u“ 44 '- 35? 1 .332... .93.»?! .3: . WkHaflfiWfl £15925: 2 (tiersaififiénnr 1....) 215.13.}... 3 15.39.1112. 11.1: in... .Uxi I «a 3. an... Etaiilza. 1.5.3, 75,)...» .3... {fflflar‘ngzxvflfl 25:32.75. (runny if}!’-. I - :51: i). :{139 r. 5?: I3: .. . .. .K.{.rrt.tra«. Juli... 3515.”? géksiz... til: 5 . .. fi.:..2:...:mll:9a!§l, unitiiti. .0 3.: 1.1!..,r.t... 1.51)?11§.2§AJ1§. L7 , utIIMJNJWurnll.f).n>r§44£oh..(trfsalt-\tulat , X i 3...: 3.. 3.2.9:» . . r. I ‘. x. . M.‘ .112. i . ‘ mEsls TATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES TTTTTLMLLLL II This is to certify that the thesis entitled A PILOT STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIPS AIVDNG EGO-STRENGTH, NDTIVATION AND DEGREE OF SUCCESS IN REHABILITATION ACTIVITY presented by RICHARD HUGH DAN IELSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH.D. degree in EDUCATION \ 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University Mam FEW '4/3 I I ”Q ”1%94 I ABSTRACT A PILOT STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG EGO-STRENGTH, MOTIVATION AND DEGREE OF SUCCESS IN REHABILITATION ACTIVITY by Richard Hugh Danielson The problem generating the research study is the need to develOp methods which may be used effectively in select— ing clients who are most likely to benefit from rehabilita- tion services. It is particularly important to be able to identify those clients who may have the personal resource- fulness and adaptability to achieve success in rehabilitation actiVity but are currently being excluded from services because of the severity of their impairments. A theoretical base was formulated which hypothesizes that personality variables mediate between the disabled individual and his eventual vocational behavior. Two person— ality variables were identified as important intervening variables: ego-strength and motivation. The instruments chosen to measure ego—strength were Barron's ES scale and Schiller's ego-strength scale. The instrument chosen to assess motivation was the Michigan State M~Scales. The control variable is degree of disability, a composite three-point rating including both medical and intellectual factors. The criterion is the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating, a five-point scale developed Richard Hugh Danielson and used in a work evaluation setting. The MMPI Lie Scale was selected as a validity check on the subjects“ responses. The sample is an homogeneous group of significantly handicapped young adults with questionable work potential and approximately dull normal intelligence. The sample was selected over a six—month time span from the total client group seen in work evaluation at Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services, Cleveland, Ohio. The subjects were asked to complete the three person- ality inventories prior to their completion of the work evaluation program. The predictive and criterion data were dichotomized to facilitate statistical analysis. Two-way, three-way, and four-way contingency tables were constructed to test the hypotheses. It is hypothesized that a positive relationship exists among degree of success in rehabilitation activity and the attributes ego—strength and motivation for fixed levels of disability. The research hypothesis was tested statistically with ten null (independence) hypotheses and six alternate hypotheses. Seven null hypotheses were accepted, three rejected; one alternate hypothesis was accepted, five rejected. Analysis of the findings revealed that the control variable, degree of disability, accounted for much of the variance which was observed. There was evidence to suggest the exis— tence of positive relationships between the ego-strength Richard Hugh Danielson scales and degree of disability. There was also evidence of a definite relationship between the criterion, Vocational Rehabilitation Potential, and degree of disability: the null hypothesis was rejected at well beyond the 1% level of significance. The null hypotheses for the Schiller ego—strength scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential and for the M—Scales and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential were accepted, indicating the absence of relationships between these predictors and the criterion. A positive relation— ship was found to exist between the Barron ES scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential: the alternate hypoth- esis was accepted at the 5% level of significance. There was no substantive evidence to suggest the existence of positive interaction among the combined predictors and the criterion. A PILOT STUDY ON THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG EGO—STRENGTH, MOTIVATION AND DEGREE OF SUCCESS IN REHABILITATION ACTIVITY By Richard Hugh Danielson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1963 ‘flflé756fl mafia/es VITA Richard Hugh Danielson candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Final Examination: May 8, 1963 Dissertation: ”A Pilot Study on the Relationships Among Ego—Strength, Motivation and Degree of Success in Rehabilitation Activity” Outline of Studies: Major Subject: Education (Guidance and Counselor Training) Minor Subjects: Psychology, Special Education Biographical Items: Born March 22, 1932, Escanaba, Michigan Undergraduate Studies, University of Michigan, 1950—1954 Graduate Studies, Michigan State University, 1956—1963 Experience: College Textbook Representative, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1955-1956; Disability Examiner, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Public Instruction, State of Michigan, l957~1963. J Member of: American Personnel and Guidance Association; American Rehabilitation Counselors Association; National Vocational Guidance Association; National Rehabilitation Association; Michigan Rehabilitation Association. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is indebted to a number of peOple for the successful completion of this study. To Dr. Gregory A. Miller, major advisor and guidance committee chairman, for counsel and encouragement. To the other members of the guidance committee, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. John E. Jordan, and Dr. Albert I. Rabin, for their helpful criticisms and suggestions. To Mrs. Harold F. Banister, Executive Director, Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services, Cleveland, Ohio and the following individuals associated with the Work Evaluation Department: Richard T. Sidwell, Dr. Robert P. Overs, Laurine Campbell, James Miller, Norma Wilmoth, and Gordon Koeckert, for making possible and pleasant the collection of the research data. To Jack Gordon and Dr. Walter R. Stellwagen, Bureau of Educational Research, Michigan State University, for invaluable assistance on the research design and statistical analysis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS VITA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. THE PROBLEM. Purpose of the Study. Need for the Study . Statement of the Problem Limitations of the Study Theory . . The Two Factor Theory Statement of the Hypotheses Dissertation Plan. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Objective Measurement of Ego—Strength. Validity Studies of the ES Scale. . Comparison of the ES Scale with Other Measures . . Two Experimental Studies Other Predictive Scales. The Prediction of Success in Rehabilita— tion Activity Identification of Factors Contributing to Success or Failure in Vocational Rehabilitation Investigation of Motivation in a Rehabilitation Setting Summary . . . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY The Sample iv Page ii iii vi vii viii 26 27 28 30 BO Chapter Instrumentation . . The Michigan State M- Scales. The Ego- Strength Scales The Lie Scale . . . Degree of Disability. The Criterion . . Statistical Analysis. Summay ' . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. Procedure Analysis. Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Summary Conclusions. Discussion . Suggestions for Further Research. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Two-Way Contingency Analysis of the Association of Degree of Disability with the Ego-Strength Scales and the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2. Two—Way Contingency Analysis of the Association of the Vocational Rehabili— tation Potential Rating with the Ego— Strength Scales and the M—Scales. . . . 49 3. Three-Way Contingency Analysis of the Association among Vocational Rehabilita— tion Potential, the Ego—Strength Scales and the M—Scales 50 A. Four—Way Contingency Analysis of the Mutual Association among Vocational Rehabilita— tion Potential, the Ego—Strength Scales and the M-Scales . . . . . . 52 vi Figure l. 2. LIST OF FIGURES Model of the Two Factor Theory The Multiple Contingency Analysis Model vii Page 10 43 IL Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES The Michigan State M—Scales The Generalized Situational Choice Inventory The Preferred Job Characteristics Scale The Word Rating List The Human Trait Inventory The Industrial Personnel Inventory. Barron's Ego—Strength Scale Schiller's Ego Strength Scale The MMPI Lie Scale The Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services Work Evaluation Department Research Keysort Card Explanation of the Keysort Card The Vocational Rehabilitation Potential Rating The Degree of Disability Rating Types of Impairments Classified According to the Degree of Disability Rating Scale. Contingency Tables Viii Page 70 88 97 100 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Purpose of the Study The study has been designed to explore the usefulness of a new method for making predictions of the degree of success of clients in rehabilitation activity. The findings of the study will constitute the basis for further research recommendations on the problem. Need for the Study In state vocational rehabilitation programs, there is a need to develOp new methods for selecting ”good risk” clients for rehabilitation services. The decision of a given client's acceptance for services rests on the dual judgments of eligibility and feasibility. For an individual to become eligible, he must have a physical or mental impair- ment which is sufficiently severe to constitute, for him, a vocational handicap. To pass the test of feasibility, the client's vocational handicap must be one which can reasonably be removed or reduced by the application of rehabilitation services. The decisions of eligibility and feasibility are made by vocational rehabilitation counselors, working in con- junction with staff medical consultants. Each year, there are a significant number of clients who are accepted initially for services but later closed as ”no longer feasible” on grounds such as ”lack of interest" or ”personal factors.” Before such cases are closed, a cer- tain amount of counselor time and often program funds will have been expended. As Wright points out, these cases represent ”rehabilitation failures."1 The client selection process must share with the client the responsibility for the failures. On the other hand, some of the most notable successes in rehabilitation are accomplished with clients whose impair- ments are so severe that they initially would seem to be poor risks for rehabilitation. The success of these clients is usually attributed to such factors as an ability to cope with the limitations imposed by the disability and a high motivational level. Conversely, clients who fail in their rehabilitation programs are thought to be lacking in these important personal characteristics. Statement of the Problem The problem is to develOp methods which may be used to effectively select clients who are most likely to benefit from rehabilitation services. The current selection method lBeatrice A. Wright, ”Some Issues Concerning Psychology and Rehabilitation,” Rehabilitation Literature, Vol. 22 (1961), pp. 2—9. includes some clients who should be excluded and excludes some who should be served. Perhaps both types of selection error could be reduced if it were possible to identify and measure certain personality characteristics of clients which are thought to be related to success or failure in rehabili- tation activity. Limitations of the Study The study is limited by both the nature of the research problem and population with which it deals. The research problem involves the measurement of certain personality characteristics which are deemed important in rehabilitation activity. The study is therefore subject to a limitation which is common to all studies which attempt to assess per— sonality variables objectively; this limitation is found in the instruments used as predictors. In the use of objective personality inventories, the problem of inadequate validity and reliability data must be recognized as a source of con- siderable error in prediction. The problem of validity and reliability of the predictors is even more important in the present study because the instruments employed are relatively new and have not been used previously with a population of disabled rehabilitation clients. A second important limitation of the study, common to research in rehabilitation, is the sample selection procedure. Ideally, the sample for the study would be randomly selected from rehabilitation clientS~in—general. It is difficult to find a sufficient number of clients whose activities can be measured by a common criterion because, in practice, rehabi— litation programs are fitted to the needs of the individual client. Research workers are obliged to look for subjects in large rehabilitation centers such as hospitals, training facilities, and evaluation programs. Such centers may provide subjects in sufficient numbers engaged in common activities so that th§§e_assumptions for a research design are met. The question of assessing the outcome of rehabili- tation remains a problem, however. The ultimate aim of most rehabilitation programs is to restore or improve the client's vocational competence. It, therefore, becomes pertinent to question whether a suitable criterion measure exists for subjects engaged in treatment, training or evaluation activities, rather than vocational activities. Subjects for the present study were selected from a work evaluation pro- gram. It is recognized that the sample is not representative of rehabilitation clients-in—general; it is also recognized that the criterion measure is not directly related to vocational behavior. These limitations, as they relate to the design and findings of the study, will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter V. Theory After her survey of the field of somatopsychological research, Wright concluded that the findings do not demonstrate basic personality differences between groups of persons with specific disabilities and non—disabled subjects.1 The negative findings tend to support a basic theoretical premise of somatopsychology: somatic abnormality as a_phy— sical fact is_not linked in.a direct or simple way_tg psychological behavior. Disabled people are a heterogeneous group in their psychological reactions. Investigations con— cerning the differences in behavior among disabled individuals must go beyond the disability itself, to the psychological factors underlying the behavior. Psychological factors mediate between disability and behavior in the somatopsychological connection, serving as intervening variables; i.e., variables which are thought to be functionally connected with a preceding independent variable (disability) and a following dependent variable (behavior).2 Barker and others have compiled a list of twenty of the intervening variables that have been prOposed by various scholars to account for the psychological effects of physical disability: 1. Compensation for inferiorities 2. Easy narcissistic satisfactions deriving from pain and uniqueness 3. Lack of normal play and expressive actions lBeatrice A. Wright, Physical Disability-—A Psycholo— logical Approach (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), pp. 371-377. 