It was obvious, also, that more follow—up letters would be of little value since the number of re- turns had dwindled to so few, as shown in Table II. Other infor- mation pertinent to the criterion for selecting subjects for this study is shown in Table III. 1M. A. Seder, “Vocational Interest Patterns of Professional Women” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Minne— sota, Minneapolis, 1938). 2P. H. Kriedt, “Differential Interest Patterns of Psycholo- gists” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Minne— Sota, Minneapolis, 1949). 3Charles E. Cooper, Jr., “Vocational Interests of Industrial Arts Teachers” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Missouri, Columbia, 1951). - 43 TABLE III OTHER INFORMATION ON CRITERION GROUP Information Range Mean Years of college ..................... 4—12 5.3 Age in years ....................... 24—57 34.7 Years of teaching experience ............ 3—35 9.0 This criterion group of teachers compared favorably with other criterion groups which were used for developing scales on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Their average number of years of college training was 5.3. This compared to Strong’s1 original groups: mathematics-science teachers 4.4 years, social— science teachers 4.4 years, city school superintendents 4.9 years. Cooper’s2 industrial arts teachers averaged 4.6 years, and Mc— Cornack’s3 social workers averaged 6.3 years. One might note the 1Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, pp. 695—98. 2Cooper, p. 38. 3McCornack, p. 39. wide range in college training of the art teachers as shown in Table III as compared to the average number of years. However, only one subject reported 11 years and only one reported 12 years; the rest ranged up to 8 years. The average age for the art-teacher group was 34.7 years as compared to Strong’s1 mathematics-science teachers’ 33.6 years, social—science teachers’ 33.7 years, and city school superintendents’ 46.5 years. Cooper’s2 industrial arts teachers averaged 41.6 years, and McCornack’s3 social workers averaged 39 years. The art teachers averaged 9.0 years in teaching experience which compared to Cooper’s4 industrial arts teachers’ average of 15.1 years, and McCornack’s5 social workers’ 11.4 years. Without making a scientific inquiry into these figures, one might surmise that some of this difference may be attributed to the effects of the depression of the 1930’s and to World War II. During this period of approximately fifteen years, the teaching of art as a special 1Strong, pp. 695—98. 2Cooper, p. 38. 3McCornack, p. 37. 4 Cooper, p. 38. 5McCornack, p. 43. . subject was. all but deleted from the school curriculum. It has made a comeback only in recent years. Of necessity this would limit the number of years of experience of many art teachers. Another con- tributing factor was the relative dominance of women in art teaching until after World War II. This criterion group resembled closely other criterion groups used in the development of scales for other occupations. Factors which were held constant by Strong were observed in the develop— ment of this scale. The number of cases used was smaller than some criterion groups but larger than others. Strong1 now feels that the minimum number of cases should not fall below 250, and anything higher than that would be better. Through his own re— search and the findings of others, he concluded that if the scales are based on 300 cases instead of 250 cases, the sampling error would be decreased from about 1.5 standard scores to 0.9 standard score, and the overlapping between occupations would be more ac— Curately determined by about 2 per cent. Scales based on 400 or even 500 cases would give still better accuracy. Since the art teachers group numbered 335 cases (with 93 additional for valida» tion), it was felt that this group would compare favorably with the 1Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, p. 649. ' other criterion groups and would meet the requirement of sufficient ' numbers of cases. With these facts in mind, the writer felt the analysis of the returns of the criterion group showed enough similarity to other criterion groups that it could be considered suitably representative of male elementary and secondary art teachers in Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. Further use of the key developed may be necessary to determine how widely applicable the results may be. Key Construction Procedures The Strong Vocational Interest Blank contains four hundred items with the three possible responses of “like,” “indifferen ,” and “dislike” (Appendix A). These four hundred items, in turn, are divided into eight separate groups. The four hundred expressed choices are combined into a summary score. The expressed answers are so weighted that the total score indicates to which occupational group the individual responding is similar. The person’s score ex— presses how well his interests agree with the differential interests of the occupation. As expressed by Strong: The underlying philosophy of this procedure is that inter— ests which are common to all are of little economic significance. . Consequently the interests which are significant for men in 47 a given occupation are the interests which set that occupation apart from the general run of men. These are the differential interests. One of the great contributions of the interest test has been its emphasis upon differential interests. It is the way in which a man differs from his fellows that determines wherein his best usefulness lies. Consequently in tests for guidance purposes the differences must be stressed.2 And again: Men engaged in a particular occupation have a character— istic set of likes and dislikes which differentiate them from men in other occupations. The Vocational Interest Blank is a device by which such patterns of interests may be determined. By means of the test, it is possible also to ascertain the pattern of interests which a given individual’s interest most nearly coin- cides, and hence the occupation for which he is presumably fitted so far at least as his interests are concerned. After it was assumed all the returns that could be expected were in, the first step in the treatment of the data was to make an item analysis of each blank. (Parenthetically, it might be of interest to note that only two additional returns have been received since the Closing date.) The item analysis consisted of determining which of the three responses—“like,” “indifferen ,” or “dislike”—the art teachers had made to each of the four hundred items on the blanks. Since this involved many thousands of responses to be tabulated, 1Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, p. 45. 2 . Ib1d., p. 47. 3Ibid., p. 56. . '70th a sample problem from the original data will be used here. The original data used in the study will be on file with Dr. Kenneth E. Clark, head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. Table IV is representative of the method of tabulating the responses from the blanks. Dr. Clark assisted in the tabulation of the data through the use of services which he can provide for such purposes at the University of Minnesota. As shown in Table IV, the next step was to summarize the tabulation of the individual responses to each item. The number of “like” responses, “indifferent” responses, and “dislike” responses for each item was determined. The total number of responses was 335. The per cent of the total selecting each of these responses to each item was determined and summarized in Table V. Since these data involved six amounts for each item, or a total of 2,400 amounts, only a sample table is shown here, and full data will be found in Appendix H. With the completion of the step shown in Table V, it was then possible to determine the weights for each response to all four hun- dred items. This step was necessary in constructing the scoring key for art teachers. 49 TABLE IV TABULATION OF ITEM RESPONSES ON THE BLANKSa Respondent Item Number 1 2 3 399 400 1 I I L L D i 2 I L L L I l l l 3 D L L L D ' 335 I L L . . . D L Total L’s 181 198 281 . . . 3 137 Total I’s 111 107 47 . . . 149 171 ’ Total D’s 43 30 7 . . . 183 27 a'Responses: L = like; I = indifferent; D = dislike. 50 TABLE V NUMBER AND PER CENT OF ART TEACHERS SELECTING EACH RESPONSE Item Response Number Per Cent 1 L 181 54 I 111 33 D 43 13 2 L 198 59 I 107 32 D 30 9 3 L 281 84 I 47 14 D 7 2 Table VI illustrates the calculation of percentages of re- sponse for the item “actor” of both art teachers and men—in-general. These data were required for the determining of the weight of each response. In developing this table for determining weights, Strong re- lied upon the findings of Cowdery and Kelley.1 Cowdery, in differ— entiating between physicians, engineers, and lawyers, used a formula presented in class by Kelley which called for a sixfold table (two 1Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, pp. 603—22. TABLE VI CALCULATION OF PERCENTAGES FOR ITEM “ACTOR” FOR ART TEACHERS AND MEN- IN- GENERAL GROUPS Men-in— Art Response General Teachers (Item 1, Actor) No. Pct. No. Pct. Totals ..................... 4,746 100 335 100 groups, three responses each) in which numbers of responses to “like,” “indifferen ,” and “dislike” of any two compared groups Were tabulated (i.e., medical vs. nonmedical). Cowdery made the assumption that the exact relations between the three divisions of attitude towards an item were not known and that the attitude “indifferent” did not represent the same relation as “like,” and “dislike.” He therefore combined the “indifferent” responses with w" "the “likes” or “dislikes” (depending upon which he felt the “indif- ' feren ” attitude favored). This resulted in a fourfold table in which the middle attitude was combined with one or the other extreme. With this information available, Cowdery, by the use of Kelley’s formula, could determine the weight of each item. Strong made two changes in Cowdery’s procedure. He ex— pressed all data in terms of percentages, thus automatically express— ing the population of each group as 100. Whether we happen to have 500 art teachers and 900 psychologists, or some other number, both occupational groups will be considered to have 100 cases and these 100 cases will be contrasted with 100 cases representing men in general. Strong then was able to reduce Cowdery’s formula to: Weight = 10 fl (1402).. : a—c Where b (a+c b+d) and o = 1/2 V(a+c) (b+d) Table VII shows an example of the combining of responses for determining the weights—in this case, the “like” response to the item “actor”—for the two groups. TABLE VII FOURFOLD TABLE FOR DETERMINING WEIGHT OF “LIKE” RESPONSE TO ITEM “ACTOR” Men—in- Art Response General Teachers (Item 1, Actor) No. Pct. No. Pct. By applying the data shown in Table VII to Strong’s formula, the weight of the “like” response for this example may be calculated. a .21 l .79 b =(1.00) c .54 I .46 d =(1.00) “i. , -1- . fail _ .54-.21 _ fl — 1R.21+.54) (.79+.46) - '338 o = l/2¢(.21+.54) (.79+.46) = .484 '3328 = 8 (rounded off to nearest whole (1 - .338 ) .484 number) The score 8 on the old scale is changed to 3 on the new scale (using the table which appears below) and is given a plus sign because more art teachers liked this item than did men—in- general. In this example, the combining of “indifferent” and “dis- like” scores was done to compute the weight of the “like” response. When the weights for the other responses are to be computed (e.g., “indifferent”) the scores of the other two responses are combined (“like” and “dislike”). In order to eliminate the tedious labor and the high cost of computing the weights for each response, Strong constructed a table from which the weights could be read directly as soon as the percentages shown in Table VII were known. According to Strong,1 the weights are a mathematical expres- Sion of the extent to which the data in the fourfold table differentiate art teachers from men-in—general (represented by the numerator of the equation), and the extent to which the data might be the result 11bid., p. 611. 55 " of chance (represented by the denominator of the equation). The more the data differentiate the two groups and the less likely the data are to’be due to chance, the larger the weighting and vice versa. In this formula the weights ranged from +15 to —15. Further research by Kelley, Strong, and Carter led to reducing the weights to :t4. Weights obtained from the revised formula were converted into the i4 range accordingly: Formula i4 Scale 0 to l became 2 to 4 became 5 to 7 became 8 to 10 became 11—over became thumb—IO Dr. Clark assisted in this study at this point through the use of scoring facilities located at the University of Minnesota. A complete tabulation of the percentages of responses of art teachers as compared to those of the men-in-general group and the differences in these responses is shown in Appendix H. The assignment of weights of the item differences of art teachers and men-in-general is shown in Appendix I. The itemized tabulation of weights on the Hankes Scoring Sheet is shown in Appendix J. These are the scoring weights as 56 " -' determined by this study for the art-teachers scale on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Validation Design During the past twenty years many ways have been used in investigating the validity of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Among the techniques used, there have been studies relating the scores of _its various scales to those of other tests, to school marks, to completion of training programs, to earnings in sales work, to rating scales, to continuation in an occupation, to job satisfaction, and to differences between occupational groups. Validation of the Strong Blank is discussed fully by Strong1 and others,2 and for the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the blank had been proved valid as an interest-testing device. In the developing of a scoring key for art teachers, however, it was necessary to validate the data used for establishing the key itself. It was decided to validate the key by a tryout upon a new group of art teachers. The key purports to differentiate between 1Ib1d., pp. 381—41 1. 2O. K. Buros (ed.), Mental Measurement Yearbook (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1949). '. the interests of men-in-general and art teachers. Would a cross- validation with another representative group of art teachers. sub- stantiate the data of the key group? Strong1 found that if the cri- terion group is representative and based upon several hundred cases (400 to 500), it is not necessary to try it out upon a new group. His experience with previous scales indicated that the scores will not vary. With the large percentage of returns for this study, the writer felt that the group could be considered representative of the elementary and secondary art teachers of Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri. However, since this scale was based upon a criterion group of 335 cases (instead of 400 to 500 cases), the writer felt that a tryout upon a new group of art teachers would help to validate the key established by the criterion group. The secretary of the Eastern Arts Association (at the time, Mrs. Lillian D. Sweigart of Kutztown, Pennsylvania) was contacted for a list of the male art teachers who would meet the same qualifications as the criterion group. One hundred and thirteen such teachers were contacted and were requested to comply with the same procedures as were used on the criterion group. From these contacts ninety— Six replies were received, of which ninety-three were usable and, 1Strong, Vocational Interests of Men and Women, p. 131. . 't . -. 1v 58 " therefore, constituted the cross —.validation group. This represented a return of 85 per cent (82 per cent usable) and corresponded closely with the criterion group percentage of returns. The re- sponse data for the validating group may be found in Appendix K. A, comparison of the percentages of responses to each item of the two groups is shown in Appendix L. It will be noted that these percentages were quite similar. A sample of this comparison is shown in Table VIII. If the “indifferen ” and “dislike” responses are grouped in a single total as. compared to the “like” responses, it will be noted that the comparison of the definite “like” responses to the definite “indifferent-dislike” responses is indeed very favorable. As shown by the complete data in Appendix L, these two comparisons were 1, favorable in nearly all cases; only an occasional discrepancy oc— f . curred. By use of the data and formulas shown in Appendixes M and N, the mean raw scores and standard deviations for both key and { cross-validation groups were computed. The results are shown be- low: Validating Key Group Group ‘Mean raw score . . . . 