AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAiN PERSONAUTY
FACTORS AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN
THE SYATE UNWERS‘TY COLLEGE:

GENESEO , HEW YORK

Thesis 500 We Daqmo 05' Ea. D.
MlCHEGAN SHTE UNWERSKTY

Roy Edward McTarnaghan
1962

:«i
(f3

in

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Analysis of Certain Personality Factors and
Academic Success in the State University
College, Geneseo, New York.

presented by

Roy Edward McTarnaghan

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ed . D a degree in Educat ion

    

Maw professor

Date 10/29! 62

0-169

  

LIBRARY "
Michigan State ..
University

 
     

IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII

1293 01104 3175

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

  

om: DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY FACTORS
AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN THE
STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, GENESEO, NEW YORK

by Roy Edward McTarnaghan

THE PROBLEM. It was the primary purpose of this study to investigate

 

the relationship of two personality scales to academic success among
freshmen at the State University College, Geneseo, New York. The two
scales used were: The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the Index of
Adjustment and Values developed by Robert Bills.

Academic pre-admissions data such as high school average, and
entrance examination scores have been used to predict college achieve-
ment with general success. However, the variation of individuals from
expected patterns of achievement has been often linked to personality
factors and adjustment to the new environment.

In this study it was hypothesized that adjustment to the initial
collegiate experience would be influenced to a significant degree by the
factors of an individual‘s self-perception, his perception of others and

his dogmatic set toward problems of values.

METHODOLOGY. The Geneseo State freshman class during the 1960-61

 

academic year was used to build a predicted college average. The
individual predictors were high school average, School and College
Abilities Test scores, and C00perative English Test scores. The criterion
measure was obtained college average.

From the data collected for the 1960-61 freshmen, predicted averages
were computed for all entering freshmen to Geneseo State in September

1961.

Roy Edward MC Tarnaghan

During the fall semester 1961, the two personality scales of
dogmatism and perception were administered to all freshmen. The
scales were identified as a "Freshman Questionnaire, " with no impli-
cation of threat to the respondents. After these test results were
analyzed, they were combined with the pre-admissions factors of high
school average and entrance examination scores in order that analyses
could be made to evaluate predictive characteristics of the personality
factors under consideration as well as shed light upon the variation
between predicted and achieved grades in college.

The statistical methods used to test the experimental null
hypotheses were the F-test, to examine the significance of individual
predictors in a multiple regression equation, and the X‘2 test, to examine
the significance of discrepancy between expected college averages and
observed college averages. Because this study was considered
exploratory in nature, the null hypotheses were all tested at the . 05

level of significanc e .

RESULTS.

1- Intercorrelations among all factors indicated that high school average
was the best single predictor of academic success in college with a
correlation of +. 575. When the entrance examination scores were also

included, the multiple correlation rose to +. 61.

2- Individually, the personality traits of dogmati sm and perception did not
correlate highly with either the academic predictors or obtained grades

in college when analyzed by raw score.

3- In testing the significance of individual predictors relating to obtained

average in college, high school average, Cooperative English Test scores,

 

 

School and College Abilities Test scores and Perceptual Category all

 

 

were significant beyond the five percent level of confidence.

Roy Edward McTarnaghan

4- Those students identified as (—) in perceptual traits significantly

fall below predicted college average.

5- Those students who were both self-accepting and low in dogmatism

significantly exceeded predicted college average.

CONCLUSIONS.

 

l- Perceptual traits, as measured by the Index of Adjustment and Values,
do aid in the prediction of academic success among freshmen at the

State University. College, Geneseo, New York.

2- When subgroups of the freshman population were separated by
personality traits, statistically significant variations were observed

between predicted and obtained college average.

3- Students identified as likely to fall below expected college achieve-
ment can become candidates for counseling services at the college in
order that they can make as satisfactory an adjustment as possible to

their new expe rienc es .

AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN PERSONALITY FACTORS
AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN THE
STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, GENESEO, NEW YORK

BY

Roy Edward MC Tarnaghan

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

C 011 eg e of Educ ation

1962

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer is indebted to many individuals whose encouragement
and cooperation with this study has made its completion become a
reality.

The writer's graduate committee consisting of Dr. Floyd Parker,
Chairman, Dr. Cole Brembeck, Dr. John Jamrich and Dr. Colby Lewis,
have contributed patiently of their time and advice. Through their
guidance, numerous suggestions and improvements have been made in
the study. Dr. Jamrich, as Chairman during the beginning stages of
the project, and Dr. Parker, as Chairman during the major portion of
the study, each contributed freely and helpfully, making the project a
stimulating experience for the writer.

Dr. Wilbur Wright of Geneseo State provided several studies as
background material for predicting academic success at the college level.
Drs. Hermann Cooper and James Spence of the State University of
New York were instrumental in securing a grant which substantially
aided the completion of the study. Dr. John Lottes contributed many
valuable suggestions relating to the statistical treatment of the data.
Mrs. Mary Ann Margiotta and Mrs. Arlene Valentino aided in typing,
tabulation, and clerical assistance.

Special recognition is given to the University of Rochester and
Mr. John Woodward, Coordinator of the Computing Center, for per—
mission to use the University's IBM 7070 computer for statistical
analysis of the data.

Without the help and encouragement of the writer's wife, Beverly
McTarnaghan, this study might never have been completed. . Not only

were hope and inspiration forthcoming from this source, but also con-
siderable aid in test scoring, typing and tabulating services.

>:< >1: >:< 95 >:: 1:: >:< :{c :1: 3:: :,'< 3:: >3 3": >:<

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I. INTRODUCTION .................... 1

The Problem .................... 1

Statement of the Problem ........... 1

Purpose of the Study .............. 2

Importance of the Study ............ 3

Rationale of the Study ............. 3

Definition of Terms ................ 4

Population ................... 4

Pre-Admissions Data ............ . 4

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale ........... 4

Index of Adjustment and Values ........ 4

Predicted College Average ...... . . . . 5

Basic Hypotheses to Be Tested . . . . ...... 5

Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis . . . 6

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....... 7

Introduction ............. . ...... 7

Academic Factors and Success in College. . . . . 8

Personality Factors and College Success . . . . . 12
Personality Factors Tending to Influence Adjust-

ment to College . ............... 18

III. METHODS OF PROCEDURE. . . . . . ........ 25
Descriptions of the Instruments Used--Including

Reliability and Validity ............ 25

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale ........... 25

Index of Adjustment and Values ........ 27

Selecting the Groups for the Study ......... 28

Collection of the Data . . . . ........... 29

Treatment of the Data ............... 30

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

CHAPTER Page
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............... 34
Constructing a Predicted College Average ..... 34
Predictability of Personality Characteristics . . . 36

Analysis of Prediction Equations When Separate
Characteristics are Identified ..... . . . 42

Analysis of Differences Between Predicted and

Achieved College Grades ...... . . . . . 45
Summary of Tests of Hypotheses .......... 53
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............ 56
Summary ...................... 56
Conclusions ..................... 60
BIBLIOGRA PHY ......................... 6 2
APPENDICES .......................... 70

iv

TABLE

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

LIST OF TABLES

Relationships Between Dogmatism and Academic
Performance--Michigan State University .......

Pre-Admissions Data and Obtained College Average
for Geneseo State Freshmen During the 1960-1961
Academic Year .....................

Intercorrelations Among Pre-Admissions Data and
Obtained College Average for Geneseo State Fresh-
men During the 1960-1961 Year ............

Means and Standard Deviations for the Geneseo State
Freshmen During the 1961-1962 Academic Year,
Consisting of Pre-Admissions Data, Obtained College
Average and Personality Scales . . . . ........

. Intercorrelations Among Pre-Admissions Data and

Test Data for Geneseo State Freshmen During the
1961-1962 Academic Year ...............

Multiple Regression Analysis Involving Personality
Factors and Academic Factors for the Geneseo State
Freshmen During the 1961-1962 Academic Year . . .

Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State
Freshmen During 1961-1962 Who Scored in the Upper
Quartile on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . . . . . .

Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State
Freshmen During 1961- 1962 Who Scored in the Lower
Quartile on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale ......

Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State
Freshmen During 1961-1962 Who Were Identified As
(++)in Perceptual Characteristics ...........

Page

17

35

35

37

38

39

43

43

44

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE

X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

Page

Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo
State Freshmen During 1961-1962 Who Were Identified
as (+-) in Perceptual Characteristics .......... 44

Chi Square Test of Discrepancy of the Number of
Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to(++)in Perceptual Characteristics . . . . . . 46

Chi Square Test of Discrepancy of the Number of
Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to (+-) in Perceptual Characteristics ...... 46

Chi Square Test of Discrepancy of the Number of
Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to (-+) in Perceptual Characteristics ...... 47

Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-

dicted Average Related to (- -) in Perceptual Character-
istics .......................... 47

Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-

dicted Average Related to Self-Acceptance and High

in Dogmatism ...................... 48

Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-

dicted Average Related to Self-Acceptance and Low

in Dogmatism ...................... 49

Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-

dicted Average Related to Self-Rejection and Low in
Dogmatism . ...................... 49

Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-

dicted Average Related to Self-Rejection and High in
Dogmatism ....................... 50

vi

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE Page

XIX. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-
dicted Average Related to High Scorers in Dogmatism. 51

XX. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-
dicted Average Related to Low Scorers in Dogmatism. 51

XXI. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-
dicted Average Related to Self-Acceptance, Whose
Predicted Average Was Below 2.0 ........... 52

XXII. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the
Number of Students Achieving Above or Below Pre-
dicted Average Related to Self-Rejection, Whose
Predicted Average Was Below 2.0 ........... 53

LIST OF A PPENDIC ES

APPENDIX Page
A. Freshman Questionnaire ............... 71

B. Personal Characteristics Check-List ........ 75
Characteristics of Others Check-List . . . . . . . . 79

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The principal purpose of this investigation is to determine what
relationship can be found between certain aspects of a student's person-
ality and his academic success during the first year in college. It is
during the first. year in college that the attrition rate is at its highest
even in those institutions where all admitted students have the potential
to do very successful college work. At the college under consideration
in this investigation, the State University College, Geneseo, New York,
twenty-five percent of the enrolled freshmen do not return for the
second year. Of this number, approximately ten percent are dismissed
for academic reasons. These are all students for whom scholastic
success was predicted at least at a "C" level when they were admitted
as freshmen. Certainly, there are many factors other than scholastic
ability which contribute toward academic success. This study is an

attempt to explore some of those factors.

I. THE PROBLEM

Statement of the problem. Because of the rapid rise in numbers

 

of students aspiring toward a college education, coupled with the rela-
tively slow rate of growth of State Colleges and Universities within
New York State, admission officers in that State have been striving to
find some equitable process of selecting from among large numbers of
applicants those students in whom the best prediction of academic

success seems evident.

Prediction of college success based on a weighting of academic
variables (high school average, I. Q. , rank in class, test scores, etc.),
is perhaps one of the best present day methods.“ 2 Although this method
is good for group data, a great deal is to be desired in discriminatory
powers of prediction for those individual students on a "borderline"
admissions category.

. From time to time, non—cognitive factors, including personality
characteristics, have been used to help understand some areas of college
achievement. The California Psychological Inventory, 3 the Rorschach,‘
the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, 5 the F Scale of authoritarianism, 6

and some other variables have been used with some success in examin-

ing this area.

Purpose of the study. It was the purpose of this study to investigate

 

the relationship of two personality scales--the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, 7

 

lJ. Spencer Carlson and Victor Milstein, "The Relation of Certain
Aspects of High School Performance to Academic Success in College, "
Colleje and Universitl, 33:185-192, No. 2, Winter 1958.

 

2H. F. Garrett, "General Review of Factors Influencing College
Grades, " Journal of Experimental Education, 18:91-138, 1949.

 

3John Holland, "The Prediction of College Grades from the
California Psychological Inventory and Scholastic Aptitude Test, "
Journal of Educational Psychology, August 1959, pp. 135-42.

 

‘Ralph M. Rust and F. J. Ryan, "The Relationship of Some Rorschach
Variables to Academic Behavior, " Journal of Personality, Vol. 2, No. 4,
June 1953, pp. 441-56.

5Ralph M. Rust and F. J. Ryan, "The Strong Vocational Interest
Blank and College Achievement, " Journal of Applied Psychology,=
Vol. 3,, No. 5, 1954, pp. 341-5.

 

 

6Ann F. Neel, "The Relationship of Authoritarian Personality to
Learning; F. Scale Scores Compared to Classroom Performance, "
Journal of Educational Psychology, October 1959. PP. 195-199.

7Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, New York, Basic
Books, 1960.

 

 

and the Index of Adjustment and Values developed by Robert Billsa--
with academic success among freshmen during the 1961-62 school year
at the State University College, Geneseo, New York. It was hoped that
these personality scales would aid in predicting collegiate success as
well as give indications of which students were likely to deviate most

from expected academic achievement.

 

Importagce of the study. Studies of academic predictors for college
success have been under way for years. High school average, rank in
class and aptitude tests have usually proven to "weight" the best in pre-
dictability. Although the intercorrelations among these data are at a
fairly high level, and an individual variable shows considerable weight in
predicting obtained college average, a combination of these variables
does not generally increase overall predictability to a significant degree.
The reason for the high intercorrelations and the corresponding slight
increase in predictability, is because the measures have much in common.
They tend to measure along the same dimension. That is, high school
average and entrance examination scores are both measures of academic
ability and may both give the same kind of information.

It may well be that certain personality characteristics, because
they are measuring a different dimension than academic potential, will
aid in the predictive process as well as shed some light on the vari-

ability between predicted and achieved grades in college.

. Rationale of the study. The following three statements are theo-

 

retical assumptions upon which the hypotheses in this study are based.
1. Affective or non-cognitive variables influence academic

behavior and achievement as well as cognitive variables.

 

8Robert E. Bills, Index of Adjustment and Values-~Manual
Adult and High School Senior Form, Auburn, Alabama Polytechnic
Institute, (Unpublished).

 

2. Perceptual theory holds that behavior can be modified by

concept of self and concept of others.

3. Authoritarian or dogmatic personality characteristics

influence achievement in college.

II. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Population. The Geneseo State graduating class of 1964 served as

 

the "study sample. " For this group, a predicted college average, based
on a weighting of academic variables, was computed using the obtained
grade point average after one semester. These predictions were then
applied to the Geneseo State class of 1965 which served as the "check
sample. " The class of 1965 was then used exclusively during the study.

. In each sample, only high school graduates coming directly into college
were used, eliminating transfer students and older students. The number

of cases used in the Geneseo State class of 1965 was 466.

Pre-admissions data. , For each student in the study a high school

 

average (consisting of mathematics, science, English, social studies
and language) was computed. Also, scores on the Cooperative English

Test (Form T) and the School and College Abilities Test were used.

Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. This scale is a measure of general

 

authoritarianism which does not attempt to tie in ethnocentrism or
political conservatism. High scorers are considered dogmatic. There

are forty items in this scale.

Index of Adjustment and Values (perceptual characteristics). The

 

"Adult and High School Senior Form" of this scale (49 items) was used.
Scores on this scale indicate how a person views himself and how he
views other people. An individual is placed in one of four categories as

a result of his scores on this test: (++l;(+-),;(-+);or(-—).- The (++) individual

is one who scores above the mean in terms of self-concept and equal to
that or greater in terms of concept of others. The (+-) individual is above
the mean in self-concept but scores lower in terms of concept of others.
The (- +) individual is below the mean in self-concept and has a concept

of others score equal to or greater than the self score. The fourth
category, (- -), identifies the below the mean self score with a concept of

others score lower than the self score.

Predicted college average. For each student in the sample, a

 

predicted average was computed in terms of a college grade point average
using the scale C = 2.0. The variables of high school average, entrance,
examination scores and obtained college average as the criterion were
entered in regression to obtain maximum weights for the predictor

variables.
III. BASIC HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED

1. Personality variables will contribute significantly to an increase
in predictability of academic success in college, based on the scale
A = 4. 0.

2. Personality characteristics of dogmatism and perception, com-
bined with academic predictors, will be significant predictors in the
multiple regression technique using obtained college average as the
criterion.

3.. Significant differences will be observed in predicting academic
success when the population is separated into subgroups representing
both high and low scorers in dogmatism and the four perceptual categories
as defined.

4. Differences between predicted and achieved college average
can be measured by personality characteristics.

These basic hypotheses will be tested as experimental hypotheses

in the Analysis of Data in Chapter IV.

IV. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE THESIS

Chapter II deals entirely with a review of the literature pertinent
to the study. The first section contains a review of important studies
during the last thirty years involving academic factors and success in
college, while the second section reviews personality factors as they
relate to collegiate success. It is hoped that through this review of
previous studies in the area of predicting academic success in college,
a framework can be established for understanding the relationship of the
two personality scales to this particular study.

. Chapter III sets forth the methods of procedure for the study.
The instruments used are described along with their reliabilities and
validities. In this chapter the methodology will be described for selecting
the groups for the study. The collection of the data and the treatment of
the data are also described.

The analysis of the data is covered in Chapter IV. The basic
hypotheses stated in Chapter I are expressed as experimental hypotheses

in this chapter and tested for significance at the 5 percent level, since
i this study is considered exploratory in nature.

Chapter V contains the summary and conclusions. From the
preceding chapters, the influences of the two personality scales under
study are evaluated. Implications for a longitudinal study involving
teaching performance as a criterion measure are discussed. This final
chapter summarizes the experimental hypotheses tested and presents

suggestions for further study in the area of personality tests.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

I. INTRODUCTION

Our society is deeply interested in higher education. The efforts
to understand the transition from secondary school to college as well
as adjustment to the academic phase of college have come under close
examination for a long period of years.

Particularly in this period of the 1960's, the fact of expanded
enrollments in the elementary and secondary schools is being brought to
attention at all levels of higher education with the admonition that the
"crest" will reach college age by 1970. Because the pressures at the
doors of the colleges are being felt even now, an increasing awareness
on the part of educators has been directed toward the problem of predict-
ing academic success at the college level.

Because there is such a demand for higher education in our society
with respect to both job preparation as well as status level, the level of
aspiration on the part of high school students toward college increases
with each passing year- Just as it is important to encourage deserving
and intelligent youngsters into collegiate programs, so is it important
to counsel students into areas of study commensurate with their interests
and abilities. . The effectiveness of predicting success in a college or in
a particular program has an important role in the transition period

from high school to college.

II. ACADEMIC PREDICTORS AND SUCCESS IN COLLEGE

In 1934, Segel1 reviewed the findings of twenty-three studies relat-
ing high school average to general college performance. The coefficients
of correlation ranged from +. 29 to +. 69, with a median correlation
value of +. 55.

FishmanZ has recently cited fifteen studies which correlate high
school average with average freshman grades. These correlations range
from +. 30 to +. 59, with a-median value of +.41.

Academic predictors have typically included more than just high
school average. Rank in class, aptitude tests, and achievement tests
have all been used with regularity in looking at the relationship between
high school and college adjustment in the academic area. Garrett3 has
indicated, however, that in analyzing research studies in this area over
a period of thirty years, high school average has held up as the best
single predictor of success at the college level. In his review of the
literature, the median r between high school average and general college
average is +. 56. In descending order, rank in class has a median r of
+. 55, general achievement test scores +.49, intelligence test scores +.47,
general college aptitude test scores +.43 and special aptitude test scores
+.4l. It is interesting to note that when some of the most promising of
these variables are combined using the multiple regression technique,

the correlations can generally be raised slightly. In reviewing seven

 

lD. Segel, Prediction of Success in College, Bulletin No. 15, U. S.
Office of Education, Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934.

2J. A. Fishrnan, 1957 Supplement to Collgge Board Scores No. 2,
New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1957.

 

3Harley F. Garrett, "A Review and Interpretation of Investigations
of Factors Related to Scholastic Success in Colleges of Arts and Science
and Teachers Colleges, " Journal of Experimental Education, 18:91-138,
December 1949.

 

studies reported by Garrett using this technique, the median r was +. 648
using obtained grade average as the criterion after one semester.

7 One must constantly be aware of the several generalizations used
in reviewing any such studies. What does the term "high school average"
mean? Some researchers have included all marks taken in grades 9-12,
others only grades 10-12, still others use only specific subjects such as
language, mathematics, English, social studies and science. The very
definition of what is an average can have a profound effect upon resulting
coefficients of correlation with obtained college grades. The level of
difficulty of the curriculum program in which the student is enrolled, the
degree of competition he faces because homogeneous grouping or the
lack of it, all influence this loosely defined "high school average. "

In an attempt to compensate for some of this variability, Chauncey
and Frederiksen4 have described a technique for weighting the scores of
college applicants by the particular high school from which they applied.
When a large enough group from one high school has completed at least
one year of study at a given college, a better prediction can be obtained
between that school's graduates and their success in the college program.
Such a technique, however, can work only when a college consistently draws
a steady flow of students from the same high school. This method has
shown itself to be time-consuming and costly.

A study by Travers, 5 reviewing somewhat more than 200 prediction
studies, resulted in the conclusion that the high school grade average is

generally a better predictor of college grades than subject matter tests

 

4'H. Chauncey and N. Frederiksen, "The Functions of Measurement
in Educational Placement, " in Lindquist, E. F. (Editor), Educational
Measurement, Washington: American Council on Education, 85-116, 1951.

 

 

5R. M. W. Travers, "Significant Research on the Prediction of
Academic Success, " in Donohue, W. T. , C. H. Coomb and R. M. W.
Travers, The Measurement of Student Adjustment and Achievement,
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1949, 147-190.

 

10

or psychological tests. Bloom and Peters6

in surveying many of the
recent studies have reported that such correlations are relatively low,
but stable, and perhaps one of the most promising approaches using
available data is adjusting high school grades to reflect the quality of
the high school program. This can be accomplished using the techniques
set forth in the study by Chauncey and Frederiksen. 7

As one considers other factors which influence the high school
average, Lins and Pitt8 have described the influence of the curriculum
content in the students' academic background as influencing college per-
formance. Lins has also separated college freshmen by the size of the
high school graduating class, and found significant differences in the
mean grade point average between students from small high schools and
students from large high schools. His study indicates that students from
large high schools are likely to perform at a higher level of achievement
(in terms of equating students on the basis of the high school average) in
college because of a wider range of curriculum offerings and a higher
degree of competition in the larger schools.9

The experience at the Air Force Academy has been somewhat dif-
ferent. Because the clientele is drawn from such a wide geographical

distribution, recent studies have indicated that achievement test scores

have held a higher weight than the high school average. 10 This can be

 

6Benjamin Bloom and F. R. Peters, The Use of Academic
Prediction Scales, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1961.

 

 

7Chauncey and Frederiksen, op. cit.

8L. J. Lins and H. Pitt, "The 'Staying Power‘ and Rate of Progress

of University of Wisconsin Freshmen, " College and University, 29:
86-99, 1954.

 

9L. J. Lins, "Pre-University Background and Effect of Various
Factors on University Success, " Personnel and Guidance Journal, No. 3,
157-158, November 1954.

 

10Virgil J. O'Connor, "Selective Admission of Air Force Academy
Cadets, " College and University, 33:163-171, No. 2, Winter 1958.

 

11

understood better when one realizes that the extreme variability in types
of high school records from different parts of the country makes any
evaluation of grades subject to subjective comparisons between grading
systems and types of programs.

During the past two years several studies have been completed
within the various colleges of the State University of New York. These
have been done as part of an evaluation of the State University Admissions
Examination program. 11 Of 41 studies done at 12 of the State Colleges,
the coefficients of correlation between the School and College Abilities
Test and college grade point average ranged from -. 09 to +. 58, with a
median r of +. 36. (Reviewing the Cooperative English Test (Form T),

43 studies at 13 of the units showed a range between -. 09 and +. 56, with
the median r again at +. 36.

There have been 17 studies carried out within the State University
of New York in which high school average is correlated with obtained
college average. 13 Five colleges involved in these studies have shown a
range of correlation coefficients between +. 14 and +. 68 with a median r
of +. 47 .

These research studies have indicated, as have others before them,
that high school average is the best single predictor of college success.
Even so, there has been a very wide range in the correlations, with few
ranging higher than +. 55.

Multiple correlations using the most promising selection variables
and obtained college average as the criterion have been tested for the

last ten years at the State University College, Geneseo, New York. ‘3

 

11"Summary of Validity Studies, " Office of Admissions Program,
State University of New York, March 5, 1962.
12Ibid.

13Wilbur H. Wright, "A Validation Study of Selective Admission
Examination Procedures, " (Unpublished Study), State University of
New York, August, 1960.

12

When failing college students are not used as part of the criterion group,
the multiple correlation ranges around +. 70.