2Edward C. Tolman, ”A Psychological Model,” in T. Parsons (ed.), Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 279-302. Easy cathexis to disabled part Unrelated anxieties transferred to bodily handicap Blame of parents Feeling of guilt for hostility toward parents Body image at variance with reality Efforts to achieve social acceptance Dependent, demanding, apathetic behavior deriving from oversolicitous protective situation 11. Variable, conflicting behavior in response to variable, inconsistent attitudes of others 12. Goals beyond achievement possibilities because of pressure from parents and physical, social, and economic restrictions 13. Conflict between withdrawal and compensatory tendencies 14. Acceptance of disability as a punishment for sin 15. Retaliatory behavior for ”unjust” treatment by nature 16. Self concept 17. Degree of acceptance of disability 18. Value systems 19. Cultural role of persons with disabilities 20. Intergroup dynamics OKOCDNI ONUT-I: }_l Most of the variables suggested above fall into two broad classifications: (1) the capacity to c0pe with the effects of the disability, and (2) the ability to overcome the limitations imposed by the disability through positive action. The first classification implies stable individual adjustment; the second, goal—directed behavior. Hereafter, two constructs will be used to describe the above classes of intervening variables: (1) ego-strength and (2) motiva— tion. The relationship between ego-strength and disability has been postulated in the psychoanalytic literature. In his chapter on the traumatic neuroses, Fenichel suggests the lRoger G. Barker, B. Wright, L. Meyerson, and M. Gonick, Adjustment to Physical Handicap and Illness (2nd ed.; New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953), pp. 92-93. trauma be viewed relatively and that the degree to which the individual becomes overwhelmed by the traumatic stimuli is based on factors of mental economy, based in turn on consti- tution, previous experiences and actual conditions before and during the trauma.1 From the point of view of mental economics, the strong ego has achieved a working balance between internal demands and reality and is, therefore, free to use its energy for adapting stimuli for its own purposes. Murray and Kluckhorn2 have presented fifteen specific variables which represent the criteria of ego—strength. An abbreviated version of the criterion listing has been pre- pared by Schiller and is presented below: A. Perception and apperception 1. External objectivity: ability to perceive human actions and events without distortion 2. Internal objectivity: insight into one's own motives, evaluations and emotional reactions 3. Long apperceptive Span: the habit of making causal connections between events that are temporally not continguous in experience B. Intellection 4 Concentration, directionality: the ability to apply one's mind to an assigned or selected topic 5. Conjunctivity of thought and speech: the ability to think, speak and write clearly, coherently and logically 6. Referentiality of thought and speech: the absence of vague, undefined, essentially meaningless terms and expressions lOtto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytical Theory of Neurosis (New York: w. w. Horton and Co., Inc., 1945), pp. 117-118. 2Henry A. Murray and C. Kluckhorn, ”Outline of a Concep~ tion of Personality,” in C. Kluckhorn, H. Murray, and D. Schneider (eds.), Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955), pp. 24-26. C. Conation 7. Will power: the ability to do what one resolves to do and is capable of doing 8. Conjunctivity of action: ability to schedule and organize one's activities 9. Resolution of conflicts: ability to choose between alternative courses of action 10. Selection of impulses: the power to repress temporarily, inhibit or modify unacceptable emotions or tendencies ll. Selection of social pressures and influences: ability to choose among the demands, claims, enticements and suggestions that are made by other people 12. Initiative and self—sufficiency: the ability to decide for oneself and act without waiting to be stimulated, urged or encouraged l3. Responsibility for collective action: the willingness and ability to take responsibility and effectively organize and direct the be— havior of others 14. Adherance to resolutions and agreements: the disposition and ability to abide by long-term decisions and commitments l5. Absence of pathological symptoms: freedom from incapacitating neurotic and psychotic symptoms1 Barron, whose Ego—Strength Scale will be discussed in Chapters III and IV, defines the ego-strength construct as ”the capacity for personality integration.”2 On the basis of psychoanalytic theory, it is assumed that an individual who has been subject to disability will have the capacity to make a positive adjustment to his disability if his premorbid ego is strong. Ego—strength, therefore, represents the 233— requisite or stable factor mediating between the disabled lMarvin Schiller,”Ego—Strength in Student Leadership Assessment: A Pattern—Analytic Investigation" (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959). 2Frank Barron, ”An Ego—Strength Scale Which Predicts Response to Psychotherapy,” Journal of Consulting Psychology Vol. 17 (1953), pp. 327—333. individual and his behavior; the behavior represented here as degree of success in rehabilitation activity. The dynamic factor in the somatopsychological connection is motivation. McClellandl indicates that all motives are learned on the basis of affective arousal. Motives are active forces which initiate and sustain behavior by way of anticipatory goal reactions. It is assumed that a disabled individual with a strong ego will have the capacity for suc— cess in rehabilitation activity. If he has a high motivational level, the client will then be able to demonstrate this capacity through goal—directed behavior in the service of his own rehabilitation. Another factor which must be realistically considered in the somatOpsychological connection is degree of disability. Although the issue of concern here is the assessment of personality characteristics of rehabilitation clients, the functional limitations on behavior brought about by physical or mental impairments must be considered. The position taken here may be stated in the following postulate: given two individuals with the same degree of disability, the individual with a strong ego and high motivational level will be able to attain a greater degree of success in rehabilitation activity. The controlling effect of degree of disability is, therefore, implicit in the two factor theory and research hypothesis which follow below. lDavid c. McClelland (ed.), Studies in Motivation (New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1955), p. 226. 10 The Two Factor Theory It is hypothesized that eg0~strength and motivation serve as intervening variables mediating between the dis- abled client and his degree of success in rehabilitation activity when degree of disability is taken as a constant factor. An individual with a strong ego will be able to constructively integrate the disability into his self con— cept and maintain a fund of energy for potential action in his own behalf. If, on the basis of affective arousal and anticipatory goal reactions, the energy can be activated and sustained in goal directions, the client should be able to attain success in rehabilitation activity. The above statement of the two factor theory is illustrated in Figure 1. Independent Intervening Variables Dependent Variables (Personality Factors) Variables I ‘ | I I DISABILITY “”“4*“€> EGO-STRENGTH ll 1‘. Self {.__§ Need Concept System if) MOTIVATION I BEHAVIOR L.___f__________-__\ \’. Figure 1. Model of the Two Factor Theory 11 Statement of the Hypotheses The research hypothesis is taken directly from the two factor theory and may be stated as follows: There is a positive relationship among degree of success in rehabilita— tion activity and the attributes ego-strength and motivation for fixed levels of disability. In order to test the research hypothesis statistically, it is necessary to formulate specific null and alternate hypotheses expressing the relationships of the attributes ego-strength, motivational level, degree of success in rehabilitation and degree of disability: Null Hypothesis 1 Ego-strength, as measured by Barron‘s ES scale, and degree of disability are independent. Null Hypothesis 2 Ego—strength, as measured by Schiller's ego—strength scale, and degree of disability are independent. Null Hypothesis 3 Motivational level, as measured by the Michigan State M-Scales, and degree of disability are independent. Null Hypothesis A Degree of success in rehabilitation activity, as meas— ured by the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating, and degree of disability are independent. I2 Null Hypothesis 5 Ego—strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, and degree of success in rehabilitation activity are independent. Alternate hypothesis 5a.—-There is a positive relation— ship between the attributes ego—strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, and degree of success in rehabi— litation activity. Null Hypothesis 6 Ego—strength, as measured by Schiller's ego-strength scale, and degree of success in rehabilitation activity, are independent. Alternate hypothesis 6a.—-There is a positive relation- ship between the attributes ego-strength, as measured by Schiller's ego-strength scale, and degree of success in rehabilitation activity. Null Hypothesis 7 Motivational level and degree of success in rehabilita- tion activity are independent. Alternate hypothesis 7a.--There is a positive relation- ship between the attributes motivational level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity. Null Hypothesis 8 Ego-strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, motiva— tional level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity are mutually independent. 13 Alternate hypothesis 8a.-—There is positive interaction among the attributes ego—strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, motivational level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity. Null Hypothesis 9 Ego—strength, as measured'hySchillers eg04strength scale, motivational level and degree of success in rehabili- tation activity are mutually independent. Alternate hypothesis 9a.——There is positive interaction among the attributes ego-strength, as measured by Schiller's ego-strength scale, motivational level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity. Null Hypothesis lO Ego-strength, as measured by the Barron and Schiller ego—strength scales, motivational level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity are mutually independent. Alternate hypothesis lOa.—-There is positive inter- action among the attributes ego-strength, as measured by the Barron and Schiller ego-strength scales, motiva- tional level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity. Dissertation Plan The over—all plan of the dissertation is as follows: a review of the literature will be presented in Chapter II. The design of the study will be explained in Chapter III. 14 Included in Chapter III will be a description of the sample and selection procedure, a summary of the instruments em- ployed and an explanation of the statistical model. Analysis of the data will be reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Objective Measurement of Ego—Strength In the relatively unexplored area of ego—strength measurement, Barron's Ego—Strength (ES) scale has been the most widely used research instrument. First reported in 1953,1 the ES scale (summarized in Chapter III) is a recent addition to the basic scales which have been derived from the MMPI. Taking as his problem the development and cross— validation of a scale designed to predict response of psychoneurotic patients to psychotherapy, Barron hypothesized that latent ego—strength is the most important determinant within the patient of response to brief psychotherapy. The sample used to derive the ES scale consisted of only 33 hospital patients, a shortcoming which cannot be over— looked, despite Barron's claim that the subjects were inten— sively studied. The number of cases on which the item selec— tion was carried out must be considered as small for scale derivation. As expected, the number of items surviving in the scale (68) was correspondingly large. Despite this lFrank Barron, ”An Ego—Strength Scale which Predicts Response to Psychotherapy,” Journal of Consulting Psychology Vol. 17 (1953). pp. 327—333. 15 l6 important limitation of the research, Barron found some interesting relationships using the scale. In his original sample, the difference in means between the improved and unimproved groups was very significant. In addition, other correlations were in the expected direction, in the neighborhood of .40 (e.g., positive correlations with intelligence and drive, negative correlations with submis~ siveness and ethnocentrism). Of special interest here is a correlation of .42 between the ES scale and response to psychotherapy on a cross—validation sample of 53 patients with delayed recovery from physical disease. Validity Studies of the ES Scale Barron's recommendation of the ES scale as a useful assessment device in measuring adaptability and personal resourcefulness initiated a number of subsequent validity studies. Quay found the ES scale dependably separated female psychiatric patients, student nurses, and psychiatric attendants.l However, there was a great deal of overlapping in the distributions. In a similar study, Wirt found the scale was able to significantly separate greatly improved from unimproved patients.2 In a later study, Wirt compared the efficiency of the scale with the judgment of clinicians lH. Quay, ”The Performance of Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients on the Ego—Strength Scale of the MMPI,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 11 (1955), pp. 403—405. 2Robert D. Wirt, ”Further Validation of the Ego-Strength Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 19 (1955), p. 442:. 17 and found the scale was able to separate cases much better into the greatly improved and unimproved dichotomy than could the clinicians.1 Some of the construct validation studies seem to assume that the ES scale should serve as a diagnostic tool, in addi— tion to its original function as a predictive instrument. Proceeding from this hypothesis, it is not surprising that Gottesman found the scale did not discriminate different degrees of psychiatric illness, nor did it separate delin— quents from non-delinquents.2 One of the interesting find— ings of Gottesman's research for the purposes of the present study is that the ES scale showed no relation to the age of the subjects. Working from a similar hypothesis, Kleinmuntz found the mean ES scale scores to be much higher for adjusted 3 college students than those of maladjusted students. One of the chief limitations of the Kleinmuntz study appears to lie in the criteria for selection of adjusted and maladjusted college students. The adjusted group was a randomly selected group of s0phomores and juniors; the maladjusted group were so categorized because they voluntarily sought psychiatric treatment. It appears that the assumption underlying the 1Robert D. Wirt, ”Actuarial Prediction,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 20 (1956), pp. 123—124. 2Irving I. Gottesman, "More Construct Validation of the Ego- -Stren th Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, V01 23 (1959?, pp 342- 349 3Benjamin Kleinmuntz, ”An Extension of the Construct Validity of the Ego-Strength Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 (1960), pp. 463—46A. l8 selection of the maladjusted group is unwarranted and the usefulness of the findings could be challenged on this basis. Comparison of the ES Scale with Other Measures The ES scale has been used in several recent studies in conjunction with other assessment and predictive measures. Ends and Page explored the relationships among anxiety, ego- strength and adjustment with male alcoholics.l Along with Q-sort data, several measures of adjustment from the MMPI were used in the correlations. While it was found that ES scores rose along with increase in positive self descriptions following group therapy, the relationships were not found to be at a statistically stable level. Once again, it appears the scale was asked to serve more than its intended purpose, since Barron's theoretical base for the predictive instrument stressed the importance of latent, and presumable stable, ego- strength as a determinant of response to psychotherapy. The Ends and Page research appears to suggest the scale should be able to measure a subject's progress in therapy, as well as his ultimate response. Using a very small sample, Tamkin found the ES scale did not discriminate between degrees of psychopathology in 2 hospitalized patients. Tamkin's study points out again that 1E. J. Ends and C. Page, ”Functional Relationships Among Measures of Anxiety, Ego-Strength and Adjustment,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 13 (1957), pp. 148—150. 2Arthur S. Tamkin, ”An Evaluation of the Construct Validity'cfiWBarron'sngo-Strength Scale,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 13 (1957), pp. 156—158. 19 the scale should not be expected to function as a diagnostic tool when it was not designed for that purpose. In a later, better constructed replication with an adequate, randomly selected sample, Tamkin and Klett again found the ES scale to be of little diagnostic value.1 However, the replication, unlike the original study, resulted in consistent findings with regard to the positive correlation of the ES scale with intelligence, the lack of correlation with age. Taft, also using the scale as a diagnostic instrument, found the scale could separate normal college students and psychiatric patients.2 Of some interest is the cross—cultural aspect of the research (an Australian population) and the minimiza— tion of age and educational differences by matching. Schiller has used the ES scale in studies relating ego- strength to defensiveness and leadership behavior. In his initial research, Schiller found that his hypothesis (i.e., that ego—strength is negatively related to defensiveness) was not confirmed.3 However, in a re—analysis of the data, King and Schiller have reported that ego-strength was sig— nificantly related to relative use of rationalization, lA. Tamkin and C. Klett, ”Barron‘s Ego—Strength Scale: A Replication of an Evaluation of Its Construct Validity,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 21 (1957), p. 412. 