171.69 172.43 Standard deviation . . 49.61 46.09 TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES TO ITEMS OF KEY GROUP AND VALIDATING GROUP Response Like Indifferent Dislike Item Vali- Vali- Vali- 653: dating GEEK dating G153): dating : p Group p Group p Group 3 1 54 55 33 27 13 18 2 59 61 32 31 9 8 3 84 82 14 17 2 1 399 1 1 44 39 54 60 It may be seen from this information that there was little difference between the two groups and that the cross—validation group tended to substantiate the results obtained by the key group. A further check on the data by the t-test method to determine the significance of the difference between the two means gives a result of .13 (Appendix 0). This value of t (.13) was not significant, IEUggesting that a difference of this magnitude can be caused by chance variation. Further evidence that this key for art teachers definitely differentiated from the men—in-general group was provided by Dr. Kenneth E. Clark in his letter to the writer (a copy of which may be found in Appendix P). He wrote: We have used the percentage responses on the men-in- general group which Strong collected and the weights on your keys to estimate the mean score which men-in-general would receive on this key. This mean is -64.74. Thus, hardly any art teacher scores as low as the typical professional man. In fact men-in—general will score about five standard deviations below the mean of your art teachers. The evidence indicated that the key established by this study was valid for differentiating between the interests of elementary and secondary male art teachers and men—in-general when the Strong Vocational Interest Blank was used. If the key is adopted for use on the blank at a later date, further evidence may be obtained by working out the degree of overlapping between the art—teachers group and the men-in—general group as indicated on the profile chart of the blank. Comparison of Art Teachers and Men-in—General In passing, it might be of interest to note some of the differ— ences in scores on the blank between art teachers and men—in-general. 61 These scores might indicate not only the differences between the interests of the two groups, but they might suggest other personality differences which could exist between art teachers. and men-in- general. As shown in Table IX, 750 out of 1,200 responses tended to discriminate to some degree between the two groups. Although the greatest number discriminated to only :1 weight, these items tended to substantiate the interests indicated by the greater weights. ‘ A look at the scores on Part I (Occupations) suggests that art teachers were more interested than men—in-general in occupations ‘ which involved creative activity, social service, teaching, and some. degree of change. They tended to dislike definitely those occupa- tions dealing with finance, commerce, supervision, and which might prove more stable or routine. As indicated in Table X, the two groups showed marked differences in the areas of art and teaching. The scores on Part VI (Activities, Ideals, Club Offices, and Mechanics) tended to show the same interests. Art teachers indi- cated a marked interest in the creative areas and in teaching while men—in-general equally disliked these activities; art teachers disliked the areas of dommerce and finance as much as men-in-general liked these areas. Table XI summarizes the general pattern of the scores on Part VI. TABLE IX NUMBER OF ITEMS AT EACH WEIGHT WHICH DISCRIMINATED BETWEEN ART TEACHERS AND MEN--IN—GENERALa b Re Sponse weight Like £13331; Dislike Toms +1 71 94 61 226 +2 39 29 27 95 +3 12 7 12 31 +4 16 o 1 _17 ggg -1 88 64 91 243 +2 33 8 42 83 ~3 16 5 22 43 -4 3 3 6 _12 £2; 0 122 190 138 450 b cent or above. l 25:32; aDetailed data appear in Appendixes I and J. +1 or -1 indicates a difference of 6-—15 per cent; + 2 or -2 indicates a difference of 16—25 per cent; +3 or -3 indicates a dif— ference of 26—35 per cent; +4 or -4 indicates a difference of 36 per TABLE X DISCRIMINATING ITEMS IN PART I (OCCUPATIONS) BETWEEN ART TEACHERS AND 63 MEN-IN-GENERALa Art Men-in- Item Teachers General Architect ......................... +4 -2 Artist ........................... +4 -2 Cartoonist ........................ +4 -3 College professor ................... +4 —4 Interior decorator ................... +4 -4 School teacher ..................... +4 -4 Sculptor ......................... +4 -4 Actor ........................... +3 —3 Advertiser ........................ +3 -2 Author ........................... +3 -2 Jeweler .......................... +3 -3 Photo engraver ..................... +3 -4 Poet ............................ +3 -3 Draftsman ........................ +2 -2 Florist .......................... +2 -2 Foreign correspondent ................ +2 -2 Interpreter ........................ +2 -2 Inventor .......................... +2 -2 Landscape gardener ................. +2 -1 Magazine writer .................... +2 -2 Musician ......................... +2 -2 Orchestra conductor ................. +2 -2 Printer .......................... +2 -2 Secret service man .................. +2 -2 Carpenter ........................ +1 -2 aPositive figures indicate strength of “like”; negative fig- ures indicate strength of “dislike.” 64 TABLE X (Continued) Art Men—in- Item Teachers General Clergyman ........................ +1 -2 Music teacher ...................... +1 -3 Social worker ..................... +1 —2 YMCA worker ...................... +1 -2 Corporation lawyer .................. -3 +3 Manufacturer ...................... -3 +1 Sales manager ..................... -3 +2 Bank cashier ...................... -2 +3 Civil engineer ..................... -2 +1 Factory manager .................... -2 +3 Office manager ..................... -2 +2 CPA ............................ -1 +3 Electrical engineer .................. -1 +2 Governor (state) .................... ~1 +2 Mining superintendent ................ -1 +2 Private secretary ................... —1 +2 Statistician ....................... - 1 +3 Stock broker ...................... -1 +2 Traveling salesman .................. -1 +2 Wholesaler ........................ -1 +2 Factory worker .................... 0 +2 Shop foreman ...................... 0 +2 TABLE XI TEACHERS AND MEN-IN-GENERALa DISCRIMINATING ITEMS OF PART VI (ACTIVITIES, IDEALS, CLUB OFFICES, AND MECHANICS) BETWEEN ART Art Men-in- Item Teachers General Ideals Caruso (singer) .................... +2 -3 Gibson (artist) ..................... +4 -4 Tarkington (author) .................. +2 -2 Ford (manufacturer) ................. -2 +1 Morgan (financier) ................... -3 +3 Pershing (soldier) ................... -1 +2 Taft (jurist) ....................... -2 +3 Wanamaker (merchant) ................ -2 +3 Club Offices Chairman—education committee .......... +2 -1 Chairman——entertainment committee ....... +1 -1 Chairman—program committee ........... +1 -1 Chairman—publicity committee .......... +3 -3 Chairman—membership committee ........ -1 +1 President ......................... —2 +1 Secretary ........................ -1 +2 Treasurer ........................ -2 +3 Use of a Machine Operate the machine ................. -3 +1 Determine cost of operation ............ -3 +4 Supervise manufacture ................ -3 +2 Sell the machine .................... —2 +2 Improve the design .................. +2 -1 Create new artistic effect ............. +4 -3 Prepare advertising ................. +4 -3 Teach others its use ................. +1 -2 aPositive figures indicate strength of “like”; ures indicate strength of “dislike.” negative fig- 66 This same interest pattern emerged from the test sections on school subjects (Part II), amusements (Part III), and activities (Part IV)._ These data are shown in Tables XII, XIII, and XIV. The scores on amusements seemed to indicate that art teachers. lacked an interest in outdoor physical sports, although it was not a strong pattern. The scores on the other test sections continued somewhat the same pattern, although not so clearly pronounced. Section V (Pe— culiarities of People) indicated that art teachers seemed a bit more tolerant of (or at least indifferent to) physical and emotional differ- ences, but they disliked athletic people (—3 to MIG 0), thrifty people (-3 to MIG +1), and conservative people (-3 to MIG +2). However, this seemed to continue the pattern of liking to work with people (as teachers) and of disliking outdoor physical sports and business and commerce (to which thrift and conservatism are usually linked). Subsection two of Part VI (Preferences of Activities) indicated a preference for jobs which challenge one’s ingenuity, provide equality of respect, and freedom to work out one’s own. ideas. They did not seem to be concerned about pleasing the boss, nor about the oppor- tunities for promotion, although they indicated that salary was a factor in liking the work. The scores on Part VII (Comparison of Two Items) substantiated further this general pattern. The art TABLE XII DISCRIMINATING ITEMS OF PART II (SCHOOL SUBJECTS) BETWEEN ART TEACHERS AND MEN-IN-GENERALa 67 Item Art Men-in- Teachers General Art ............................. +4 -2 Dramatics ........................ +3 - 2 Literature ........................ +2 0 Mechanical drawing .................. +2 - 2 Shop work ........................ +2 - 1 Sociology ......................... +2 — 1 Music ........................... +1 - 1 Public speaking .................... +1 - 1 Arithmetic ........................ -4 +1 Ec onomic s ........................ - 3 +2 Mathe matic s ....................... - 3 +1 Algebra .......................... - 2 +1 Bookkeeping ....................... - 2 +1 Chemistry ........................ - 2 +2 Physic s .......................... - 2 +2 Calculus ......................... - 1 +2 Geometry ......................... - 1 +1 History .......................... — 1 +1 Military drill ...................... - 1 +1 aPositive figures indicate strength of “like”; ures indicate strength of “dislike.” negative fig- TABLE XIII ART TEACHERS AND MEN-IN-GENERALa 68 DISCRIMINATING ITEMS OF PART III (AMUSEMENTS) BETWEEN Item Art Men- in- Teachers General Excursions ........................ +4 ~2 Art galleries ...................... +4 - 1 Picnics .......................... +3 -1 Social problem movies ................ +3 - 1 Auctions ......................... +2 - 2 Animal zoos ....................... +2 - 1 Museums ......................... +2 0 Poetry ........................... +2 - 1 Symphonies ....................... +1 - 1 Pet monkeys ....................... +1 -2 Amusement parks ................... +1 - 1 “System” ........................ -4 +1 ‘ ‘Judge ’ ’ ......................... -3 +1 Bridge ........................... - 2 +1 Detective stories ................... -2 +1 Boxing ........................... - 1 +2 Fishing .......................... - 1 +1 Golf ............................ - 1 +1 Hunting .......................... - 1 +2 Nature study ...................... - 1 +1 Smokers ......................... - 1 +1 Sporting pages ..................... - 1 +1 aPositive figures indicate strength of “like”; negative fig- ures indicate strength of “dislike.” TABLE XIV DISCRIMINATING ITEMS OF PART IV (ACTIVITIES) BETWEEN ART TEACHERS AND MEN-IN-GENERALa Art Men-in- Item Teachers General Teaching children ................... Teaching adults Merchandise display Continually changing activities .......... Cabinet making ..................... Organizing a play ................... +2 -3 Entertaining others .................. +2 -1 Window shOpping .................... +2 -1 Looking at rare laces ................ +2 -1 Looking at antiques .................. +2 -1 Raising flowers and vegetables .......... +1 -1 Floral decoration ................... +1 -1 Making a speech .................... +1 -1 Shopping ......................... +1 ~1 Methodical work .................... -3 +3 Developing business system ............ -3 +3 Operating machinery ................. -2 +1 Handling horses .................... -2 +1 Interviewing prospects in selling ........ —2 +2 Interviewing clients .................. -2 +1 Regular working hours ............... -2 +1 Writing reports ..................... -1 +1 Being pitted competitively against others . . . -1 +1 aPositive figures indicate strength of “like”; negative fig- ures indicate strength of “dislike.” . Iid'WI'teachers liked creative activity, change, cooperative action, and in— side work, in preference to routine work, supervision, selling, and outdoor activity. In Part VIII (Present Abilities and Characteristics) they pictured themselves somewhat the same. They rated art teach— ers as having mechanical ingenuity (+2 to MIG —2), as having more than their share of novel ideas (+3 to MIG -3), and as liking to dis— cuss their ideals. with others (+2 to MIG -1). At the same time, they indicated that they dislike planning their work in detail (-2 to MIG +2), that they can’t remember detail too well (-1 to MIG +1), and that they usually do not drive themselves steadily (-1 to MIG +1). The scores on the blank seemed to indicate an interest pat- tern from which might emerge a general picture of art teachers as compared to Strong’s men-in-general group. These differences might be charted as below: Art Teachers Men-in—General Preferred activities demanding Preferred more routine and me- creativity and ingenuity. chanical activities Liked teaching and social ser— Liked finance, commerce, indus- vice, but disliked the world of try, and a chance to gain finan- business and finance. cial rewards, but disliked strongly teaching and social services. Preferred change, adventure, Preferred stability and steady mobility. promotion. Favored cooperative rather than supervising action. Favored supervisory positions. Disliked somewhat vigorous out- door physical activities, but still indicated some liking for participatory rather than spec— tator sports. Favored outdoor activities, sports pages, and spectator sports, but still indicated a lik- ing for “normal” social activi- ties (such as bridge). Seemed somewhat more tolerant of, or indifferent to, peculiari— ties of people. Indicated stronger reactions to peculiarities of people. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The intricacies of counseling call for the widest possible selection of measuring devices by which the counselor may obtain the most pertinent information about the counselee which such meas- uring devices make possible. One of the important areas of coun- seling concerns the selection of a wise vocational choice. The Strong Vocational Interest Blank has proved to be a satisfactory counseling instrument for measuring the interests of the counselee as compared to the interests of persons successfully engaged in those occupations for which scoring keys have been developed. Many years of continuous research and refinement have made this a useful interest—measuring device. However, a search of the lit- erature revealed that nothing had been done in the art teaching profession. Although a scale for artists had been developed early in the history of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, it was felt by the writer that this scale would not be applicable to the teaching of art in the public schools. Therefore, the problem of this study involved the development of a scoring key for elementary and 72 secondary male art teachers for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Using procedures approved by Dr. Edward K. Strong, Jr., so that the art—teachers scale would be an acceptable addition to the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the writer successfully de- veloped a scoring key for male art teachers which now could be added to the list of professions already keyed on the blank. This key was developed around the responses of 335 male art teachers working in the three—state area of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. It was validated by comparing these responses to the responses of 93 art teachers from the Eastern Arts Association. This study suggests further research in this area and in the area of teachers—in—general. Strong feels that the teacher-in-general does not constitute a separate and homogeneous grouping and, there- fore, cannot be isolated on a general interest pattern, but rather, must be dealt with in specific areas of the teaching profession. Still it is interesting to note the possibility of developing an inter- est pattern for teachers—in—general once enough specific patterns have been keyed and scored on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Some future study may reveal such a pattern of mutual interests among teachers—in—general, or it may show no such interest among teachers-in—general but a closer relationship of teachers in specific ‘ areas to the professions associated with these specific areas—e.g., art teacher to artist, science teacher to physician. The developing of a scoring key for art teachers on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank opens up several problems for future research. 