By eliminating those students from the sample who failed, one's
predictive correlation should rise. And yet, this may not be very
realistic. A college needs to understand the factors which ccntribute
toward a student's failure as well as those which aid him in academic
performance. The level of the correlation has no meaning unless one is
able to comprehend the many sub-factors which influenced the analysis
of the data.

There has been no shortage of research in the area of academic
predictors and success at the college level. . High school grades
certainly measure performance and entrance examinations certainly
measure academic potential. But the fact remains that after many years
of experimentation and exhaustive study, it has been very difficult to
improve the effectiveness of academic predictors over what they were

in the 1930' s.

III. PERSONALITY FACTORS AND COLLEGE SUCCESS

Henry Borow has posed the question when he summed up some of
the unknown factors connected with success at college. What is the
reason for the student to be at college; does he adjust well to academic
life; does he have worries about family or finances; is the extra—
curricular load too heavy; how does he feel about student life? He also
observes:

What a candidate for college is intellectually capable of accomplish-

ing is hardly synonomous with what he later actually achieves. 14

 

“Henry Borow, "Current Problems in the Prediction of College
Performance, " American Association of College Registrars, 22: 18,
October 1946.

 

12

When failing college students are not used as part of the criterion group,
the multiple correlation ranges around +. 70.

By eliminating those students from the sample who failed, one's
predictive correlation should rise. And yet, this may not be very
realistic. A college needs to understand the factors which ccntribute
toward a student's failure as well as those which aid him in academic
performance. The level of the correlation has no meaning unless one is
able to comprehend the many sub-factors which influenced the analysis
of the data.

There has been no shortage of research in the area of academic
predictors and success at the college level. High school grades
certainly measure performance and entrance examinations certainly
measure academic potential. But the fact remains that after many years
of experimentation and exhaustive study, it has been very difficult to
improve the effectiveness of academic predictors over what they were

in the 1930' s.

III. PERSONALITY FACTORS AND COLLEGE SUCCESS

Henry Borow has posed the question when he summed up some of
the unknown factors connected with success at college. What is the
reason for the student to be at college; does he adjust well to academic
life; does he have worries about family or finances; is the extra-
curricular load too heavy; how does he feel about student life? He also
observes:

What a candidate for college is intellectually capable of accomplish-
ing is hardly synonomous with what he later actually achieves. 1‘

 

“Henry Borow, "Current Problems in the Prediction of College
Performance, " American Association of College Registrars, 22:18,
October 1946.

 

13

These factors are certainly concerned with the degree of success at
college but are difficult to define and measure. There is an appreciation
among college faculty and administration that attitudes, values, and
personality characteristics do influence achievement, but no clear-cut
understanding has yet been evident.

Stagner15 has reviewed some of the earlier studies on this subject
and has reported that:

1. Linear correlations of intelligence, achievement and personality

measures are low. Probably the very nature of the relationship

accounts for this .

2. Extreme personality characteristics tend to counterbalance

advantages in aptitude, allowing equal achievement in opposed

groups.

3. Personality factors have marked influence on the correlation

of aptitude and achievement.

In a study conducted at the University of Nebraska, where grades
in English and Military Science only were used, the conclusion was
reached that there was little significance between grades earned and
personality scores.“ In some situations personality scales used to pre-
dict success have run into negative selection factors, where candidates
dropping out of teacher training had more desirable characteristics than
those who remained. 17

One review of several studies involving personality and academic

achievement concluded:

 

15Ross Stagner, "The Relation of Personality to Academic Aptitude
and Achievement, " Journal of Educational Research, 26:648-660, May 1933.

16W. R.. Zalmon, "Relationship of Traits of the Bernreuter
Personality Inventory to Academic Success, " American Association of

 

College Registrars, 21:81-84, October 1945.

17John C. Gowan, "Self-Report Tests in the Prediction of Teaching
Effectiveness, " School Review, 68:409-419, No. 4,, Winter 1960.

 

14

Attempts to improve prediction by using non-intellective factors,
such as interest and personality traits, have yielded quite dis-
couraging results. The principle sources of difficulty appear to

lie in the heterogeniety of the criterion and the nonsummative and
nonlinear properties of many promising predictors. . . . Averaging
grades frequently entails averaging uncorrelated values. One
behavior pattern such as conformity, may be rewarded in one
course and another of independence in a different course. 18

However, other studies have tended to suggest that certain character-
istics improve the predication of academic performance. One study sug-
gests that a combination of ability and motivation measures improves the
prediction. 19 Morgan found in examining achieving and non-achieving
college students of high ability that several variables appeared which re-
lated positively to academic achievement . . . maturity and seriousness of
interests, awareness of and a concern for other people, a sense of
responsibility dominance and self confidence, and the needfor achievement.
The same study using the MMPI scales noted that more non-achievers than
achievers are self-centered and socially insensitive.20

Recently, it has been pointed out that the factor of freedom from
neurotic behavior patterns has aided in the predictive process.21

Many existing personality scales have been put to the test to observe

their relationship to academic success in college. A study by

 

I
18George Middleton and George Guthrie, "Personality Syndromes and
Academic Achievement, " Journal of Educational Psycholggy, 50 No. 2:66
April 1959.

”P. Weiss, M. Wertheimer and B. Groesbeck, "Achievement-
Motivation, Academic Aptitude and College Grades, " Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 19 No. 4:665, Winter 1959.

 

 

 

20H- H. Morgan, "A Psychometric Comparison of Achieving and
Non-achieving College Students of High Ability, " Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 16:292-298, 1952.

 

ZlW. B. Michael and others, "Factored Dimensions of a Measure of
Motivation for College Students, " Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 19 No. 4:667-671, Winter 1959.

 

15

Holland22 using the Sixteen Factor Personality Questionnaire, the National
Merit Student Survey and the Vocational Preference Inventory, observed
from a study of'277 colleges that colleges with different atmospheres rem
ward different kinds of students. Holland also used the California
Psychological Inventory and concluded that this instrument has some
value in aiding the process of academic prediction.23 Centi, in experiu
menting with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory concluded
that:

. personality factors are related to the level of adjustment
of college students]4

Rust and Ryan‘z5 have suggested that level of achievement may be
better understood in relation to particular interest patterns of the students
as measured by the Strong Vocational Interest Blank. The same authors
have demonstrated that the Rorschach has value in observing the variance
between high school and college performance.“

A study recently completed at Michigan State has indicated a rather

consistent pattern of a negative relationship between dogmatism and term

 

zzJohn L. Holland, "The Prediction of College Grades From
Personality and Aptitude Variables, " Journal of Educational Psychology,
51 No. 5:245-254, October 1960.

”John L. Holland, "The Prediction of College Grades From the
California Psychological Inventory and the Scholastic Aptitude Test, "
Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 No. 4:135-142, August 1959.

 

 

“P. Centi, "Personality Factors Related to College Success, "
Journal of Educational Research, 55:187-8, December 1961.

 

gsRalph M. Rust and F. J. Ryan, ”The Strong Vocational Interest
Blank and College Achievement, " Journal of Applied Psychology, 3:341-5,
No. 5, 1954.

26Ralph M. Rust and F. J. Ryan, "The Relationship of Some
Rorschach Variables to Academic Behavior, " Journal of Personality,
21:441—56, No. 4, June 1953.

 

 

16

end examinations in Natural Science and Communication Skills. 27 The
results may be observed in Table I. Here the implicit suggestion is
that as one becomes more closed minded or dogmatic, the more difficult
will be the task of answering questions which have multiple choice
answers. The study also suggests that as students become less dogmatic,
critical thinking improves. In viewing the question of the relationship
between goal setting behavior and over and under-achievers, Mitchell
found that the factor of self-acceptance was significantly related.?‘8

These studies all are seeking the relationship between personality
variables and academic success in college. It would appear that any
such variable has only a remote possibility of being positively correlated
at a significant level with academic success. And yet, when various
sub—groups are identified within the framework of the particular personality
characteristic, the chances are enhanced for observing variability
between prediction and achievement. Saunders has observed:

. a logical procedure would first require the isolation of the
simple psychological functions that may underlie the best pre-
diction; then suppressor effects and their associated testing time
could be minimized.29

This kind of a suggestion has further substantiation found in the

research of Frederiksen and Melville30 who have demonstrated that by

 

z“’Irvin Lehmann, S. Ikenberry and Paul Dressel, Critical Thinking,
Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education, (A Preliminary Report), East
Lansing, Michigan State University, 1959, pp. 59.

 

 

' “James V. Mitchell, "Goal Setting Behavior as a Function of Self-
Acceptance, Over- and Underachievement, and Related Personality
Variables, " Journal of Educational Psychology, 50:92-103, June 1959.

 

29D. R. Saunders, "Moderator Variables in Prediction, " Educational
and Psycholochal Measurement, 16:222, 1956.

 

 

3°N- Frederiksen, and S. D. Melville, "Differential Predictability
in the Use of Test Scores, " Educational and Psychological Measurement,
14:647-656, 1954.

 

l7

40>UH do .

9.3 Hm ma . fl mo Jo>o~ mo . 0:» an acmoflfidwam 3 a; . a" mo Gown-29:00 m .oong.no-m 3qu

 

 

.2... mo... ma... 3... MN... ma... .<.nm.0 Egon.
mi.- vo... mo... 3.: mm... 3.- omuaoo H.308
3.. S.- 3; 2.- an: 2.- oosnm End
2 .- 8.- mo: 3.- S .- S .- modem nooostnfi
oosoflom Henge—4
wof 2... :f 3.. Nmf ml.- omusoo H.308
mo; .2.- o~.- on; em; mm; 3on End
moi mof no; no.1 mo... no... ope-am HOuoduu—maa
mzwxm :ofiumUEdEEoO
om: em: mm: ems moms mm:-
mew-2mm u can“? fish mnwumm mounts Ssh

 

 

82 uzo redeem £31,: 332

 

 

 

 

II

>fimuo>mdp
33w :deoflz t mundanotonm UREovdo< can Emwumfimon noospuom wmflocoflmaom . .H 3an

18

taking out compulsive subjects the predictions of the other subjects would
improve, even though compulsiveness is not correlated with either the
predictor or the criterion. One should note here that personality factors
may be associated with achievement but not necessarily in a-linear or
curvilinear relationship. This factor is one which seems to be overlooked
all too often in research as such factors are dropped from consideration

because no initial linear relationship appears in experimentation.

IV. PERSONALITY FACTORS TENDING TO INFLUENCE
ADJUSTMENT TO COLLEGE

In. addition to the many studies relating personality characteristics
to academic success, there have been numerous studies done which have
examined the question of adjustment to college or a new environment.

. There may well be factors which could aid in the predictive process that
have never been examined in such a manner.

. Very often the experimental hypothesis used in a research study
involving personality characteristics and academic success in college has
been stated because it has been felt that adjustment to a new living-learning
situation would influence achievement. These factors need consistent
exploration.

Webster has pointed out that students do not tend to become more
alike as the college years pass, rather, personality tests show increasing

1 Another study involving attitudes and rigidity”

complexity and diversity. 3
concluded that persons who hold extreme attitudes are more intolerant

of ambiguity than those holding less extreme attitudes. One might

 

31Harold Webster, "Changes in Attitudes During College, "
The Journal of Educational Psychology, 49:109-117, June 1958.

 

32L. D. Goodstein, "Intellectual Rigidity and Social Attitudes, --
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology: 48:345-353, 1953.

 

l9

hypothesize here that as the college environment became more ambiguous
or filled with alternative choices, the more psychological difficulty a
rigid individual may experience. . This is the kind of atmosphere which
might be perceived by a student just because he is away from the home
and family situation for the first time.

Some research has indicated that persons who are authoritarian
change their attitudes less frequently than persons who are anti-
authoritarian.33 Similar findings were reported by Schaie using the Test
of Behavioral Rigidity. 3‘

Rokeach has shown through research that in distinguishing the dif-
ference between dogmatism and rigidity, high and low rigid individuals
differ primarily in their ability to think analytically, while open and
closed individuals (in terms of dogmatism) differ primarily in their ability
to think synthetically.35 This kind of information suggests that such
measures may be helpful in understanding college achievement as well
as adjustment.

Another study indicated that authoritarian individuals tended to be
rejected more often by their peers than non-authoritarians. They were
also perceived as being less desirable companions“, Certainly, here is
evidence to suggest further research in the area involving academic.

success in college.

 

33K. R- Hardy, "Determinants of Conformity and Attitude Change, "
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54:289-294, 1957.