2R. Taft, ”The Validity of the Barron Ego—Strength Scale and the Welsh Anxiety Index,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 21 (1957), pp. 247—249. 3Marvin Schiller, ”Ego—Strength, Manifest Anxiety and Defensiveness” (unpublished Master‘s thesis, Michigan State University, 1958). BO supporting the hypothesis that high ego—strength will be accompanied by the use of a high order defense mechanism.1 The initial data revealed no significant relation of ES scores to intelligence, nor to manifest anxiety. One of the most interesting of the recent researches using the ES scale is Schiller's study of the relationship of ego-strength to leadership behavior.2 In addition to Barron's scale, Schiller constructed a 30—item scale, based on the Murray and Kluckhorn ego—strength criteria (see Chapter I, p. 7). Schiller found that the ES scale is ef— fective in leadership assessment. An incidental finding of note is that Schiller's scale was more effective in differ- entiating between leadership categories than was the Barron scale. The study recognizes that there would be no direct cause and effect relationship between high ego—strength and leadership behavior. Rather, ego-strength is regarded as one of the prerequisites of leadership behavior. In the present context, ego—strength is similarly viewed as one of the prerequisites of behavior in a rehabilitation setting. Crites hypothesized that ego—strength would be posi- tively related to occupational interest level and degree of 3 interest planning. The first hypothesis was not supported lGerald F. King and M. Schiller, ”Ego Strength and Type of Defensive Behavior,H Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 (1960), pp. 215—217. 2Schiller, op. cit. 3John O. Crites, ”Ego-Strength in Relation to Voca— tional Interest Development,‘' Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 7 (1960), pp. 137—143. 21 but a significant relation was found between ego—strength and interest planning. Of special interest here is the finding that, with intelligence partialed out, the correlation increased only .01, an insignificant difference. The Crites study seems to have some important shortcomings, the most important of which is related to the sampling procedure. The research sample was not randomly selected but was rather a ”convenient” sample, based on the availability of MMPI and Strong VIB data. Clients with personal problems were excluded arbitrarily. In addition, the study would have been more useful if some form of external criterion for occupational interest level and degree of interest planning had been in— cluded. Two Experimental Studies Two recent researches have explored the relationship of ego-strength, as measured by the ES scale, with laboratory performance of subjects on a specific task. Korman hypothe— sized that a high ego—strength group Should be able to resolve perceptual discrimination conflicts more rapidly than a low ego—strength group.:L The findings supported the hypoth— esis. However, when Block replicated the study, he found no relation between ES scores and the ability to rapidly resolve discrimination conflicts.2 One of the reasons for the lMaurice Korman, ”Ego-Strength and Conflict Discrimina— tion,’ Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 (1960), pp. 294—298. 2Jack Block, ”Ego—Strength and Conflict Discrimination: A Failure of Replication,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 25 (1961), pp. 551—552. I 22 apparent discrepancy in the results of the two studies may be seen in the radically different samples. Korman used 47 psychiatric inpatients, Block 53 Air Force captains. In view of the differences in the samples, it was not surprising that the mean ES score of Korman's sample was markedly lower than Block's sample. It appears the meaning of the scores would not correspond from one sample to the other. Other Predictive Scales The continuing interest of investigators in finding an objective measure for predicting post-treatment behavior is exemplified in recent studies using new predictive techniques. Stotsky and Weinberg, interested in assessing the vocational strengths and weaknesses of chronic psychiatric patients, have developed the Stotsky—Weinberg (S—W) Test, a sentence- completion technique.l Working with a schizophrenic sample in manual arts and educational therapy settings, the investi- gators found that eight of their nine variables were signifi- cantly related to successful performance in the adjunctive therapies. Connors, §t_al, have employed the S—W Test in investigating the differences among patients in post—hospital rehabilitation programs and post—hospital occupational adjust- ment.2 Two of the three hypotheses were supported, with high 1Bernard A. Stotsky and H. Weinberg, ”The Prediction of the Psychiatric Patient‘s Work Adjustment,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 3 (1956), pp. 3—7. 2J. Connors, G. Wolkon, D. Haefner, and B. Stotsky, ”Outcome of Post—Hospital Rehabilitative Treatment of Mental Patients as a Function of Ego-Strength,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 7 (1960), pp. 278—282. 23 S—W scores relating to successful completion of the Member— Employee program and to level of occupational adjustment, six months post-hospitalization. One of the weaknesses of the research is that no attempt was made to control some of the other factors which may have accounted for parts of the relationships (e.g., intelligence). Similarly, it would appear that additional validation investigation of this nature will be necessary before the S-W Test can be properly evalu— ated for its usefulness as a predictive measure. Subject to the same limitation is a new MMPI scale reported by Anker, which is designed to identify potentially chronic neuropsychiatric patients.l Although Anker's scale was able to predict the ”long stay” patient better than chance, the scale clearly needs much additional study. The Prediction of Success in Rehabilitation Activity Many rehabilitation workers are now recognizing the limited predictive usefulness of the standard psychological instruments with handicapped clients. Nadler's study points out that, in a standardized rehabilitation setting such as the sheltered shop, it becomes more important to measure other capacities, such as manipulation of objects and self, and sensory-motor integration.2 Nadler found that intellectual 1James M. Anker, HChronicity of NeurOpsychiatric Hospitalization: A Predictive Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 25 (1961), pp. 425—432. 2Eugene B. Nadler, ”Prediction of the Sheltered Shop Work Performance of Individuals with Severe Physical Dis- ability,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 36 (1957), pp. 95-98. 24 factors alone appeared to account for as much as 25% of the. variance in sheltered shop performance. Another finding of particular interest here was that age, when controlled by partial correlation, was not a significant factor in obtain- ing validities for the sample. One of the chief limitations in Nadler's interesting research is the relatively low cor— relation of the supervisor‘s judgments on the criterion rating scale. Neff has explored the usefulness of the Rorschach for predicting the employability of the vocationally handicapped.l It was found that the Rorschach is not an efficient predictor of vocational rehabilitation but the Rorschach records of rehabilitated subjects showed improvement on retesting. Safian has approached the same basic predictive problem with a group of severely disabled, homebound adults.2 The hypothesis that capacity for learning would discriminate between potentially employable and unemployable subjects was not sustained. Once again, the Rorschach was found to be unsuitable for this type of prediction. However, semi— structured projective tests, which involve observation of the subject at a work task, were found to be useful in distin- guishing between the success and failure groups. In 1Walter S. Neff, ”The Use of the Rorschach in Distin— guishing Vocationally Rehabilitable Groups,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 2 (1955), pp. 207—211. 2Murray Z. Safian, A Study of Certain Psychological Factors in the Rehabilitation of Potentially Employable Home- bound Adults, Doctoral Dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 19, New York University, 1959, p. 3372. 25 conclusions which are pertinent to the present study, Safian reported the success group as able to make a constructive response to their environment, better controlled emotionally, more realistically motivated, with more satisfactory inter- personal relationships, and better work methods. Motto has approached the predictive problem by way of identifying vocational reaction patterns.l Taking as axio- matic that successful prediction involves knowledge g: personality characteristics, rather than extent of disability, Motto hypothesizes that the stability-instability dimension of an individual's work history will be an efficient predictor of the client's reactions to employment and training. Although the results of the study would suggest that evalu- ation of previous work stability may be a useful predictive technique, there are some important limitations in both theoretical approach and design of the study. In regard to the theory, it would seem more useful to measure some of the personality characteristics which are related to the voca— tional stability-instability dimension, rather than having to rely only on the manifestation of these characteristics in the work history rating. In regard to design, the study does not give any rater reliabilities, despite the fact that both predictor and criterion are rating scales, nor is there any provision for correlations between the ratings and actual competitive work experience. 1Joseph J. Motto, ”Stability of Work Experience as a Predictor of Success in Terminal Vocational Training,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 38 (1960), pp. 720—723. 26 Identification of Factors Contributing to Success or Failure in Vocational Rehabilitation In a sociological approach, McPhee and Magleby attempted to identify some of the factors contributing to vocational success or failure after vocational rehabilitation services had been received.1 Clients, employers, and families were exhaustively interviewed with interview schedules. The criteria for vocational adjustment was based on the length of time the client had been employed after receiving rehabili— tation services. Some of the sociological data reported suggest that the substantially employed were more socially stable, better trained and educated, less than 49 years of age, and had fewer health problems. Although the study appears to be a good example of survey research, the superficial des— criptions of the sample characteristics would seem to have little direct empirical utility in the prediction of success or failure in rehabilitation. Haber‘s study is more directly concerned with the identi— fication of specific variables contributing to success or failure in rehabilitation.2 Haber hypothesized that the variables (e.g., age, sex, years of education, duration of disability, general mental ability) would relate significantly 1William M. McPhee and F. Magleby, ”Success and Failure in Vocational Rehabilitation,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 38 (1960), pp. 497—499. 2Wilfred Haber, The Contribution of Selected Variables to Success or Failure in a Vbcational Rehabilitation’EValua— tion, Doctoral Dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 20, New York University, 1960, pp. 4171—4172. 27 to over—all success in a vocational rehabilitation evaluation setting. Haber used as predictors several non—projective measures; the criteria were Clerical and mechanical quality and quantity and over—all performance rating. One of the interesting results of the study was that all mean test scores were below the fiftieth percentile, a finding which supports the recommendation that new norms be constructed for some of the standard vocational tests. The chief finding of interest here, however, is that the variables age, sex, and years of disability were 23: significantly related to any of the criteria. Haber, therefore, is able to justifiably question the old notion that these variables affect a disabled individ— ual's vocational rehabilitation potential. Investigation of Motivation in a Rehabilitation Setting The literature contains virtually no reported investi— gations on the measurement or assessment of rehabilitation client motivation. There have been articles written on various subjective techniques to instill motivation in clients. These, however, are not pertinent to the purposes of the present study. An ambitious beginning toward the assessment of motivation in rehabilitation settings has been made by Nadler.l With an Adlerian theoretical base, Nadler has attempted to identify ”life styles” exhibited in sheltered shOp behavior. His hypothesis is a restatement of the lEugene B. Nadler and F. Shontz, ”A Factor Analytic Study of Motivational Patterns in a Sheltered ShOp,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37 (1959), pp. 444—449. 28 somatopsychological relation discussed in Chapter I; i.e., that reactions to physical disability and an individual's utilization of rehabilitation services are largely under- standable on the basis of previously existing personality factors. Using a Q—sort and factor—analytic technique, Nadler sustained his opposition to the unitary concept of motivation. Once again, high negative correlations were found to exist between work rating and intellectual deficit. Despite Nadler‘s rigorous approach to test out his theoret- ical assumptions, his sample was small, tending to reduce his findings to a low order of scientific fact. In addition some of the identified factors (e.g., Laissez—faire realism, constrictiveness—expansiveness) lack the specificity to be very useful. Summary In Chapter II is contained a review of pertinent studies relating to the objective measurement of ego- strength. It was found that Barron's ego-strength scale, derived from the MMPI, has been able to predict the response of psychoneurotic patients to psychotherapy. It has been suggested that the scale may be useful in measuring adapta— bility and personal resourcefulness in other settings as well. Ego-strength, as measured by the scale, was found to correlate moderately with intelligence but not significantly with age. In Chapter II is also a review of studies concerned with the prediction of success in rehabilitation activity. Several of 29 the findings have Special significance for the present study: intelligence is an important contributor to success in rehab— ilitation activity; however, age, sex, and duration of disability are not significantly related to rehabilitation success. Nadler's attempt to identify motivational patterns in a rehabilitation setting is the only research study found in the literature assessing the motivation of rehabilitation clients. Although his factor—analytic investigation lends interesting support to an Adlerian approach to motivation, Nadler has not discovered a particularly useful or widely applicable technique for measuring motivation for rehabilita— tion. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The Sample The sample was drawn from a population of clients in the Work Evaluation Department of Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services, Cleveland, Ohio. Work evaluation programs have developed in recent years in answer to the need for more accurate techniques of vocational prediction with disabled individuals. In the work evaluation setting, clients are intensively observed while performing tasks which approximate jobs in a real work situation. The program allows for a longitudinal picture of the client's vocational behavior,1 as Opposed to the limited cross-sectional behav- ioral sample obtained from the standard psychological tests. The sample was selected over a six month period from clients who completed the work evaluation program. During the time research data were being collected, 90 clients were seen in the work evaluation department. Of this group, 58 subjects were chosen for the study (28 males, 30 females). Of the 32 clients excluded from the study, 11 did not spend enough time in the work evaluation program (i.e., one week 1At the Cleveland center, work evaluation is a full time program which characteristically lasts two weeks for each client. 