1. Are the interests of artists different from the interests of art teachers? It is said quite commonly that one who teaches art has different interests from those of one who earns his living by producing art. Or are these interests more closely related than usually thought? Such a study of the interest patterns of artist and art teacher would shed much light on the artist—teacher relationship. 2. Another area, a comparison of which could now be studied further, concerns the interest patterns of college art teachers with those of elementary and secondary art teachers. This study might concern itself with the interest patterns of various levels of teaching-in-general, or more specifically, with the teaching of art only. In searching for future college teachers of art, can we find a relationship between the interests of future art teachers and the interests of art teachers successfully employed at the college level? Do all art teachers reveal the same interest pattern on the Strong " Vocational Interest Blank—or are the levels of teaching indicative of different interests? 3. A scoring key could be developed for use on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Women (Form W) and compared with the scale developed in this study to ascertain the relationship of the in- terest patterns of men and women art teachers. 4. Further studies in the area of art interests might now be possible by use of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. These might concern themselves with such aspects of art interest as the predic- tive value of the art teachers scale—both with high school students and college students. 5. The addition of an art teachers scale adds another area which could be compared to Kuder’s artistic interest for further re- search in the comparison of the two tests. Also, studies might com— pare results of art teachers on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank and art tests such as the Meier Art Judgment, the McAdory Art Test, the Lewerenz Test, and the Knauber Art Ability Test. 6. Investigations into the relationships of interest and per- sonality—especially as related to artists and art teachers—might be possible through the use of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank and other instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality i is L, , I Inventory. These might follow predetermined hypotheses, as Spiaggia1 did in his study with New York City high school art students, or these investigations into interests and personality might follow clin- ical “hunches” which, statistically correlated, might be made up as the studies progressed, as suggested by Cottle.2 7. The use of the art—teachers scale on the Strong Voca- tional Interest Blank might suggest further investigations into areas pertinent to art education; such as what makes an art teacher, re- gional differences in interests, et cetera. There is a great need for research in all areas of art education in order to evaluate and to clarify our purposes. As Hastie pointed out recently, “Our prob- lem is not whether we should or should not do research. We will be required to. . . .”3 1Martin Spiaggia, “An Investigation of the Personality Traits of Art Students,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10: 285—93, 1950. 2William C. Cottle, “Interest and Personality Inventories,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, 33:162—67, 1954—1955; William C. Cottle, “A Factorial Study of the Multiphasic, Strong, Kuder, and Bell Inventories Using a Population of Male Adults,” Psychometrika, 15:25—47, 1950. 3Reid Hastie, “Introduction to Research in Art Education,” Ninth Yearbook of the National Art Education Association (Kutztown, Pa.: State Teachers College, 1959). l l l l BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bingham, Walter V. Aptitudes and Aptitude Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers. Publishers, 1937. Buros, O. K. (ed.). Mental Measurement Yearbook. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1938, 1939, 1940, 1949. Darley, John G. Clinical Aspects and Interpretations of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. New York: Psychological Corpora- tion, 1941. Darley, John G., and Theda Hagenah. Vocational Interest Measure- ment. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1955. Downie, M. M. Fundamentals of Measurement: Techniques and Prac- tices. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958. Fryer, Douglas. The Measurement of Interests. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1931. Kinter, M. The Measurement of Artistic Abilities. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1941. Kuder, G. Frederic. The Kuder Preference Record Manual. Chi- cago, 111.: Science Research Associates, 1939, 1943 (and Short Industrial Form, 1948). Research in Art Education. Ninth Yearbook of the National Art Ed— ucation Association, State Teachers College, Kutztown, Penn— sylvania, 1959. Strong, Edward K., Jr. Vocational Interests 18 Years after College. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1955. 77 ' I Strong, Edward K., Jr. Vocational Interests of Men and Women. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1943. Super, Donald E. Appraising Vocational Fitness. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Thorndike, Robert J., and Elizabeth Hagen. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955. Williamson, E; G., and J. G. Darley. Student Personnel Work. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1937. Periodicals Anderson, Rose G. “A Note on the McAdory and Meier Art Tests in Counseling,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 11:81—86, 1951. Anderson, Roy N. “A Comparative Study of Three Vocational Inter— est Blanks,” The Psychological Clinic, 22:117—27, March— February, 1933—1934. Barrett, D. W. “Aptitude and Interest Patterns of Art Majors in a Liberal Arts College,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 29: 483—92, 1945. Barrett, Harry 0. “Sex Differences in Art Ability,” Journal of Educational Research, 43:391—93, 1950. Bedell, Ralph. “The Relationship between Self-estimated and Meas- ured Vocational Interests,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 25:59—66, 1941. Benton, A. L., and S. I. Kornhauser. “A Study of ‘Score Faking’ on a Medical Interest Test,” Journal of the Association of the American Medical College, 23:57—60, 1948. Berdie, Ralph F. “Factors Associated with Vocational Interests,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 34:257—77, 1943. 79 911"}; ' Bordin, Edward S. “A Theory of Vocational Interests as Dynamic Phenomena,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3: 49—65, 1943. Borow, H. “Growth and Present Status of Occupational Testing,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, 8:70—79, 1944. Christensen, T. E. “Some Observations with Respect to the Kuder Preference Record,” Journal of Educational Research, 40: 96—107, 1946. Collins, C. J. “Development of a Scoring Key on the Strong Voca- tional Interest Inventory for Women Teachers of Physical Education,” Research Quarterly, 13:156—65, 1942. Cottle, William C. “A Factorial Study of the Multiphasic, Strong, Kuder, and Bell Inventories Using a Population of Male Adults,” Psychometrika, 15:25—47, 1950. i Cottle, William C. “Interest and Personality Inventories,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, 33:162—67, 1954—1955. Cross, Orrin H. “A Study of Faking on the Kuder Preference Rec— ‘ ord,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10:27—277, 1950. Dunlap, Jack W. “Simplification of the Scoring of the Strong Voca- , tional Interest Blank,” Psychological Bulletin, 37:450, 1940. } Durnall, Edward J., Jr. “Falsification of Interest Patterns on the Kuder Preference Record,” Journal of Educational Psychol- ; 55y, 45:240—43, 1954. j l Englehart, Max D. “Testing and Use of Test Results,” Review of 1 Educational Research, 26:5—13, 1956. Frandsen, Arden. “Appraisal of Interests in Guidance,” Journal of Educational Research, 39:1—11, 1945. Fryer, D. “Validating Measures of Interest,” Personnel Journal, 112103—10, 1932. 80 1 -'II Gehman, W. Scott. “A Study of Ability To Fake Scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17:65—70, 1957. Goodfellow, L. D. “A Study of the Interests and Personality Traits of Engineers and Liberal Arts Students,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 26:721—37, 1942. Goodman, Charles H. “Interests and Personality Traits,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 26:721—37, 1942. Gordon, Hans C., and Walter W. Herkness, Jr. “Do Vocational In- terest Questionnaires Yield Consistent Results,” Occupations, 20:424—29, October—May, 1941—1942. Hahn, M. E. “Notes on the Kuder Preference Record,” Occupations, 232467—70, 1945. Herzberg, Frederick, Arthur Bouton, and Betty Jo Steiner. “Studies of the Stability of the Kuder Preference Record,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 14:90—100, 1954. Knauber, A. J. “Testing for Art Ability,” Education, 55:219—25, 1934. Kogan, Leonard, and Frederick Gehlmann. “Validation of the Sim- plified Method for Scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 33:317— 20, 1942. Kriedt, Philip H. “Vocational Interests of Psychologists,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 33:482—88, October, 1949. Kuder, G. Frederic. “A Comparative Study of Some Methods of De— veloping Occupational Keys,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17:105—14, 1957. Kuder, G. Frederic. “Expected Developments in Interest and Per— sonality Inventories,” Educational and Psychological Measure— ment, 14:265—71, 1954. ' Lehman, Harvey C., and Paul A. Witty, “Vocational Counseling: The Interest Inventory,” American Journal of Psychology, 44: 801—5, 1932. Lester, Helene, and Arthur E. Traxler. “Simplified Method for Scoring the Strong Vocational Interest Blank Applied to a Secondary—School Group,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 33:628—31, 1942. Lewerenz, Alfred S. “Predicting Ability in Art,” Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 20:702—4, 1929. Longstaff, Howard P. “Fakability of the Strong Interest Blank and the Kuder Preference Record,” Journal of Applied Psychol— ogy, 32:360—69, 1948. McArthur, Charles. “Long—Term Validity of the Strong Interest Test in Two Sub-Cultures,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 382346—53, October, 1954. Maffie, D. J. “The Validity of Self-Estimated Interests,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 26:606—13, 1942. Manson, G. E. “Occupational Interests and Personality Require- ments of Women in Business and the Professions,” Michigan Business Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1931. Mollenkopf, William. “Development and Application of Tests of Spe— cial Aptitude,” Review of Educational Research, 23:3345, 1953. Patterson, Donald G. “Vocational Interest Inventories in Selection,” Occupations, 25:152—53, October—May, 1946—1947. Peters, Edwin F. “Vocational Interests as Measured by the Strong and Kuder Inventories,” School and Society, 55:453——55, 1942. Peterson, B. M., and J. W. Dunlop. “A Simplified Method for Scor- ing the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,” Journal of Con- sulting Psychology, 5:269—74, 1941. Roe, A. “The Personality of Artists,” Educational and Psychologi- cal Measurement, 6:401—8, 1946. " 'Sinnett, E. Robert. “Some Determinants of Agreement between Measured and Expressed Interests,” Educational and Psy— chological Measurement, 162110—18, 1956. Spiaggia, Martin. “An Investigation of the Personality Traits of Art Students,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10:285—93, 1950. Steinmetz, H. C. “Measuring Ability To Fake Occupational Inter- ests,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 16:123—30, 1932. Strong, Edward K., Jr. “Predictive Value of the Vocational Inter- est Test,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 262331—49, 1935. Strong, Edward K., Jr. “Procedure for Scoring an Interest Test,” The Psychological Clinic, 19:63—72, March—February, 1930— 1931. Strong, Edward K., Jr. “Weighted vs. Unit Scales,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 36:193—216, 1945. Strong, Edward K., Jr., and H. D. Carter. “Efficiency Plus Econ- omy in Scoring an Interest Test,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 26:579—86, 1935. Strong, Edward K , Jr., and Anthony C. Tucker. “The Use of V0- cational Interest Scales in Flaming a Medical Career,” Psychological Monographs, 66:341, 1952. Super, Donald. “Vocational Interests and Vocational Choice: Present Knowledge and Future Research in Their Rela- tionship,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7: 375—84, 1947. Super, Donald E. “The Kuder Preference Record in Vocational Diagnosis,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, 11:184—93, 1947. Super, Donald E. “Strong’s Vocational Interests of Men and Women,” Psychological Bulletin, 42:359—70, 1945. 83 “Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques.” Prepared by a joint committee of the Ameri- can Psychological Association, The American Educational Re- search Association, and The National Council on Measure- ments Used in Education, ngchological Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 2, Part 2, March, 1954, 38 pp. Traxler, A. E., and W. C. McCall. “Some Data on the Kuder Pref— erence Record,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1:253—68, 1941. Triggs, Frances O. “A Further Comparison of Interest Measurement by the Kuder Preference Record and the Strong Vocational Interest Blank,” Journal of Educational Research, 37:538—44, 1943—1944. Triggs, Frances O. “A Study of the Relation of the Kuder Prefer— ence Record and Scores to Various Other Measures,” Edu- cational and Psychological Measurement, 3:341—54, 1943. Wightwick, M. D. “Vocational Interest Patterns,” Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 900, 1945. Wittenborn, J. R., Frances O. Triggs, and Daniel D. Feder. “A Comparison of Interest Measurement by the Kuder Preference Record and the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men and Women,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3: 239—57, 1943. Unpublished Material Cooper, Charles E., Jr. “Vocational Interests of Industrial Arts Teachers.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1953. Erlandson, F. L. “The Vocational Interests and Personality Traits of Male Social Workers.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1951. 4‘_‘—\—.. Kriedt, Philip H. “Differential Interest Patterns of Psychologists.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1949. McCornack, Robert L. “Sex Differences in the Vocational Interests of a Professional Group (Social Workers).” Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1954. APPENDIXE S Strong’s Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Revised) Form M Hankes Answer Sheet Form ME Personal Data Sheet Original Letter to Subjects First Follow—up Letter Second Follow—up Letter Third Follow-up Letter Numbers and Percentages of Art Teachers and Percentages of Men-in—General Selecting Each Item Response Assignment of Weights of the Item Differences of Art Teachers and Men-in—General Scoring Weights for Art Teachers Key Numbers and Percentages of Validating Group Selecting Each Item Response Comparison of Percentages of Responses of Key Group and Validating Group to Each Item Algebraic Totals of Raw Scores of Key Group and Determination of Mean and Standard Deviation Algebraic Totals of Raw Scores of Validating Group and Deter- mination of Mean and Standard Deviation Computation of the Significance of the Difference between the Two Means by the t-Test Copy of Original Letter from Dr. Kenneth E. Clark 85 APPENDIX A. STRONG VOCATIONAL INTEREST BLANK 86 87 woman . Faw— Himmn . . 03:332. Hsie. OBS Husnorummsm wparon 32.20;: Heron—snow. was—om mumps? _Hsmnwssnn >n<2§m5n Poison >nno==nw=n Eon—Sn >wosn 32:52. Minn—an: Minna—u: as: we! woo—.0 wanna»:— wnono ”woman Manages». . _ . . Manama—m. . 