3"’K. Warner Schaie, "Differences in Some Personal Characteristics
of Rigid and Flexible Individuals, " Journal of Clinical Psycholpgy, 14:
11-14,. January 1958.

 

35Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, New York: Basic
Books, 1960, p. 194.

 

36J. R.. Frymier, "The Relationship of Authoritarianism to
Rejection, " Journal of Educational Research, 53 No. 1:33-34, September
1959.

 

20

One may say that the individual who is defined as having an
authoritarian personality is slow to change, if he does so at all, after
having organized his perceptions. Subjectively, we would imagine this
individual would have difficulty in a new environment, and, research
has seemed to indicate that this is true.

As Neel has pointed out:

A person who cannot understand or tolerate others would find it
hard to achieve the attitudes of humanitarian instructors. Learning
in this area would be complicated by the lack of definitive structure
and established fact.“

There must be caution in interpreting any scales of personal
adjustment. It has been pointed out by Nelson that:

. the expression of attitudes depends upon both situational and
personal factors which must be evaluated simultaneously in order
to predict individual behavior.38

A further word of caution has been given by Attender, who reminds
us that psychological tests should be used on a qualitative rather than a
quantitative basis--the values from test scores may mean quite different
things depending on the individual concerned.39

Koenig and McKeachie have pointed out that any teaching method is
effective only for certain types of students. When one compares teaching
methods with group measures, there is a strong possibility that the

effects upon different kinds of students will nullify each other.‘0

 

37Ann Neel, "The Relationship of Authoritarian Personality to
ALearning: F Scale Scores Combined to Classroom Performance, "
Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 No. 5:195, October 1959.

 

38Harry Nelson and others, "Attitudes as Adjustments to Stimulus,
Background, and Residual Factors, " Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 52:321, May 1956.
39Louise E. Attender, "The Value of Interest, Personality, and

Vocational Interest Tests in the Guidance Program, " Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 31:449-452, September 1940.

 

 

 

4‘oKathryn Koenig and W. J. McKeachie, "Personality and Independent
Study, " Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 No. 3:132-134, June 1959.

 

21

A further statement of caution has come from Heist:

. most inventories and tests were not constructed for the
purpose of discriminating among groups of people, especially
those classified as normal.4

Another area of personality characteristics which seem to hold
fruitful possibilities for research in adjustment is the area of self-
concept. Robert Bills has described an instrument for measurement of
the self-concept as well as concept-of—others.“

In testing this scale in experimental conditions, he has shown that
the index scores were to a low degree, related to the level of aspiration.
The measure of acceptance of self as shown by this index was signifi—
cantly related to attitude toward performance."3

Bills has also found that Rorschach signs of depression are related
to the discrepancy between the concept of self and the concept of the

ideal self“ as well as:

. distinct Rorschach personality characteristics distinguish
subjects who are high in acceptance of self from those who are low
in acceptance of self.“

Brownfain“ has reported that the self-concept measure was a

 

“Paul Heist, "Diversity in College Student Characteristics, "
Journal of Educational Sociology, 33:286, February 1960.

 

42R. E. Bills, Index of Adjustment and Values--Manua1, Adult
and High School Senior Form, Auburn: Alabama Polytechnic Institute,
(Unpublished) .

4'3R. E- Bills, "A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adjustment
and Values With Behavior in Level of Aspiration Tasks, " Journal of
Consulting Pelchology, 17:206-212, 1953.

 

 

 

“R. E. Bills, "Self-Concept and Rorschach Signs of Depression, "
Ernal of Consulting Psychology, 18:135-137, 1954.

 

4‘5R. E. Bills, ”Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High
and Low in Acceptance of Self, ” Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17:38,
1953.

 

“J. J. Brownfain, "Stability of the Self-Concept as a Dimension of
Personality, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47:597-606,
1952.

 

22

stable index of adjustment. His studies have correlated well with the
Bills measures of high and low selfuconcept. Omwake has shown that
this dimension of self—concept has shown a close relationship on three
separate tests, those of Bills, Berger, and Phillips.” The Bills index
was also used in experimental studies by Fey to observe the relationship
between "self" score and the "other" score.48

A recent suggestion has been made by Murphy that research on
the "self-concept" had unlimited possibilities and that such measures
may be able to examine an individual's variation from an expected pattern
of behavior.“9 Here the implication is clear that we may be able to
determine or measure the differences between predicted patterns of
adjustment and observed patterns by such an index. It may also follow
that differences between predicted and achieved college grade averages
can be measured by this index.

Relating these concepts to collegiate programs preparing teachers,
some experimental data has shown interesting results. . Cook suggests a
discrepancy between idealized and observed personality characteristics
of teachers.50 A study of a similar nature by Ryans concludes:

From the practical standpoint of teacher recruitment and selection
this fact that teachers who are high, or low, with respect to one
facet of observable teacher behavior tend to be similarly high, or

 

"Katherine T. Omwake, "The Relation Between Acceptance of
Self and Acceptance of Others Shown By Three Personality Inventories, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18:443-446, 1954.

 

“William F. Fey, "Correlates of Certain Subjective Attitudes
Toward Self and Others, " Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13:44-49,
January 1957.

 

”G. Murphy, "New Vistas in Personality Research, " Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 40:114-22, October 1961.

 

 

50D. L. Cook and others, "Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee
Responses to Selected Personality Inventories, " Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 21 No. 42865—72, Winter 1961.

 

 

23

low, with regard to other aspects of observable classroom
behavior is very significant.51

Because teachers should be well-adjusted in order to deal most
effectively in the teaching-learning situation, colleges of education need
to be aware of personality characteristics which may suggest difficulty
in teaching as well as difficulty in the college learning experience.
Symondssz has outlined some of the observable traits which distinguish
superior and inferior teachers, and information such as this can be of
benefit in evaluating college performance.

. From this review of the literature, the evidence points to academic
predictors such as high school average, rank in class, and entrance
examination scores as being the most reliable measures of future success
in a college program. Because of the difficulty of stabilizing high school
records from a wide variety of schools, as well as the variable kinds of
curricular backgrounds of the students under study, correlation co-
efficients between high school and college performance seldom exceed
+. 60 .

. Understanding this limitation, many colleges still recognize that a
correlation coefficient around +. 60 is generally a maximum level in
predicting collegiate success. The State University College, Geneseo,
New York, is no exception.

. Evidence gained from tests of adjustment, motivation, and
personality, as well as an increasing awareness of perceptual psychology
as an area of understanding learning, has led many investigators to
hypothesize about personality factors and success in college. Although

limited success has been achieved in experimental studies of this kind,

 

51D. G- Ryans, "A Study of Criterion Data, " Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 12:344, Autumn 1952.

 

 

52P. M. Symonds, "Characteristics of the Effective Teacher Based
on Pupil Evaluations, " Journal of Experimental Education, 23:289-310,
June 1955.

 

24

many of the difficulties may have arisen because of ambiguity in the
measuring instruments and the instability of the criterion measure.
The theoretical bases of perceptual psychology appear well-founded and
research in this area must be pursued in a variety of ways.

Even more important than academic success may be the influence
of personality in the teaching situation. An institution such as Geneseo
would be very interested to examine the relationships between personality
types or perceptual types and the effectiveness and efficiency of class-
room teaching. Before such evaluations are made, longitudinal studies
will be needed to evaluate the stability of perception during the collegiate
experience, particularly with reference to deve10ping an open-minded

student, capable of making choices and judgments free from bias.

CHAPTER III

METHODS OF PROCEDU RE

I. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE, INSTRUMENTS USED--INCLUDING
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

There were two specific instruments used to measure personality
traits in this study, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the Index of
Adjustment and Values by Robert Bills.

. Rokeach Dogrynatism Scale. 7 The form of this scale used in the

 

study is form E, which contains forty items. The Dogmatism Scale
went through five revisions with the original total of eighty-nine items
reduced to 40 in order to refine theoretical formulations as well as to
increase reliability.

The items on the scale are designed to give a measure of general
authoritarianism which does not attempt to tie in ethnocentrismor
political conservatism. , Unlike other measures of authoritarianism,

this scale of dogmatism:

. involves the convergence of three highly interrelated sets
of variables: closed cognitive systems, authoritarianism and
intolerance. 1

Dogmatism has been defined as (a) a relatively closed cognitive
system of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized
around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which,
in turn (c) provides a framework for patterns of intolerance and
qualified tolerance toward others. 2

 

1Milton Rokeach, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism, "
Psychological Review, 61, 3:194, 1954.

ezlbid” p. 203.

 

25

26

For each of the 40 items on the scale, each in the form of a
declarative statement, the respondent is asked to show agreement or
disagreement by marking from +3 to -3 depending upon amount of agree«-
ment or disagreement. There is no zero point for a response in order
to force a choice toward agreement or disagreement. This scale can
be seen in Appendix A.3

Certain items test dogmatic concepts accentuating differences
between systems, coexistence of contradictions, relative amount of
knowledge possessed, beliefs regarding the isolation or helplessness of
man, beliefs regarding the uncertainty of the future, beliefs about
adequacy and inadequacy, self-aggrandizement, authoritarianism, belief
in the cause, intolerance, feelings toward the disbeliever, tendency to
make a party-line change, avoidance of facts incongruent with one's
belief— disbelief system, attitude toward the past, present and future,
and knowing the future.‘

A study at Michigan State University concerning the relationship
between dogmatism and academic performance was completed in 1959.
Here one may observe that the relationship between examinationgrades
and dogmatism is significant, indicating that the less dogmatic individuals
tend to make higher examination grades.5

The reliabilities reported for Form E of the Dogmatism Scale range
from . 68 to . 93, with the median reliability of . 78. Ten sample groups

were used in testing the reliability and the odd-even technique was

employed. 6

 

3Appendix A.
‘Rokeach, The open and Closed Mind, op. cit., pp. 73-80.

 

5Lehman, op. cit., p. 59.

6Rokeach, op. cit., p. 90.

27

Two separate validity studies were conducted using in one case
professors as judges of dogmatic characteristics in students and another
using graduate psychology students as judges. The students selected as
"high" and "low" in dogmatism by the judges were given the Rokeach
Dogmatism Scale. In the study where the graduate students were the
judges, the observed highly dogmatic group scored approximately 55
points higher on the scale than the low dogmatic group. . This difference

was significant at the . 01 level.7

Index of Ag'yustment and Values. The IAV was designed to measure

 

certain personality variables. Viewed from the framework of perceptual
theory, which holds that a person's behavior is consistent with his per-
ceptions about the world in which he lives, this perception will be
influenced by: needs and values, presence or absence of threat, the
person's physiological state, and his beliefs about himself and other
people. 8

The two scales used in this experiment are for determining "Self"
perception and perception of "Others". These are alike in that they
consist of 49 trait words describing first the "Self" then feelings about
"Others". The respondent is asked to give a numerical value to each

trait depending upon how much of the time this trait adequately describes

 

him. The scale ranges from 1 (Seldom) to 5 (Most of the time).9
Because the scoring is based on a continuum, some individuals

may tend to mark most traits high or low. A system of scoring has been

developed where an individual is placed in one of four catetories depend-

ing upon the relationship between Self score and Other score.

 

 

'1bid., pp. 101-103.

8R- E. Bills, Index of Adjustment and Values--Manual, Adult and
High School Senior Form, Auburn: Alabama Polytechnic Institute,
(Unpublished), p: 5.

 

9Appendix B .

28

Split-half reliability coefficients for college students have ranged
from . 53 to .91 for _S_§_l_f scores and from .73 to .94 form scores.
Test-retest reliability coefficients for college students have ranged from
. 52 to .79 for SEE scores and from .65 to .84 for (_)th_er_ scores. The
sixteen weeks period used in the test-retest corresponds closely to the
length of the average college semester. 1°

Validity studies have been reported by Roberts at the University of

Kentucky11 and by Bills” who demonstrated that the scale was a valid

instrument for changes in emotionality.

II. SELECTING THE GROUPS FOR THE STUDY

In order to evaluate the influence of personality factors as they
relate to academic achievement of the Geneseo State class of 1965,
a study sample 'of the most equivalent class was selected. The class of
1964, freshmen of the preceding year, were chosen because data from
that class would be most closely representative of the class to follow.

. The Geneseo State class of 1964, entering college in September
1960, had an enrollment of 492. Some of this number were older students,
some had been in attendance at other colleges and some had been re-
admitted to Gene seo after a period of absence. . It was felt that in order
to have as homogeneous a group as possible to insure maximum pre-

dictability, only those students who had graduated from high school in

 

lloBills, op. cit., p. 54.