30 31 or less) to allow for a full evaluation. Six clients were excluded because of illiteracy and resulting inability to complete the inventories. Three clients were too disturbed psychiatrically to participate, in the judgment of the work evaluators. Using a cutting score of nine, seven clients were excluded as a result of their scores on the MMPI Lie Scale. Five potential subjects refused to participate in the study; each of these individuals had mental impairments, either in the form of mental deficiency or an emotional dis— order. It is reCOgnized that the exclusion of five subjects from this disability grouping reflects on the representative— ness of the study sample; this point will be discussed further in Chapter V. The age of the sample ranged from 57 to 16 with mean ages of 27.1 for males, 26.1 for females, and 26.6 for the total sample. Many types and combinations of impairments are represented and the degree of disability ranges from severe to mild (cf. Appendix C). The sample is characteris— tic of the type of cases referred for work evaluation in that the work potential of each subject was definitely in question. The sample could ngt be compared to the client group in state vocational rehabilitation programs for two reasons: (1) many of the subjects would not be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services due to the marked severity (or lack of severity in a few subjects) of their im— pairments; (2) the work evaluation client group has been 32 screened an additional time so that only those without apparent marketable vocational skills are included. Instrumentation The experimental instrument selected to measure motiva- tion is the MiChigan State M-Scales. Two ego-strength scales were selected to measure the other intervening personality variable. The Lie Scale is used for validation purposes. The Michigan State M-Scales The Michigan State M—Scales were developed by Farquhar and his associates in an attempt to find an acceptable Oper— ational definition of motivation which could be reliably and 1 validly measured. McClelland's three factors of n-achieve- £323? were bipolarized and extended to predict extremes in academic motivation. The theoretical base for the M—Scales, therefore, became: (a) need for long-term vs. short-term involvement; (b) need for unique vs. common accomplishment; and (c) need for competition with a maximal vs. a minimal standard of excellence.3 The final version of the M-Scales consists of four 4 scales with 139 male items, 136 female items. the scales lWilliam F. Farquhar, "An integrated Attack on Academic Motigitégn," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 9 (1962), PP- ‘ - 2David C. McClelland and J. Atkinson (eds.), The Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1953), p. 28. 3Farquhar, 0p. cit. “Some of the items considered unsuitable for a disabled 33 were administered to 4200 high school students in several Michigan cities, chosen to represent extremes in socio— economic class. Items which survived cross—validation were retained in the final four scales. The Word Rating List (WRL) was constructed to measure the academic self concept of students. Payne reports that the 48-item scale significantly discriminated between under- and over-achieving students of both sexes.1 Reliability estimates range from .88 to .93. The Human Trait Inventory (HTI) consists of items from other personality inventories, adapted for high school students. The scale contains 32 items and, like the WRL, asks the subject to rate himself on each item. Taylor and Farquhar have reported reliability estimates of .78 and .71 for males and females respectively.2 The scale items were able to significantly discriminate between under— and over- achieving eleventh graders. The Generalized Situational Choice Inventory (GSCI) is designed to tap student preference for various situations which imply motivation. The subject is presented with 45 adult population were omitted, leaving 109 male and 114 fe— male items in the M—Scales used in the present study. 1David A. Payne, ”A Dimension Analysis of the Academic Self—Concept of Eleventh Grade Under- and Over-achieving Students” (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961). 2Ronald G. Taylor and W. Farquhar, ”Personality, Motiva- tion, and Achievement,” a Paper presented at the American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention, Denver, Colorado, 1961. 34 forced choice items, with the two choices logically related to one end of the bipolarized McClelland theory. Thorpe has reported reliability coefficients ranging from .80 to .83 for groups of over-achievers, under—achievers, general population, and normals.l The scale discriminated between male over- and under-achievers in the direction predicted by the theory. The final scale of the Michigan State motivation battery is the Preferred Job Characteristics Scale (PJCS). The 48-item scale is identical in form to the GCSI, with forced choice preference items relating to the bipolar theory. The items describe future job aspirations and values. The scale discriminated between over- and under—achievers; reliability estimates are in the neighborhood of .60 to .70. Reliability estimates for the full M—Scales range from .60 to .93, with total scale reliability estimates of .94 for males, .93 for females.2 Validity estimates of the M— Scales against school grades are .56 for males, .40 for females.3 Correlations with the Differential Aptitude Test 4 were .45 for males, .30 for females. lMarion D. Thorpe, ”The Factored Dimensions of an Objective Inventory of Academic Motivation Based on Eleventh Grade Male Over— and Under—Achievers” (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961). 2William F. Farquhar, ”The Predictive Efficiency of the Michigan State M—Scales,” a Paper presented at the American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois, 1962. 3Ibid. uIbid. 35 The Ego-Strength Scales Barron's ES scale has been mentioned previously in Chapters I and II; some of the theoretical implications and research applications of the scale were considered. The scale consists of 68 true—false items drawn from the MMPI. The items are arranged in groups according to the type of psychological behavior which appears to be involved in the item content: (1) physical functioning and physiological stability; (2) psychasthenia and seclusiveness; (3) attitudes toward religion; (4) moral posture; (5) sense of reality; (6) personal adequacy, ability to cope; (7) phobias, infan- tile anxieties; and (8) miscellaneous.l The odd—even reli- ability of the scale on a clinic population has been reported by Barron as .76; test-retest after three months was .72. Although he cautions against the use of the scale as the sole criterion for individual decisions, Barron feels that the II scale is a useful assessment device in any situation where some estimate of adaptability and personal resourceful— ness is needed.”2 Schiller‘s ego—strength scale has been discussed in Chapter II. It consists of 30 true-false items based on the criteria for ego—strength presented by Murray and Kluckhorn (cf. Chapter I, p. 7). There have been no validation studies lFrank Barron, ”An Ego—Strength Scale which Predicts Response to Psychotherapy,” in George Welsh and W. Dahlstrom eds.), Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956). 2lbid. 36 on the Schiller scale; however, Schiller reports that the scale may be useful in differentiating between leadership . 1 categories. The Lie Scale2 The Lie Scale is one of the original MMPI scales. It consists of 15 true—false items. The scale was included in the study in an attempt to avoid the invalidating effects of deliberate test distortion and deception. Meehl and Hathaway have suggested that a cutting score of six or seven is usually appropriate for most populations. However, it is also noted that the highest lie scores usually come from lower socio-economic groups, with subjects who are naive 3 about psychological tests and limited in intelligence. In— asmuch as these characteristics are all present in the study sample, it was felt that a higher cutting score was indicated to guard against exclusion of subjects whose lie scores would be elevated for these reasons. A cutting score of nine was, therefore, selected as appropriate for the study. Degree of Disability The control variable selected for the study is the Degree of Disability rating (of. Exhibit B). The main lSchiller, op. cit. 2The Lie Scale and the ego—strength scales have been incorporated into one test booklet titled ”The Industrial Personnel Inventory” (cf. Exhibit A). 3Pau1 E. Meehl and S. Hathaway,.”The K. Factor as a Suppressor Variable in the MMPI," Journal of Applied Psy- chology, Vol. 30 (1946), pp. 525—564. 37 headings of the scale are severe, moderate, and mild. Each subject was classified on the three point rating scheme which is based on uniform criteria developed by Mayo and Riviere.l The rating is a composite rating derived from medical, psychometric, and social information from the case records. The work evaluators rated each subject's degree of disability according to the nature gf_impairment (i.e., unstable or stable pathology), type_gf involvement (i.e., psychological—social, mental-educational, and physical), and grg§§_g£ handicap (i.e., combined or single). The final classification of each subject into the severe—moderate—mild trichotomy was made after the sub-ratings had been assigned. The degree of disability rating has not yet been the subject of a reliability study. Degree of disability was selected as the single control variable because it combines the important factors of intel— ligence and severity of impairment. The importance of intellectual factors on the performance of rehabilitation clients has been demonstrated in the literature; these find- ings are reported in Chapter II. The inclusion of degree of disability as a control factorlmxxmkfisapparent when one con- siders the real limitations of vocational behavior attendant on impairment of physical or mental functioning. lLeonard w. Mayo and M. Riviere, ”Rehabilitation Codes and Intake Forms" (New York: Association for the Aid of Crippled Children, 1955). 38 The Criterion The Vocational Rehabilitation Potential (VRP) scale is a five point rating scheme which constitutes the criterion measure for the study.1 The scale, like the degree of dis— ability scale, was developed from the Mayo and Riviere materials. The definition of vocational rehabilitation potential is: the vocational implications of the interplay of all the pro and con factors involved in evalua— tion of the individualls assets and liabilities, which affects his capacity for cooperating with rehabilitation services and the demands of his living environment. The VRP rating is made by the work evaluators primarily on the basis of the client's performance in the two—week work evaluation program. However, the raters also use case record material, regular consultation with other raters, and the results of staff conferences in the preparation of the final rating.3 A reliability study has not been done. The five points constituting the VRP rating are as follows: 1. Good——The client has a reasonable Chance to obtain com— petitive employment by himself without having to rely on special placement services. lcf. Appendix B. 2Mayo and Riviere, ”Rehabilitation Codes and Intake Forms,” op. cit. 3A staff conference is held for each client in the Work Evaluation program. Present at the conference are a psycho— logist, two work evaluators, and the referring counselor. 39 2. Fair——The client is able to engage in competitive or sheltered employment but will need selective job place— ment. 3. Fair, limited goal——The client will not be able to engage in competitive employment but should be able to work in a sheltered shop situation. 4. Poor, limited goal--The client will not qualify for sheltered shop employment but will need a diversional program, a terminal workshop placement or a homebound program. 5. thgrf—The client is totally unemployable. The use of the VRP scale as a criterion measure may be questioned because the scale has not been the subject of a rigorous validity investigation. The inadequate validation of the scale constitutes one of the chief limitations of the study; this point will be discussed further in Chapter V. There is reason to believe, however, that the rating scale is sufficiently valid for the purposes of the present exploratory study. The research hypothesis specifies that the criterion is to be the degree of success of clients in a standardized rehabilitation activity. The standardized re- habilitation activity is a work evaluation program at a specific agency. The VRP scale is an objective measure of the degree of success of clients who complete this specific rehabilitation activity. However, if the criterion is to be meaningful outside the specific agency setting, there should be a significant 4O relationship between the criterion and external factors of success in rehabilitation. The universal criterion for suc— cess in rehabilitation is employment. If the scale is to have any useful external application, it should be able to reasonably predict the future vocational activities of the Clients who were closely studied in the work evaluation program. The author, in a pilot study using work evaluation ratings from the agency involved in the present study, sought to answer this question: Does the activity the client engages in subsequent to work evaluation agree with the vocational prediction or recommendation made by the work evaluation staff?l Clients (n = 75) who had completed the agency‘s work evaluation program were contacted for follow—up data. The sample is very similar to the sample of the present study in age, intelligence, and nature of disabling impairments. The follow—up study revealed that approximately one— third of the sample were placed in a ”transitional” category. These subjects had not yet demonstrated either vocational success or failure because the follow-up period was too short to allow a reasonable period of time for the next vocational step to be made (e.g., from training to employ— ment). It was concluded that many subjects from the trans- itional category would eventually be placed in the”agreement” 1Richard H. Danielson, ”A Pilot Follow-up Study of a Work Evaluation Program” (unpublished paper, 1957). 41 classification. Subjects placed in the agreement category were demonstrating the vocational behavior predicted by the work evaluators at the time of the follow—up contact. Despite the large number of subjects found to be in transi- tional status, approximately one-half of the sample was placed in the agreement category, approximately one—fourth in the ”disagreement” category. Subjects placed in the dis— agreement category were not demonstrating the vocational behavior predicted by the work evaluators at the time of the follow—up contact. It was concluded that the work evaluation ratings were quite accurate in predicting the vocational activities of clients after leaving the work evaluation program. The 50% predictive success of the ratings is thought to be reasonably high in View of the fact that five possible pre— dictions or ratings could have been given each Client, and subjects from the transitional classification could have been expected to enlarge the agreement classification. The VRP rating is considered to be an appropriate cri- terion measure for the study. The rating is consistent with the research hypothesis and has sufficient validity for use in an exploratory investigation of the type presented here. Statistical Analysis A multiple contingency analysis model was selected as appropriate for the data produced with the research variables. Product moment technique was considered inappropriate because logical Bulletin, Vol. 54 (1957), pp. 134—137. mental Education, Vol. 25 (1957), pp. 203—232. 42 neither the criterion nor control variable are amenable to either interval or ordinal scaling. The data cannot be represented as true measurements but rather as counts or frequencies within given categories. In this instance, there are three experimental instru— ments, one control variable and one criterion measure. The concern is with interaction among the classifications, as well as the relationship between any two classifications. Lancaster initially presented a technique for testing such higher-order interactions, based on the partition of chi square.1 Lancaster's work has been adapted for psychologists by Sutcliffe, whose paper presents a general, illustrated form of multiple contingency analysis.2 Complex contingency tables have also been discussed and illustrated by Mayo.3’4 Figure 2 is a graphic representation of the partitioning of chi square by means of a three—dimensional contingency table. 1H. 0. Lancaster, ”The Derivation and Partition of X2 in Certain Discrete Distributions,” Biometrika, Vol. 36 (1949), pp. 117—129. 2J. P. Sutcliffe, ”A General Method for Analysis of Frequency Data for Multiple Classification Designs,” Psycho- 3Samuel T. Mayo, ”Toward Strengthening the Contingency Table as a Statistical Method,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 54 (1957), pp. 134—137. uSamuel T. Mayo, ”Recent Techniques for Analyzing Asso— ciation in Contengency Tables as Applied to an Analytical Follow—up Survey of Education Graduates,” Journal of Experi— 43 DEGREE /I SEVERE OF } MODERATE DIS ABILITY 1 I MIDD 1 HIGH HIGH LOW VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION POTENTIAL HIGH EGO-STRENGTH AND MOTIVATION Figure 2. The multiple contingency analysis model. 