0853:2— >ns§r Him. 08:35:» 23.8.5qu "use: H323» Mona: Hos—53$» 00:02.: Hodn— Hawaii—.3. H.20— 3»?an (<35: w»! woo—.0 mama—mun...— m3..." Woman APPENDIX B HANKES SCORING SHEET FORM ME 88 (u. .CUGO WC; n09: Surf-rurac. h: :C. b (r (u‘(€(‘.£~\rpn(.r( poor-p! {It Crater-tit ~((. 850*. 39530 630m. to. Hon- Eunr :58 #05 0952. no 00—50.. 0* 50 mucouolgsm X mam—mm <05 mam” 83w x <0: 0:250 <05. Essa who. Ewan 05092 3:03. Karo «Ed «OE. 3916 2.0 03035 Bodmlnrsm X mo #63 00—53. no 00—50.. om $6 3:30“ Bare rerun upon-N Ever Hood bosom =50? w a M33103 #5" <0: woos <05. peso: erase m cum 3050: @8850 so 5&8 rope Hon Snow :58. We ago moor 3&9: 99.6 on w mango». row ”flu and can on. 35.». P we «:8 8 noon Em wsmscnaosmw 5 5o UooEo» mm 99+ <92 was.» on: 8 on? Devi—aw: ES U< =5 wooa om Haunomu 0* 90 duo—ass 9910a 75.0.. €522.33. wagon 5 =5 Cuzco 933 on >5oann ammqmnOx 72300.8. 3 APPENDIX C ' PERSONAL DATA SHEET 90 91 PERSONAL DATA SHEET NAME AGE ADDRESS EDUCATION: Number of years of college Highest degree Major TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Years of teaching Present position SALARY: Over $2500 Under $2500 Do you intend to stay in art teaching? Yes No COMMENT S : Would you like a summary of this study? USE THIS SHEET INSTEAD OF PAGE ONE OF THE STRONG l . BLANK—PUT ONLY YOUR NAME ON THE HANKE S’ ANSWER SHEET APPENDIX D ORIGINAL LETTER TO SUBJECTS 92 (ENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE 93 Mount Pleasant, Michigan Dear Will you do me a favor? This will Take only a liTTle of your Time buT can make a very significant contribution To arT education. You have been referred To me as a Teacher who is interested in The growth of arT education as a profession, and as one who can make a conTribuTion To This grth. I hope ThaT you will be willing To Take a liTTle of your Time To give my requesT serious consideration. I know ThaT you are exTremely busy and so I ask for This favor wiTh all due respecT. I am doing some research in The field of arT inTeresTs, using The STrong VocaTional lnTeresT Blank. As you probably know, The SVlB is one of The mosT widely used Tools in The voca- Tional guidance of profession-bound young people. If is used ThroughouT The counTry in col- leges and universiTies as well as oTher counseling cenTers. This Blank has some 42 keys esTablished for various professions, buT There is no key for arT Teachers. Thus counselors have no way of helping a person gauge his inTeresT in arT Teaching. I am aTTempTing To dis- cover if male arT Teachers in elemenTary and secondary schools have specific inTeresTs dif- ferenTiaTing Them from people in general, so ThaT I might be able To esTablish an arT Teach- ers scale for The SVIB. This key would make iT possible for counselors To poinT ouT To young people Their common inTeresTs wiTh arT Teachers. IT is hoped ThaT we will Thus be able To encourage more young men inTo arT Teaching who aT The Time of counseling are uncertain abouT Their inTeresTs. The esTablishing of such a key would coniribuTe greale Then To boTh counseling services and arT education. This is where you can lend a helping hand. I have selecTed a number of well qualified and esTablished arT Teachers, and you are one of Those selecTed. | ask you To fill in The SVlB as one of The ”norm-setting” group. This will Take abouT 30 or 40 minuTes of your Time. If This projecT is To be successful and represenTaTive of male arT Teachers, I will need a 100% reTurn from Those of you who are parTicipaTing. This means I really need and musT have every blank reTurned. Will you do This and reTurn iT To me righT away? As partial repay- menT for your cooperaTion, I will send you a summary of The reporT if you wish. Enclosed you will find a copy of The SVIB, Hankes’ answer sheeT, a personal daTa form, and a self-addressed, sTamped envelope. Please record your answers on The Hankes’ an- swer sheeT and reTurn iT, TogeTher wiTh The unused inTeresT blank and compleTed personal data blank, and you will be conTribuTing in a mosT imporTanT way To This sTudy. If you will read The insTrucTions carefully before Taking The TesT, you will noT find iT very difficult. On The Hankes’ answer sheeT puT only your name; oTher daTa should be reported on The personal daTa form. IT goes wiThouT saying ThaT your scores will be held in sTricT confidence and will be used only in developing This key. I wish To Thank you in advance for your cooperaTion and kind consideraTion. Sincerely, VicTor Crochhik ArT DeparTmenT, CMC APPENDIX E FIRST FOLLOW—UP LETTER 94 ART DEPARTMENT CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE MOUNT PLEASANT , MICHIGAN Dear I hope that you will not think me too demanding, but I am wondering if you have completed the SVIB which I sent you several weeks ago and if perhaps you have just neglected to return it to me. If this is the case, could you please put the SVIB, the Hankes’ answer sheet, and the Personal Data Form in the stamped, addressed envel- ope ‘and drop them in the mail. If you have not had time to take the test, I would be most grateful to you if you could possibly find the time to complete the test as per my previous letter. I ask for this 30 or 40 minutes of your time with all due respect to the busy schedule under which you are operating, but I assure you your contribution is most vital to the completion of the study which I have undertaken. This study will make a definite contribution to our profession of art education and will lead to further research which is needed badly if we are to grow professionally. Since I am using only selected teachers, it is necessary that I obtain a response from all those participating. So I am hoping that you will be willing to contribute to this research. May I receive your return within the near future? Very sincerely yours , Victor Croftchik APPENDIX F SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER 96 ART DEPARTMENT CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE MOUNT PL EASAN T , MICHIGAN Dear I hope you will not mind my reminding you of the Strong’s Voca- tional Interest Blank which I sent to you some time ago. No doubt it lies buried somewhere on your desk. I sincerely hope you can find time to fill out the blanks and return them to me in the near future. If you did not receive the blanks or if you have mislaid them, please let me know and I will send you another set. I will be glad to do this since it is very important that I receive a response from each of you who were selected as representative art teachers. Over 70%, have returned their blanks, so I am appealing to you to help me reach the desired 100% goal. I know how busy you are and I do respect your time, but I am sure I your contribution to this study will help art education through better counseling services for prospective art teachers. Will you join your fellow art teachers by filling in and returning the blanks? Thanks a million for helping out. Very respectfully yours , Victor Croftchik APPENDIX G THIRD FOLLOW-UP LETTER 98 f - ART DEPARTMENT CENTRAL MICHIGAN COLLEGE MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN Dear Since it is nearing the end of the school year and I would like to complete this phase of my study before you are off for the summer, I am writing again to remind you of the SVIB and accompanying blanks which I sent to you sometime ago. I do hope you will be able to complete the blanks and return them to me real soon. In doing so you will be making a contribution to art education in as much as this study will have a direct bearing upon counseling of young men into art teaching. About 80 ‘Z, of the participants have returned the blanks to me, but it is quite necessary that I obtain as near a 100% return as pos— sible. If I did not think your contribution to this study to be nec— essary, I would not ask for 30 or 40 minutes out of your busy day. Be assured, I do appreciate your doing this. In order that art edu— cation might progress towards a more effective relationship in the school curriculum, studies such as this and contributions such as yours, are quite necessary. This is why I feel you will want to do this if it is at all possible. If you have lost or misplaced the blanks I will be very happy to send you new ones. Just let me know. Thank you again for your cooperation and kind consideration. Sincerely yours , Victor Croftchik APPENDIX H E NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF ART TEACHERS AND PERCENTAGES OF MEN-IN-GENERAL SELECTING EACH ITEM RESPONSE 100 APPENDIX H AND PERCENTAGES OF MEN-IN-GENERAL (N=4,746) SELECTING EACH ITEM RESPONSEa NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF ART TEACHERS (N=335) Pct. of Responses Number Of Difference ’ Item Aieéfigffgs Art Men-in- in Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I I D 1 181 111 43 54 33 13 21 32 ~34 2 197 107 31 59 32 9 33 38 - 6 ~20 3 281 47 7 84 14 2 37 40 ~26 ~21 4 50 104 181 15 31 54 22 29 ‘ 5 325 7 3 97 2 1 24 40 ~38 ~35 6 130 161 44 39 48 13 26 44 ~17 7 70 141 124 21 42 37 26 41 8 20 94 221 6 28 66 8 27 9 219 92 24 65 27 7 32 38 ~11 ~23 10 125 125 85 37 3'7 25 31 41 11 31 88 216 9 26 64 13 35 ~ 9 12 12 47 90 198 14 27 59 12 25 13 57 87 191 17 26 57 19 27 14 134 124 77 4O 37 23 30 36 0 ~11 15 10 101 224 3 30 67 10 33 ~ 7 10 16 10 77 248 3 23 74 12 29 ~ 9 ~ 6 15 17 94 151 90 28 45 27 35 40 - 7 18 127 144 64 38 43 19 35 37 6 - 9 19 144 141 50 43 42 15 28 38 ~19 20 228 93 14 68 27 4 24 46 ~19 ~26 21 13 94 228 4 28 68 20 38 ~10 26 22 13 74 248 4 22 74 19 33 ~11 26 23 79 136 120 24 41 36 35 36 7 24 77 154 104 23 46 31 41 37 9 9 a . . . . Differences under 6 are not Significant. indicate “more art teachers favored” “fewer art teachers favored.” negative Positive figures figures indicate -. . . q. . |\ ,.-_.- ‘ . l ‘0'." I -' I f' a. 102 APPENDIX H (Continued) Number of Pct. of Responses Responses, . . Difference’ Art Teachers Art Men-1n- 1n Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 25 23 184 128 7 55 38 8 39 53 16 ~15 26 76 133 126 23 40 38 14 29 57 9 11 ~19 27 289 42 4 87 12 1 33 30 37 54 ~18 ~36 28 144 148 43 43 44 13 34 40 26 9 ~13 29 52 103 180 16 31 54 7 24 69 9 7 ~15 30 154 118 63 46 35 19 23 36 41 23 ~22 31 138 144 53 41 43 16 36 36 28 7 ~12 32 63 121 151 19 36 45 32 41 27 ~13 18 33 98 125 112 29 37 33 30 40 30 34 215 94 26 64 28 8 50 31 19 14 ~11 35 50 121 164 15 36 49 39 38 23 ~24 26 36 3 61 271 1 18 81 6 29 65 ~11 16 37 53 152 130 16 45 39 37 28 35 ~21 17 1 38 13 84 238 4 25 71 2 18 80 7 ~ 9 ; i 39 118 144 73 35 43 22 19 35 46 16 8 ~24 I,“ 40 161 124 50 48 37 15 26 39 35 22 ~20 'l 41 67 114 154 20 34 46 3O 41 29 ~10 - 7 17 l 42 67 130 138 20 39 41 20 37 43 i 43 255 70 10 76 21 3 18 38 44 58 ~17 ~41 i 44 97 144 94 29 43 28 13 4o 47 16 -19 T 45 224 91 20 67 27 6 47 34 19 20 -7 —13 l 46 124 141 70 37 42 21 4 46 50 33 -29 . . 47 87 126 121 26 38 36 36 39 25 —10 11 l 48 53 91 191 16 27 57 19 34 47 - 7 10 l 49 38 145 152 11 43 45 19 36 45 - 8 7 50 178 104 53 53 31 16 36 35 29 17 -13 51 80 97 158 24 29 47 24 27 49 l 52 31 111 193 9 33 58 43 27 3o -34 6 28 i 53 61 114 160 18 34 48 13 43 44 - 9 54 10 67 258 3 20 77 8 25 67 10 55 47 138 150 14 41 45 25 36 39 ~11 6 56 50 117 168 15 35 5O 24 34 42 -9 8 APPENDIX H (Continued) Number of Pot. of Responses Difference, Item Age?:::::1’.s Art Men-in- in Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 57 171 117 47 51 35 14 32 37 31 19 ~17 58 84 161 90 25 48 27 52 34 14 ~27 14 13 59 57 144 134 17 43 40 18 47 35 60 74 122 139 22 36 41 34 38 28 ~12 13 61 24 128 183 7 38 54 18 45 37 ~11 ~ 7 17 62 208 93 34 62 28 10 37 35 28 .25 ~ 7 ~18 63 66 156 113 20 47 34 5 30 65 15 17 ~31 64 3 84 248 1 25 74 5 28 67 7 65 40 118 177 12 35 53 33 39 28 ~21 25 66 137 114 84 41 34 25 19 33 48 22 ~23 67 34 147 154 10 44 46 9 37 54 7 ~ 8 68 118 150 67 35 45 20 5 39 56 30 6 ~36 69 122 113 100 37 34 30 39 30 31 70 79 156 100 24 47 30 15 43 42 9 ~12 71 150 115 70 45 34 21 16 32 52 29 ~31 72 53 86 196 16 26 59 18 28 54 73 101 147 87 30 44 26 7 41 52 23 ~26 74 17 95 223 5 28 66 15 43 42 ~10 ~15 24 75 24 91 220 7 27 65 8 35 57 ~ 8 8 76 121 130 84 36 39 25 43 30 27 ~ 7 9 77 23 98 214 7 29 63 14 33 53 - 7 10 78 97 144 94 29 43 28 18 42 40 11 ~12 79 73 107 155 22 32 46 16 40 44 6 ~ 8 ' 80 48 152 135 14 45 40 15 41 44 81 31 124 180 9 37 54 37 34 29 ~28 25 82 293 39 3 88 11 1 21 31 48 67 ~20 ~47 83 125 125 85 37 37 25 44 31 25 ~ 7 6 84 312 20 3 94 6 1 14 41 45 80 ~35 ~44 85 13 117 205 4 35 61 13 40 47 ~ 9 14 86 121 121 93 36 36 28 20 35 45 16 ~17 87 80 137 118 24 41 35 20 38 42 - 7 88 31 114 190 9 34 57 14 45 41 ~11 16 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pct. of Responses Number of Diff n Responses, Art M _. _ . P ere tie, Item Art Teachers en 1n 1n ercen ges Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 89 94 137 104 28 41 31 17 34 49 11 7 ~18 90 23 90 222 7 27 66 13 36 51 ~ 6 ~ 9 15 91 17 70 248 5 21 74 19 40 41 ~14 ~19 33 92 31 90 214 9 27 64 19 39 42 ~10 ~12 22 93 119 100 116 36 30 35 39 25 36 94 64 115 156 19 34 47 16 38 46 95 17 73 245 5 22 73 16 32 52 ~11 ~10 21 96 17 104 214 5 31 64 4 26 70 ~ 6 97 13 53 269 4 16 81 3 11 86 98 47 130 158 14 39 47 5 35 60 9 ~13 99 26 130 179 8 39 53 23 43 34 ~15 19 100 63 152 120 19 46 36 11 33 56 8 13 ~20 101 130 104 101 39 31 30 57 24 19 ~18 7 11 102 64 164 107 19 49 32 38 45 17 ~19 15 103 124 141 70 37 42 21 74 16 10 ~37 26 11 104 328 7 0 98 2 0 35 44 21 63 ~42 ~21 105 26 141 168 8 42 50 29 36 35 ~21 6 15 106 168 130 37 50 39 11 38 42 20 12 ~ 9 107 48 122 165 14 36 49 29 41 30 ~15 19 108 97 134 104 29 40 31 52 34 14 ~23 6 17 109 148 134 53 44 40 16 53 37 10 - 9 110 186 118 31 56 35 9 29 43 28 27 - 8 ~19 111 95 155 85 28 46 25 61 32 7 -33 14 18 112 187 111 37 56 33 11 45 39 16 11 - 6 113 208 107 20 62 32 6 77 20 3 ~15 12 114 171 138 26 51 41 8 54 39 7 115 154 101 80 46 3O 24 58 27 15 ~12 9 116 211 84 4O 63 25 12 76 18 6 ~13 7 6 117 70 141 124 21 42 37 19 38 43 - 6 118 134 134 67 40 40 20 39 41 20 119 251 64 20 75 19 6 57 34 9 18 ~15 120 121 121 93 36 36 28 69 20 11 ~33 16 17 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pct. of Responses $215322:er Difference, Item Art Teachers Art Men-in- in Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 121 202 96 37 60 29 11 48 37 15 12 ~ 8 122 202 111 22 60 33 7 41 36 23 19 ~16 123 57 118 160 17 35 48 29 35 36 ~12 12 124 210 94 31 63 28 9 49 35 16 14 ~ 7 ~ 7 125 206 116 13 61 34 4 52 38 10 9 - 6 126 229 89 17 69 27 5 57 35 8 12 ~ 8 127 144 121 70 43 36 21 54 34 12 ~11 9 128 111 130 94 33 39 28 58 32 10 ~25 7 18 129 232 83 20 70 25 6 64 29 7 6 130 124 158 53 37 47 16 5O 40 10 ~13 7 6 131 171 124 40 51 37 12 41 35 24 10 ~12 132 184 104 47 55 31 14 38 38 24 17 ~ 7 ~10 133 178 134 23 53 40 7 34 45 21 19 ~14 134 138 144 53 41 43 16 53 32 15 ~12 11 135 107 161 67 32 48 20 21 51 28 11 ~ 8 136 148 144 43 44 43 13 38 46 16 6 137 154 108 73 46 32 22 56 34 10 ~10 ‘12 138 185 97 53 55 29 16 65 24 11 ~10 139 127 87 121 38 26 36 54 31 15 ~16 21 140 168 124 43 50 37 13 55 33 12 141 229 92 14 68 27 4 77 19 4 - 9 8 142 252 70 13 75 21 4 61 31 8 14 ~10 143 77 90 168 23 27 50 29 39 32 - 6 ~12 18 144 97 120 118 29 36 35 25 41 34 145 122 88 125 36 26 37 37 30 33 146 90 110 135 27 33 41 51 23 26 ~24 10 15 147 138 132 65 41 39 19 47 41 12 - 6 7 148 121 124 90 36 37 27 39 34 27 149 80 138 117 24 41 35 18 51 31 6 ~10 150 55 108 172 16 32 51 12 43 45 ~11 6 151 64 90 181 19 27 54 18 32 50 152 88 142 105 26 42 31 36 37 27 ~10 APPENDIX H (Continued) 106 Pct. of Responses Number Of Difference , Afteérpgdbslfesifs Art Men-in- in Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 153 115 143 77 34 43 23 21 43 36 13 ~13 154 258 64 13 77 19 4 48 35 17 29 ~16 ~13 155 252 70 13 75 21 4 39 36 25 36 ~15 ~21 156 88 125 122 26 37 36 32 41 27 - 6 9 157 16 56 263 5 17 79 8 24 68 ~ 7 11 158 120 130 85 36 39 26 28 41 31 8 159 97 120 118 29 36 35 21 4O 39 8 160 131 131 73 39 39 22 17 39 44 22 ~22 161 26 106 203 8 32 60 5 28 67 ~ 7 162 251 77 7 75 23 2 56 33 11 19 ~10 ~ 9 163 328 7 0 97 2 0 59 33 8 38 ~31 ~ 8 164 305 27 3 90 8 1 68 27 5 22 ~19 165 178 124 33 53 37 10 59 31 10 ~ 6 6 166 252 63 20 75 19 6 75 20 5 167 235 80 20 70 24 6 56 31 13 14 ~ 7 ~ 7 168 43 161 131 13 48 39 16 45 39 169 50 130 155 15 39 46 8 29 63 7 10 ~17 170 17 114 204 5 34 61 3 24 73 10 ~12 171 130 115 90 39 34 27 50 36 14 ~11 13 172 175 127 33 52 38 10 36 46 18 16 ~ 8 ~ 8 173 118 130 87 35 39 26 51 34 15 ~16 11 174 245 77 13 73 23 4 70 26 4 175 50 231 54 15 69 16 49 43 8 ~34 26 8 176 61 221 53 18 66 16 24 63 13 - 6 177 7 263 65 2 78 19 40 50 10 ~38 28 9 178 282 50 3 84 15 1 83 15 2 179 97 208 30 29 62 9 53 38 9 ~24 24 180 194 115 26 58 34 8 49 41 10 9 ~ 7 181 173 149 13 51 44 4 43 50 7 