11G. E- Roberts, "A Study of the Validity of the Index of Adjustment
and Values, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16:302-304, 1952.

 

12R- E. Bills, "A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of
Adjustment and Values as a Measure of Changes in Emotionality, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17:135-138, 1953.

 

29

June 1960, and entered Geneseo in September 1960, as their first
college experience would be included in the study sample. This'process
of definition resulted in a sample size of 444, eliminating 48 students.
Although various curriculum areas are represented in this group

of 444 freshmen, the college is primarily an institution of teacher
education and first year curriculum programs are markedly similar.
It was felt unnecessary to separate the sample group into sub-groups
representing separate curriculum fields within the area of teacher
education.

. In the same manner, the Geneseo State Class of 1965 was selected
for the experiment. From a total enrollment of 581 freshmen in
September 1961, 466 were chosen who had graduated from high school

in June 1961, and entered college the following fall for the first time.

111. COLLECTION OF THE DATA

For each group, the classes of 1964 and 1965, it was necessary
to gain the following information for every student: high school average,
the entrance examination score on the School and College Abilities Test,
the entrance examination score on the CooPerative English Test (Form T),
and the obtained grade point average at the end of the first semester.

Because the first year college program at Geneseo is basically a
general education program, it was felt that the high school subjects of
mathematics, English, science, social studies and language should be
used in computing the high school average since these preparatory courses
bore the closest resemblance to the freshman college program.
New York State has an examination program called the Regents Exami-
nations given at the conclusion of these academic courses, and the forms
used in reporting high school grades indicate both the class average

and the Regents grade. Using the formula approved by the Association of

30

Secondary Schools Principals and the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, twowthirds weight was given to

the class average in each subject and one-third weight to the final exami-
nation. In this manner, the high school average was felt to be a fairly
stable factor in the evaluation of records from the various high schools
throughout the State.

. Each freshman had on file scores on the School and College Abilities
Test and the COOperative English Test (Form T) which together were
named the State University Admissions Examination. This examination
was completed by the students during their senior year in high school
and provides information in both the quantitative and verbal areas.

After one semester attendance, the obtained college average was
computed for each student. This was a general college average using all
sixteen semester hours of credit taken during the first semester. The
method used was the weighting of letter grades with semester hours of
credit taken during the first semester. The method used was the weighting
of letter grades with semester hours of credit on the 4.0 = A scale.

During the Fall Semester 1961, the two personality scales previously
described were administered to the Geneseo State class of 1965. The
scales were identified as a "Freshman Questionnaire, " with no impli-

cation of threat to the respondents.

IV. TREATMENT OF THE DATA

The high school average was recorded for each student in the two
sample groups according to the procedure described in the definition of
terms given in Chapter 1. Likewise, the two entrance examination
scores and the obtained college average after one semester were also

recorded.

Using the class of 1964 as the study sample, means, standard
deviations and intercorrelations were computed for the variables of
high school average, School and College Abilities Test, C00perative
English Test and obtained college average. From these intercorrelations,
a multiple regression equation was employed to determine maximum
weights for each predictor variable, with the obtained college average as
the criterion. This analysis will be presented in Chapter IV, Analysis
of the Data.

From the weights derived through this analysis, a predicted college
average was computed for each student in the Geneseo State Class of 1965.
The data collected for the class of 1965 included all the same variables
as the class of 1964, as well as the predicted college average, dogmatism
score and "self" and "other" perception scores.

In order to use the Rokeach Drapmatism Scale in statistical analysis,

 

it was necessary to convert the scores on each item to a new scale.
Respondents had been asked to indicate agreement or disagreement with
each declarative statement on the Scale with responses ranging fromI-I-3
to -3, helping to emphasize the degree of agreement or disagreement.
By adding a +4 to each item, the scale would be mathematically equivalent
while the range would be from 1 to 7, using all positive numbers. The
sum of all the responses, using the 1 to 7 scale, is the total score on
the Dogmatism Scale. To further identify the range of the scores on
this scale, the scores were separated by quartiles, in order to identify
those scoring high‘in dogmatism (upper quartile) and those scoring low
in dogmatism (lower quartile).

The Index of Adjustment and Values contains 49 trait words on each

 

scale. The scoring by the respondent is on a 1 to 5 scale with the 5 score
being the highest amount of agreement with the trait. Before scoring,
certain negative trait scores must be reversed so that they have meanings

comparable to the ratings on the positive traits. Items 5 (annoying),

32

13 (cruel), 18 (fearful), 25 (meddlesome), 28 (nervous), 34 (reckless),
36 (sarcastic), 41 (stubborn), and 49(fau1tfinding) are negative traits
and their scores should be reversed before scoring. In doing this, a

1 becomes a 5, a 2 becomes a 4, a 3 stays the same, a 4 becomes a 2,
and a 5 becomes a 1.

In treatment of the total scores for the “Self" and ”Others" on the
IVA, identification can be made among four personality patterns which
. then will be subject to further investigation. When the "Self" Score is
above the mean for the group and the "Others" score exceeds it, the
subject is identified as (++). When the "Self" score is above the mean and
the "Others" is below it, the subject is identified as (-I--). Now, when the
. "Self" score is below the mean and the "Others" score exceeds it, then
the (-+) identification is made. The (- -) group are those whose "Self" score
is below the mean and whose score for "Others" falls below the "Self"
score.

Once the information had been collected for the class of 1965, all
pertinent information was punched on IBM cards for analysis. The total
N for the group was 466, and each card contained data for one student.
Each card contained the following items of information: identification
number for each student, sex, high school average carried to two
decimal places, School and College Abilities Test score, Cooperative
English Test score, predicted college average, obtained college average,
. Dogmatism score, "Self" score, "Others" score, perceptual category
where a l punch represented the (+19 . . . a 2 punch the (+-) . . . a 3 punch
the (-+) . . . and a 4 punch the (- -), and a Dogmatism category score where
a l punch represented the upper quartile . . . a 2 punch the second
quartile, a 3 punch the third quartile . . . and a 4 punch the lower quartile.

The information for this experimental group was then computed with
the means and standard deviations for each variable. . Intercorrelations

were computed among all variables. Following this procedure, separate

33

sortings were made in order to observe the means, standard deviations
and intercorrelations when considering separate personality character—
istics, combinations of personality characteristics, and subgroups
within each personality grouping.

Multiple correlations and regression equations were computed
along the same format in order to observe the influence of the separate
and combined personality characteristics with respect to predicting
academic achievement during the first semester at Geneseo State. The
personality variables were tested for significance of predictability by the
analysis of variance technique. Chi-Square tests were employed to
observe the differences between predicted and obtained college grades
with respect to the various factors being studied. Using this methodology
as a basis for evaluation, the following chapter will analyze the data

and test the experimental hypotheses.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter reviews the analysis of the "study sample, " 'which
was the Geneseo State freshman class during the 1960—1961 academic
year. . It was from this particular sample that the basic data was
gathered in order to predict academic success for Geneseo freshmen as
well as to make reasonable tests of hypotheses on the freshman class of
the following year. The remainder of the chapter deals with the data
involving the Geneseo State freshmen during the 1961-1962 academic

year.

I. CONSTRUCTING A PREDICTED COLLEGE AVERAGE

The data shown in Table II was collected from a sample of 444
freshmen who had completed the first semester at Geneseo during the
1960-1961 academic year. These results were then intercorrelated in
order to observe the relationships between all the variables. Table IH
shows the intercorrelation matrix:

The multiple correlation, using the two parts of the entrance
examination and high school average as the independent variables, was
+. 61. It should be noted here that high school average alone correlated
at +. 575 with obtained college average, so the addition of the two entrance
examination scores added very little to the multiple correlation. This
fact is noteworthy because independently, the School and College Abilities
Test and the Cooperative English Test each correlated better than +.4l

with obtained college average. High school average, as demonstrated here,

34

35

Table II. Pre-admissions Data and Obtained College Average for
Geneseo State Freshmen During the 1960-1961 Academic Year

W

 

Mean Standard

Score . Deviation
School and College Abilities Test 303.32 9. 12
Cooperative English Test 56 . 79 6. 68
High School Average 83. 85 4. 98
Obtained College Average 2.46 (2. 0 = C) . 60

I

 

Table III. Intercorrelations Among Pre-admissions Data and Obtained
College Average for Geneseo State Freshmen During the
1960-1961 Year

 

 

 

1.. School and College Abilities Test ---

2.. Cooperative English Test +. 719 ---
3.. High School Average +. 459 +. 465 ---
4.. Obtained College Average +. 419 +. 429 +. 575 ---

 

is the most comprehensive single predictor of college academic success
at Geneseo, and must measure some of the same academic potential as
the entrance examination.

Based on that data, the following weights were derived for each of
the predictor variables:

School and College Abilities Test .......... . 0072

Cooperative English Test . . . . ....... . . . .0122

High School Average . . . . . . . .......... .057

36

A correction factor was also needed in this prediction scale in
order to bring the results within the range under study. . For Geneseo,
with a 4. 0 = A scale being used, the correction factor was -5.1963.
Therefore, the following formula expressed the most efficient prediction
for entering freshmen:

PCA (Predicted College Average) = . 0072(SCAT)+. 0122
(CO-OP English)+. 057(HSA)-5. 1963

' Using this on a hypothetical case:
PCA .0072(300)+.0122(60)+.057(85)-5.1963
PCA 2. 54

This prediction scale was then used at the StateUniversity College,
Geneseo, New York, for all students entering as freshmen in September,

1961.

II. PREDICTABILITY OF PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS

Complete data was gathered for the Geneseo State class of 1965,
those freshmen who entered college in September, 1961. In addition to
the information concerning high school average, School‘and College
Abilities Test scores, and Cooperative English Test scores, which were
found for the previous class, the additional information included:
Dogmatism Score, Self-Perception Score, Other-Perception Score, and
predicted college average. At the end of the first semester, the obtained
college average was also included. Table IV on the following page shows
the mean score and standard deviation for each of these factors.

Intercorrelations were computed for each of these factors and
the results can be observed in Table V on page 38. The intercorrelations
among the academic variables appeared quite similar to the data for the
freshmen class during the 1960-1961 academic year. The intercorre-
lations involving the personality factors (identified by name and by 6, 7
and 8 on Table V), were all clustered around zero, with the exception

that Self and Other perception scores correlated at +. 58.

37

Table IV. Means and Standard Deviations for the Geneseo State Fresh- ' -
man Class During the 1961-1962 Academic Year, Consisting
of Pre-admissions Data, Obtained College Average and
Personality Scales.

 

 

Mean Standard

 

Score Deviation
High School Average 83. 37 4. 77
' School and College Abilities Test 303. 87 9. 99
Cooperative English Test 56. 49 7. 02
« Predicted College Average 2. 44 . 41
Obtained College Average 2. 32 . 62
Dogmatism Score 151. 95 22. 34
Self-Perception Score 190. 70 16. 62
Other-Perception Score 199. 46 17. 29

 

Again, high school average appeared as the best single predictor
of academic success in college with a correlation of +. 62 when com-
pared with obtained college average. . The inclusion of the other variables
of School and College Abilities Test and) Cooperative English Test raised
this multiple correlation to +. 64. i

. Using this data, and adding rank in class, Dogmatism category

(quartile rank), and perceptual category (++,. +-, -+, --), a multiple
regression analysis was computedusing obtained college average as the
criterion measure. These nine variables were entered in regression in
order to observe the predictability of each with respect to obtained college
average as well as combined predictability.

The multiple regression analysis involving the personality variables
showed a correlation of +. 65. The weights and F-ratios can be observed

in Table VI.

38

 

 

- onoom nofiaoouonmtuoguO .w
mm . t onoom Gofimoononmnfiom .N.
co . t co . - - onoom EmfiuMEmoQ .C
so; 8. 8.- - oneness owozoo oofisono .m
mo: so. 2 .- mm. - amnesia. owozoo oononooem .4
mo: 8. 2 .- 3.. on. - ones Barnum 2.32380 .M
do .- mo; co .- 3. mm. om. - onus nouns... omozoo use Borow .N
so..- no. 8.- me. am. ow. oe. - omens: Borow swam .2

w - o m a m N a

 

 

use? vagueness Nomi-AC3 ofi wanna confine-Hm
endow 93280 on? uOH mama umoH. was damn mnowmmflECm-oum wnogas mcoflmHonnoohouqH .> Bash.