44 Summary In the present chapter the design of the study is pre— sented. The sample is a group of significantly handicapped young adults with questionable work potential and intelli- gence at approximately the dull normal level. The experi— mental instruments employed in the study are the ego—strength scales developed by Barron and Schiller and the Michigan State M-Scales. The instruments have been found to be suf— ficiently reliable and valid for the purposes of the research. The MMPI Lie Scale was selected as a validity check on the sub— jects' test responses. The control variable is Degree of Disability, a com— posite rating which includes intelligence as well as severity of impairment. A multiple contingency analysis model was selected as the apprOpriate statistic. Interaction among the variables, as well as the relationship between any two variables, may be tested through the partitioning of chi square. The Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating, which constitutes the criterion, has not been adequately val— idated; however, the rating has been shown to be reasonably successful in predicting the vocational activities of post- work evaluation clients. It is, therefore, concluded that the criterion measure is sufficiently valid for the purposes of the study. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Procedure Each of the 58 subjects in the study were asked to complete the Michigan State M—Scales, Barron's ES scale, Schiller's ego—strength scale, and the MMPI Lie Scale. Raw scale scores were arranged in frequency distributions and dichotomized into high and low categories to facilitate the statistical treatment of the data. The criterion, Vocational Rehabilitation Potential, was also dichotomized while the control, degree of disability, could be treated in its original trichotomy. Simple and complex contingency tables were constructed to test the hypotheses. The results are reported below for each hypothesis. Analysis Null Hypothesis 1 Ego-strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, and degree of disability are independent. Findings and discussion.--The null hypothesis is ac- cepted at the 5% level of significance as Shown in Table 1. The null hypothesis was accepted despite the fact that the 45 46 chi square was significant at the 10% level, a finding which suggests the possibility of a relationship between the ES scale and degree of disability (cf. Appendix D, Table 3). The 5% level of significance was chosen to reduce the risk of rejecting the null hypothesis when a suggested relation— ship may in fact be due to chance factors alone. TABLE l.-—Two-way contingency analysis of the associ— ation of the degree of disability trichotomy with the ego—strength scales and the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating. Accept Reject Source x2 df HO HO Degree of disability and Barron ES scale 5.554* 2 x Degree of disability and Schiller scale 6.500** 2 x Degree of disability and M—Scales 2.500 2 x Degree of disability and VRP 20.510*** 2 x *Significant at the 10% level. **Significant at the ***Significant at the Null Hypothesis 2 Ego-strength, 5% level. 1% level. as measured by Schiller‘s ego—strength scale, and degree of disability are independent. Findings and discussion.——The null hypothesis is re- jected at the 5% level of significance as shown in Table 1. It appears there may be some relationship between Schiller's 47 ego—strength scale and degree of disability (cf. Appendix D, Table 4). Although the relationship is of general interest and will be discussed in Chapter V, it is not specifically pertinent to the research hypothesis and no directional hypothesis was, therefore, formulated. Null Hypothesis 3 Motivational level, as measured by the Michigan State M—Scales, and degree of disability are independent. Findings and discussion.——The null hypothesis is accepted at the 5% level of significance as shown in Table 1. There appears to be no relationship between motivational level, as reflected in the M—Scale scores, and degree of disability. Null Hypothesis 4 Degree of success in rehabilitation activity, as measured by the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating, and degree of disability are independent. Findings and discussion.——The null hypothesis is re— jected at well beyond the 1% level of significance as shown in Table 1. It appears there is a definite relationship between the criterion and the control variable. Inspection of the contingency table reveals the relationship to be in the expected direction, with large discrepancies from expected frequencies appearing in the ”mild—high” and ”severe—low” 48 cells (cf. Appendix D, Table l). The implications of this finding will be discussed at length in Chapter V. Null Hypothesis 5 Ego-strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, and degree of success in rehabilitation activity are independent. Alternate hypothesis 5a.——There is a positive relation- ship between the above attributes. Findings and discussion.——The null hypothesis is re— jected at the 5% level of significance as shown in Table 2. The alternate hypothesis is accepted. Inspection of the con- tingency table reveals the relationship to be in the predicted direction, with discrepancies from expected frequencies ap— pearing in the ”high-high” and ”low—low” cells (cf. Appendix D, Table 2). Conditional probability analysis of the above cells reveals a gain from chance of 12—15% achieved with the Barron ES scale in the prediction of Vocational Rehabilitation Potential. Null Hypothesis 6 Ego-strength, as measured by Schiller‘s ego-strength scale, and degree of success in rehabilitation activity are independent. Alternate hypothesis 6a.——There is a positive relation~ ship between the above attributes. 49 TABLE 2.——Two—way contingency analysis of the association of the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating with the ego—strength scales and the M-Scales. Accept Reject Source x2 df HO HO VRP and Barron ES scale 4.416* 1 x VRP and Schiller scale 1.102 1 x VRP and M-Scales .274 1 x *Significant at the 5% level. Findings and discussion.——The null hypothesis is accepted at the 5% level of Significance as shown in Table 2. The alternate hypothesis is rejected. There appears to be no relationship existing between Schiller's ego-strength scale and the criterion. Null Hypothesis 7 Motivational level and degree of success in rehabili— tation activity are independent. Alternate hypothesis 7a.——There is a positive relation— ship between the above attributes. Findings and discussion.--The null hypothesis is accepted at the 5% level of significance as Shown in Table 2. The alternate hypothesis is rejected. There appears to be no 50 relationship existing between motivational level, as measured by the M-Scales, and the criterion. Null Hypothesis 8 Ego—strength, as measured by Barron's ES scale, motiva- tional level and degree of success in rehabilitation activity are mutually independent. Alternate hypothesis 8a.—-There is positive interaction among the above attributes. Findings and discussion.——The null hypothesis is accepted at the 5% level of significance as Shown in Table 3. The alternate hypothesis is rejected. There appears to be no positive interaction among ego—strength, as measured by the Barron scale, motivational level and the criterion. TABLE 3.——Three—way contingency analysis of the association among Vocational Rehabilita— tion Potential, the ego-strength scales and the M—Scales. 2 Accept Reject Source X df HO HO VRP, Barron ES scale and M—Scales .727 l x VRP, Schiller scale and M-Scales 3.743* 1 x *Significant at the 10% level. 51 Null Hypothesis 9 Ego—strength, as measured by Schiller's ego-strength scale, motivational level, and degree of success in rehabi— litation activity are mutually independent. Alternate hypothesis 9a.——There is positive interaction among the above attributes. Findings and discussion.-—The null hypothesis is ac— cepted at the 5% level of significance as shown in Table 3. The alternate hypothesis is rejected, although the chi square is significant at the 10% level, because the suggested rela— tionship could be due to change factors alone. Null Hypothesis lO Ego—strength, as measured by the Barron and Schiller ego—strength scales, motivational level, and degree of suc- cess in rehabilitation activity are mutually independent. Alternate hypothesis 10a.—-There is positive interaction among the above attributes. Findings and discussion.-—The null hypothesis is accepted at the 5% level of significance as shown in Table 4. The alternate hypothesis is rejected. There appears to be no positive interaction among the three predictors and the criterion. 52 TABLE 4.--Four-way contingency analysis of the mutual association among Vocational Rehabilitation Potential, the ego-strength scales and the M-Scales. Accept Reject Source x2 df HO HO VRP, Barron ES scale, Schiller scale, and M-Scales .012 2 x Summary The subjects selected for the study were asked to complete the Michigan State M—Scales, Barron's ES scale, Schiller's ego—strength scale,and the MMPI Lie Scale. The predictive data and the criterion were dichotomized to facilitate statistical analysis. Simple and complex contin- gency tables were constructed to test the null and alternate hypotheses. Ten null hypotheses and Six alternate hypotheses are tested. Seven null hypotheses are accepted, five alternate hypotheses rejected. Relationships were found to exist be— tween Vocational Rehabilitation Potential and degree of disability and between the Barron Ego—Strength scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential. CHAPTER V .SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The problem generating the research study is the need to develOp methods which may be used effectively in select— ing clients who are most likely to benefit from rehabilita- tion services. It is particularly important to be able to identify those clients who may have the personal resource— fulness and adaptability to achieve success in rehabilitation activity but are currently being excluded from services because of the severity of their impairments. A theoretical base was formulated which hypothesizes that personality variables mediate between the disabled individual and his eventual vocational behavior. It is taken as axiomatic that successful prediction in rehabilita— tion involves knowledge of personality characteristics as well as the extent of disability. Two personality variables were identified as important intervening variables: ego- strength and motivation. The instruments chosen to measure ego-strength are Barron's ES scale and Schiller's ego—strength scale. The instrument chosen to assess motivation is the Michigan State M—Scales, a new instrument designed to measure academic 54 achievement. The control variable is degree of disability, a composite, three-point rating including both medical and intellectual factors. The criterion is the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating, a five—point scale developed and used in a work evaluation setting. The MMPI Lie Scale was selected as a validity check on the subjects‘ reSponses. The sample is an homogeneous group of significantly handicapped young adults with questionable work potential and approximately dull normal intelligence. The sample was selected over a six—month time span from the total client group seen in work evaluation at Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services, Cleveland, Ohio. The research sample was limited to those clients who completed the work evaluation prOgram, who were able to participate in the study and who scored above the cutting point on the Lie Scale. The subjects were asked to complete the three person— ality scales prior to their completion of the work evaluation program. The predictive and criterion data were dichotomized to facilitate statistical analysis. Two-way, three—way, and four-way contingency tables were constructed to test the hypotheses. It is hypothesized that a positive relationship exists among degree of success in rehabilitation activity and the attributes ego—strength and motivation for fixed levels of disability. The general research hypothesis was tested 55 statistically with ten null (independence) hypotheses and six alternate hypotheses. Seven null hypotheses were ac- cepted, three rejected; one alternate hypothesis was accepted, five rejected. Analysis of the findings revealed that the control variable, degree of disability, accounted for much of the variance which was observed. Independence hypotheses were formulated to test the relationship between the ego-strength scales and degree of disability. The null hypotheses were rejected at the 10% and 5% levels respectively for the Barron and Schiller ego—strength scales. These findings suggest that positive relationships may exist between ego-strength and degree of disability. There was no evidence of a rela- tionship between the Michigan State M-Scales and degree of disability. The hypothesis of independence for degree of disability and the criterion, Vocational Rehabilitation Potential, also illustrated the relative importance of the control variable in the observed findings. The null hypoth— esis was rejected at well beyond the 1% level of significance, pointing to a definite relationship between degree of dis— ability and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential. Null and alternate hypotheses were formulated to test the relationships between the predictors and Vocational Rehabi— litation Potential. The null hypotheses for the Schiller ego— strength scale and the M—Scales were accepted, indicating no relationships exist between these predictors and the criterion. 56 However, a positive relationship was found to exist between the BarrOn ES scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential; the alternate hypothesis was accepted at the 5% level of significance. Hypotheses were also formulated to test for interaction among various combinations of the scales and the criterion. Although one combination (i.e., the Schiller and M-Scales with the criterion) resulted in significance at the 10% level, there was no other evidence to suggest positive interaction among the three predictors and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential. Conclusions The study provides little support for the two factor theory presented in Chapter I which hypothesizes that bgth ego—strength and motivational levelenwepositively related to degree of success in rehabilitation activity. The study provides some support, however, for the hypothesis that ego- strength is an important intervening variable positively affecting an individual's behavior in rehabilitation activity. One of the predictive instruments, the Barron ES scale, showed promise as a predictor of rehabilitation potential. The control variable, degree of disability, appears to have / accounted for much of the variance which was observed. On the basis of this study, it must be concluded that degree of disability remains the most efficient single predictor of rehabilitation potential. The importance of the control 57 variable on the findings is illustrated again in the suggested relationship between the ego—strength scales and degree of disability. There are two hypothetical explanations for the rela— tionship between the ego—strength scales and the control variable. The first explanation is related to the literacy level of the subjects who completed the scales. Recalling that degree of disability is a composite rating which includes intelligence (and therefore literacy level), it appears the control variable could have negatively influenced the sub- jects' performance on the ego—strength scales. If this assumption is valid, it could be concluded that the control variable tended to mask or depress any relationship which may have existed between the predictors and the criterion. Mitigating against this conclusion, however, is the fact that there is no suggested relationship between degree of disability and the M—Scales. If literacy level acted to depress the scale scores, one would expect the Operation of this effect on all of the scales. The fact that this did not occur leads to another possible explanation of the relationship. The second hypothetical explanation for the relationship between the ego-strength scales and degree of disability is based on the theory of ego—strength which was summarized in Chapter I. In the psychoanalytic literature, it has been postulated that the degree to which an individual becomes overwhelmed by traumatic stimuli is dependent on the strength 58 of his pre—morbid ego. Analysis of the contingency tables (of. Appendix D, Tables 3 and 4) reveals the relationship of the ego-strength scales and degree of disability to be in the direction suggested by psychoanalytic theory; i.e., the milder the disability, the higher the ego—strength, the more severe the disability, the lower the