8 ~ 6 182 264 64 7 79 20 2 71 25 4 8 183 281 47 7 84 14 2 80 17 3 184 185 117 33 56 35 10 29 47 24 27 ~12 ~14 107 APPENDIX H (Continued) Number of Pct. of Responses Diff ReSpmseS’ Art Men—in- in pefgffi‘tie’es Item Art Teachers g Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 185 73 121 141 22 36 42 24 39 37 186 100 130 105 30 39 32 29 34 37 187 84 118 133 25 35 40 33 35 32 ~ 8 8 188 106 126 103 32 38 31 43 29 28 ~11 9 189 179 112 44 53 33 13 31 38 31 22 ~18 190 101 137 97 30 41 29 54 26 20 ~24 15 9 191 84 157 94 25 47 28 47 31 22 ~22 16 6 192 94 177 64 28 53 19 40 42 18 ~12 11 193 187 115 33 56 34 10 49 35 16 7 ~ 6 194 143 149 43 42 44 13 29 49 22 13 ~ 9 195 111 94 130 33 28 39 39 31 30 ~ 6 9 196 118 150 67 35 45 20 35 35 30 10 ~10 197 40 113 182 12 34 55 35 31 34 ~23 21 198 78 145 112 23 43 33 46 35 19 ~23 8 14 199 136 122 77 41 37 23 34 28 38 7 9 ~15 200 130 124 81 39 37 24 14 35 51 25 ~27 201 127 151 57 38 45 17 32 39 29 6 6 ~12 202 300 29 6 90 9 2 42 39 19 48 ~30 ~17 203 293 39 3 88 11 1 43 37 20 45 ~26 ~19 204 171 124 40 51 37 12 40 37 23 11 ~11 205 148 130 57 44 39 17 39 38 23 ~ 6 206 188 127 20 56 38 6 58 30 12 8 ~ 6 207 238 87 10 71 26 3 82 15 3 ~11 11 208 235 87 13 70 26 4 82 14 4 ~12 12 209 173 129 33 52 39 10 58 27 15 ~ 6 12 210 50 97 188 15‘ 29 56 25 29 46 ~10 10 211 37 124 174 11 37 52 15 33 52 212 175 110 50 53 33 15 49 31 20 213 20 80 235 6 24 70 5 27 68 214 94 140 101 28 42 30 30 35 35 7 215 47 138 150 14 41 45 27 41 32 ~13 13 216 197 107 31 59 32 9 41 39 20 18 - 7 ~11 . , i 271%.: 108 APPENDD€ H (Continued) Number of Pct. of Responses . Responses Difference, Art Teacher’s Art Men-in- in Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 217 97 131 107 29 39 32 25 36 39 ~ 7 218 218 97 20 65 29 6 44 38 18 21 ~ 9 ~12 219 122 148 65 36 44 19 27 44 29 9 ~10 220 211 90 34 63 27 10 20 47 33 43 ~20 ~23 221 134 144 57 40 43 17 36 39 25 ~ 8 222 94 141 100 28 42 30 41 38 21 ~13 9 223 73 110 152 22 33 46 48 32 20 ~26 26 224 132 123 80 40 37 24 58 25 17 ~18 12 7 225 205 87 43 61 26 13 30 31 39 31 ~26 226 37 124 174 11 37 52 43 36 21 ~32 31 227 191 118 26 57 35 8 61 30 9 228 111 186 38 33 55 11 52 4o 8 -19 15 229 57 163 115 17 49 34 19 38 43 11 - 9 230 130 97 108 39 29 32 44 28 28 231 57 94 184 17 28 55 15 28 57 L 232 73 106 156 22 31 46 6 37 57 16 - 6 -11 'T 233 166 92 77 49 27 23 28 4o 32 21 -13 - 9 234 253 62 20 76 19 6 85 11 4 - 9 8 235 94 157 84 28 47 25 56 35 9 ~28 12 16 236 282 43 10 84 13 3 89 9 2 237 42 167 126 13 50 38 5 32 63 8 18 ~25 l 238 20 130 185 6 39 56 2 19 79 20 ~23 239 13 80 242 4 24 73 7 26 67 6 240 222 95 18 66 28 5 75 20 5 - 9 8 241 13 90 232 4 27 69 3 27 70 242 254 69 12 76 21 4 88 10 2 ~12 11 243 198 102 35 59 30 10 47 25 28 12 ~18 244 34 134 167 10 40 50 5 40 55 , 245 96 202 37 29 60 11 52 42 6 ~23 18 246 73 147 115 22 44 34 16 41 43 6 ~ 9 247 134 161 40 40 48 12 74 22 4 ~34 26 8 248 23 172 140 7 51 42 5 29 66 22 ~24 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pot. of Responses Number of . D1fference Resp onses, Art Men-in- in Percenta ’es Item Art Teachers g Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 249 94 157 84 28 47 25 14 36 50 14 11 ~25 250 131 164 40 39 49 12 32 46 22 7 ~10 251 37 180 118 11 54 35 6 48 46 6 ~11 252 242 90 3 72 27 1 83 16 1 ~11 11 253 17 166 152 5 49 45 3 44 53 ~ 8 254 26 141 168 8 42 50 13 37 50 255 154 174 7 46 52 2 23 62 15 23 ~10 ~13 256 53 209 73 16 62 22 20 52 28 10 ~ 6 257 20 177 138 6 53 41 5 43 52 10 ~11 258 125 190 20 38 57 6 46 47 7 ~ 8 10 259 84 220 31 25 66 9 30 51 19 15 ~10 260 17 126 192 5 38 58 4 21 75 17 ~17 261 23 262 50 7 78 15 3 53 44 25 ~29 262 35 269 31 10 80 9 4 56 40 6 24 ~31 263 31 273 31 9 82 9 3 61 36 6 21 ~27 264 80 242 13 24 72 4 23 64 13 8 - 9 265 61 248 26 18 74 8 16 64 20 10 ~12 266 53 198 84 16 59 25 10 58 32 6 ~ 7 267 31 122 182 9 37 55 5 38 57 268 13 97 225 4 29 67 1 19 80 10 ~13 269 26 207 102 8 61 30 11 55 34 6 270 20 127 188 6 38 56 1 23 76 15 ~10 271 198 130 7 59 39 2 38 54 8 21 ~15 ~ 6 272 23 174 138 7 52 41 5 40 55 12 ~14 273 33 252 50 10 76 15 10 66 24 10 ~ 9 274 31 243 61 9 73 18 6 46 48 27 ~30 275 7 179 149 2 53 44 2 23 75 30 ~31 276 179 142 14 53 42 4 52 43 5 277 13 193 129 4 57 38 5 61 34 278 10 154 171 3 46 51 1 25 74 21 ~23 279 17 248 70 5 74 21 2 66 32 8 ~11 280 150 175 10 45 53 3 73 26 1 ~28 27 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pct. of Responses Number of Diff Responses, A t M _. _ . erence, Item Art Teachers r en In In Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 281 77 158 100 23 47 30 36 32 32 ~13 15 282 37 197 101 11 59 3O 44 40 16 ~33 19 14 283 185 137 13 56 41 4 38 47 15 18 ~ 6 ~11 284 3 87 245 1 26 73 29 44 27 ~28 ~18 46 285 13 185 137 4 56 41 30 47 23 ~26 9 18 286 311 17 7 93 5 2 21 51 28 72 ~46 ~26 287 . 10 114 211 3 34 63 26 32 42 ~23 21 288 215 100 20 64 30 6 25 40 35 39 ~10 ~29 289 121 191 23 36 57 7 27 48 25 9 9 ~18 290 34 149 152 10 44 45 24 21 55 ~14 23 ~10 291 116 155 64 35 47 19 28 35 37 7 12 ~18 292 118 160 57 35 48 17 37 45 18 293 53 139 143 16 41 42 41 39 20 ~25 22 294 61 170 104 18 51 31 10 51 39 8 ~ 8 295 226 82 27 67 24 8 61 31 8 6 ~ 7 296 23 148 164 7 44 49 12 46 42 7 297 7 104 224 2 31 67 5 44 51 ~13 16 298 37 168 130 11 50 39 20 50 30 ~ 9 9 299 265 50 20 79 15 6 60 25 15 19 ~10 ~ 9 300 97 161 77 29 48 23 24 44 32 ~ 9 301 97 161 77 29 48 23 36 38 26 ~ 7 10 302 122 129 84 36 38 25 14 26 60 22 12 ~35 303 194 121 20 58 36 6 55 38 7 304 84 178 73 25 53 22 50 37 13 ~25 16 9 305 248 77 10 74 23 3 8 37 55 66 ~14 ~52 306 43 138 154 13 41 46 43 39 18 ~30 28 307 23 110 202 7 33 60 17 45 38 ~10 ~12 22 308 13 158 164 4 47 49 26 53 21 ~22 ~ 6 28 309 154 134 47 46 40 14 21 45 34 25 ~20 310 26 136 173 8 41 52 3O 47 23 ~22 - 6 29 311 158 70 107 47 21 32 67 15 18 ~20 6 14 312 23 80 232 7 24 69 21 31 48 ~14 ~ 7 21 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pct. of Responses Number Of Difference , Item $65,:53csfsljs Art Men-in- in Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 313 31 87 217 9 26 65 27 38 35 ~18 ~12 30 314 121 183 31 36 55 9 42 44 14 ~ 6 11 315 46 204 85 14 61 26 19 58 23 316 151 158 26 45 47 8 26 53 21 19 ~ 6 ~13 317 130 144 61 39 43 18 26 40 34 13 ~16 318 20 173 142 6 51 42 17 49 34 ~11 8 319 137 137 61 41 41 18 26 50 24 15 ~ 9 - 6 320 181 107 47 54 32 14 23 36 41 31 ~27 321 115 126 94 34 38 28 45 33 22 ~11 6 322 139 116 80 42 35 24 28 36 36 14 ~12 323 - 115 67 153 34 20 46 71 15 14 ~37 32 324 127 77 131 38 23 39 31 21 48 7 ~ 9 325 13 84 238 4 25 71 5 16 79 9 ~ 8 326 34 34 267 10 10 80 12 10 78 327 44 53 238 13 16 71 7 14 79 6 ~ 8 328 181 118 36 54 35 11 34 3O 36 20 ~25 329 212 90 33 63 27 10 48 24 28 15 ~18 330 205 90 40 61 27 12 51 22 27 10 15 331 100 120 115 30 36 34 25 25 50 11 ~16 332 136 63 70 41 41 19 25 28 47 16 13 ~28 333 64 137 134 19 41 40 50 26 24 ~31 15 16 334 70 130 135 21 39 40 31 25 44 ~10 14 335 218 90 27 65 27 8 44 22 34 21 ~26 336 184 104 47 55 31 14 69 19 12 ~14 12 337 287 36 12 86 10 3 76 11 13 10 ~10 338 53 73 209 16 22 62 23 17 60 - 7 339 81 127 127 31 56 13 24 38 38 7 18 ~25 340 209 90 36 62 27 11 77 14 9 ~15 13 341 101 141 93 30 42 28 36 28 36 ~ 6 14 ~ 8 342 83 169 83 25 50 25 52 29 19 ~27 21 6 343 73 107 155 22 32 46 17 27 56 ~10 344 252 60 23 75 18 7 69 20 11 6 APPENDIX H (Continued) Pct. of Responses Number of . Responses, . . D1fference, Item Art Teachers Art Men-1n- 1n Percentages Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 345 40 201 94 12 60 28 16 44 40 16 ~12 346 310 22 3 92 7 1 79 16 5 13 ~ 9 347 179 112 44 53 33 13 34 19 47 19 14 ~34 348 90 111 134 27 33 4O 42 23 35 ~15 10 349 97 171 67 29 51 20 50 35 15 ~21 16 350 138 107 90 41 32 27 34 24 42 7 8 ~15 351 57 151 127 17 45 38 19 29 52 16 ~14 352 172 140 23 51 42 7 74 22 4 ~23 20 353 118 160 57 35 48 17 57 32 11 ~22 16 6 354 29 53 262 6 16 78 10 13 77 355 132 123 80 39 36 24 59 18 23 ~20 18 356 104 178 53 31 53 16 17 38 45 14 15 ~29 357 10 238 87 3 71 26 8 72 20 6 358 57 268 10 17 80 3 28 69 3 ~11 11 359 34 263 38 10 78 11 20 68 12 ~10 10 360 23 212 100 7 63 30 17 55 28 ~10 8 361 201 83 51 60 25 16 54 24 22 6 ~ 6 362 202 43 90 60 13 27 71 12 17 ~11 10 363 197 87 51 59 26 16 59 27 14 364 174 104 57 52 31 17 67 20 13 ~15 11 365 147 115 73 44 34 22 31 41 28 13 ~ 7 - 6 366 187 87 61 56 26 18 56 30 14 367 224 70 41 67 21 12 75 16 9 ~ 8 368 182 85 68 54 25 20 36 20 44 18 ~24 369 200 104 31 60 32 9 26 36 38 34 ~29 370 289 32 14 87 9 4 85 11 4 371 287 45 3 86 13 1 88 10 2 372 258 43 34 77 13 10 84 11 5 ~ 7 373 191 53 91 57 16 27 58 17 25 374 70 99 166 21 29 49 30 28 42 ~ 9 7 375 172 147 16 51 44 5 59 33 8 ~ 8 11 376 218 101 16 65 30 5 65 30 5 113 APPENDIX H (Continued) Number of Pct. of Responses . Responses, Art Men-in- in DItteffdjlltzegbs Art Teachers Teachers General L I D L I D L I D L I D 377 37 70 228 11 21 68 12 20 68 378 215 ' 77 43 64 23 13 66 23 11 379 224 101 10 67 30 3 58 35 7 9 380 122 83 130 37 25 39 58 22 20 ~21 19 381 141 169 25 42 50 8 53 36 11 ~11 14 382 148 144 43 44 43 13 50 38 12 ~ 6 383 144 158 33 43 47 10 55 40 5 ~12 7 384 179 116 40 54 35 12 56 33 11 385 233 99 3 69 29 1 79 20 1 ~10 9 386 164 130 41 49 39 12 63 29 8 ~14 10 387 303 26 6 90 8 2 90 8 2 388 284 31 20 85 9 6 67 15 18 18 ~ 6 ~12 389 50 209 76 15 62 23 20 59 21 390 21 98 216 6 29 64 4 33 63 391 80 85 170 24 26 51 15 32 53 9 - 6 392 60 104 171 18 31 51 19 36 45 6 393 53 206 76 16 61 23 15 52 33 9 ~10 394 64 258 13 19 77 4 39 58 3 ~20 19 395 64 227 44 19 68 13 37 52 11 ~18 16 396 13 129 193 4 38 57 3 28 69 10 ~12 397 133 142 60 4O 43 18 33 53 14 7 ~10 398 155 167 13 47 50 4 44 53 3 399 3 147 185 1 44 54 7 52 41 ~ 6 ~ 8 13 400 (Omitted by Clark as unnecessary.) ' -"‘_9_.‘.'5.2¢‘- APPENDIX I ASSIGNMENT OF WEIGHTS OF THE ITEM DIFFERENCES OF ART TEACHERS AND MEN-IN-GENERAL 114 APPENDIX I ASSIGNMENT OF WEIGHTS OF THE ITEM DIFFERENCES OF ART TEACHERS AND MEN-IN-GENERAL Plus Plus Plus P131118 Minus Minus Minus Minus our Four One: Two: Three: Pct One: Two: Three: Pct Pct Pct. Pct. Diff ‘ Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Diff, Diff., Diff., 36 8?; Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ 6—15 16—25 26—35 6—15 16—25 26—35 Over Over 6~L 25~I 1~L 3-L 2~I 2~D 1~D 5-I 10-L 30~L 2~L 5~L 4~L 3-D 3-I 27~D 11~D 32~D 9~L 20~L 9-I 6~D 5~D 43~D 14~L 36~D 21~D 27~L 11~I 9~D 20~D 68-D 15-D 37-I 22~D 43~L 14~D 19~D 46~D 82~D 16-D 39~L 35~D 82~L 15~L 20~I 52-L 84-D 18~I 40-L 46~L 84~L 16-L 21~L 58-L 103-L 19~L 41~D 52~D 104-L 16~I 24~L 63~D 104-I 23~D 44~L 68~L 155-L 17~L 26~D 71~D 177-L 24~I 45-L 71~L 163—L 18~D 27~I 81-L 286-I 24-D 50~L 91-D 202-L 21~I 30~D 84~I 305-D 26~L 57~L 103-I 203-L 22~L 35~L 111-L 323-L 26~I 61~D 110~L 220~L 22-1 37~L 120~L 28~L 62~L 154—L 284-D 23~L 39~D 163-I 29~L 63~I 175—I 286-L 25~D 40~D 175-L 29-I 65-D 177-I 288-L 28~D 43-1 200~D 31-I 66~L 184-L 305-L 29~D 44~D 202-I 34~L 73~L 223-D 31-D 57~D 203-I 38~I 74~D 225-L 32-L 62~D 223-L 39~I 81~D 226-D 34-D 65~L 225-D 47-D 86~L 247-I 36-1 66~D 226~L 48~D 88-D 274-I 38~D 73~D 235-L 49~I 92-D 275-1 41~L 82-I 247-L 52-1 95~D 280-1 41~I 86~D 261-D 54~D 99-D 306-D 45-1 89~D 262-D 55~D 107-D 308-D 45-D 91~I 263-D 56~D 108-D 310~D 47-L 100-D 274-D 58-I 111-D 313-D 48-I 101-L 275~D 58~D 119-L 320~L 49~L 102-L 280~L APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus Plus Plus F1363: Minus Minus Minus £1331: One: Two: Three: Pct ' One: Two: Three: Pct ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Difl ' Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 '8; Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ 6—15 16—25 26435 6-15 16—25 26435 Over Over 60-D 120-1 323-D 50~D 104-D 282-L 63~L 120~D 369-L 53~I 105-L 284-L 64~D 122-L 55~L 108-L 285~L 67-1 128-D 56~L 110~D 286-D 68~I 132-L 60~L 122-D 288-D 70~L 133-L 61~L 128-L 302-D 75-D 139-D 61-I 146-L 306-L 76-I 143-D 62~I 154-I 320~D 77~D 160~L 67~D 155-D 332-D i 78~L 162-L 70~D 160~D 335-D 79~L 164-L 74~L 164—I 342-L 83- I 172-L 74-1 169-D 347-D 85~D 179-I 75~I 173-L 356-D 89~L 189-L 76~L 179-L 369-D i 89-I 191-I ' 77~L 189-D l. 90~D 197-D 78~D 19o-L " T 98~L 200-L 79-1 191—L i 100~L 216-L 83~L 197-L ‘ 100-1 218-L 85~L 198-L 101-I 232—L 87~D 202-D ] 101-D 233-L 88~I 203-D T 102—D 235-D 90~L 220-1 l 103-D 237-I 90~I 220-D 105-I 238-I 91~L 224-L i 105-D 245-L 92~L 228-L 106-L 245- I 92-1 237-D 108-I 248-I 95~L 238-D l 111-I 255~L 95-I 243-D T 112-L 260~I 96-D 248-D . 113-I 261-I 98~D 249—D 115-D 262-I 99~L 260~D 116-I 263-I 106-D 278-D APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus Plus Plus F1383: Minus Minus Minus MFmES. One: Two: Three: Pct. One: Two: Three: 1;) tr. Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff‘ Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 8;, Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ 6—15 16—25 26—35 Over 6—15 16—25 26—35 Over 116-D 271-L 107-L 287-L 121-L 278-I 109-L 289-D 123-D 282-I 110-1 291—D 124-L 283-L 112-I 293-L 125-L 284-I 113-L 304-L 126-L 285-D 115—L 308-L 127-D 287-D 116—L 309-D 128-I 290-1 117—D 310-L 129-L 293-D 119—I 311-L 130-1 297-D 121-I 313-L 130~D 299-L 123-L 328-D 131-L 302-L 124-I 329-D 134-I 304-I 124-D 331-D 135-L 307-D 125-D 339—D 136-L 309-L 126-I 349-L 137-D 312-D 127-L 352-L 141-I 316-L 130-L 353-L 142-L 328-L 131-D 355-L 146-I 332-L 132-I 368~D 146-D 335-L 132—D 380-L 147-D 339-I 133-D 394-L 149-L 342-I 134-L 395-L 150-D 345-I 135-D 153-L 347—L 137-L 156-D 349-I 138-L 157-D 351-I 139-L 158-L 352-I 141-L 159~L 353-I 142-I 165-I 355-I 143-L 167-L 368~L 143-I 169-L 380~D 147-L 169-I 388-L 149-I APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus Plus Plus F1363: Minus Minus Minus $321: One: Two: Three: Pct. One: Two: Three: Pct ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 8?" 6—15 16—25 26—35 6—15 16—25 26—35 Over Over 170-1 394-I 150-1 171-D 395-I 152-L 173-D 153-D 175-D 154-D 177-D 155—I 180~L 156-L 181-L 157-I 182-L 161-D 187-D 162-I 188-I 162-D 190-1 163-D 190~D 165—L 191-D 167-I 192-I 167—D 193-L 170~D 194-L 171-L 195-D 172-I 196-I 172-D 198-I 176-L 198-D 180-1 199-L 181-I 199-I 184-I 201-L 184-D 201-I 187-L 204-L 188-L 206-I 192-L 207-I 193-D 208-I 194—D 209-I 195-L 210~D 196-D 214-I 199-D 215-D 201—D APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus Plus Plus F1383: Minus Minus Minus $125: One: Two: Three: Pct ' One: Two: Three: Pct ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ 6—15 16—25 26435 6—15 16—25 26—35 Over Over 219-L 204-D 222-D 205-D 224- I 206—D 224—D 207-L 228-I 208-L 229- I 209-L 234-I 210~L 235~ I 215-L 237-L 216~ I 239-D 216—D 240-1 217-D 242- I 218-I 243-L 218-D 246-L 219~D 247—D 221-D 249-L 222-L 249- I 229-D 250-L 232-1 251-1 232-D 252- I 233—1 256- I 233-D 257-I 234-L 258-I 240~L 259-I 242-L 262-L 246-D 263-L 250~D 264- I 251-D 265- I 252-D 266-L 253-D 268—I 255- I 269-I 255~D 270~ I 256-D APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus 171:3: Minus 1:311: one‘ Pct. one‘ Pct. PCI' Diff., DCL Diff., Diff-, 36 & D1ff., 36 & 645 Over 6—15 Over 272- I 257—D 273- I 258-L 279- I 259-D 281- I 264-D 282-D 265-D 285- I 266-D 289-L 268-D 289~ I 270~D 291-L 271- I 291-I 271-D 294-L 272-D 295-L 273-D 296-D 279-D 298-D 281-L 301-I 283-I 302- I 283-D 304—D 288~ I 311— I 290~L 311-D 290-D 314-I 294-D 317-L 295- I 318-D 297- I 319-L 298-L 321-D 299-I 322-L 299-D 324-L 300~D 325-I 301-L 327-L 305-I 329-L 307-L 330~L 307- I 331- I 308-1 332— I 310- I APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus Plus Plus F1363: Minus Minus Minus 1:12;: One: Two: Three: Pct. One: Two: Three: Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Pct. Pct. Pct. Diff ' Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ Diff., Diff., Diff., 36 &’ 6—15 16—25 26—35 6—15 16—25 26—35 Over Over 334-I 312-L 336-I 312-I 337-L 313-I 339-L 314-L 340-1 316-1 341-1 316-D 342~D 317-D 344-L 318-L 346-L 319-I 347-I 319-D 348-I 321-L 350~L 322~D 350-1 324-D 353-D 325-D 356-L 327-D 356-I 330~D 357-D 334-L 358—I 336-L 359-I 337-D 360~I 338-L 361-L 340-L 362-D 341-L 364—I 341-D 365-L 343-D 374~D 345-D 375-I 346-I 379-L 348-L 381-I 350-D 383-I 351-D 385-I 358-L 386-I 359-L 391-L 360-L APPENDIX I (Continued) Plus One: Pct. -: 6—15 Plus Two: Pct. Diff. , 16—25 Plus Three: Pct. Diff., 26—35 Plus Four: Pct. Diff. , 36 & Over Minus One: Pct. Diff. , 6—15 Minus Two: Pct. Diff ., 16—25 Minus Three: Pct. Diff., 26435 Minus Four: Pct. Diff ., 36 & Over 392-D 393—I 396-I 397-L 399-D 361-D 362-L 364-L 365-I 365-D 367-L 372-L 374-L 375-L 381-L 382-L 383-L 385-L 386-L 388-I 388-D 391-I 393~D 396-D 397-I 399-L 399-I APPENDIX J SCORING WEIGHTS FOR ART TEACHERS KEY 123 APPENDIX J SCORING WEIGHTS FOR ART TEACHERS KEY Item L I D Item L I D 1 3 ~3 36 ~1 2 2 3 ~1 ~2 37 ~2 2 3 4 -3 ~2 38 1 ~1 4 -1 39 2 1 -2 5 4 ~4 -3 40 2 ~2 6 1 ~2 41 -1 ~1 2 7 42 8 43 4 ~2 ~4 9 3 ~1 ~2 44 2 ~2 10 1 45 2 -1 ~1 11 ~1 1 46 3 -3 12 47 ~1 1 13 48 -1 1 14 1 -1 