39

 

 

no .m $8. $3 .- ammo. $3 .- snowshoe Hoooaoonom
on. ammo. $3 .- case. See .- ascented Enssfiwoo
so. £8. £8 .- 88. 88 .- ouoom sosaoosom-sofio
on. $8. 38.- 23. 33 .- snoom connected-rum
-3. She. ES. coco. mace. onoom Enssfiwoo
as .o foo. $2. memo. $2. anon. norms-r. o>sonoaooo
on .m SS. :8. ooeo. more. ones noses? omozoo one Hoosom
3 4 $8. 23 .- ammo. $8.. $20 on seem
Sims :2. ~35 ammo. 3mm. omens; Hoosom rmnm

E m Em m . Sumo Mm <Pmm sadness

 

 

poo.»- ofihopooaa mood-Mom; 9.3 maisfl CoEQmonh madam oomocoO 93 HOW

mucous-sh ofiaopmoas was ongomh >ufima0muonm war/HOZHH mania-scans Gofimmonwom 33:52 .H> Boom.

40

This analysis was then tested by the following null hypotheses:
H1: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY
GAINED FROM INCLUDING THE ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCORE IN
MULTIPLE REGRESSION, USING OBTAINED COLLEGE AVERAGE AS
THE CRITERION.

 

F(Dogmatism Score) = .42 F(9, 457)..)5 = 1. 90 Ho: Accepted

 

In order to show significance at the five percent level, the F-ratio
for any independent variable in this analysis would have to equal or
exceed 1. 90. The F-ratio for the Dogmatism Score was .42 which
indicated non- significance at the five percent level as well as little
predictability for this characteristic.

H2: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY
GAINED FROM INCLUDING THE ROKEACH DOGMATISM CATEGORY
SCORE (QUARTILE IDENTIFICATION) IN MULTIPLE REGRESSION
USING OBTAINED COLLEGE AVERAGE AS THE CRITERION.

 

F(Dogmatism Category) = . 70 F(9,457).95 = 1.90 Ho: Accepted

 

Although the Dogmatism Category showed a larger F-ratio than
the Dogmatism raw score, it was not large enough to be a significant
predictor of academic success.

H3: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY
GAINED FROM INCLUDING THE SELF-PERCEPTION SCORE IN I
MULTIPLE REGRESSION USING OBTAINED COLLEGE AVERAGE AS’
THE CRITERION.

 

F(Self-Perception) = .70 F(9,457),95 = 1.90 H0: Accepted

 

41

Acceptance of the null hypothesis indicated that Self— Perception

raw score was not a significant predictor of academic success in college.

H4: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY
GAINED FROM INCLUDING THE OTHER PERCEPTION SCORE IN
MULTIPLE REGRESSION USING OBTAINED COLLEGE AVERAGE AS
THE CRITERION.

 

F(Other-Perception) = .04 F(9, 457),.” = 1. 90 Ho: Accepted

 

Acceptance of the null hypothesis indicated that Other-Perception

raw score was not a significant predictor of academic success in college.

H5: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DEGREE OF PREDICTABILITY
GAINED FROM INCLUDING THE PERCEPTUAL CATEGORY SCORE IN
MULTIPLE REGRESSION USING OBTAINED COLLEGE AVERAGE AS
THE CRITERION.

 

F(Perceptual Category) = 3.07 F(9,457).95 = 1.90 Ho: Rejected

 

Here, the null hypothesis was rejected. The F-ratio of 3.07,
which exceeded the five percent significance limits, indicated that the
perceptual category (++, +-, -+, --) was a significant predictor of
academic success for freshmen at Geneseo State during the 1961-1962
academic year.

. It should be noted that the most desirable perceptual characteristic
(++), is represented by a l score while the least desirable perceptual
characteristic (--), is represented by a3 score. In observing this sig-
nificant trait, the negative B weight shown in Table VI on page 39 can be
explained because the most desirable trait has been expressed as the

lowest absolute value in the scale used.

42

The academic variables of high school average, COOperative
English Test and School and College Abilities Test each proved to be
a significant predictor of academic success as their independent F-ratios
exceeded 1. 90.. Rank in class, with an F-rativo of 1. 51, was not a sig-

nificant predictor of academic success.

III. ANALYSIS OF PREDICTION EQUATIONS WHEN SEPARATE
PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS ARE IDENTIFIED

The multiple correlation for predicting Obtained college average
for Geneseo State freshmen during 1961-1962, using only the three
academic variables of high school average, Cooperative English Test,
and School and College Abilities Test, was +. 64. Prior to testing
hypotheses relating to the difference between predicted and obtained
college average, it was felt that separate multiple regression equations
using the above-mentioned three variables, but computed for specific
personality types, would shed some light on the consistency with which
specific personality types could be predicted to succeed at the State
University College, Geneseo, New York.

Table VII shows the multiple regression analysis for those stu-
dents scoring in the upper quartile on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale.

The F-ratio of 31. 76 is significant well beyond the five percent
level. The multiple correlation is at +. 69 which is higher then for the
total class of students. This phenomenon indicates there is slightly
, better consistency in predicting achievement for upper quartile Dogmatism
scorers than for the class as a whole.

Table VIII gives data for the students scoring in the lower quartile
on the Dogmatism Scale. The results can be observed on page 43.

As can be observed in Table VIII, the lower quartile scores on the
Dogmatism Scale, like the upper quartile scores, had a multiple corre-

lation higher than the +. 64 when all students were included.

43

Table VII. Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State Fresh-
men During 1961-1962 Who Scored in the Upper Quartile on
the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale

 

 

Multiple R = .6932 Degrees of Freedom = 103 F = 31.76 F.95 = 2.46

 

Variable BETA SE BETA B SE B F
High School Average .5194 .0881 .0775 .0131 34.75
School and College

Abilities Test .3233 .1147 .2288 .0812 7.95
Cooperative English Test -.0897 .1113 -.0095 .0118 .65

 

Table VIII. Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State Fresh-
men During 1961-1962 Who Scored in the Lower Quartile on
the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale

I

Multiple R = .6600 Degrees of Freedom = 113 F = 29.07 F.95 = 2.45

 

 

Variable BETA SE BETA B SE B F
High School Average .4630 .0805 .0601 .0104 33.08
School and College

Abilities Test .1794 .1046 .1157 . 0674 2. 94
Cooperative English Test .1417 .1051 . 0120 . 0089 1. 82

 

The +. 66 correlation indicates slightly better consistency in the predict-
ability for the lower quartile Dogmatism scorers than for the class as a
whole. The F-ratio of 29. 07 is significant beyond the five percent level.

Table IX shows data for the predictability of the 8+) students on the
Bill's Scale.

44

Table IX. Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State Fresh-
men During 1961:1962 Who Were Identified as (H) in Perceptual
Characteristics

 

 

Multiple R = .6360 Degrees of Freedom = 167 F = 37.82 F.95 = 2.43

 

Variable BETA SE BETA B SE B F
High School Average . 4416 . 0697 . 5622 . 0887 40.17
School and College

Abilities Test .0233 .0703 .0136 .0410 .11
Cooperative English Test. . 2742 . 0748 . 2806 . 0765 13. 44

 

Again, the multiple correlation was significant beyond the five per-
cent level as demonstrated by the F-ratio of 37. 82. The correlation of
+. 636 is approximately the same as for the total class of students.

Table X identifies the (--) group and shows the multiple regression

analysis used in predictability of college achievement.

Table X. Multiple Regression Analysis for Those Geneseo State Fresh-
men During 1961-1962 Who Were Identified as (--)in‘ Perceptual
Characteristics

’-
J

Multiple R = .8230 Degrees of Freedom = 44 F = 25.19 F.95 = 2.58

Variable BETA SE BETA B SE B F

 

High School Average . 6596 .1222 . 0968 . 0179 29.14

School and College
Abilities Test . 2178 .1362 .1650 .1032 2. 56

COOperative English Test .0427 .1510 .0042 .0152 .08

 

45

The F-ratio of 25. 19 is again significant beyond the five percent
level. Although the sample size here is relatively small (48), the multiple
correlation of +.823 is very high when compared with the multiple corre-
lation for all freshmen at +. 64. As a group, those students identified as (- -)
in perceptual characteristics, appear to be more homogeneous in the way
they react to expected academic success than any other subgroup of the
population.

These multiple correlation samples have all demonstrated ability
to predict academic success at least as well for subgroups representing
personality types as for the total freshmen population... If real differences

do exist, they must be tested experimentally. The following section

 

identifies the hypotheses and tests used to measure differences between

predicted and achieved grades in college.

IV- ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PREDICTED
AND ACHIEVED COLLEGE GRADES

Of the 466 freshmen in the Geneseo State sample during the 1961-
1962 academic year, 196 or 42% equalled or exceeded their predicted
college average. The remaining 270 (58%), fell below their predicted
college average. On the basis of this fact, the Chi Square tests used in
this analysis do not test a 50:50 hypothesis in relation to exceeding or
falling below predicted average. Each test relating to those students
exhibiting one of the personality traits under consideration, with reference
to above or below predicted average, will use the 42:58 hypothesis for
expected frequency.
, H6: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED AVERAGE
WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS (H) ARE CONSIDERED As A GROUP.

46

Table XI. . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to (++) in Perceptual Characteristics

 

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total

 

 

Expected (71. 82) (99.18) (171)
Observed 78 93 171
df = 1 x2 s 0.92 x3.” = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was accepted that there was no significance dif-
ference. It can be noted, however, that there was a slight tendency for
the (+49 students to score above predicted average compared with the

general freshman population.

H7: THERE WILL BE No SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCEOBSERVED-IN
RELATION To EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED AVERAGE
WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED A5 (+-) ARE CONSIDERED AS A
GROUP.

Table XII. Chi Square.- Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
' Related to (H) in. Perceptual Characteristics

     

Students Above PCA

Below PCA Total

 

 

‘Expected - (34. 44) (47. 56) (82)
Observed , 37 45 82
df = 1 x2 = o. 33 x‘,,, = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was again accepted that the (+-) group did not

differ significantly from the total population. Although'not to a significant

47

degree, the(+-) group exhibited a tendency to achieve above average

more than for the total group.

H8: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED

. AVERAGE WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS(--I) ARE CONSIDERED
AS A GROUP.

Table XIII. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to (-+) in Perceptual Characteristics

 

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total

 

 

Expected (72. 66) (100. 34) (173)
Observed 71 102 173
df = 1 x7- = 0.06 x2.” = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was accepted that there was no statistically

significant difference between the (-+) group and the total group.

H9: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED AVERAGE
WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS (- -) ARE CONSIDERED AS A

GROUP.
Table XIV. . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number

of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to (--) in Perceptual Characteristics

. W

 

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (16. 8) (23 . 2) (40)
Observed 10 30 4O

 

df = 1 x2 = 4.74 x2,” = 3.84 Ho: Rejected

 

48

Here, the null hypothesis was rejected. It was demonstrated that
the group defined as(--) in perceptual characteristics was more likely
to fall below predicted average by a statistically significant degree.
The rejection of the hypothesis means that the probability of this

occurring by chance is only five in one-hundred.

H10: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED AVERAGE
WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS SELF ACCEPTING AND HIGH IN
DOGMATISM ARE CONSIDERED AS A GROUP.

Table XV. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to Self Acceptance and High in Dogmatism

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total

   

 

 

Expected (52. 5) (72. 5) (125)
Observed 55 70 125
df = 1 x2 = 0. 21 x7105 = 3. 84 Ho: Accepted

 

No significant difference was observed relating to this hypothesis.

At the . 05 level, the null hypothesis was accepted.

H11: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED
IN RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED
AVERAGE WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS SELF ACCEPTING
AND LOW IN DOGMATISM ARE CONSIDERED AS A GROUP.

49

Table XVI. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above and Below Predicted Average
Related to Self Acceptance and Low in Dogmatism

 

 

 

 

. Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (55.86) (77.14) (133)
Observed 69 64 133
df = 1 x7- = 5.31 xz.05 = 3.84 Ho: Rejected

 

Here, the null hypothesis was rejected at the . 05- level. Those
students defined as self accepting who also scored low in dogmatism dif-
fered significantly from the total population. . Observing Table XVI,
those students did much better than the total group, with a- much larger

number of students exceeding predicted average than expected.

H12: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED AVERAGE
WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS SELF REJECTING AND LOW IN
DOGMATISM ARE CONSIDERED AS A GROUP.