egorstrength. The nature and direction of the relationship suggests that ego- strength is reduced with increasingly severe levels of dis— ability. There are also findings to suggest that the Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating is reduced with increasingly severe levels of disability. The importance of the control variable on the relationships between the ego- strength scales and the criterion therefore becomes apparent. Of the three predictive instruments employed in the study, only Barron's ES scale showed some association with the criterion. The Schiller scale, M—Scales, and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential were found to be mutually exclusive. The relationship between the Barron scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential does not appear to be a strong one on the basis of the findings of the study. However, it is felt that the instrument may have some value as a predictor of rehabilitation potential and the findings justify further experimental use of the scale for this purpose. Discussion The study has several important limitations which bear on the research findings and specific conclusion reached here. Some of the general limiting factors of the study were set forth in Chapter I. One major limitation, common to all personality assessment research, lies in the instruments used as predictors. In this study, only the Barron Scale has been subject to any rigorous validity investigation. The Barron scale has been found useful in measuring ego—strength with several different samples; the author points out, however, that the relationships he found were not to be considered as representing a high order of scientific fact. There have been no validity studies on the Schiller scale. The Michigan State M—Scales were standardized on high school students and the validity information stems largely from the relationship of the scales with measures of academic achievement. On these grounds it is possible to question the instruments used in the study and the findings obtained. Another important limitation of the study rests with the sample selection procedure. To provide a measure of stan— dardization to the study, it was important to select a sample of subjects who were engaging in an uniform rehabilitation activity. Rehabilitation programs are typically tailored to the needs of the individual and it is, therefore, difficult to find subjects engaged in a standardized activity in suf- ficient numbers to satisfy the assumptions of a research design. Although there are many facilities available for the treatment and training of rehabilitation clients, uniform programs for large numbers of clients are available primarily 60 in evaluation programs located in large metropolitan areas. The sample was, therefore, drawn from the client population of a work evaluation program in a large city. Although enough subjects were available, the selection of a sample from an evaluation program has definite drawbacks. The intent of the study was to explore a method for increasing the precision of predicting success in rehabili- tation activity. It is pertinent to question whether sub— jects who are being evaluated are engaged in a typical rehabilitation activity. Given this reservation, it is also pertinent to point out that a predictive study conducted with subjects in an evaluation program becomes a matter of ”testing a test.” If there are questions regarding the validity of the predictive instruments and/or the evaluation program, the error potential becomes apparent. The homogeneity of the sample constitutes another prob— lem. Clients who are referred for work evaluation are typically those without apparent marketable vocational skills. Work evaluation clients have been screened by the referring counselors prior to their acceptance in the work evaluation program. Clients who have definite vocational or training plans and capabilities are not ordinarily referred for work evaluation. The effect is that the work evaluation Client group becomes an attenuated, homogeneous group of ”problem” clients. It is, therefore, necessary that the predictive instruments employed have sufficient power to discriminate 61 within the homogeneous group. Unfortunately, our paper-and- pencil personality inventories do not have sufficient power to accomplish this end. The sample was further attenuated, at the lower end of the distribution, because of certain practical considerations. The study was conducted in a community service agency where it was not possible to satisfy all the demands of rigorous research. As pointed out in Chapter III, only about two- thirds of the clients seen in work evaluation during the study period were selected for the sample. Many clients had to be excluded because they did not complete the program and could not be adequately rated by the work evaluators. Several subjects were excluded because of illiteracy and resulting inability to read and complete the personality inventories. It is reasonable to assume that this group of clients could have been at the lower extreme of the distributions for ego— strength, motivation, and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential. Similarly, it was necessary to exclude several individuals who, in the judgment of the work evaluators, were too emotion— ally disturbed to participate in the study. It appears that these exclusions altered the structure and representativeness of the sample. Finally, several Clients were excluded from the sample on the basis of their scores on the MMPI Lie Scale. Perhaps these individuals would have also contributed to a more heterogeneous sample. Although questions can be raised on the basis of the instruments used and the sample selection procedure, the most 62 important single limitation of the study is the criterion. In Chapter II, a criticism is made of Motto's study on vocational reaction patterns because his criterion is a rating scale which is not related to actual work experience. The same criticism can be made of the Vocational Rehabilita— tion Potential rating. The rating is made by professional work evaluators who have observed clients during a two-week period in a simulated work situation. Although efforts are made to insure the objectivity of the ratings, it is not possible for the ratings to be entirely consistent with the subsequent vocational behavior of Clients on completion of the work evaluation program. The work evaluators cannot be expected to be able to predict vocational potential with accuracy because of the many intervening factors which affect an individual during the post—evaluation, pre-placement period. However, it is precisely these intervening factors which make it difficult to establish a realistic and useful criterion measure. The criterion also limits the research approaches to the problem of the study. The Vocational Rehabilitation Potential rating is a five—point scale which has neither the range nor numerical properties necessary for the assumptions of a correlational research design. The criterion is cate— gorical, rather than continuous and the scale intervals cannot be considered equal. Since the assumptions of continuity, equal—interval scaling and normality could not be met, it was necessary to select a weaker, non-parametric statistic for 63 the design of the study. The use of the multiple contingency analysis model and the partitioning of chi square necessitated a gross dichotomization of predictive and criterion data, further reducing the precision of the statistical analysis. Suggestions for Further Research The study was designed to explore the usefulness of a new method for making predictions of the degree of success of clients in rehabilitation activity. The findings of the study were to constitute the basis for further research recommen- dations on the problem. Although the study yielded primarily negative findings, the research problem remains an interest- ing area for further research. It is concluded that the study did not adequately test the theory set forth in Chapter I but rather eliminated one approach to the problem. There is a definite need to find the instruments which will measure the intervening personality variables which distinguish rehabilitation successes and failures. On the basis of the findings presented here, further experimental use of Barron's ES scale in the prediction of rehabilitation potential is justified. The use of existing instruments designed to measure other personality variables would also be of interest. If existing instruments prove of no value, perhaps a new instrument could be developed which would be specifically designed to assess those personality attributes which are determined to be important in achieving success in rehabilitation activity. 64 The study has several important limitations and future research in the field should be designed to overcome or elim- inate these limitations. Specifically it is recommended that future investigators consider carefully the problem of sample selection and try to avoid selecting an homogeneous group. Considering the relative lack of discriminative precision of existing personality scales, it is necessary to have a heterogeneous and normally-distributed sample which will permit the observation of variance. Perhaps the most important implication for further research illustrated by the study is the need for a realistic, work—related criterion measure which would be amenable to interval scaling. If such a criterion were available, the present study could be redesigned to permit a more precise handling of the data. It is recommended that the study be repeated, using a new criterion measure which would lend itself to a correlational research design. The goal of this prOposed research approach would be to establish the magnitude of any relationships which may exist between personality variables and an individual's degree of success in rehabili— tation activity. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anker, James M. "Chronicity of NeurOpsychiatric Hospitali— zation: A Predictive Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 25 (1961), pp. 425—432. Atkinson, John W. ”Motivational Determinants of Risk- Taking Behavior,” Psychological Review, Vol. 64 (1957), pp. 359-372. Barker, Roger B., Wright, B., Meyerson, L., and Gonick, M. Adjustment to Physical Handicap and Illness. 2nd ed. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953, pp. 92—93. Barron, Frank. ”An Ego—Strength Scale which Predicts Response to Psychotherapy,” in G. Welsh and W. Dahl- strom (eds.), Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. . ”An Ego—Strength Scale which Predicts Response to Psychotherapy,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 17 (1953). pp. 327-333. Block, Jack. ”Ego—Strength and Conflict Discrimination; A Failure of Replication,” Journal of Consulting Psycho— lPsYl V01. 25 (1961). pp. 551—552. Connors, J. Edward, Wolkon, G., Haefner, D., and Stotsky, B. ”Outcome of Post—Hospital Rehabilitative Treatment of Mental Patients as a Function of Ego—Strength,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 7 (1960), pp. 2784282. Crites, John O. ”Ego-Strength in Relation to Vocational Interest Development,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 7 (1960), pp. 137—143. Danielson, Richard H. ”A Pilot Follow—Up Study of a Work Evaluation Program.H Unpublished paper, 1957. Ends, E. J. and Page, C. ”Functional Relationships Among Measures of Anxiety, Ego—Strength and Adjustment,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 13 (1957), pp. 148—150. 65 66 Farquhar, William F. "An Integrated Attack on Academic Motivation,"AJournal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 9 (1962), pp. 84:86. "The Predictive Efficiency of the Michigan State M—Scales." A Paper presented at the American Personnel ang Guidance Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois, 19 2. Fenichel, Otto. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1945, pp. 117-118. Gottesman, Irving I. "More Construct Validation of the Ego- Strength Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 23 (1959), pp. 3421346. Haber, Wilfred. ”The Contribution of Selected Variables to Success or Failure in a Vocational Rehabilitation Evaluation." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 20, New York University (1960), pp. 4171-4172. King, Gerald F. and Schiller, M. ”Ego-Strength and Type of Defensive Behavior,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 (1960), pp. 215—217. Kleinmuntz, Benjamin. ‘"An Extension of the Construct Valid- ity of the Ego-Stren th Scale,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 1960), pp. 463-464. Korman, Maurice. ”Ego—Strength and Conflict Discrimination: An Experimental Construct Validation of the Ego- Strength Scale," Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 24 (1960), pp. 294-298. Lancaster, H. O. ”The Derivation and Partition of X2 in Certain Discrete Distributions,” Biometrika, Vol. 36 (1949). pp. 117-129. McClelland, David C. (ed.). Studies in Motivation. New York: Appelton-Century—Crofts, Inc., 1955, p. 226. McClelland, David C. and Atkinson, J. (eds.). The Achieve- ment Motive. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953, p. 28. McPhee, William M. and Magleby, F. ”Success and Failure in Vocational Rehabilitation,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 38 (1960), pp. 497-499. Mayo, Leonard W. and Riviere M. "Rehabilitation Codes and Intake Forms.” New York: New York Association for the Aid of Crippled Children, 1955. 67 Mayo, Samuel T. ”Recent Techniques for Analyzing Association in Contingency Tables as Applied to an Analytical. Follow—Up Survey of Education Graduates," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 25 (1957), pp. 203—232. . "Toward Strengthening the Contingency Table as a Statistical Method,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 (1959). pp. 461—470. Meehl, Paul E. and Hathaway, S. ”The K Factor as a Suppressor Variable in the MMPI,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 30 (1946), pp. 525-564. Motto, Joseph J. ”Stability of Work Experience as a Predictor of Success in Terminal Vocational Training,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 38 (1960), pp. 720—723. Murray, Henry A. and Kluckhorn, C. ”Outline of a Conception of Personality,” in C. Kluckhorn, H. Murray, and D. Schneider (eds.), Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955, pp. 24-26. Nadler, Eugene B. ”Prediction of the Sheltered ShOp Work Performance of Individuals with Severe Physical Dis- ability,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 36 (1957), pp. 95—98. Nadler, Eugene B. and Shontz, F. ”A Factor Analytic Study of Motivational Patterns in a Sheltered ShOp,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37 (1959), pp. 444-449. Neff, Walter S. ”The Use of the Rorschach in Distinguishing Vocationally Rehabilitable Groups,” Journal of Counsel— ing Psychology, Vol. 2 (1955), pp. 207—211. Payne, David A. ”A Dimension Analysis of the Academic Self- Concept of Eleventh Grade Under- and Over-Achieving Students.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Quay, H. ”The Performance of Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients on the Ego-Strength Scale of the MMPI,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 11 (1955), pp. 403—405. Safian, Murry Z. ”A Study of Certain Psychological Factors in the Rehabilitation of Potentially Employable Home— bound Adults,” Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 19, New York University (1959), p. 3372. 68 Schiller, Marvin. ”Ego-Strength, Manifest Anxiety, and Defensiveness.” Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1958. . "Ego-Strength in Student Leadership Assessment: A Pattern-Analytic Investigation.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. Stotsky, Bernard A. and Weinberg, H. ”The Prediction of the Psychiatric Patient's Work Adjustment,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 3 (1956), pp. 3-7. Sutcliffe, J. P. ”A General Method of Analysis of Frequency Data for Multiple Classification Designs,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 54 (1957), pp. 134—137. Taft, R. ”The Validity of the Barron Ego-Strength Scale and the Welsh Anxiety Index,” Journal of Consulting Psy- chology, Vol. 21 (1957), pp. 247-249. Tamkin, Arthur S. ”An Evaluation of the Construct Validity of Barron?s Ego-Strength Scale,” Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 13 (1957), pp. 156—158. Tamkin, Arthur S. and Klett, C. ”Barron‘s Ego—Strength Scale: A Replication of an Evaluation of Its Construct Validity,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 21 (1957). p. 412. Taylor, Ronald G. and Farquhar, W. ”Personality Motivation and Achievement.” A Paper presented at the American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention, Denver, Colorado, 1961. Thorpe, Marion D. ”The Factored Dimensions of an Objective Inventory of Academic Motivation Based on Eleventh Grade Male Over- and Under-Achievers.