49 ~1 1 15 -1 1 50 2 ~1 16 -1 -1 1 51 17 ~1 52 ~3 1 3 18 1 ~1 53 ~1 19 1 ~2 54 1 20 4 ~2 ~3 55 ~1 1 21 -2 -1 3 56 ~1 1 22 ~1 ~1 3 57 2 ~2 23 ~1 1 58 ~3 1 1 24 ~2 1 1 59 25 2 ~1 60 ~1 1 26 1 1 ~2 61 ~1 -1 2 27 4 ~2 ~4 62 2 ~1 ~2 28 1 ~1 63 1 2 ~3 29 1 1 ~1 64 1 30 2 ~2 65 ~2 2 31 1 ~1 66 2 -2 32 -1 2 67 1 ~1 33 68 3 1 ~4 34 1 ~1 69 35 -2 3 70 1 ~1 APPENDIX J (Continued) L I I) Iient I. I I) 3 ~3 108 ~2 1 2 109 ~1 2 -2 110 3 ~1 ~2 ~1 ~1 2 111 ~3 1 2 ~1 1 112 1 ~1 ~1 1 113 ~1 1 ~1 1 114 1 ~1 115 ~1 1 1 -1 116 ~1 1 1 117 ~1 ~3 2 118 4 ~2 ~4 119 2 ~1 ~1 1 120 -3 2 2 4 ~3 ~4 121 1 ~1 ~1 1 122 2 ~2 2 -2 123 ~1 1 -1 124 1 ~1 ~1 ~1 2 125 1 ~1 1 1 -2 126 1 ~1 ~1 ~1 1 127 ~1 1 ~1 ~2 3 128 ~2 1 2 -1 ~1 2 129 1 130 -1 1 1 131 1 ~1 ~1 ~1 2 132 2 ~1 ~1 ~1 133 2 ~1 134 -1 1 1 -1 135 1 ~1 ~1 2 136 1 100 1 1 ~2 137 ~1 1 101 ~2 1 1 138 ~1 102 ~2 1 139 ~1 2 103 -4 3 1 140 104 4 ~4 ~2 141 ~1 1 105 ~2 1 1 142 1 ~14 106 1 ~1 143 ~1 ~1 2 107 -1 2 144 APPENDIX J (Continued) Hem L I D Rem L I D 145 182 1 146 ~2 1 1 183 147 ~1 1 184 3 -1 ~1 148 185 149 1 ~1 186 150 ~1 1 187 ~1 1 151 188 ~1 1 152 ~1 189 2 ~2 153 1 ~1 190 ~2 1 1 154 3 ~2 ~1 191 ~2 2 1 155 4 ~1 ~2 192 ~1 1 156 ~1 1 193 1 ~1 157 ~1 1 194 1 ~1 158 1 195 ~1 1 159 1 196 1 ~1 160 2 ~2 197 ~2 2 161 ~1 198 -2 1 1 162 2 -1 ~1 199 1 1 ~1 163 4 ~3 ~1 200 2 -3 164 2 ~2 201 1 1 ~1 165 ~1 1 202 4 ~3 ~2 166 203 4 -3 ~2 167 1 ~1 ~1 204 1 -1 168 205 ~1 169 1 1 ~2 206 1 ~1 170 1 -1 207 -1 1 171 -1 1 208 -1 1 172 2 -1 ~1 209 ~1 1 173 ~2 1 210 ~1 1 174 211 175 ~3 3 1 212 176 ~1 213 177 -4 3 1 214 1 178 215 ~1 1 179 ~2 2 216 2 -1 ~1 180 1 -1 217 ~1 181 1 -1 218 2 -1 ~1 APPENDIX J (Continued) Item L I D Item L I D 219 1 ~1 256 1 ~1 220 4 ~2 ~2 257 1 ~1 221 ~1 258 ~1 1 222 ~1 1 259 1 ~1 223 ~3 3 260 2 ~2 224 -2 1 1 261 2 ~3 225 3 -3 262 1 2 ~3 226 ~3 3 263 1 2 ~3 227 264 1 ~1 228 ~2 1 265 1 ~1 229 1 ~1 266 1 ~1 230 267 231 268 1 ~1 232 2 ~1 ~1 269 1 233 2 ~1 -1 270 1 ~1 234 ~1 1 271 2 ~1 ~1 235 ~3 1 2 272 1 -1 236 273 1 ~1 237 1 2 ~2 274 3 ~3 238 2 ~2 275 3 ~3 239 1 276 240 ~1 1 277 241 278 2 ~2 242 ~1 1 279 1 ~1 243 1 ~2 280 -3 3 244 281 ~1 1 245 2 2 282 ~3 2 1 246 1 ~1 283 2 ~1 -1 247 -3 3 1 284 ~3 2 4 248 2 ~2 285 ~3 1 2 249 1 1 -2 286 4 -4 ~3 250 1 ~1 287 ~2 2 251 1 ~1 288 4 ~1 ~3 252 1 ~1 289 1 1 ~2 253 -1 290 ~1 2 ~1 254 291 1 1 ~2 255 2 -1 ~1 292 APPENDIX J (Continued) Rem L I D Rem L I D 293 -2 2 330 1 ~1 294 1 ~1 331 1 ~2 295 1 ~1 332 2 1 -3 296 1 333 297 ~1 2 334 ~1 1 298 ~1 1 335 2 ~3 299 2 -1 ~1 336 ~1 1 300 ~1 337 1 -1 301 ~1 1 338 ~1 302 2 1 ~3 339 1 2 ~2 303 340 ~1 1 304 ~2 2 1 341 ~1 1 ~1 305 4 ~1 ~4 342 ~3 2 1 306 ~3 3 343 ~1 307 ~1 ~1 2 344 1 308 ~2 ~1 3 345 2 ~1 309 2 -2 346 1 ~1 310 ~2 ~1 3 347 2 1 ~3 311 ~2 1 1 348 ~1 1 312 ~1 -1 2 349 -2 2 313 ~2 ~1 3 350 1 1 ~1 314 ~1 1 351 2 ~1 315 352 ~2 2 316 2 ~1 -1 353 ~2 2 1 317 1 ~1 354 318 -1 1 355 ~2 2 319 1 ~1 -1 356 1 1 -3 320 3 -3 357 1 321 ~1 1 358 ~1 1 322 1 -1 359 ~1 1 323 ~4 3 360 -1 1 324 1 ~1 361 1 -1 325 1 ~1 362 ~1 1 326 363 327 1 ~1 364 ~1 1 328 2 ~2 365 1 -1 ~1 329 1 -2 366 APPENDIX J (Continued) Rem L D Rem L I D 367 ~1 384 368 2 ~2 385 -1 1 369 3 ~3 386 ~1 1 370 387 T 371 388 2 -1 -1 l 372 -1 389 373 390 374 ~1 1 391 1 -1 375 ~1 1 392 1 376 393 1 ~1 377 394 -2 2 378 395 ~2 2 379 1 396 1 ~1 380 ~2 2 397 1 ~1 381 ~1 1. 398 382 ~1 399 ~1 ~1 1 383 ~1 1 400 APPENDIX K NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF VALIDATING GROUP SELECTING EACH ITEM RESPONSE 130 APPENDIX K NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF VALIDATING GROUP (N=93) SELECTING EACH ITEM RESPONSE Like Indifferent Dislike RenI No. Pct N0. Pct No. Pct 1 51 55 25 27 17 18 2 57 61 29 31 7 8 3 76 82 16 17 1 1 4 13 14 31 33 49 53 5 91 98 2 2 0 0 6 29 31 48 52 16 17 7 16 17 41 44 36 39 8 4 4 31 33 58 62 9 55 59 25 27 13 14 10 37 40 38 41 18 19 11 5 5 22 24 66 71 12 4 4 24 26 65 70 13 14 15 34 37 45 48 14 24 26 44 47 25 27 15 3 3 32 34 58 62 16 2 2 27 29 64 69 17 22 24 47 51 24 26 18 28 30 43 46 22 24 19 40 43 39 42 14 15 20 62 67 22 24 9 10 21 4 4 33 35 55 59 22 1 1 30 32 62 67 23 17 18 48 52 28 30 24 19 20 48 52 26 28 25 5 5 57 61 31 33 26 20 22 35 38 38 41 27 80 86 13 14 0 0 28 34 37 45 48 14 15 29 8 9 33 35 52 56 30 50 54 32 34 11 12 31 36 39 45 48 12 13 32 11 12 42 45 40 43 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Pct. No. Pct. . Pct. 33 16 17 42 45 35 38 34 53 57 31 33 9 10 35 6 6 36 39 51 55 36 1 1 17 18 75 81 37 20 22 43 46 30 32 38 1 1 21 23 71 76 39 35 38 36 39 22 24 4o 40 43 32 34 21 23 41 13 14 41 44 39 42 42 23 25 4o 43 30 32 43 72 77 20 22 1 1 44 22 24 5o 54 21 23 45 57 61 29 31 7 8 46 28 30 44 47 21 23 47 14 15 48 52 31 33 T 48 7 8 30 32 56 6o 1 49 8 9 52 56 33 35 . I 50 52 56 28 30 13 14 i 51 13 14 36 39 44 47 “I 52 4 4 38 41 51 55 T 53 18 19 48 52 27 29 i 54 1 1 19 2o 73 78 55 12 13 33 35 48 52 56 11 12 32 34 50 54 T 57 39 42 34 37 20 22 i 58 15 16 47 51 31 33 l 59 13 14 39 42 41 44 6o 16 17 46 48 31 33 61 1 1 46 49 46 49 62 55 59 30 32 8 9 63 25 27 43 46 25 27 64 1 1 25 27 67 72 65 9 10 36 39 48 52 66 46 49 34 37 13 14 67 8 9 49 53 36 29 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike HBHI No. Pct No. Pct No. Pct 68 27 29 53 57 13 14 69 24 26 43 46 26 28 70 19 20 43 46 31 33 71 40 43 34 37 19 20 72 6 6 26 28 61 66 73 27 29 50 54 16 17 74 2 2 41 44 50 54 75 2 2 32 34 59 63 76 25 27 40 43 28 30 77 4 4 30 32 59 63 78 19 20 47 51 27 29 79 11 12 35 38 47 51 80 8 9 38 41 47 51 81 10 11 30 32 53 57 82 88 95 4 4 1 1 83 35 38 42 45 16 17 84 88 95 5 5 0 0 85 0 0 48 52 45 48 86 26 28 35 38 32 34 87 21 23 41 44 31 33 88 2 2 38 41 53 57 89 21 23 47 51 25 27 90 2 2 33 35 58 62 91 6 6 33 35 54 58 92 7 8 38 41 48 52 93 29 31 29 31 35 38 94 17 18 40 43 36 39 95 4 4 28 30 61 66 96 7 8 36 39 50 54 97 2 2 18 19 73 78 98 13 14 40 43 40 -43 99 1 1 42 45 50 54 100 15 16 42 45 36 39 101 36 39 33 35 24 26 102 19 20 51 55 23 25 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Item No. Pct No. Pct No. Pct 103 40 43 36 39 17 18 104 90 97 3 3 0 0 105 6 6 40 43 47 51 106 60 65 29 31 4 4 107 8 9 39 42 46 49 108 28 30 43 46 22 24 109 42 45 44 47 7 8 110 53 57 32 34 8 9 111 26 28 51 55 16 17 112 43 46 37 40 13 14 113 69 74 23 25 1 1 114 43 46 43 46 7 8 115 38 41 30 32 25 27 116 69 74 16 17 8 9 117 21 23 29 31 43 46 118 29 31 44 47 20 22 119 64 69 21 23 8 9 120 32 34 41 44 20 22 121 56 60 24 26 13 14 122 67 72 23 25 3 3 123 13 14 35 38 45 48 124 63 68 24 26 6 6 125 60 65 29 31 4 4 126 70 75 21 23 2 2 127 39 42 32 34 22 24 128 29 31 44 47 20 22 129 65 70 23 25 5 5 130 33 35 48 52 12 13 131 40 43 33 35 20 22 132 55 59 28 30 10 11 133 41 44 46 49 6 6 134 38 41 33 35 22 24 135 26 28 48 52 19 20 136 38 41 47 51 8 9 137 33 35 42 45 18 19 APPENDIX K (Continued) Ifike 1ndfi3erent Ifisfike HBHI No. Pct No. Pct No. Pct 138 39 42 35 38 19 20 139 22 24 37 40 34 37 140 51 55 33 35 9 10 141 68 73 21 23 4 4 142 77 83 13 14 3 3 143 15 16 28 30 50 54 144 31 33 36 39 26 28 145 30 32 20 22 43' 46 146 23 25 31 33 39 42 147 43 46 38 41 12 13 148 29 31 37 40 27 29 149 22 24 36 39 35 38 150 17 18 32 34 44 47 151 12 13 26 28 55 59 152 30 32 42 45 21 23 153 30 32 42 45 21 23 154 67 72 22 24 4 4 155 64 69 25 27 4 4 156 20 22 32 34 41 44 157 2 2 18 19 73 78 158 44 47 37 40 12 13 159 22 24 39 42 32 34 160 31 33 39 42 23 25 161 5 5 27 29 61 66 162 68 73 22 24 3 3 163 91 98 2 2 0 0 164 88 95 5 5 0 0 165 47 51 42 45 4 4 166 78 84 13 14 2 2 167 77 83 14 15 2 2 168 10 11 48 52 35 38 169 8 9 40 43 45 48 170 4 4 38 41 51 55 171 32 34 4O 43 21 23 172 52 56 31 33 10 11 -..56 , .,.. 136 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Iteni No. Pct No. Pat No. Pct 173 38 41 34 37 21 23 174 75 81 17 18 1 1 175 16 17 61 66 16 17 176 17 18 61 66 15 16 177 3 3 73 78 17 18 178 79 85 14 15 0 0 179 25 27 60 65 8 9 180 51 55 32 34 10 11 181 56 60 32 34 5 5 182 80 86 12 13 1 1 183 84 90 9 10 0 0 184 62 67 28 30 3 3 185 21 23 33 35 39 42 186 23 25 39 42 31 33 187 22 24 33 35 38 41 188 34 37 32 34 27 29 189 52 56 33 35 8 9 190 25 27 37 40 31 33 191 16 17 48 52 29 31 192 30 32 41 44 22 24 193 59 63 23 25 11 12 194 44 47 40 43 9 10 195 26 28 27 29 40 43 196 28 30 43 46 22 24 197 4 4 37 40 52 56 198 15 16 44 47 34 37 199 24 26 48 52 21 23 200 40 43 31 33 22 24 201 33 35 46 49 14 15 202 85 91 8 9 0 0 203 79 85 14 15 0 0 204 39 42 45 48 9 10 205 38 41 41 44 14 15 206 53 57 38 41 2 2 207 75 81 16 17 2 2 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike No. Pct. No. Pct. 208 67 72 22 24 4 4 209 45 48 37 4o 11 12 210 9 10 27 29 57 61 211 9 10 3o 32 54 58 212 56 60 30 32 7 8 213 3 3 27 29 63 68 214 27 29 34 37 32 34 215 17 18 38 41 38 41 216 48 52 31 33 14 15 217 21 23 4o 43 32 34 218 67 72 22 24 4 4 219 38 41 31 33 24 26 220 67 72 21 23 5 5 . 221 30 32 39 42 24 26 222 13 14 41 44 39 42 223 26 28 37 4o 30 32 ‘ 224 38 41 33 35 22 24 . 225 56 60 22 24 15 16 T 226 13 14 34 37 46 49 “T 227 48 52 39 42 6 6 228 34 37 52 56 7 8 229 14 15 39 42 4o 43 230 30 32 31 33 32 34 I 231 11 12 26 28 56 60 ‘ 232 10 11 48 52 35 38 1 233 43 46 31 33 19 20 T 234 69 74 17 18 7 8 T 235 32 34 47 51 14 15 T 236 74 80 14 15 5 5 237 7 8 51 55 35 38 238 1 1 42 45 50 54 T 239 3 3 23 25 67 72 240 48 52 38 41 7 8 241 2 2 37 4o 54 58 242 72 77 19 20 2 2 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Hen: No. Pct No. Pct No. Pct 243 62 67 20 22 11 12 244 6 6 39 42 48 52 245 15 16 70 75 8 9 246 19 20 47 51 27 29 247 31 33 53 57 9 10 248 4 4 50 54 39 42 249 15 16 45 48 33 35 250 24 26 60 65 9 10 251 1 1 57 61 35 38 252 55 59 37 40 1 1 253 4 4 41 44 48 52 254 4 4 35 38 54 58 255 31 33 61 66 1 1 256 9 10 65 70 19 20 257 3 3 54 58 36 39 258 27 29 63 68 3 3 259 14 15 74 80 5 5 260 2 2 47 51 44 47 261 4 4 77 83 12 13 262 3 3 83 89 7 8 263 5 5 80 86 8 9 264 23 25 65 70 5 5 265 17 18 71 76 5 5 266 13 14 64 69 16 17 267 7 8 47 51 39 42 268 1 1 33 35 59 63 269 8 9 57 61 28 30 270 4 4 38 41 51 55 271 49 53 40 43 4 4 272 6 6 46 49 41 44 273 2 2 82 88 9 10 274 8 9 71 76 14 15 275 0 0 55 59 38 41 276 43 46 48 52 2 2 277 2 2 6O 65 31 33 APPENDIX K (Continued) Indifferent Dislike Rent No. Pct No. No. Pct 278 2 2 45 46 49 279 4 4 65 24 26 280 27 29 65 1 1 281 14 15 50 29 31 282 7 8 65 21 23 283 55 59 34 4 4 284 1 1 33 59 63 285 2 2 51 40 43 286 91 98 2 0 0 287 0 0 25 68 73 288 62 67 28 3 3 289 39 42 49 5 5 290 8 9 35 50 54 291 22 24 50 21 23 292 33 35 33 27 29 293 17 18 42 34 37 294 16 17 47 30 32 295 59 63 25 9 10 296 10 11 43 40 43 297 7 8 28 58 62 298 10 11 49 34 37 299 75 81 14 4 4 300 30 32 41 22 24 301 44 47 34 15 16 302 33 35 41 19 20 303 50 54 40 3 3 304 17 18 45 31 33 305 75 81 15 3 3 306 13 14 39 41 44 307 7 8 21 65 70 208 2 2 44 47 51 309 32 34 45 16 17 310 6 6 48 39 42 311 42 45 25 26 28 312 6 6 25 62 67 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Item No. Pct No. Pct No. Pct 313 17 18 21 23 55 59 314 35 38 52 56 6 6 315 13 14 56 60 24 26 316 46 49 42 45 5 5 317 25 27 33 35 35 38 318 5 5 48 52 39 42 319 40 43 38 41 15 16 320 50 54 31 33 12 13 321 29 31 43 46 21 23 322 29 31 42 45 22 24 323 30 32 28 30 35 38 324 31 33 26 28 36 39 325 4 4 30 32 59 63 326 3 3 5 5 85 91 327 10 11 17 18 66 71 328 53 57 38 41 2 2 329 55 59 30 32 8 9 330 57 61 25 27 11 12 331 30 32 30 32 33 35 332 39 42 39 42 15 16 333 10 11 48 52 35 38 334 18 19 38 41 37 40 335 65 70 20 22 8 9 336 51 55 33 35 9 10 337 77 83 11 12 5 5 338 9 10 27 29 57 61 339 27 29 54 58 12 13 340 58 62 26 28 9 10 341 26 28 39 42 28 30 342 21 23 47 51 25 27 343 25 27 33 35 35 38 344 69 74 18 19 6 6 345 6 6 64 69 23 25 346 79 85 12 13 2 2 347 48 52 31 33 14 15 141 56 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Heal —————~———————— —————————_____ ______________ . No. Pct No. Pct No. Pct i 5 348 29 31 29 31 35 38 T 349 29 31 48 52 16 17 350 25 27 33 35 34 37 351 12 13 39 42 42 45 352 42 45 48 52 3 3 353 32 34 43 46 18 19 354 6 6 24 26 63 68 355 40 43 36 39 17 18 356 20 22 53 57 20 22 357 3 3 74 80 16 17 358 17 18 75 81 1 1 359 10 11 76 82 7 8 360 6 6 62 67 25 27 361 66 71 17 18 10 11 362 56 60 8 9 29 31 363 58 62 21 23 14 15 364 42 45 27 29 24 26 T 365 39 42 38 41 16 17 T.._ 366 53 57 26 28 14 15 ‘ 367 64 69 25 27 4 4 368 47 51 21 23 25 27 369 52 56 33 35 8 9 370 85 91 5 5 3 3 371 83 89 9 10 1 1 372 74 80 13 14 6 6 373 59 63 12 13 22 24 374 18 19 22 24 53 57 375 44 47 38 41 11 12 376 66 71 24 26 3 3 377 17 18 18 19 58 62 378 51 55 32 34 10 11 379 72 77 20 22 1 1 380 45 48 17 18 31 33 381 47 51 38 41 8 9 382 47 51 34 37 12 13 APPENDIX K (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Pct No. Pct No. Pct 383 49 53 39 42 5 5 384 45 48 31 33 17 18 385 65 70 26 28 2 2 386 49 53 34 37 10 11 387 90 97 3 3 0 0 388 79 85 6 6 8 9 389 19 20 57 61 16 17 390 8 9 24 26 60 65 391 24 26 43 25 46 49 392 14 15 24 26 55 59 393 13 14 55 59 25 27 394 21 23 71 76 1 1 395 13 14 72 77 8 9 396' O 0 34 37 59 63 397 39 42 34 37 20 22 398 46 49 44 47 3 3 399 1 1 36 39 56 60 i 400 49 53 40 43 4 4 l 3 APPENDIX L COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF RESPONSES OF KEY GROUP AND VALIDATING GROUP TO EACH ITEM 143 144 33%. APPENDIX L COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF RESPONSES OF KEY GROUP (N=335) AND VALIDATING GROUP (N=93) TO EACH ITEM Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vah- Vah- Vau- . 1' (31:22:!) dating 5:25p dating GEEK!) dating Group Group Group 1 54 55 33 27 13 18 2 59 61 32 31 9 8 3 84 82 14 17 2 1 4 15 14 31 33 54 53 5 97 98 2 2 1 0 6 39 31 48 52 13 17 7 21 17 42 44 37 39 8 6 4 28 33 66 62 9 65 59 27 27 7 14 10 37 40 37 41 25 19 11 9 5 26 24 64 71 , 12 14 4 27 26 59 70 T 13 17 15 26 37 57 48 'V 14 40 26 37 47 23 27 15 3 3 30 34 67 62 16 3 2 23 29 74 69 17 28 24 45 51 27 26 18 38 30 43 46 19 24 19 43 43 42 42 15 15 20 68 67 27 24 4 10 21 4 4 28 35 68 59 22 4 1 22 32 74 67 23 24 18 41 52 36 30 24 23 20 46 52 31 28 ' 25 7 5 55 61 38 33 26 23 22 40 38 38 41 27 87 86 12 14 1 0 28 43 37 44 48 13 15 29 16 9 31 35 54 56 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vali~ Vah- Vau- GIESZp dating GIIISZp dating GIESZP dating Group Group Group 30 46 54 35 34 19 12 31 41 39 43 48 16 13 32 19 12 36 45 45 43 33 29 17 37 45 33 38 34 64 57 28 33 8 10 35 15 6 36 39 49 55 36 1 1 18 18 81 81 37 16 22 45 46 39 32 38 4 1 ' 25 23 71 76 39 35 38 43 39 22 24 40 48 43 37 34 15 23 41 20 14 34 44 46 42 42 20 25 39 43 41 32 43 76 77 21 22 3 1 44 29 24 43 54 28 23 45 67 61 27 31 6 8 46 37 30 42 47 21 23 47 26 15 38 52 36 33 48 16 8 27 32 57 6O 49 11 9 43 56 45 35 50 53 56 31 30 16 14 51 24 14 29 39 47 47 52 9 4 33 41 58 55 53 18 19 34 52 48 29 54 3 1 20 20 77 78 55 14 13 41 35 45 52 56 15 12 35 34 50 54 57 51 42 35 37 14 22 58 25 16 48 51 27 33 59 17 14 43 42 4O 44 60 22 17 36 48 41 33 61 7 1 38 49 54 49 62 62 59 28 32 10 9 ‘1' 146 i APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vafi- Vafi- Vau- GIIIDZp dating GIIISZp dating 3:83p dating Group Group Group 63 20 27 47 46 34 27 64 1 1 25 27 74 72 65 12 10 35 39 53 52 66 41 49 34 37 25 14 67 10 9 44 53 46 29 68 35 29 45 57 20 14 69 37 26 34 46 30 28 70 24 20 47 46 30 33 71 45 43 34 37 21 20 72 16 6 26 28 59 66 73 30 29 44 54 26 17 74 5 2 28 44 66 54 i 75 7 2 27 34 65 63 ' 76 36 27 39 43 25 30 77 7 4 29 32 63 63 T 78 29 20 43 51 28 29 T 79 22 12 32 38 46 51 ‘ 80 14 9 45 41 40 51 81 9 11 37 32 54 57 82 88 95 11 4 1 1 83 37 38 37 45 25 17 84 94 95 6 5 1 0 85 4 0 35 52 61 48 86 36 28 36 38 28 34 87 24 23 41 44 35 33 88 9 2 34 41 57 57 89 28 23 41 51 31 27 90 7 2 27 35 66 62 91 5 6 21 35 74 58 92 9 8 27 41 64 52 93 36 31 30 31 35 38 94 19 18 34 43 47 39 95 5 4 22 30 73 66 ,. '7 _ '2; , I stat—:3?! ti.