Table XVII. . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to Self Rejection and Low in Dogmatism

 

Below PCA Total

 

Students Above PCA

 

 

 

Expected (41. 58) (57. 42) (99)
Observed 32 67 99
df = 1 x3 = 3.81 x3... = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was accepted at the . 05 level. However, the x2

value of 3. 81 was very close to the level where the hypothesis could be

50

rejected. The direction of near-significance was that students so defined

tended to fall below expectancy more frequently than for the total group.

H13: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED
AVERAGE WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS SELF REJECTING
AND HIGH IN DOGMATISM ARE CONSIDERED AS A GROUP.

Table XVIII. . Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to Self Rejection and High in Dogmatism

 

 

 

 

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (47 . 46) (65. 54) (113)
Observed 42 71 113
df = 1 x2 = 1.08 x2.“ = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was accepted at the . 05 level. Although no sig-
nificant differences were observed, the tendency was for this group to

fall below predicted average more frequently than for the total group.

H14: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED AVERAGE
WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS HIGH IN DOGMATISM ARE. CON-

SIDERED AS A GROUP.

51

Table XIX. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to High Scorers in Dogmatism

 

 

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (94. 18) (134. 82) (229)
Observed 100 129 229
df = 1 x2 = 0.70 x2,05 = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

Here, high scorers in dogmatism were those above the mean in
relation to the total group of freshmen. The null hypothesis was accepted

at the . 05 level that no significant difference was to be found between this

group and the total population.

H15: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED
AVERAGE WHEN THOSE STUDENTS DEFINED AS LOW IN‘ DOGMATISM

- ARE CONSIDERED AS A GROUP.

. Table XX. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to Low Scorers in Dogmatism

 
 
   

 

 

 

Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (99. 54) (137 . 46) (237)
Observed 96 141 237

 

df = 1 x2 = 0.22 x730, = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

52

The null hypothesis was again accepted that this group did not

differ Significantly from the expected pattern of the total population.

H16: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED
IN RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED
AVERAGE WHEN THOSE STUDENTS ADMITTED BELOW 2. 0 IN
PREDICTION ARE GROUPED BY SELF ACCEPTANCE.

Table XXI. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to Self Acceptance, Whose Predicted Average Was

 

 

 

Below 2. 0
Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (10. 08) (13. 92) (24)
Observed 14 10 24
df = 1 x2 = 2.62 x2_05 = 3.84 H0: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was accepted at the . 05 level. It can be ob-
served from Table XXI that those students admitted below a predicted
average Of 2. 0 who were self-accepting, obviously borderline admission
cases, did exceed prediction more often than they fell below prediction,

although not to a statistically Significant degree.

H17: THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED IN
RELATION TO EXCEEDING OR FALLING BELOW PREDICTED
AVERAGE WHEN THOSE STUDENTS ADMITTED BELOW 2. 0 IN PRE-
DICTION ARE GROUPED BY SELF REJECTION.

53

Table XXII. Chi Square Test of Significance of Discrepancy of the Number
Of Students Achieving Above or Below Predicted Average
Related to Self Rejection, Whose Predicted Average Was

 

 

 

 

 

Below 2. 0
= =======
Students Above PCA Below PCA Total
Expected (11. 34) (15. 66) (27)
Observed 7 20 27
df = 1 x2 = 2.86 x2.“ = 3.84 Ho: Accepted

 

The null hypothesis was accepted at the .05 level. Here, the
tendency was exhibited for the self-rejecting group to fall below expectancy
more than for the total group, although this discrepancy was not statistically

significant.

V. SUMMARY OF TESTS OF HYPOTHESES

The first five hypotheses in Chapter IV were related to direct pre-
dictability of personality traits in multiple regression. These were
tested by the F-ratio at the . 05 level. Hypotheses 6 through 17 all tested
the difference between predicted and achieved grades in college and
employed the X2 test at the . 05 level with the expected frequency of above
to below predicted average at 42:58. This frequency ratio was based on

the known distribution of the sample under study.

 

54

 

I

 

Null
Hypotheses Subject Test Level . Conclusion

H1 Dogmatism Score- F . 05 Accepted
Prediction

H2 Dogmatism Category F . 05 Accepted
Prediction

H3 Self— Perception F . 05 Accepted
Prediction

H4 Other Perception= F . 05 Accepted
Prediction

H5 Perceptual Category F . 05 Rejected

. Prediction

H6 (++) related to X12 . 05; Accepted
achievement

H7 (+-) related to X2 . 05 Accepted
achievement

H8 (—+) related to X2 . 05 Accepted
achievement

H9 (-.) related to X2 . 05 Rejected
achievement

H10 Self Acceptance XZ . 05 Accepted
High in Dogmatism

H11 Self Acceptance Xz . 05 Rejected
Low in Dogmatism

H12 Self Rejection X2 .05 Accepted
Low in Dogmatism

H13 Self Rejection X2 . 05 Accepted
High in Dogmatism

H14 High in Dogmatism XZ . 05 Accepted

H15 Low in Dogmatism Xz . 05 Accepted

H16 Self Acceptance Below 2. 0 X2 . 05 Accepted

H17 Self Rejection Below 2. 0 x7- .05 Accepted

 

 

55

The implications of the seventeen hypotheses will be discussed in
Chapter V. There were fourteen null hypotheses accepted and three
rejected. The rejected hypotheses included the perceptual category
score as providing some predictability for college grades; the (--)perceptual
category showing those students falling below predicted average more
frequently than the total group; and, those students who were self-accepting
and low in dogmatism who exceeded predicted average more frequently

. than did the total group.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONC LU SIONS

I. SUMMARY

The Problem. It was the primary purpose of this study to investi-

 

gate the relationship of two personality scales with academic success
among freshmen at the State University College, Geneseo, New York.
The two scales used were: The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the
Index of Adjustment and Values.

Prediction of academic success at the college level has long been
the subject of intensive investigation. When students drop out of college
for academic reasons, perhaps many did have the potential to do success-
ful work but other factors were influential in contributing to their poor
progress. The pre-admissions factors of high school average, rank in
class, and entrance examination scores have proven to be fairly good
predictors of college success; however, certain personality traits have
usually been linked with "not living up to expectation. "

This study had as its basic hypotheses that personality variables
would contribute significantly to an increase in predictability of academic
success in college; that personality characteristics of dogmatism and
perception combined with academic predictors would increase predict-
ability of academic success in college; that significant differences would
be Observed in predicting academic success when the population was
separated into subgroups representing the various levels of dogmatism
and the various categories of perceptual traits; and that differences
between predicted and achieved college average could be measured by

pe rsonality char acte ri stic s .

56

57

These hypotheses had, as a basis, the theoretical concepts of
perceptual psychology. It was hypothesized that adjustment to the
initial collegiate experience would be influenced to a significant degree
by the factors of an individual's self-perception, his perception of
others, and his dogmatic set toward problems of values. Theoretically,
these personality traits would influence behavior, and specifically,
such an influence on behavior during the freshman year in college could

influence a student's academic success.

Review of the Literature. Evidence gathered from research studies

 

during the last thirty years indicated rather clearly that high school
average, rank in class and entrance examination scores are the most
reliable predictors of academic success in college. Using these factors
in combination, it is still difficult to raise the correlation between pre-
dicted and achieved grades in college above +. 60.

Many different personality scales have been used in evaluating
and predicting achievement in college, but for the most part, little
statistical significance had been established. In testing with personality
scales, much of the difficulty in predictability may have arisen because
of ambiguity in the measuring instruments and the instability of the

criterion measure, achievement itself.

Methodology. The Geneseo State freshman class during the 1960-

 

1961 academic year was used to build a predicted college average.
The individual predictors were high school average, School and College
Abilities Test scores, and Cooperative English Test scores. The
criterion measure was obtained college average. The number of students
in this sample group was 444, with only those students who had graduated
from high school in June, 1960, used in computing the data.

From the data collected for the 1960-1961 freshmen, predicted

averages were computed for all entering freshmen to Geneseo State in

58

September, 1961. This sample group, eliminating those students who
had not graduated from high school in June, 1961, was 466.

During the fall semester 1961, the two personality scales of dogma-
tism and perception were administered to all freshmen. The scales
were identified as a "Freshman Questionnaire, " with no implication of
threat to the respondents. After these test results were analyzed, they
were combined with the pre-admission factors of high school average and
entrance examination scores in order that analyses could be made to
evaluate predictive characteristics of the personality factors under con-
sideration as well as shed light upon the variation between predicted
and achieved grades in college.

The statistical methods used to test the experimental null hypothe-
ses were the F-test, to examine the significance of individual predictors
in a multiple regression equation, and the x‘2 test, to examine the sig-
nificance of discrepancy between expected college averages and observed
college averages. Because this study was considered exploratory in
nature, the null hypotheses were all tested at the . 05 level of significance.

Analysis of Data. The analysis of data revealed the mean and

 

standard deviation for each factor in the pre-admissions data. Inter-
correlations among these factors indicated that high school average was
the best single predictor Of academic success in college with a corre-
lation of +. 575. When the entrance examination scores were also
included, the multiple correlation rose to +.61.

Individually, the personality traits of dogmati sm and perception
did not correlate highly with either the academic predictors or obtained
grades in college when analyzed by raw score. The correlations among
perception and all other factors were generally around zero, while
dogmatism score correlated negatively, but lowly, with all other factors.

In testing the significance of individual predictors relating to
obtained average in college, high school average, Cooperative English

Test score, School and College Abilities Test score and Perceptual

59

Category all were significant beyond the five percent level of confidence.
Of the two personality traits studied, the perceptual category consisting
of(++),. (+-), (-+), and (- -), proved to be significant in predicting college
grade point average.

, When specific subgroups were examined, by analyzing academic
prediction equations for the various categories of dogmatism and per-
ception, the multiple correlations ranged from +. 63 to +. 82, indicating
that students in such subgroups appear to be more homogeneous in the
way they react to expected academic success than the entire class of
freshman students. The group exhibiting the +. 82 were those defined as
(--) in perceptual traits.

Because forty-two percent of the Geneseo State freshmen equalled
or exceeded predicted average, the Chi-Square test was employed at
that expected frequency in comparing the various personality traits
under study. . Of the twelve hypotheses related to the differences between
predicted and achieved averages, only two were rejected at the . 05 level.
. Those individuals identified as (--) in perceptual traits significantly fell
below expectancy and those who were both self-accepting and low in
dogmatism significantly exceeded predicted average.

There appeared to be a rather consistent pattern among the other
tests even though they were not significant at the . 05 level. Those
individuals identified as self-accepting (having the + trait for self)
generally exceeded predicted average more often than those with the -
self trait. This factor was particularly noticeable among borderline

students who were admitted with a predicted average of below 2. 0.

60

II . CONC LU SIONS

The results of this study indicate that perceptual traits, as
measured by the Index of Adjustment and Values, do aid in the prediction
of academic success among freshmen at the State University College,
Geneseo, New York. It is only when these perceptual traits are identified
by category (++, +-, -+, and --),. and not when they are identified by
raw score, that statistically significant results can be Obtained in pre-
diction of academic success.

When subgroups Of the freshman population at Geneseo are separated
by personality traits as identified by the Index of Adjustment and Values
and the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, statistically significant variations
can be Observed between a student's predicted average and his obtained
average. Those students identified as (--) or self-rejecting with-a low
valuation of others, significantly fell below expected achievement. At the
same time, those students who were low in dogmatism and were also self-
accepting, significantly exceeded predicted average in college. These
quantitative results are very much in agreement with the philosophical
and psychological concepts that well—adjusted students are likely to per-
form at a satisfactory level, while those less well-adjusted are likely
to experience difficulty and frustration, particularly in a new environ-
ment such as the first year of college. i

The important factor here is that beginning students at Geneseo
(who are most likely to experience difficulty in adjusting to their new
environment), can be identified on a quantitative scale early in the college
experience. With such information, these students may become candidates
for counseling services at the college in order that they can make as
satisfactory an adjustment as possible to their new experiences.
Counseling services could be oriented toward assisting these students to
become more open minded (less dogmatic) and more accepting and

understanding of self.

61

Because of the exploratory nature of the study with the significance
set at the . 05 level, no safe judgment can be made in using these
personality scales as a basis for admission or rejection of the candidate.
It would seem apparent that positive indications exist suggesting the
improvement of current academic prediction techniques by including such
personality variables. This experiment should be repeated at another
State University College in NewYork before further implications can be
drawn regarding prediction of collegiate success from personality traits.