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Tolman, Edward C. ”A Psychological Model,” in T. Parsons and E. Schils (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959, pp. 279-302. Wirt, Robert D. ”Actuarial Prediction,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 20 (1956), pp. 123-124. . ”Further Validation of the Ego-Strength Scale,” . Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 19 (1955), p.444, Wright, Beatrice A. Physical Disability--A Psychological Approach. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960, pp. 371-377. 59 Wright, Beatrice A. ”Some Issues Concerning Psychology and Rehabilitation,” Rehabilitation Literature, Vol. 22 (1961), pp. 2—9. APPENDIX A The Michigan State M-Scales The Generalized Situational Choice Inventory The Preferred Job Characteristics Scale The Word Rating List The Human Trait Inventory The Industrial Personnel Inventory Barron's Ego-Strength Scale Schiller's Ego-Strength Scale The MMPI Lie Scale 70 71 THE GENERALIZED SITUATIONAL CHOICE INVENTORY This is a survey of your choices. There are no right or wrong answers. The results will not affect you in any way. The inventory is made up of pairs of statements. Read each pair carefully. Circle the one you would most prefer or like to do. Answer all questions as honestly and frankly as you can. Remember, this is about you and you alone. This is not about what you can do, but what you would like to do. EXAMPLE: I would prefer to: 1. Go to a party, or Read a book II II This person circles a which means that he would prefer to go to a party to reading a book. If you do not have any questions, turn to the next page and answer all the questions. Do not skip any question! Work as fast as you can and do not spend too much time on any one question. Remember, this is not a survey of what you can do but of what you prefer to do. 72 I would prefer to: 1. I would 6. 10. I would 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. a) Be quick, but often incorrect, or Be slow, but often correct Work hard for what I get, or Just get what I want Make something planned by somebody else Finish a job slowly, but in an orderly manner, or ) Make something I have planned myself, or ) Finish a job in a hurry, but less carefully prefer to: a) Develop a new product which may or may not be good, or b) Make a product as good as the best one available a Be successful in finishing a job, or b Finish a job Play a game against experts and lose but learn how to play better, or Play a game against inexperienced players and win sometimes wrong, or Take your time before you decide and usually be right I ) a) Make quick decisions and sometimes be right and ) I Be known to my family as a smart person, or Be known to my family as a practical person prefer to: a) Be a person who takes it easy, or b Be a person of action Finish a job which I think is hard, or Finish a job which others think is hard C‘QJ Be thought of as being strong but not very smart, or Be thought of as being weak but smart 0‘9) U'Q) Take a long time to figure out a problem for myself Be known as a person with much ability, or ) Have someone show me how to work out a problem, or ) Be known as a person with enough ability U‘ID 73 I would prefer to: l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. I would 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. I would 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. a) b) 0‘9: 0‘9) 3 i I 0‘!” :3 Work at many less important jobs which I know I could finish, or Work at one very important job which may never be entirely—TInished in my life-time Be paid for how well I did a job, or Be paid the same amount no matter how I did the job. Work fast just "skimming" along, or Work slowly but very carefully Do a less recognized but complete job, or Do a recognized but incomplete job Have a better job than my father has, or Have a job like my father has prefer to: a) Have average ability and be liked by many people, or b Have superior ability but not be liked by as many peOple a) Be an able person, or b Be rich a) Be paid for the amount of work I did, or b Be paid by the hour a) Work hard in everything I do, or b Work at things as they come along a) Have a hard job which pays well, or b Have an easier job which pays less prefer to: a Be known for what I could_d9, or b Be known for what I g2, a) Think of an idea that nobody has every thought of, or b Set a world‘s speed record a) Learn by defeating an inexperienced player, or b Learn by defeating an expert a) Save enough money to buy something with cash, or b Buy something on credit and pay for it as I use it a Do what I think is right, or b Do what others think is right 74 I would prefer to: 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. I would 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. I would 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. a) Be known as a person who is able to do many things, or Be known as an expert Work overtime to make more money, or Get more training to make more money Earn a great deal of money Wait ten years and receive fame throughout the nation, or ) 3 Inherit a great deal of money, or ) ) Receive fame in my home town overnight a) Plan my life in advance, or Live my life from day to day prefer to: a) Have decisions made for me, or b Make my own decisions a) Accomplish a difficult task well, or b Accomplish a difficult task fast a) Live a life of leisure, or b Live a life of many new experiences a) Enjoy myself at a museum, or b Enjoy myself at a night club a) Have a great deal of influence over peOple, or b Have a great deal of ambition prefer to: a) Play a "tie” game with an expert, or b Win a game from an inexperienced player Carry out the plays of others, or Create something of my own O‘Q) ) Be known as a ”good guy,‘ or 0‘03 Be known as a person who does things well Be very happy, or Have lots of money U'QJ Be known as a person who knows his own mind, or Be known as a person who gets help in making decisions U‘Q) 75 I would prefer to: 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. I would 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. a) Do something like everyone else, or b Do something outstanding a) Put together a new object, or b Develop new ideas 3) Be demanding on myself to do good work, or Be demanding on my friends so that they will do good work a) Accept what someone else says even though I don't agree, or b) Argue for what I believe to be right a) Do something that I have done before, or Do something that I never have done before prefer to: a) Work hard enough to be outstanding, or b Work hard enough to pass my courses Discover a gold mine, or Discover a new medicine U'Q) Have one of my children win a beauty contest, or Have one of my children win a college scholarship C‘ID O‘ID Be the happiest person in the world Learn by defeating an experienced player, or ) Be the smartest person in the world, or ) Learn by losing to an expert O‘CD 76 II PREFERRED JOB CHARACTERISTICS SCALE Directions: What kind of a job do you prefer? In the follow- ing items you will find two job characteristics listed together. Circle the one characteristic you would want most in a job. Be sure to circle only one choice for each pair of statements. 29 not skip 221 items. In some cases, it will be hard to make a cHEIce because you may want to choose both or neither. But remember, ygg must make 3 choice. EXAMPLE: I prefer: 1. Q? A job which is exciting b A job where there are no layoffs This person circles "a" which means that he prefers an exciting job. This is a survey to find out your job preferences. There are 22 right 23 wrong answers. The results will not affect you in any way. If you have no questions, turn the page and begin! I prefer: 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 0‘93 W 0‘“) 0‘0) o‘m W Vv VV U'ID I prefer: 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. OJ O‘I-D 0" 0‘9) 0‘93 WWWVVW O‘ID I prefer: 66. 57. 68. 0.) O" U‘ vvvv a b job job job job want job job done h>tl> H3>Zl> 3>II> A job A job 77 where my opinion is valued with short working hours where which which where which where and skills A job A job of my A job A job which where life which where I solve problems no one else can permits me to take days off when does not require a college education I could decide hOW the work is to be pays well and requires little effort I could express my ideas, talents, requires little thinking I could continue to learn the rest absorbs my interests I make few if any decisions A job where I could become known for outstanding accomplishments A job A job A job A job A job A job A job done A job where which which where which which where where and skills A job A job of my A job A job A job which where life where I could not be fired has high work standards permits me to take days off when I want I solve problems no one else can does not require a college education pays well and requires little effort I could decide how the work is to be I could express my ideas, talents, requies little thinking I could continue to learn the rest I make few if any decisions with short working hours which absorbs my interests 69. 70. I prefer: 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 78. 79. 80. :3 O” Q) wvvw 0‘93 2% I prefer: 81. a) 78 A job where my opinion is valued A job where I could not be fired A job which does not require a high school education A job A job A job done A job A job of my A job A job A job A job want A job which has high work standards which requires little thinking where I could decide how the work is to be with short working hours where I could continue to learn the rest life which does not tie me dowm which absorbs my interests where my opinion is valued which permits me to take days off when I where I could become known for outstanding accomplishments A job A job A job A job done A job A job A job which does not require a college education which pays well and requires little effort which has high work standards where I could decide how the work is to be where I make few if any decisions with short working hours where I could express my ideas, talents, and skills A job A job of my A job A job A job A job which does not tie me dowm where I could continue to learn the rest life where I could not be fired which absorbs my interests which does not require a college education where my opinion is valued 82. 83. 84. 85. SD 0" ID 0‘93 0'!” V V V V VV W O” I prefer: 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 0‘93 0'9) WW U'SD W :3 :3 I prefer: 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. :3 A job where A job where A job where A job where of my life A job which A job which A job where 79 I make few if any decisions I solve I could I‘could permits absorbs I could accomplishments A job which requires little thinking problems no one else can not be fired continue to learn the rest me to take days off when I my interests become known for outstanding job which has high work standards job where I make few if any decisions job with short working hours job where job where nd skills I could I could A A A A job where I solve problems A A a not be fired express my ideas, talents, A job which does not require a college education A job which A job which A job where absorbs my interests requires little thinking my opinion is valued A job where I make few if any decisions A job where I could become known for outstanding accomplishments job with short working hours job which has high work standards job where job where job where done A job where and skills A job which want I solve I could I could A A A job which does not tie me down A A A I could permits problems no one else can not be fired decide how the work is to be express my ideas, talents, me to take days off when I I prefer: 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. a b 0‘9) 0‘9) 0‘9) 0‘9) I prefer: 101. 102. 103. 0‘9) O" WWVV O‘QJ I A job which A job where of my life 80 does not require a college education I could continue to learn the rest A job where my opinion is valued A job where I make few if any decisions A job with short working hours A job where I could become known for Outstanding accomplishments A job which does not tie me down A job which has high work standards A job which does not require a college education A job where I could express my ideas, talents, and skills A job where Of my life A job which A job which A job which A job which A job where I could continue to learn the rest pays well and requires little effort absorbs my interests requires little thinking requires little thinking I solve problems no one else can 81 III WORD RATING LIST Following is a list of words employers may use to describe workers. You are to rate yourself on each word gs you think your employer would rate you. Es sure pg describe yourself gs your employer would, not gs you would describe yourself. Read each word carefully, then decide which of the following ratings would be chosen by your employer to describe you. Rating Number Meaning Of Number 1 This word would gsygp describe me. 2 This word sometimes describes me. 3 This word usually describes me. 4 This word always describes me. After you decide how your employer might rate you, circle the proper number. EXAMPLE: o co m 8 :> E5 5 3 0) O' (I) H Employers feel that I am: 2 m+> D < 1. Happy 1 @ 3 4 This person has chosen rating number ”2” for the word "happy." This means that he feels that his employers would say that the word ”happy" sometimes describes him. If you do not have any questions, turn to the next page and start rating the words. Do not skip any words. Work as fast Remember, you are to rate each of the words as you think an employer would in describing you. ”3 (a QE)I>>82 gh n-Ir-If/l - r—IUJ S—d-Pr—Ih Fi-Pr—Ih O ® E 5 3 > E 5 3 momI—I (DOT/2H ZVJD< zmbs: Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 104. patient 1 2 3 4 124. different 1 2 3 4 105. talented I 2 3 4 125. discontented 2 3 4 106. dull 1 2 3 4 126. flighty 1 2 3 4 107. inefficient 1 2 3 4 127. responsible 1 2 3 4 108. practical l 2 3 4 128. original 1 2 3 4 Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 109. confident 1 2 3 4 129. consistent 1 2 3 4 110. average 1 2 3 4 130. intelligent l 2 3 4 111. logical 1 2 3 4 131. distractable 1 2 3 4 112. unsuccessful 1 2 3 4 132. in-the—know l 2 3 4 113. smart 1 2 3 4 133. Childish 1 2 3 4 Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 114. successful 1 2 3 4 134. rebellious 1 2 3 4 115. "blah" l 2 3 4 135. nervous I 2 3 4 116. careful 1 2 3 4 136. orderly 1 2 3 4 117. thorough 1 2 3 4 137. daring l 2 3 4 118. orderly l 2 3 4 138. cold 1 2 3 4 Employers feel that I am: N.S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 119. purposeful 1 2 3 4 139. below average 1 2 3 4 120. uninterested 1 2 3 4 140. reckless l 2 3 4 121. a ”putter-offer“ l 2 3 4 141. dependable 1 2 3 4 122. unreliable 1 2 3 4 142. a person who 1 2 3 4 postpones 123. studious 1 2 3 4 143. a goof off 1 2 3 4 3 83 8 Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 144. exacting l 2 3 4 164. contented 1 2 3 4 145. lazy 2 3 4 165. outsider 1 2 3 4 146. stubborn l 2 3 4 166. a person who 1 2 3 4 delays 147. perfectionistic 1 2 3 4 167. indecisive l 2 3 4 148. accepting l 2 3 4 168. irresponsible 1 2 3 4 Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 149. carefree 1 2 3 4 169. concerned 1 2 3 4 150. competitive l 2 3 4 170. an achiever 1 2 3 4 151. unreasonable 1 2 3 4 171. a planner l 2 3 4 152. a ”wheel” 1 2 3 4 172. competent 1 2 3 4 153. a "grind" l 2 3 4 173. inconsistent 1 2 3 4 Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 154. fool—hearty 1 2 3 4 174. teachable 1 2 3 4 155. intellectual 1 2 3 4 175. reasonable 1 2 3 4 156. retiring 1 2 3 4 176. impatient 1 2 3 4 157. alert 1 2 3 4 177. friendly 1 2 3 4 158. above average 1 2 3 4 178. fault—finding 1 2 3 4 Employers feel that I am: N S U A Employers feel that I am: N S U A 159. productive 1 2 3 4 179. dominant 1 2 3 4 160. a ”brain" 1 2 3 4 180. inaccurate l 2 3 4 161. persuadeable l 2 3 4 181. inactive 1 2 3 4 162. a thinker 1 2 3 4 182. efficient l 2 3 4 163. ambitious 1 2 3 4 183. easily distracted l 2 3 4 oo 1: U) Q) 53:: a P H % CDCDCUCU >553 (Domr—I z m D-< Employers feel that I am: N S U A 184. reliable l 2 3 4 185. serious 1 3 4 186. pushed l 2 3 4 85 HUMAN TRAIT INVENTORY Directions: Following is a list of statements about YOU. Read each statement carefully! Then decide whether thIS statement is how you always feel, usually feel, sometimes feel, or never feel. Rating Number Meaning of Number 1 This statement would never describe the way I feel. 2 This statement sometimes describes the way I feel. 3 This statement usually describes the way I feel. 4 This statement always describes the way I feel. Answer each statement. DO not leave any blank. There are no right or wrong answers. The answers apply only to you. The way you answer these statements will not affect you in any way. Circle the number that best describes how you feel. % r-I U) $4 It/J I_I >3 0) (DO) CU ((3 EXAMPLE: 3 8.5 8 5 z ai+> :n < 1. I feel it is always a good thing to be honest I @ 3 4 This person circles number ”2” which means that he sometimes feels this way. It is best to Circle your first impression. Try not to change your answer. If you have no questions, turn