- .,, APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vah- Vah- Vau- Key dating Key dating y dating Group Group Group Group Group Group 96 5 8 31 39 64 54 97 4 2 16 19 81 78 98 14 14 39 43 47 43 99 8 1 39 45 53 54 100 19 16 46 45 36 39 101 39 39 31 35 30 26 102 19 20 49 55 32 25 103 37 43 42 39 21 18 104 98 97 2 3 0 0 105 8 6 42 43 50 51 106 50 65 39 31 11 4 107 14 9 36 42 49 49 108 29 30 40 46 31 24 109 44 45 40 47 16 8 110 56 57 35 34 9 9 111 28 28 46 55 25 17 112 56 46 33 40 11 14 113 62 74 32 25 6 1 114 51 46 41 46 8 8 115 46 41 30 32 24 27 116 63 74 25 17 12 9 117 21 23 42 31 37 46 118 40 31 40 47 20 22 119 75 69 19 23 6 9 120 36 34 36 44 28 22 121 60 60 29 26 11 14 122 60 72 33 25 7 3 123 17 14 35 38 48 48 124 63 68 28 26 9 6 125 61 65 34 31 4 4 126 69 75 27 23 5 2 127 43 42 36 34 21 24 128 33 31 39 47 28 22 £3 . “If APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vah- Vah- Vah- GESZp daIIIIg GEEZP datIng (11:8: daIIng Group Group - p Group 129 70 70 25 25 6 9 130 37 35 47 52 16 13 131 51 43 37 35 12 22 132 55 59 31 3O 14 11 133 53 44 40 49 7 6 134 41 41 43 35 16 24 135 32 28 48 52 20 20 136 44 41 43 51 13 9 137 46 35 32 45 22 19 138 55 42 29 38 16 20 139 38 24 26 40 36 37 140 50 55 37 35 13 10 141 68 73 27 23 4 4 142 75 83 21 14 4 3 143 23 16 27 30 50 54 144 29 33 36 39 35 28 145 36 32 26 22 37 46 146 27 25 33 33 41 42 147 41 46 39 41 19 13 148 36 31 37 40 27 29 149 24 24 41 39 35 38 150 16 18 32 34 51 47 151 19 13 27 28 54 59 152 26 32 42 45 31 23 153 34 32 43 45 23 23 154 77 72 19 24 4 4 155 75 69 21 27 4 4 156 26 22 37 34 36 44 157 5 2 17 19 79 78 158 36 47 39 40 26 13 159 29 24 36 42 35 34 160 39 33 39 42 22 25 161 8 5 32 29 60 66 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Item Vali- Vali- Vali~ .553. gig 5:3... ninng 8:23.. gating Group Group Group 162 75 73 23 24 2 3 163 97 98 2 2 0 0 164 90 95 8 5 1 0 165 53 51 37 45 10 4 166 75 84 19 14 6 2 167 70 83 24 15 6 2 168 13 11 48 52 39 38 169 15 9 39 43 46 48 170 5 4 34 41 61 55 171 39 34 34 43 27 23 172 52 56 38 33 10 11 173 35 41 39 37 26 23 174 73 81 23 18 4 1 175 15 17 69 66 16 17 176 18 18 66 66 16 16 177 2 3 78 78 19 18 178 84 85 15 15 1 0 179 29 27 62 65 9 9 180 58 55 34 34 8 11 181 51 60 44 34 4 5 182 79 86 20 13 2 1 183 84 90 14 10 2 0 184 56 67 35 30 10 3 185 22 23 36 35 42 42 186 30 25 39 42 32 33 187 25 24 35 35 40 41 188 32 37 38 34 31 29 189 53 56 33 35 13 9 190 30 27 41 40 29 33 191 25 17 47 52 28 31 192 28 32 53 44 19 24 193 56 63 34 25 10 12 194 42 47 44 43 13 10 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Item Vali~ Vali- Vali- GESZp daIIng (31:33., daIIng (31:83 daIIIIg Group Group p Group 195 33 28 28 29 39 43 196 35 30 45 46 20 24 197 12 4 34 4O 55 56 198 23 16 43 47 33 37 199 41 26 37 52 23 23 200 39 43 37 33 24 24 201 38 35 45 49 17 15 202 90 91 9 9 2 0 203 88 85 11 15 1 0 204 51 42 37 48 12 10 205 44 41 39 44 17 15 206 56 57 38 41 6 2 207 71 81 26 17 3 2 208 70 72 26 24 4 4 209 52 48 39 40 10 12 210 15 10 29 29 56 61 211 11 10 37 32 52 58 212 53 60 33 32 15 8 213 6 3 24 29 70 68 214 28 29 42 37 30 34 215 14 18 41 41 45 41 216 59 52 32 32 9 15 217 29 23 39 43 32 34 218 65 72 29 24 6 4 219 36 41 44 33 19 26 220 63 72 27 23 10 5 221 40 32 43 42 17 26 222 28 14 42 44 30 42 223 22 28 33 4O 46 32 224 40 41 37 35 24 24 225 61 60 26 24 13 16 226 11 14 37 37 52 49 227 57 52 35 42 8 6 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Item Key Vali- Vali- Key Vali~ dafing dafing dafing Group Group Group Group Group Group 228 33 37 55 56 11 8 229 17 15 49 42 34 43 230 39 32 29 33 32 34 231 17 12 28 28 55 60 232 22 11 31 52 46 38 233 49 46 ' 27 33 23 20 234 76 74 19 18 6 8 235 28 34 47 51 25 15 236 84 80 13 15 3 5 237 13 8 50 55 38 38 238 6 1 39 45 56 54 239 4 3 24 25 73 72 240 66 52 28 41 5 8 241 4 2 27 40 69 58 242 76 77 21 20 4 2 243 59 67 30 22 10 12 244 10 6 40 42 50 52 245 29 16 60 75 11 9 246 22 20 44 51 34 29 247 40 33 48 57 12 10 248 7 4 51 54 42 42 249 28 16 47 48 25 35 250 39 26 49 65 12 10 251 11 1 54 61 35 38 252 72 59 27 40 1 1 253 5 4 49 44 45 52 254 8 4 42 38 5O 58 255 46 33 52 67 2 1 256 16 10 62 70 22 20 257 6 3 53 58 41 39 258 38 29 57 68 6 3 259 25 15 66 80 9 5 260 5 2 38 51 58 47 APPENDD{ L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vafi- Vah- Vau- Gljgip dating (31:32:!) dating Gligip dating Group Group Group 261 7 4 78 83 15 13 262 10 3 80 89 9 8 263 9 5 82 86 9 9 264 24 25 72 70 4 5 265 18 18 74 76 8 5 266 16 14 59 69 25 17 267 9 8 37 51 55 42 268 4 1 29 35 67 63 269 8 9 61 61 30 30 270 6 4 38 41 56 55 271 59 53 39 43 2 4 272 7 6 52 49 41 44 273 10 2 76 88 15 10 274 9 9 73 76 18 15 275 2 0 53 59 44 41 276 53 46 42 52 4 2 277 4 2 57 65 38 33 278 3 2 46 48 51 49 279 5 4 74 70 21 26 280 45 29 53 70 3 1 281 23 15 47 54 30 31 282 11 8 59 70 30 23 283 56 59 41 37 4 4 284 1 1 26 35 73 63 285 4 2 56 55 41 43 286 93 98 5 2 2 0 287 3 O 34 27 63 73 288 64 67 30 30 6 3 289 36 42 57 53 7 5 290 10 9 44 38 45 54 291 35 24 47 54 19 23 292 35 35 48 35 17 29 293 16 18 41 45 42 37 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vah- Vah- Vali~ (41:33:. daIIng (£831) daIIng (21:33.. dating Group Group Group 294 18 17 51 51 31 32 295 67 63 24 27 8 10 296 7 11 44 46 49 43 297 2 8 31 30 67 62 298 11 11 50 53 39 37 299 79 81 15 15 6 4 300 29 32 48 44 23 24 301 29 47 48 37 23 16 302 36 35 38 44 25 20 303 58 54 36 43 6 3 304 25 18 53 48 22 33 305 74 81 23 16 3 3 306 13 14 41 42 46 44 307 7 8 33 23 60 70 308 4 2 47 47 49 51 309 46 34 40 48 14 17 310 8 6 41 52 52 42 311 47 45 21 27 32 28 312 7 6 24 27 69 67 313 9 18 26 23 65 59 314 36 38 55 56 9 6 315 14 14 61 60 26 26 316 45 49 47 45 8 5 317 39 27 43 35 18 38 318 6 5 51 52 42 42 319 41 43 41 41 18 16 320 54 54 32 33 14 13 321 34 31 38 46 28 23 322 42 31 35 45 24 24 323 34 32 20 30 46 38 324 38 33 23 28 39 39 325 4 4 25 32 71 63 326 10 3 10 5 80 91 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vafi- Vafi- Van- (3583;) dating (31:83:13 dating Gig: dating Group Group p Group 327 13 11 16 18 71 71 328 54 57 35 41 11 2 329 63 59 27 32 10 9 330 61 61 27 27 12 12 , 331 30 32 36 32 34 35 l _ 332 41 42 41 42 19 16 l 333 19 11 41 52 40 38 . 334 21 19 39 41 40 40 ' 335 65 70 27 22 8 9 336 55 55 31 35 14 10 337 86 83 10 12 3 5 338 16 10 22 29 62 61 339 31 29 56 58 13 13 340 62 62 27 28 11 10 341 30 28 42 42 28 30 342 25 23 50 51 25 27 343 22 27 32 35 46 38 344 75 74 18 19 7 6 345 12 6 60 69 28 25 346 92 85 7 13 1 2 347 53 52 33 33 13 15 348 27 31 33 31 40 38 349 29 31 51 52 20 17 350 41 27 32 35 27 37 351 17 13 45 42 38 45 352 51 45 42 52 7 3 353 35 34 48 46 17 19 354 6 6 16 26 78 68 355 39 43 36 39 24 18 356 31 22 53 57 16 22 357 3 3 71 80 26 17 358 17 18 80 81 3 1 359 10 11 78 82 11 8 APPENDDC L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Rem Vah- Vah- Vau- 83. ging 82:. gig 8:3,, nnting Group Group Group 360 7 6 63 67 30 27 361 60 71 25 18 16 11 362 60 60 13 9 27 31 363 59 62 26 23 16 15 364 52 45 31 29 17 26 365 44 42 34 41 22 17 366 56 57 26 28 18 15 367 67 69 21 27 12 4 368 54 51 25 23 20 27 369 60 56 32 35 9 9 370 87 91 9 5 4 3 371 86 89 13 10 1 1 372 77 80 13 14 10 6 373 57 63 16 13 27 24 374 21 19 29 24 49 57 375 51 47 44 41 5 12 376 65 71 30 26 5 3 377 11 18 21 19 68 62 378 64 55 23 34 13 11 379 67 77 3O 22 3 1 380 37 48 25 18 39 33 381 42 51 50 41 8 9 382 44 51 43 37 13 13 383 43 53 47 42 10 5 384 54 48 35 33 12 18 385 69 70 29 28 1 2 386 49 53 37 39 12 11 387 90 97 8 3 2 0 388 85 85 9 6 6 9 389 15 20 62 61 23 17 390 6 9 29 26 64 65 391 24 26 26 25 51 49 392 18 15 31 26 51 59 APPENDIX L (Continued) Like Indifferent Dislike Vali- Vali- I Vali- Key . Key . Key . Group dating Group dating Group datmg Group Group Group 393 16 14 61 59 23‘ 27 T 394 19 23 77 76 4 1 ‘ 395 19 14 68 77 13 9 I 396 4 0 38 37 57 63 397 40 42 43 37 1 8 22 398 47 49 50 47 4 3 399 1 1 44 39 54 60 400 (Omitted by Clark.) if; . . T, f-V‘ i APPENDIX M ALGEBRAIC TOTALS OF RAW SCORES OF KEY GROUP AND DETERMINATION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 157 ._-q. I' u _ 393.; 'n? . 1 . .;..,gg.4 ALGEBRAIC TOTALS OF RAW SCORES OF KEY GROUP APPENDIX M AND DETERMINATION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Re- Weight WeIght Weight WeIght Total spond Diff a ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 -2 Diff. +3 ~3 Diff. +4 ~4 Diff. ' 1 104 51 53 60 11 49 22 1 21 15 0 15 274 2 100 55 45 54 24 30 24 6 18 13 1 12 177 3 96 71 25 49 19 30 20 5 15 11 1 10 170 4 95 74 21 44 20 24 17 7 10 15 1 14 155 5 84 81 3 47 24 23 12 10 2 10 2 8 87 6 88 68 20 45 13 32 11 1 10 14 0 14 170 7 98 64 34 55 18 37 17 7 10 14 1 13 190 8 96 69 27 53 14 39 22 4 18 14 1 13 211 9 105 65 4O 55 16 39 23 5 18 14 0 14 228 10 81 81 0 29 31 ~2 10 12 -2 6 5 1 -6 11 82 56 26 44 16 28 18 5 13 15 2 13 173 12 100 61 39 49 13 36 17 5 12 15 O 15 207 13 101 60 41 51 15 36 16 4 12 12 0 12 197 14 98 56 42 59 15 44 17 7 10 15 2 13 212 15 101 65 36 52 17 35 19 4 15 14 1 13 203 16 101 65 36 53 15 38 20 4 16 16 O 16 224 17 109 59 50 52 14 38 21 2 19 17 0 17 251 18 100 66 34 49 15 34 19 4 15 16 1 15 207 19 92 68 24 59 17 42 18 9 9 15 0 15 195 20 90 78 12 52 21 31 23 9 14 15 0 15 176 21 84 80 4 37 21 16 17 9 8 13 0 13 112 22 100 53 47 50 17 33 18 8 10 16 3 13 195 23 86 70 16 42 20 22 19 11 8 14 O 14 140 24 92 78 14 45 22 23 20 7 13 13 1 12 147 25 102 63 39 ’46 15 31 18 8 10 14 1 13 183 26 96 74 22 45 13 32 10 12 ~2 14 1 13 132 27 83 88 ~5 45 18 27 11 5 6 11 4 7 95 28 80 65 15 45 13 32 18 9 9 16 1 15 166 29 99 74 25 51 18 33 17 6 11 14 1 13 176 aEach difference multiplied by the weight. APPENDIX M (Continued) Re— We1ght We1ght Weight We1ght Total spond Diff ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 ~2 Diff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 ~4 Diff. ' 30 106 66 40 55 13 42 18 2 16 14 1 13 224 31 89 60 29 42 22 20 20 6 14 16 2 14 167 32 100 63 37 49 27 22 17 8 9 17 O 17 176 33 104 61 43 51 14 37 17 3 14 14 0 14 215 34 99 66 33 51 19 32 19 6 13 12 2 10 176 35 82 84 ~2 44 16 28 11 11 0 15 2 13 106 36 92 81 11 51 21 30 19 9 10 13 1 12 149 37 85 64 21 37 13 24 13 7 6 13 0 13 139 38 92 62 30 45 17 28 20 7 13 13 0 13 177 39 96 65 31 41 27 14 18 7 11 14 3 11 136 40 102 65 37 52 17 35 16 6 10 14 1 13 189 41 95 59 36 40 22 18 16 4 12 13 1 12 156 42 93 56 37 59 14 45 23 4 19 16 0 16 248 43 85 73 12 48 15 33 17 7 10 13 1 12 156 44 82 78 4 44 24 20 22 10 12 14 1 13 132 45 90 73 17 49 21 28 12 9 3 16 2 14 138 46 87 63 24 44 14 3O 17 5 12 14 1 13 172 47 94 56 38 52 9 43 25 2 23 15 0 15 253 48 72 86 ~14 41 31 10 13 15 -2 14 2 12 48 49 91 74 17 43 21 22 16 10 6 14 1 13 131 50 95 64 31 52 16 36 17 14 3 16 2 14 168 51 104 56 48 54 13 41 24 6 18 14 1 13 236 52 95 67 28 51 19 32 11 6 5 13 4 9 143 53 104 49 55 48 11 37 14 6 8 16 1 15 213 54 95 67 28 55 19 36 17 12 5 12 0 12 163 55 105 70 35 50 14 36 20 5 15 15 1 14 208 56 104 62 42 35 12 23 17 4 13 11 1 10 167 57 105 72 33 48 23 25 16 10 6 11 1 10 141 58 81 75 6 51 27 24 13 10 3 16 1 15 123 59 97 65 32 52 25 27 21 9 12 15 1 14 178 60 99 60 39 59 13 46 21 4 17 13 1 12 230 61 103 71 32 49 15 34 20 3 17 13 2 11 195 62 114 57 57 53 17 36 15 7 8 12 0 12 201 63 89 71 18 40 21 19 15 9 6 11 O 11 118 64 85 83 2 38 23 15 9 14 -5 16 2 14 73 APPENDIX M (Continued) Re- Weight Weight Weight Weight spond- ggflgl ent +1 ~1 Diff. +2 ~2 Diff. +3 ~3 Diff. +4 -4 Diff. ' 65 101 62 39 49 18 31 15 9 6 15 3 12 .167 66 92 77 15 50 14 36 21 4 17 16 2 14 194 67 93 61 32 64 16 48 18 7 11 13 0 13 213 68 94 62 32 58 9 49 19 4 15 15 1 14 231 69 90 81 9 46 27 19 14 11 3 13 0 13 108 70 108 70 38 55 18 37 20 10 10 15 0 15 202 71 83 80 3 49 23 26 11 14 ~3 13 3 10 86 72 99 81 18 41 23 18 15 7 8 9 3 6 102 73 97 71 26 51 22 29 13 10 3 15 1 14 149 74 102 59 43 49 12 37 20 2 18 10 1 9 207 75 90 70 20 41 12 29 17 8 9 12 1 11 149 76 79 64 15 49 15 34 19 8 11 15 1 14 172 77 88 74 14 33 27 6 12 15 ~3 8 1 7 45 78 87 72 15 41 21 20 23 6 17 16 0 16 170 79 87 74 13 54 21 33 18 9 9 16 O 16 170 80 89 85 4 49 18 31 20 4 16 14 3 11 158 81 87 75 12 48 25 23 12 15 -3 14 3 11 93 82 99 69 30 39 13 26 16 1 15 16 1 15 187 83 96 63 33 54 15 39 17 6 11 14 3 11 188 84 92 72 20 55 20 35 14 8 6 16 1 15 168 85 96 64 32 46 15 31 12 3 9 15 O 15 181 86 110 43 67 62 10 52 ' 18 6 12 16 1 15 267 87 95 66 29 45 15 30 17 7 10 15 1 14 175 88 87 71 16 46 19 27 20 6 14 11 1 10 152 89 89 75 14 38 24 14 11 11 0 13 3 10 82 90 92 78 14 46 23 23 17 11 6 16 1 15 138 91 97 64 33 48 20 28 18 5 13 16 1 15 188 92 102 60 42 52 13 39 20 4 16 16 1 15 228 93 96 69 27 57 15 42 22 2 20 16 0 16 235 94 88 71 17 42 26 16 9 11 -2 13 3 10 83 95 101 58 43 46 14 32 20 4 16 16 0 16 219 96 85 80 5 43 26 17 21 8 13 10 3 7 106 97 101 68 33 4O 18 22 19 5 14 12 0 12 167 98 91 63 28 42 14 28 21 5 16 17 1 16 196 99 96 79 17 37 25 12 14 12 2 17 1 16 111 APPENDIX M (Continued) We1ght We1ght We1ght Total +2 -2 Diff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 -4 Diff. DIII' 100 92 61 31 47 11 36 18 5 13 15 2 13 194 101 95 66 29 47 25 22 15 15 0 13 2 11 117 102 92 63 29 42 23 19 16 6 10 14 2 12 145 103 96 79 17 61 15 46 23 4 19 15 1 14 222 104 98 53 45 69 13 56 22 1 21 14 0 14 276 105 101 68 33 48 13 35 20 1 19 14 1 13 212 106 86 76 10 45 19 26 9 13 -4 13 2 11 94 107 85 81 4 32 31 1 12 14 -2 6 1 5 20 108 81 75 6 49 25 24 12 12 0 16 2 14 110 109 80 81 ~1 49 19 30 16 6 10 16 2 14 145 110 96 52 44 48 17 31 15 4 11 16 2 14 195 111 106 62 44 68 13 55 21 6 15 14 1 13 251 112 99 52 47 51 12 39 22 5 17 16 O 16 240 113 95 59 36 49 12 37 21 5 16 16 0 16 222 114 97 73 24 46 20 26 9 6 3 14 0 14 141 115 97 76 21 41 16 25 13 7 6 12 3 9 125 116 80 86 -6 39 20 19 12 17 ~5 11 1 10 57 117 .90 72 18 52 22 3O 18 10 8 15 2 13 154 118 103 63 40 53 15 38 16 3 13 14 1 13 207 119 106 65 41 45 17 28 19 6 13 11 2 9 172 120 88 69 19 38 14 24 14 5 9 15 1 14 150 121 95 73 22 50 23 27 21 5 16 10 1 9 160 122 102 62 40 58 17 41 20 3 17 12 1 11 217 123 101 68 33 45 24 21 16 6 10 13 1 12 153 124 101 71 30 60 15 45 16 5 11 14 1 13 205 125 92 60 32 56 12 44 22 5 17 13 1 12 219 126 82 74 8 43 22 21 16 6 10 14 3 11 124 127 86 81 5 44 26 18 18 12 4 14 2 12 101 128 113 61 52 46 11 35 19 6 13 15 1 14 217 129 90 64 26 48 16 32 18 6 12 14 1 13 178 130 83 91 ~8 38 24 14 12 12 0 16 2 14 76 131 95 62 33 61 9 52 22 4 18 14 1 13 243 132 98 68 30 49 16 33 23 5 18 16 O 16 214 133 95 66 29 54 24 30 20 8 12 15 0 15 185 134 96 86 10 37 20 17 14 8 6 14 1 13 114 T... - gttT A93 APPENDIX M (Continued) Re- We1ght We1ght We1ght We1ght Total spond- , ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 ~2 Diff. +3 ~3 Diff. +4 ~4 Diff. D1ff' 135 94 76 18 48 15 33 15 4 11 14 0 14 173 136 90 67 23 48 11 37 18 5 13 12 0 12 184 137 99 76 23 50 15 35 18 5 13 12 1 11 176 138 100 57 43 47 17 30 22 5 17 14 1 13 206 139 90 79 11 36 22 14 10 10 O 15 1 14 95 140 81 84 ~3 25 28 ~3 11 13 ~2 9 3 6 9 141 88 82 6 51 18 33 11 10 1 12 2 10 115 142 97 59 38 62 19 43 20 4 16 13 2 11 216 143 99 60 39 46 13 33 15 7 8 12 3 9 165 144 87 79 8 49 16 33 15 7 8 14 3 11 142 145 102 61 41 57 17 40 21 6 15 11 1 10 206 146 93 64 29 53 12 41 16 3 13 16 1 15 210 147 94 77 17 53 23 30 18 12 6 13 1 12 143 148 88 77 11 50 20 30 20 6 14 16 0 16 177 149 97 60 37 47 17 30 16 8 8 15 1 14 177 150 78 89 ~11 39 23 16 20 7 13 17 1 16 124 151 97 68 29 44 22 22 20 6 14 15 1 14 171 152 83 84 ~1 35 27 8 14 9 5 17 2 15 90 153 106 65 41 42 15 27 20 4 16 14 0 14 199 154 94 78 16 46 17 29 18 7 11 14 1 13 159 155 99 58 41 50 14 36 16 8 8 16 0 16 201 156 92 73 19 48 20 28 16 11 5 11 3 8 122 157 88 68 17 55 23 32 20 10 10 16 1 15 171 158 103 72 31 53 15 38 16 4 12 13 0 13 195 159 90 72 18 50 16 34 20 5 15 14 2 12 179 160 99 76 23 62 18 44 22 5 17 15 1 14 218 161 102 61 41 50 14 36 12 7 5 15 0 15 188 162 103 71 32 49 15 34 19 7 12 15 1 14 192 163 92 79 13 44 26 18 16 12 4 14 2 12 109 164 107 63 44 47 16 31 21 2 19 15 0 15 223 165 95 76 19 56 14 42 19 4 15 15 1 14 204 166 81 84 -3 50 22 28 19 9 10 15 2 13 135 167 104 70 34 52 11 41 23 1 22 17 O 17 250 168 100 64 36 52 17 35 20 7 13 15 0 15 205 169 91 65 26 47 12 35 16 2 14 16 2 14 194 ~" WSW“ . APPENDIX M (Continued) Re- We1ght We1ght We1ght We1ght Total spond .DfiT ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 ~2 Diff. +3 ~3 Diff. +4 -4 Diff. ‘ 170 85 71 14 44 16 28 17 8 9 15 0 15 157 171 103 62 41 50 14 36 19 7 12 15 1 14 205 172 96 71 25 61 18 43 20 8 12 13 1 12 195 173 93 61 32 55 16 39 16 12 4 17 1 16 186 174 90 76 14 36 20 16 9 10 -1 15 0 15 103 175 92 69 23 60 13 47 16 5 11 16 1 15 210 176 93 61 32 56 17 39 19 5 14 15 0 15 212 177 96 79 17 41 16 25 11 7 4 13 2 11 123 178 94 67 27 59 19 40 20 4 16 17 3 14 211 179 98 63 35 53 13 40 22 5 17 16 0 16 230 180 102 65 37 57 16 41 21 5 16 15 0 15 227 181 101 64 37 58 21 37 23 3 20 16 2 14 227 182 100 62 38 48 15 33 17 3 14 14 1 13 198 183 84 65 19 53 22 31 17 8 9 12 3 9 144 184 99 74 25 44 17 27 21 2 19 9 1 8 168 185 94 74 20 53 15 38 20 6 14 13 1 12 186 186 ' 98 57 41 51 18 33 20 3 17 14 2 12 206 187 88 79 9 49 19 30 20 8 12 12 3 9 141 188 93 70 23 42 20 22 16 11 5 11 2 9 118 189 83 75 8 53 27 26 15 16 ~1 16 2 14 113 190 112 61 51 62 10 52 24 5 19 14 1 13 264 191 75 86 ~11 51 20 31 17 9 8 15 2 13 127 192 93 76 17 60 11 49 21 7 14 17 O 17 225 193 89 77 12 44 11 33 13 9 4 17 1 16 154 194 101 52 49 55 15 40 22 8 14 16 0 16 235 195 92 63 29 45 21 24 17 5 12 16 1 15 173 196 88 78 10 49 21 28 20 6 14 13 2 11 152 197 89 80 9 38 27 11 12 13 ~1 12 0 12 76 198 85 74 11 54 20 34 20 9 11 16 0 16 176 199 88 62 26 56 13 43 17 10 7 16 1 15 193 200 111 63 48 52 17 35 16 5 11 15 1 14 207 201 81 88 ~7 55 22 33 17 10 7 13 1 12 128 202 104 57 47 52 10 42 18 4 14 17 2 15 233 203 108 52 56 51 13 38 16 4 12 13 0 13 220 204 104 63 41 67 19 48 22 4 18 17 O 17 259 APPENDIX M (Continued) Re— Weight Weight Weight Weight spond ent +1 ~1 Diff. ~2 Diff. -3 Diff. ~4 Diff. 205 112 50 62 55 13 42 19 4 15 12 0 12 239 206 89 71 18 45 26 19 15 8 7 15 2 13 129 207 94 68 26 48 18 3O 18 8 10 17 0 17 184 208 114 52 62 51 9 42 20 4 16 17 2 15 254 209 92 70 22 46 21 25 1‘7 6 11 12 2 10 145 210 93 77 16 46 31 15 21 4 17 13 3 10 137 211 97 65 32 45 21 24 18 5 13 15 1 14 175 212 93 80 13 41 22 19 13 16 ~3 8 2 6 66 ‘ 213 94 71 23 42 20 22 19 8 11 17 1 16 164 214 105 63 42 54 17 37 17 7 10 17 1 16 210 215 90 77 13 50 23 27 20 4 16 17 1 16 179 216 101 64 37 63 14 49 20 3 17 17 0 17 254 217 94 62 32 52 30 22 19 9 10 16 3 13 158 218 90 56 34 61 10 51 19 3 16 14 0 14 240 219 111 55 56 45 13 32 23 3 20 15 0 15 240 220 84 72 12 40 23 17 10 18 ~8 11 2 9 58 221 85 92 ~9 39 29 10 13 12 1 10 1 9 50 222 90 76 14 46 22 24 16 9 7 15 1 14 139 223 83 75 8 45 20 25 16 13 3 15 1 14 123 224 87 65 22 50 6 44 20 6 14 13 1 12 200 225 108 57 51 61 12 49 18 3 15 14 0 14 250 226 92 73 19 61 7 54 25 2 23 16 0 16 260 227 90 69 21 37 20 17 16 6 10 14 2 12 133 228 99 62 37 55 19 36 21 8 13 15 1 14 204 229 95 61 34 49 7 42 10 8 2 15 1 14 180 230 110 70 40 41 14 27 20 7 13 9 1 8 165 231 96 65 31 50 13 37 22 2 20 13 1 12 213 232 93 60 33 48 19 29 15 5 10 11 1 10 161 233 91 72 19 47 20 27 16 12 4 16 1 15 145 234 107 59 48 55 17 38 18 6 12 17 1 16 224 235 88 72 16 49 24 25 16 8 8 15 2 13 142 236 91 74 17 53 10 43 17 4 13 13 1 12 190 237 98 63 35 53 17 36 20 4 16 13 1 12 203 238 101 66 35 56 16 4O 17 4 13 12 0 12 202 239 91 65 26 39 20 19 17 7 10 11 0 11 138 APPENDIX M (Continued) Re- We1ght Weight We1ght We1ght Total spond- Diff ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 -2 Diff. +3 ~3 Diff. +4 ~4 Diff. ' 240 102 66 36 55 15 40 12 5 7 14 1 13 189 241 99 60 39 60 16 44 16 4 12 16 1 15 223 242 98 73 25 47 19 28 16 12 4 11 0 11 137 243 93 71 22 49 17 32 18 8 10 16 2 14 172 244 91 80 11 41 26 15 15 8 7 13 1 12 110 245 94 74 20 55 19 36 20 4 16 10 2 8 172 246 . 