the page and begin! Remember to answer the statements as they apply to you! 0') (D % firm a p H a O O O O > E 5 3 O O m H z m D 4 187. I like collecting flowers or growing 1 2 3 4 house plants 188. Many times I become so excited I find it hard to go to sleep 1 2 3 4 189. I day dream frequently 1 2 3 4 190. I work things out for myself rather than have a friend show me how 1 2 3 4 191. I have been quite independent and free from family rule 1 2 3 4 192. I have played that I am sick to get out of doing something 1 2 3 4 193. When I have an Opinion, I stand up for it 1 2 3 4 194. I have difficulty working under strict rules and regulations 1 2 3 4 195. I flirt l 2 3 4 196. I have done something that is considered dangerous just for the thrill of it 1 2 3 4 197. I am said to be quick tempered 1 2 3 4 198. There was a time in my life when I liked to play with dolls 1 2 3 4 199. I learn slowly 1 2 3 4 200. It would be worthwhile to belong to several clubs or lodges l 2 3 4 201. My parents Object to the friends I choose 1 2 3 4 202. I have trouble with my muscles twitching or jumping l 2 3 4 203. I plan my activities in advance 1 2 3 4 204. I think I would like the work of a teacher 1 2 3 4 205. I want very much to be a success 1 2 3 4 87 m A... ASS”; (1)065“ 55:: z m D < 206. One or more times a week I suddenly feel hot all over for no apparent reason 1 2 4 207. I work under a great deal of tension 1 2 3 4 208. I would be uneasy if some of my family were in trouble with the police 1 2 3 4 209. I get disgusted with myself if I don't do as well as I should 1 2 3 4 210. I like to plan my activities in advance 1 2 3 4 211. I wish I were a child again 1 2 3 4 212. I feel cross and grouchy without good reason 1 2 3 4 213. I like being with peOple in social gatherings 1 2 3 4 214. Some subjects are so unpleasant to me that I can't talk about them 1 2 3 4 215. I feel that I haven't any goals or purpose inlife 1234 216. I like to be consistent in the things I do 1 2 3 4 217. I like to go to the movies more than once a week 1 2 3 4 218. I would like to belong to a motorcycle Club 1 2 3 4 88 INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL INVENTORY Directions: Read each statement and decide whether it is TRUE gs applied pg you or FALSE gs applied pg you. If you think a statement is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE, as applied to you, then put an ”X” to the right of the statement under the column headed TRUE. If a statement is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as applied to you, then put an ”X" to the right of the statement under the column headed FALSE. Remember to give your own Opinion of yourself. The results will not affect you in any way. DO not leave any blank _____—__.._—.— spaces. 10. 11. l2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 89 I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces. I am made nervous by certain animals. I stick with long term commitments even if they turn out to be foolish later on. I have had no difficulty in keeping my balance in walking. I prefer an ordered and planned approach to life. Once in a while I think of things too bad to talk about. I frequently find myself worrying about something. I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends. I am not afraid of fire. I feel that everyone should consider his own enjoyment and satisfaction before anyone elses. When things get boring my mind sometimes shifts from the main topic under consideration. At times I feel like swearing. Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the Opposite of what they request, even though I know they are right. I often have difficulty understanding the actions of those around me. I very much like horseback riding. I think Lincoln was greater than Washington. If I were an artist I would like to draw children. I do not always tell the truth. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. TRUE FALSE ‘19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 90 I have strange and peculiar thoughts. I go to church almost every week. I feel unable to tell anyone all about myself. I do many things which I regret after- wards (I regret things more or more often than others seem to). Going along with all the demands of a supervisor is often a better approach than trying to tell him what I think, I do not read an editorial in the news- paper every day. Sometimes I enjoy hurting peOple I love. When someone says silly or ignorant things about something I know about, I try to set him right. Sometimes some unimportant thought will run through my mind and bother me for days. I get mad easily and then get over it soon. If I were an artist I would like to draw flowers. I get angry sometimes. I am easily downed in an argument. My way of doing things is apt to be misunderstood by others. Hesitation and prolonged evaluation are valuable techniques to use when making decisions. I have a good appetite. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would. Once in a while I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do today. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. TRUE FALSE 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 91 People often make favorable comments about my ability to think and speak in a logical and coherent manner. 37. When I get bored I Often like to stir up some excitement. 38. I prefer dealing with the present because the future is often too unclear. 39. Once I start work on something it is hard to get away from it. 40. I like collecting flowers or growing house plants. 41. Sometimes when I am not feeling well I am cross. 42. I do not like to see women smoke. 43. I have a cough most of the time. 44. Evil spirits possess me at times. 45. If a task proves too difficult for me I try to avoid it in the future if I can.46. Living and working by a schedule takes most of the challenge out of tackling a problem. 7. My table manners are not quite as good at home as when I am out in company. 48. I feel weak all over much of the time. 49. I believe that it is important to always keep an eye open for the person who might try to take over my job. 50. I usually need to be encouraged when I am at work. 51. I have found myself able to predict the behavior of others. 52. When I get involved with a boring topic I tend to day dream. 53. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen I would probably do it. 54. TRUE FALSE 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 92 In my home we have always had the ordin- ary necessities (such as enough food, clothing,etc.). I understand myself and many of the motives underlying my behavior. I have had some very unusual religious experiences. I like to flirt. I like to talk about sex. I would rather win than lose in a game. I am afraid of finding myself in a closet or small closed space. I feel sympathetic toward peOple who tend to hang on to their griefs and troubles. I do not like to make long term promises because I have found that they may be hard to keep. I am not certain of my ability or of the goals I should like to strive for. Often I cross the street in order not to meet someone I see. I like to know some important peOple because it makes me feel important. I have had blank spells in which my activities were interrupted and I did not know what was going on around me. I feel that my ideas are often as good or better than my superior's and I like to express them. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. People think I know what I am talking about even though I may be really con— fused about a topic. When I am with people I am bothered by hearing very queer things. I do not like everyone I know. I like science. 55- 56. 57. 58. 59- 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. pm FALSE 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 93 I never attend a sexy show if I can avoid it. On occasion I have disturbing worries, but that is only natural. At times I hear so well it bothers me. I brood a great deal. I gossip a little at times. I pray several times every week. During the past few years I have been well most of the time. Dirt frightens or disgusts me. I tend to have the ability to foretell and be prepared for future events. The man who had most to do with me when I was a child (such as my father, step- father, etc.)was very strict with me. Sometimes at elections I vote for men about whom I know very little. Christ performed miracles such as changing water into wine. I find no difficulty in applying my mind to an assigned tOpic. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. I would certainly enjoy beating a crook at his own game. I have never had a fainting spell. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. I use concepts which refer to real things and experiences rather than those that just pOp into my mind. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. I have no trouble making a choice between two alternative courses of action. My skin seems to be unusually sensitive to touch. 92. 93. TRUE FALSE 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 94 I never have problems with nervousness. I have had very peculiar and strange experiences. I do not mind handling a job all alone even if it means utter solitude for awhile. I feel tired a good deal Of the time. One or more members of my family is very nervous. I can be friendly with peOple who do things which I consider wrong. I have diarrhea once a month or more. I have met problems so full of possi- bilities that I have been unable to make up my mind about them. I like to cook. I believe my sins are unpardonable. At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I cannot control. When I leave home I do not worry about whether the door is locked and the windows closed. My plans have frequently seemed so full of difficulties that I have had to give them up. My hands have not become clumsy or awkward. I am attracted by members of the Opposite sex. I seldom worry about my health. I have often been frightened in the middle of the night. I do not mind having responsibilities no matter how big they may be. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. Parts of my body often have feelings like burning, tinglin , crawling, or like "going to sleep.' 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. TRUE FALSE APPENDIX B Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services—-Work Evaluation Department Research Keysort Card; The Vocational Rehabilitation Potential Rating The Degree of Disability Rating Explanation of the Keysort Card The card was developed by the Work Evaluation Depart- ment of VGRS for the purpose of assembling material in client folders to facilitate the analysis of these data. The center section of the card is used for recording identifying inform— ation, diagnoses and raw performance scores on specific job tasks. Percentile rank norm tables have now been constructed for most of the job tasks. Items at the tOp of the card include sociological material and employment status both pre- and post-work evaluation. The bottom of the card includes the Degree of Diability rating, derived from nature of im— pairment, type and degree of involvement by areas. The Work Evaluators make the Degree of Disability ratings, based on the medical, psychological, and other data in the client folders. The Vocational Rehabilitation rating is located at the bottom left of the card. This rating represents the Work Evaluators' estimate of the client's vocational rehabilitation potential on completion of the work evaluation program. The two side rows on the card are used to indicate the specific job samples to which the client has been exposed. 95 W.).\....WWW.\ WWWDWWWWfi ND .NWNWWWNWWWWfiNDW«.\W\.\~._.-.-_.x... 'llNHBINI 1 22.8.5. mmu_>mum zo_.r<.:::m I kzmihzcdmo zO_Hm v5.03 $2.205 .— \.. muz—me m3w_>wx c2322; cur—ho mu» I mmz_:u<2 42.—um MALE—m .). ozEuwx 2 EEE . . . . 45:28 .55 . x m L .193.- 3mm zofiommmz. - ozEBm >4m2mmm< .2255 :2. «mike .xuaz “E: 5.8 £55m 35:2: 1/ uz:.<._._0u mium Um mhw>_z WNMQ‘M‘DNEDOS SUHVD THLHI'II NMONXNI’I 31EVAO'HW3NH "IVNOISUEMICI 0334311345 BAILLLHJWOD maams OTI'IIMSNI‘I 0311IMS'IW35 GTI‘IIXS 3Nla1lnfl 3Al13310¥d 'lVNOSHld DIlSSWOO 1V3l8313 'IVNOISSEJOIM 3931103 HlZl‘HLOl H3AO 9 $9 APPENDIX C Types of Impairments Classified According to the Degree of Disability Rating Scale 97 98 I. Degree of Disability Rating: Mild (n = 18) A. Diagnoses KOCI) %O\ U‘I—P'UJTDH Obesity; Dull Normal Intelligence No Physical or Mental Impairment No Physical or Mental Impairment Perirectal Abscess, Multiple with Colostomy Poliomyelitis with Residual Weakness, Lower Extremities Rheumatoid Arthritis Osteoarthritis, Hips and Knees; Compound Fracture, Right Femur Educational Retardation, Five Years Herniated Lumbar Disc, Post-Laminectomy Status No Physical or Mental Impairment Dull Normal Intelligence; Anxiety Reaction Personality Disorder, Inadequate Personality Dull Normal Intelligence; Immaturity Obesity; Anxiety Reaction Rheumatoid Arthritis, Generalized No Physical or Mental Impairment No Physical or Mental Impairment Pleurisy, Inactive II. Degree of Disability Rating: Moderate (n = 32) A. Diagnoses \OODONKD 41" W10 i—J }_1 O 11. 12. 13. 14. Absence of Irises, Congenital; Cataracts, Bi— lateral; Glaucoma; Dull Normal Intelligence Alcoholism, Chronic; Borderline Intelligence Ulcerative Colitis, Acute and Chronic; Schizo— phrenic Reaction, in Remission Poliomyelitis with Residual Flaccid Paralysis, Lower Extremities Borderline Intelligence; Anxiety Reaction Cerebral Palsy with Athetosis, Marked Schizophrenic Reaction, Paranoid Type Poliomyelitis with Residual Paralysis, Left Leg; Hypertension; Obesity MyOpia, Severe; Anxiety Reaction; Dull Normal Intelligence Emotional Disorder, Unspecified Organic Heart Disease, Congenital, III—C Ankylosis, Right Hip; Deforming Spondylitis; Hearing Loss, Bilateral Personality Trait Disturbance, Unspecified A. 99 Diagnoses (continued) 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Low Back Syndrome with Functional Overlay Schizoid Personality with Compulsive Traits; Supernumerary Digit, Right Hand Post—Gastrectomy Syndrome with Malnutrition Obesity; Emotional Disorder, Unspecified Personality Disorder, Unspecified Probable Organic Brain Syndrome with Borderline Intelligence Hearing Loss, Congenital, Bilateral; Loss of Vision, Congenital, Left Eye Cerebral Palsy with Weakness, Left Arm and Leg; High Frequency Hearing Loss Cerebral Palsy with Borderline Intelligence Schizophrenic Reaction, Chronic; Probable Gastritis with Recurring Hematemesis Reactive Depression with Hysterical and Immature Tendencies Poliomyelitis with Residual Weakness, Right Lower Extremity Left Hemiparesis; Dull Normal Intelligence EncephaIOpathy with Speech Defect and Poor Manual Dexterity Involutional Psychotic Reaction; Obesity Cerebral Palsy with Spastic Righ Hemiparesis and Spastic Deformity, Right Hand and Arm Rheumatoid Arthritis; Pulmonary Tuberculosis, Remote Herniated Lumbar Disc with Cord Compression, Post—Laminectomy Status III. Degree of Disability Rating: Severe (n = 8) A. Diagnoses l. Poliomyelitis with Paraplegia, Scoliosis, Lordosis and Other Spinal Deformity 2. Schizoid Personality 3. Hydrocephalus, Congenital with Spastic Quadriplegia A. Borderline Intelligence 5. Cerebral Palsy with Speech Involvement and Athetoid Movements, Hands and Face 6. Schizophrenic Reaction, Simple Type 7. Conversion Reaction, Right Hand and Arm 8. Choreoathetosis, Cause Undetermined; Post— Mechanothalamotomy APPENDIX D Contingency Tables Vocational Rehabilitation Potential and Degree of Disability Barron's ES Scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential Barron's ES Scale and Degree of Disability Schiller’s Ego-Strength Scale and Degree of Disability lOO 101 1'. .41 *1 CONTINGENCY TABLE 1.——Vocational Rehabilitation Potential (VRP) rating and Degree of Disability (DD) rating ‘ High VRP LOW VRP 1 O = 17 O = 1 Mild E = 9.310 E = 8.689 n=l8 DD O—E = 7.690 O—E = —7.689 O = 12 O = 20 Moderate E = 16.551 E = 15.448 n=32 DD O—E = —A 551 O—E = A 552 O = 1 O = 7 Severe E = 4.137 E = 3.862 n=8 DD O—E = —3.137 O—E = 3.138 n = 28 n = 30 N=58 2 observed frequency = expected frequency mo 102 CONTINGENCY TABLE 2.——Barron's ES scale and Vocational Rehabilitation Potential (VRP) rating High ES Low ES 0 2 l9 0 = 10 High E = 15 E = 14 n=3O VRP O-E = A O—E = .4 O = ll 0 = l8 Low E = 15 E = 14 n=38 VRP O-E = —A O—E = 4 n = 29 n = 29 N=58 observed frequency expected frequency O H II Mild DD Moderate DD Severe DD 103 CONTINGENCY TABLE 3.-—Barron's ES scale Degree of Disability (DD) rating and ["110 H II High ES Low ES 0 = 13 O = 5 E: 9 E: 9 n=18 0—E= A o—E=—A 0—12 0:20 E=16 E=16 n=32 O-Ez—LL O—E= A 0: A O: A E: A E: 4 n=8 O—E= o O—E= o n—29 n-29 N=58 observed frequency expected frequency 104 CONTINGENCY TABLE 4.——Schiller's e o—strength scale and Degree of Disability (DD High Schiller Low Schiller 0 = 12 0 = 6 Mild E = 9 E = 9 n=18 DD O—E = 3 0—E = —3 o = 16 o = 16 Moderate E = 16 E = 16 n=32 DD O-E = 0 O—E = 0 Severe E = A E = 4 n=8 DD O—E = —3 O—E = 3 n z 29 n = 29 N258 observed frequency expected frequency ['11 II II mm USE only ' £88m USE aghast-Y "Om-.1965 a; W "I1111111111111“