95 64 31 55 11 44 15 6 9 14 1 13 198 247 100 63 37 47 14 33 19 4 15 11 1 10 188 248 98 65 33 49 20 29 12 10 2 13 1 12 145 249 97 67 30 44 18 26 8 15 -7 11 3 8 93 250 95 71 24 46 13 33 19 6 13 17 1 16 193 251 105 64 41 51 23 28 17 4 13 16 0 16 200 252 86 78 8 46 17 29 16 8 8 14 1 13 142 253 87 74 13 38 22 16 18 6 12 10 1 9 117 254 94 71 23 44 24 20 16 8 8 16 0 16 151 255 105 59 46 54 15 39 17 6 11 14 1 13 209 256 96 72 24 33 22 11 18 10 8 17 0 17 138 257 98 74 24 40 23 17 19 8 11 17 1 16 155 258 71 92 ~21 43 26 17 12 15 ~3 14 1 13 56 259 87 68 19 38 24 14 12 14 ~2 11 1 10 81 260 86 77 9 48 23 25 17 14 3 14 2 12 116 261 90 67 23 52 17 35 17 6 11 17 2 15 186 262 89 70 19 55 14 41 13 4 9 14 2 12 176 263 87 75 12 44 23 21 11 15 ~4 15 1 14 98 264 84 69 15 50 28 22 11 12 ~1 12 1 11 100 265 91 57 34 44 17 27 15 6 9 15 1 14 171 266 86 64 22 59 11 48 21 4 17 16 1 15 229 267 99 67 32 53 16 37 22 7 15 17 0 17 219 268 90 73 17 44 21 23 22 8 14 16 0 16 169 269 107 62 45 60 16 44 22 4 18 15 0 15 247 270 96 68 28 56 14 42 18 12 6 16 1 15 190 271 99 68 31 49 19 30 19 5 14 16 1 15 193 272 106 50 56 58 11 47 18 10 8 17 1 16 238 273 81 85 ~4 47 18 29 12 10 2 15 2 13 112 274 101 68 33 40 13 27 14 2 12 16 1 15 183 APPENDIX M (Continued) Weight Weight Total . . . . Diff. +1 -1 D1ff. +2 ~2 D1ff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 ~4 D1ff. 106 53 53 49 27 22 16 11 5 12 1 11 156 90 73 17 52 20 32 19 9 10 15 2 13 163 92 80 12 41 14 27 21 8 13 17 1 16 169 104 68 36 58 18 40 24 2 22 17 2 15 242 104 67 37 53 10 43 15 2 13 13 0 13 214 101 70 31 46 16 30 16 6 10 14 1 13 173 102 53 49 54 17 37 21 7 14 11 1 10 205 105 61 44 50 18 32 21 4 17 13 1 12 207 88 61 27 54 23 31 19 7 12 15 2 13 177 96 77 19 60 17 43 22 5 17 12 2 10 196 92 69 23 49 15 34 24 5 19 16 0 16 212 110 58 52 51 14 37 20 4 16 16 1 15 234 94 67 27 37 18 19 15 4 11 11 0 11 142 92 60 32 53 20 33 20 3 17 14 1 13 201 95 75 20 40 17 23 18 10 8 10 2 8 122 104 55 49 58 17 41 25 7 18 10 0 10 225 97 66 31 56 13 43 23 7 16 13 0 13 217 90 67 23 5O 20 30 19 6 13 17 2 15 182 93 66 27 54 20 34 20 6 14 16 0 16 201 108 53 55 53 15 38 21 6 15 15 1 14 232 89 73 16 49 23 26 14 7 7 10 2 8 121 101 69 32 54 13 41 23 13 10 16 1 15 204 83 89 -6 43 17 26 17 15 2 15 1 14 108 97 62 35 44 22 22 21 7 14 16 O 16 185 108 55 53 62 12 50 23 2 21 17 0 17 284 98 61 37 62 13 49 22 3 19 16 1 15 252 91 76 15 48 26 22 22 10 12 12 0 12 143 93 73 20 47 24 23 17 7 10 12 2 10 136 85 70 15 57 23 34 23 9 14 17 0 17 193 94 66 28 44 17 27 18 5 13 10 1 9 157 103 63 40 58 8 50 15 7 8 15 2 13 216 88 78 10 52 21 31 17 6 11 11 1 10 145 99 59 40 57 17 40 23 6 17 17 0 17 239 100 62 38 43 18 25 14 9 5 15 O 15 163 74 80 -6 47 23 24 17 10 7 15 1 14 119 git”, ’_ . Letting APPENDIX M (Continued) Re:a We1ght We1ght We1ght We1ght Total Sp0uu~ . Diff ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 -2 Diff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 -4 Diff ' 310 84 79 5 46 26 20 17 7 10 10 3 7 103 311 104 70 34 52 12 4o 15 5 1o 13 o 13 196 312 90 71 19 42 20 22 14 6 8 11 4 7 115 313 104 54 50 56 10 46 24 3 21 17 1 16 269 314 83 74 9 47 22 25 20 7 13 14 2 12 146 315 102 62 4o 51 19 32 19 5 14 11 1 10 186 316 96 69 27 44 16 28 16 5 11 16 o 16 180 317 96 66 30 47 13 34 21 8 13 16 1 15 197 318 97 80 17 52 15 37 20 6 14 12 2 10 173 319 74 72 2 58 26 32 16 7 9 17 2 15 153 320 94 72 22 42 26 16 15 9 6 12 o 12 120 T 321 89 7o 19 56 21 35 18 8 1o 11 2 9 155 T 322 92 64 28 45 22 23 17 12 5 14 1 13 141 323 98 74 24 38 18 20 1o 5 5 15 1 14 135 324 97 76 21 52 19 33 13 7 6 14 2 12 153 325 94 64 30 54 14 4o 18 6 12 17 1 16 210 326 103 66 37 51 15 36 18 4 14 15 o 15 211 327 100 65 35 52 11 41 19 5 14 15 1 14 215 328 100 67 33 56 19 37 19 6 13 13 1 12 194 329 94 64 30 55 12 43 20 7 13 16 o 16 219 330 91 71 20 57 21 36 22 5 17 14 o 14 199 331 89 74 15 46 26 20 15 12 3 15 2 13 116 332 92 73 19 55 18 37 22 4 18 14 o 14 203 333 81 87 ~6 45 25 20 12 9 3 10 2 8 75 334 87 82 5 54 12 42 21 3 18 13 1 12 191 335 99 69 30 48 20 28 14 10 4 11 1 10 138 APPENDIX M (Continued) x x2 f x x2 f x x2 f 284 30,656 1 240 57,600 3 203 41,209 3 276 76,176 1 239 57,121 2 202 40.804 2 275 75,625 238 56,644 1 201 40,401 4 274 75,076 1 237 56,169 200 40,000 2 273 74,529 236 55,696 1 199 39,601 2 272 73,984 235 55,225 2 198 39,204 2 271 73,441 234 54,756 1 197 38,809 2 270 72,900 233 54,289 1 196 38,416 3 269 72,361 1 232 53,824 1 195 38,025 6 268 71,824 231 53,361 1 194 37,636 4 267 71,289 1 230 52,900 2 193 37,249 4 266 70,756 229 52,441 1 192 36,864 1 265 70,225 228 51,984 2 191 36,481 1 264 69,696 1 227 51,529 2 190 36,100 3 263 69,169 226 51,076 189 35,721 2 262 68,644 225 50,625 2 188 35,344 4 261 68,121 224 50,176 3 187 34,969 1 260 67,600 1 223 49,729 2 186 34,596 4 259 67,081 1 222 49,284 2 185 34,225 2 258 66,564 221 48,841 184 33,856 2 257 66,049 220 48,400 1 183 33,489 2 256 65,536 219 47,961 4 182 33,124 1 255 65,025 218 47,524 1 181 32,761 1 254 64,516 2 217 47,089 3 180 32,400 2 253 64,009 1 216 46,656 2 179 32,041 2 252 63,504 1 215 46,225 2 178 31,684 2 251 63,001 2 214 45,796 2 177 31,329 5 250 62,500 2 213 45,369 3 176 30,976 7 249 62,001 212 44,944 4 175 30,625 2 248 61,504 1 211 44,521 3 174 247 61,009 1 210 44,100 4 173 29,929 5 246 60,516 209 43,681 1 172 29,584 5 245 60,025 208 43,264 1 171 29,241 3 244 59,536 207 42,849 6 170 28,900 4 243 59,049 1 206 42,436 3 169 28,561 2 242 58,564 1 205 42,025 4 168 28,224 3 241 58,081 204 41,616 3 167 27,889 4 APPENDIX M (Continued) 169 x x2 f x x2 f x x2 f 166 27,556 1 129 16,641 1 92 165 27,225 2 128 16,384 1 91 164 26,896 1 127 16,129 1 90 8,100 1 163 26,569 3 126 89 162 26,244 125 15,625 1 88 161 25,921 1 124 15,376 2 87 7,569 1 160 25,600 1 123 15,129 3 86 7,396 1 159 25,281 1 122 14,884 2 85 158 24,964 2 121 14,641 1 84 157 24,649 2 120 14,400 1 83 6,889 1 156 24,336 3 119 14,161 1 82 6,724 1 155 24,025 3 118 13,924 2 81 6,561 I 154 23,716 2 117 13,689 2 80 153 23,409 3 116 13,456 2 79 152 23,104 2 115 13,225 2 78 151 22,801 1 114 12,996 1 77 150 22,500 1 113 12,769 1 76 5,776 2 149 22,201 3 112 12,544 2 75 5,625 1 148 111 12,321 1 74 147 21,609 1 110 12,100 2 73 5,329 1 146 21,316 1 109 11,881 1 72 145 21,025 6 108 11,664 2 71 144 20,736 1 107 11,449 70 143 20,449 3 106 11,236 2 69 142 20,164 4 105 68 141 19,831 4 104 67 140 19,600 1 103 10,609 2 66 4,356 1 139 19,321 2 102 10,404 1 65 138 19,044 5 101 10,201 1 64 137 18,769 2 100 10,000 1 63 136 18,496 2 99 9,801 62 135 18,225 2 98 9,604 I 61 134 97 60 133 17,689 1 96 59 132 17,424 2 95 9,025 2 58 3,364 1 131 17,161 1 94 3,836 1 57 3,249 1 130 93 8,649 2 56 3,136 1 APPENDDC M (Continued) x2 55 34 13 54 33 12 53 32 11 52 31 10 51 30 9 81 1 50 2,500 1 29 8 49 28 7 48 2,304 1 27 6 47 26 5 46 25 4 45 2,025 1 24 3 44 23 2 43 22 1 42 21 0 41 20 400 1 -1 40 19 -2 39 18 -3 38 17 -4 37 16 -5 36 15 -6 36 1 35 14 Efx Efxz APPENDIX M (Continued) = 57,517 = 10,699,603 _ PIX; = M = 171,69254 N 335 29,2 _ (3:3)2 N N = 10,699,603 _ (57,517 2 335 335 = 731,939.11343 — 29,478.32829 = V2,460.78514 = 49.6063 APPENDIX N ALGEBRAIC TOTALS OF RAW SCORES OF VALIDATION GROUP AND DETERMINATION OF NIEANS AND S TANDARD DEVIATION S 172 APPENDIX N ALGEBRAIC TOTALS OF RAW SCORES OF VALIDATION GROUP AND DETERMINATION OF MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS S 11):: d We1ght We Ight We1ght We1ght Total ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 -2 Diff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 -4 Diff. DIII' 1 102 68 34 50 10 40 18 3 15 12 2 10 199 2 111 61 50 55 14 41 20 4 16 16 1 15 240 3 97 68 29 52 12 40 20 5 15 13 1 12 202 4 97 71 26 47 19 28 18 6 12 16 2 14 174 5 104 62 42 60 18 42 22 3 19 14 2 12 231 6 107 60 47 58 19 39 20 3 17 14 2 12 224 7 83 69 14 48 21 27 13 17 -4 14 0 14 112 8 103 61 42 48 16 32 19 1 18 17 0 17 228 9 92 80 12 38 19 19 10 8 2 10 1 9 92 10 108 69 39 49 15 34 15 6 9 12 0 12 182 11 110 69 41 52 11 41 17 7 10 16 0 16 217 12 96 74 22 48 14 34 9 8 1 15 2 13 145 13 83 74 9 40 18 22 18 10 8 16 2 14 133 14 92 69 23 50 20 30 19 5 14 12 1 11 169 15 102 68 34 50 15 35 17 5 12 14 1 13 192 16 100 72 28 45 17 28 18 7 11 15 0 15 177 17 75 77 -2 49 18 31 14 9 5 16 1 15 135 18 91 72 19 54 11 43 14 4 10 15 1 14 191 19 95 63 32 43 13 30 19 1 18 17 0 17 214 20 103 56 47 46 20 26 19 7 12 12 0 12 183 21 87 77 10 51 25 26 18 4 14 11 2 9 140 22 85 82 3 41 24 17 16 16 0 15 1 14 93 23 94 71 23 49 24 25 15 12 3 14 1 13 134 24 107 57 50 56 11 45 19 4 15 14 0 14 241 25 96 59 37 46 17 29 10 8 2 13 1 12 149 26 96 64 32 53 13 40 18 7 11 13 0 13 197 27 88 73 15 48 27 21 23 9 14 14 1 13 151 28 116 60 56 46 13 33 21 7 14 15 2 13 216 29 96 70 26 44 31 13 13 11 2 12 2 10 98 30 101 60 41 49 10 39 18 4 14 17 0 17 229 31 102 62 40 60 14 46 21 3 18 17 1 16 250 174 APPENDIX N (Continued) Re~ Weight Weight Weight Weight spond- Total ent +1 ~1 Diff. +2 ~2 Diff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 ~4 Diff. Dlfl’ 32 93 55 38 60 12 48 21 6 15 15 0 15 239 33 105 62 43 54 13 41 23 2 21 16 0 16 252 34 87 80 7 48 17 31 16 8 8 15 2 13 145 35 89 83 6 45 28 17 15 8 7 13 0 13 113 36 94 71 23 51 16 35 15 5 10 16 1 15 183 37 99 57 42 57 17 40 22 1 21 12 1 11 229 38 83 78 5 41 22 19 21 7 14 15 1 14 141 39 83 75 8 40 18 22 10 6 4 14 0 14 120 40 98 65 33 52 17 35 16 6 10 13 1 12 181 41 90 72 18 54 21 33 15 2 13 16 1 15 183 42 93 76 17 61 16 45 17 5 12 12 0 12 191 43 100 68 32 57 14 43 22 4 18 14 1 13 224 44 90 84 6 46 2O 26 11 9 2 14 2 12 112 45 106 75 31 45 25 20 11 13 ~2 13 2 11 109 46 94 83 11 44 18 26 17 12 5 14 2 12 126 47 107 58 49 54 11 43 17 4 13 12 0 12 222 48 106 72 34 50 14 36 21 6 15 14 3 11 195 49 90 72 18 48 15 3 14 1 3 10 3 7 121 50 87 72 15 53 13 40 19 5 14 15 1 14 193 51 70 90 ~20 39 26 13 15 13 2 15 3 12 60 52 101 61 40 57 16 41 19 1 18 14 1 13 228 53 105 61 44 58 18 40 18 3 15 14 2 12 217 54 100 67 33 55 19 36 15 8 7 16 1 15 186 55 97 63 34 50 18 32 13 6 7 12 1 11 163 56 85 62 23 52 6 46 13 2 11 16 1 15 208 57 103 57 46 49 17 32 18 8 10 9 1 8 172 58 104 60 44 57 12 45 21 2 19 16 O 16 255 59 97 66 31 51 18 33 18 2 16 17 2 15 205 60 88 67 21 50 18 32 16 9 7 14 1 13 158 61 92 77 15 50 15 35 17 7 10 16 1 15 175 62 80 75 5 55 20 35 15 7 8 15 1 14 155 63 79 77 2 37 22 15 9 14 ~5 15 2 13 69 64 95 66 29 39 22 17 15 6 9 15 1 14 146 65 87 71 16 50 16 34 18 9 9 14 1 13 163 66 94 79 15 47 18 29 18 12 6 13 0 13 143 Eli-I” ,7, i L, 175 APPENDIX N (Continued) Re- We1ght We1ght We1ght We1ght Total spond- Diff ent +1 -1 Diff. +2 -2 Diff. +3 -3 Diff. +4 —4 Diff. ‘ 67 92 66 26 48 16 32 17 4 13 16 1 15 189 68 94 71 23 42 22 20 11 11 0 13 0 13 115 69 92 80 12 49 18 31 22 5 17 15 1 14 181 70 94 67 27 44 19 25 17 8 9 17 0 17 172 71 89 84 5 40 32 8 13 10 3 12 2 10 70 72 90 70 20 50 14 36 15 5 10 16 1 15 182 73 94 62 32 41 18 23 15 2 13 15 3 12 165 74 87 66 21 47 22 25 16 6 10 14 2 12 149 75 97 78 19 48 31 17 11 12 ~1 13 0 13 102 76 90 67 23 58 16 42 21 6 15 16 1 15 212 77 89 60 29 60 13 47 20 6 14 16 0 16 229 78 99 77 22 52 19 33 17 5 12 12 1 11 168 79 100 65 35 49 11 38 20 8 12 14 0 14 203 80 101 61 40 47 13 34 19 9 10 16 2 14 194 , 81 86 81 5 46 25 21 19 11 8 13 1 12 119 T 82 91 66 25 42 23 19 17 6 11 16 1 15 156 83 94 66 28 51 16 35 16 7 9 10 2 8 157 84 93 68 25 49 18 31 16 5 11 16 1 15 180 85 89 71 18 51 23 28 17 8 9 13 2 11 145 86 105 59 56 52 15 37 23 4 19 16 0 16 251 87 96 73 23 30 20 10 15 8 7 14 0 14 120 88 96 65 31 46 19 27 14 11 3 11 2 9 130 89 106 56 50 59 11 48 20 4 16 16 1 15 254 90 95 65 30 47 30 17 20 15 5 12 1 11 123 91 102 69 33 47 16 31 17 7 10 12 1 11 169 92 103 72 31 44 13 31 16 6 10 16 1 15 183 93 96 76 20 52 15 37 21 5 16 15 1 14 198 .re , EJ615433 . APPENDIX N (Continued) 176 x x2 f x x2 f x x2 f 255 65,025 1 218 47,524 181 32,761 2 254 64,516 1 217 47,089 2 180 32,400 1 253 64,009 216 46,656 1 179 252 63,504 1 215 178 251 63,001 1 214 45,796 1 177 31,329 1 250 62,500 1 213 176 .249 62,001 212 44,944 1 175 30,625 1 248 61,504 211 174 30,276 1 247 61,009 210 173 246 60,516 209 172 29,584 2 245 60,025 208 43,264 1 171 244 59,536 207 170 243 59,049 206 169 28,561 2 242 58,564 205 42,025 1 168 28,224 1 241 58,081 1 204 167 240 57,600 1 203 41,209 1 166 239 57,121 1 202 40,804 1 165 27,225 1 238 56,644 201 164 237 56,169 200 163 26,569 2 236 55,696 199 39,601 1 162 235 55,225 198 39,204 1 161 234 54,756 197 38,809 1 160 233 54,289 196 159 232 53,824 195 38,025 1 158 24,964 1 231 53,361 1 194 37,636 1 157 24,649 1 230 52,900 193 37,249 1 156 24,336 1 229 52,441 3 192 36,864 1 155 24,025 1 228 51,984 2 191 36,481 2 154 227 51,529 190 153 226’ 51,076 189 35,721 1 152 225 50,625 188 151 22,801 1 224 50,176 2 187 150 223 49,729 186 34,596 1 149 22,201 2 222 49,284 1 185 148 221 48,841 184 147 220 48,400 183 33,489 4 146 21,316 1 219 47,961 182 33,124 2 145 21,025 3 1'77 APPENDIX N (Continued) x x2 f x x2 f x x2 f 144 115 13,225 1 86 143 20,449 1 114 85 142 113 12,769 1- 84 141 19,881 1 112 12,544 2 83 140 19,600 1 111 82 139 110 81 138 109 11,881 1 80 137 108 79 136 107 78 135 18,225 1 106 77 134 17,956 1 105 76 133 17,689 1 104 75 132 103 74 131 102 10,404 1 73 130 16,900 1 101 72 129 100 71 128 99 70 4,900 1 127 98 9,604 1 69 4,761 1 126 15,876 1 97 68 125 96 67 124 95 66 123 15,129 1 94 65 122 93 8,649 1 64 121 14,641 1 92 8,464 1 63 120 14,400 2 91 62 119 14,161 1 90 61 118 89 60 3,600 1 117 88 116 87 APPENDIX N (Continued) 16,036 Zfx Efxz = 2,962,632 = 21x. z 1223.6 = M N 93 17243011 _ [2,962,632 _ <16,036)2 ‘ 93 93 = 731,856.258 — 29,732.14283 = 72,124.11517 Q a = 46.08812 T A PPENDIX O COMPUTATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MEANS BY THE t-TEST 179 180 APPENDIX 0 COMPUTATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MEANS BY THE t-TEST1 Key Group Validating Group X1 = 171.69 X2 = 172.43 S1 = 49.61 S2 = 46.09 N1 = 335 N2 = 93 1. Standard error for X1: S— 49.61 49.61 X1 = 7335 = 18.30 ' 2'71 2. Standard error for X2: s— _ 46.09 _ 46.09 _ X2 ‘ \/ 93 ‘ 9.64 ‘ 4‘78 3. Standard error of the difference between the two means: 2 2 s— ~— _/s— +s— X1 X2— X1 x2 = 72.712 + 4.782 = V7.34 + 22.85 1N. N. Downie, Fundamentals of Measurement: Techniques and Practices (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), pp. 48—51. .... 156.... . APPENDIX P COPY OF ORIGINAL LETTER FROM DR. KENNETH E. CLARK 182 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA College of Science, Literature, and the Arts Minneapolis 14 Department of Psychology ' February 3, 1959 Mr. Victor Croftchik Art Department Central Michigan College Mount Pleasant, Michigan Dear Mr. Croftchik: I enclose the final material for the analysis of the Strong Vocational Interest Blank data for your art teachers group. You will find rosters of scores on your key for your original group of 335 and your cross-validation group of 93. You will also find distributions of these scores for each group. We have used the percentage responses on the men—in-general group which Strong collected and the weights on your keys to estimate the mean score which men—in-general would receive on this key. This mean is ~64.74. Thus, hardly any art teacher scores as low as the typical professional man. In fact, men-in-general will score about five standard deviations below the mean of your art teachers. Sincerely yours, Kenneth E. Clark, Chairman Department of Psychology KEC/js Encl. , r. rl tuft-T- ._. mm us: ONLY 3 1293 03046 999