Further investigation is also suggested in the area of the amount
of change occurring in perceptual or dogmatic traits during the college
experience. Do these traits remain fairly stable? If significant change
occurs in college students, is it related to the kind of instruction? Is it
related to the type of instructors ? Perhaps a given personality type
may be rewarded by one instructor and yet criticized by another
instructor. Those kinds of experiences and instruction which tend to
increase open-mindedness and self-acceptance should be identified and
put into practice on the basis of quantifiable data. as well as philosophical
belief. 1

Important as academic success may be, follow-up studies should
be conducted at Geneseo in order to understand the relationship of these
personality traits and success in the student-teaching situation.

It should be the function of an institution primarily engaged in teacher
education to be as concerned with the personality development of

prospective teachers as with success or failure in course work.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A . BOOKS

Allport, Gordon W. , P. W. Vernon and C. Lindzey. Study of Values,
(Rev. Ed.), Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951.

 

Adorno, T. W. , Else Frenkel-Brunswik and D- J- Levenson.
The Authoritarian Personali_ty, New York: Harper and Bros. , 1950.

 

Bloom, Benjamin and F. R. Peters. The Use of Academic Prediction
Scales, Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1961.

 

Cattell, R. B. Personality and Motivation, Structure and Measurement,
New York: World Book, 1957.

 

Chauncey, H. and N. Frederiksen. . "The Functions of Measurement in
Educational Placement, " in Lindquist, E. F. (Editor), Educational
Measurement, Washington: American Council on Education,
85-116, 1951.

 

 

Collage Entrance Examination Board. . "Planning College Policy for the
Critical Decade Ahead, " Princeton, N. J. , No. 5, 1957.

 

_ Crawford, A. B. and P. S. Burnham. . Forecasting College Achievement,
NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1946. V

 

 

, Edwards, A. L. 1 Statistical Analysis, New York: Rinehart and Co. , 1946.

 

Frederiksen,. N. and W. B. Schrader. Adjustment to College, Princeton:
Educational Testing Service, 1951.

 

. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind, NewYork: Basic Books,
1960.

 

Stern, George G. , Morris 1. Stein and Benjamin S. Bloom. Methods in
Personality Assessment, Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1956.

 

 

62

63

Travers, R. M. W. "Significant Research on the Prediction of Academic
Success, " in Donohue, W. T. , C. H- Coomb and R. W. Travers.
The Measurement of Student Adjustment and Achievement, Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1949, 147-190.

 

Walker, Helen and Joseph Lev. Statistical Inference, New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1953.

 

B. PERIODICALS

Attender, Louise E. "The Value of Interest, Personality, and Vocational
Interest Tests in the Guidance Program, " Journal of Educational
Psychology, September 1940, pp. 449-452.

 

Barr, A. S. . "The Assessment of the Teacher's Personality, "
School Review, 68:400-408, No. 4,. Winter 1960.

 

Barr, A. S. . "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency,
A Summary of Investigations, " Journal of Experimental Education,
16:202-83, June 1948.

 

Berger, E.. M. "The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance of Self
and Expressed Acceptance of Others, " Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 47:778-782, 1953.

 

 

Bills, R.. E.. "A Comparison of Scores on the Index of Adjustment and
Values With Behavior in Level of Aspiration Tasks, " Journal of
Consulting Psyychology, 17:206-212, 1953.

 

 

Bills, R. E.- "A Validation of Changes in Scores on the Index of Adjust-
ment and Values as Measures of Changes in Emotionality, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17:135-138, 1953.

 

Bills, R.. E. "An Index of Adjustment and Values, " Journal of Consulting
Psycholog , 15:257-261, 1951.

 

Bills, R, E. "Personality Changes During Student-Centered Teaching, "
Journal of Educational Research, 50:121-126, October 1956.

 

Bills, R. E. . "Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and
Low in Acceptance of Self, " Journal of ConsultiggPsychOIij,
17:36-38, 1953.

 

64

Bills, R. E. "Self Concept and Rorschach Signs of Depression, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18:135-137, 1954.

 

Bills, R. E. , E. L. Vance and O- S. McLean. "An Index of Adjustment
and Values, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15:257—261, 1951.

Borow, Henry. "Current Problems in the Prediction of College
Performance, " American Association of College Registrars,
22:14-26, October 1946.

Bragg, Emma W. "Study Of Student Withdrawal at 'W. U. ', " Journal Of
Educational PsychOlOgy, 47:199-203, April 1956.

 

 

Brounfain, J. J. "Stability of the Self—Concept as a Dimension of
Personality, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

47:597-606, 1952.

Carlson, J. and V. Milstein. "The Relation of Certain Aspects of High
School Performance to Academic Success in College, " College
and University, 33:185-192, NO. 2, Winter 1958.

 

Centi, P. "Personality Factors Related to College Success, " Journal of
Educational Research, 55:187-8, December 1961.

 

Chance, J. E. I "Personality Differences and Level of Aspiration, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24:111-115, April 1960.

Cole, David. "The Prediction of Teaching Performance, " Journal of
Educational Research, 54:No. 9,. May 1961.

 

Cook, D. L. and others. "Factor Analysis of Teacher Trainee Responses
to Selected Personality Inventories, " Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 21:NO. 4, 865-72, Winter 1961.

 

Corey, Stephen M. "Changes in Opinions of Female Students After One
Year at a University, ” Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 1940.

Cowen, E. L. a "The Negative Self-Concept As a Personality Measure, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18:138-142, 1954.

Danskin, D. G. and D. P. Hoyt. "Study of Some Potential Selective
Admissions Criteria, " College and University, 36:NO. 1, 68-78, Fall

1960.

65

Fey, William F. . "Correlates of Certain Subjective Attitudes Toward
Self and Others, " Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13:44-49,
January 1957.

 

Frederiksen, N. and S. D. Melville. "Differential Predictability in the
Rise of Test Scores, " Educational and Pslchological Measurement,
14:647-656, 1954.

 

Frymier, J. R. "The Relationship of Authorianism to Rejection, "
Journal of Educational Research, 53:33-34, No. 1, September 1959.

I“:
b

 

-"' ‘91.}.0

Garrett, Harley F. . "A Review and Interpretation of Investigations of
Factors Related to Scholastic Success in Colleges of Arts and
Science and Teachers Colleges, " Journal of Experimental Education,
18:91-138, December 1949.

 

 

Goodstein, L. D. . "Intellectual Rigidity and Social Attitudes, " Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48:345-353, 1953.

‘C'
I

 

Gowan, John C. "Self-Report Tests in the Prediction of Teaching
Effectiveness, " School Review, 68:409-419, No. 4, Winter 1960.

 

Hardy, K. R. . "Determinants of Conformity and Attitude Change, "
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54:289—294, 1957.

 

Harris, D. . "Group Differences in Values Within a University, "
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 29:95-102, 1934.

 

Heist, Paul. . "Diversity in College Student Characteristics, " Journal of
Educational Sociology, 33:279-291, February 1960.

 

 

Holland, John L. . "The Prediction of College Grades From the California
Psychological Inventory and the Scholastic Aptitude Test, "
Journal of Psychology, 50 No. 4:135-142, August 1959.

 

Holland, John L. . "The Prediction of College Grades From Personality
and Aptitude Variables, " Journal of Educational Psychology,
51 No. 5:245-254, October 1960.

 

Jex, Frank B. and Reed M. Merrill. I ”Intellectual and Personality
Characteristics of University of Utah Students, " Journal of Edu-
cational Research, 53 NO. 3:118-120, November 1959.

 

 

Kipnis, D. M. ”Changes in Self-Concepts in Relation to Perceptions of
. Others, " Journal of Personality, 29:449-65, December 1961.

 

66

Kleinrnunty, B. "College Maladjustrnent Scale: Norms and Predictive
Validity, " Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21:No. 4,
1029-33, Winter 1961.

 

Koenig, Kathryn and W. J. McKeachie. "Personality and Independent
Study, " Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 No. 3:132-4, June
1959.

 

Lins, L. J. "Pre-University Background and Effect of Various Factors
on University Success, " Personnel and Guidance Journal, No. 3,
157-158, November 1954.

 

Lins, L. J. and H. Pitt. . "The 'Staying Power' and Rate of Progress of
University of Wisconsin Freshmen, " College and University,

29:86-99, 1954.

 

March, C. J. "The Prognostic Value of Washburne Social Adjustment
Inventory, " Journal of Social Psychology, 17:287-294, 1943.

 

Michael, W. B. and others. "Factored Dimensions of a Measure of
Motivation for College Students, " Educational and Psychological
Measurement, l9:No. 4, 667-71, Winter 1959.

 

 

Middleton, George and George M. Guthrie. . "Personality Syndromes
and Academic Achievement, " Journal of Educational Psygholggy,
50 No. 2:66-9, April 1959.

 

Mitchell, James V. "Goal Setting Behavior as a Function of Self-
Acceptance, Over and Underachievement, and Related Personality
Variables, " Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 No. 3:93—104,
June 1959.

 

Morgan, H. H. "A Psychometric Comparison of Achieving and Non-
Achieving College Students of High Ability, " Journal of Consulting
Psycholog , 16:292—298, 1952.

 

Murphy, G.. "New Vistas in Personality Research, " Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 40:114-22, October 1961.

 

 

Neel, Ann. "The Relationship of Authoritarian Personality to Learning:
F Scale Scores Combined to Classroom Performance, " Journal of
Educational Psychology, 50 NO. 5:195-199, October 1959.

 

 

67

Nelson, Harry and others. "Attitudes as Adjustment to Stimulus,
Background, and Residual Factors, " Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 52:314-22, May 1956.

 

 

Nemzek, C. L. "The Value of Certain Non-Intellectual Factors for
Direct and Differential Prediction of Academic Success, "
Journal of Social Psychology, 12:21-30, 1940.

 

O'Connor, Virgil J. . "Selective Admission of Air Force Academy Cadets, "
College and University, 33:163-171, No. 2,, Winter 1958.

 

Omwake, Katherine T. "The Relation Between Acceptance of Self and
Acceptance of Others Shown by Three Personality Inventories, "
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18:443-446, 1954.

 

Peck, Robert. . "Personality Patterns of Prospective Teachers, "
Journal of Experimental Education, 29:169-175, December 1960.

 

Plant, Walter T. "Changes in Ethnocentrism Associated with a Four-
Year College Education, " Journal of Educational Psychology,
49:162-65, 1958.

 

Popham, W. and M. Moore. "A Note on the Validity of Borow's College
Inventory of Academic Adjustment, " Journal of Educational Research,
53:No. 3, November 1960.

 

Roberts, G. E. . "A Study of the Validity of the Index of Adjustment and
Values, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16:302-304, 1952.

 

Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism, " Psychological
Review, 61, 3:194-204, 1954.

 

Rust, Ralph M. and F. J. Ryan. "The Relationship of Some Rorschach
Variables to Academic Behavior, " Journal of Personality,
2:441-56, No. 4, June 1953.

 

Rust, Ralph M. and F. J.. Ryan. "The Strong Vocational Interest Blank
and College Achievement, " Journal of Applied Psychology,
3:341-5, No. 5, 1954.

 

Ryans, D. G. "A Study of Criterion Data, " Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 12:333-344, Autumn 1952.

 

 

Ryans, D. G. "The Investigation of Teacher Characteristics, "
Educational Record, 34:371-396, October 1953.

 

68

Sanders, E.. M. and others. . "Verbal-Quantitative Ability and Certain
Personality and Metabolic Characteristics of Male College Students, "
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20:No. 3, 491-503,
Autumn 1960. ..

 

Sanford, Nevitt gt a_l. "Personality Development During the College
Years, " Journal of Social Issues, 12:No. 4, 1956.

 

Saunders, D. R. "Moderator Variables in Prediction, " Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 16:209-222, 1956.

 

 

Schaie, K. Warner. "Differences in Some Personal Characteristics of
Rigid and Flexible Individuals, " Journal of Clinical Psychology,
14:11-14, January 1958.

 

Slocum, W. L.- "Social Factors Involved in Academic Mortality, "
College and University, 32:53-64, 1956.

 

Stagner, Ross. . "The Relation of Personality to Academic Aptitude and
Achievement, " Journal of Educational Research, 26:648-660,
May 1933.

 

Symonds, P. M. . ”Characteristics of the Effective Teacher Based on
Pupil Evaluations, " Journal of Experimental Education, 23:289-310,
June 1955.

 

Tompkins, E.. "After Admissions, What?" College and University,
36:No. 4, 467-73, Summer 1961.

 

Tyler, F. T. "Teachers Personalities and Teaching Competencies, "
School Review, 68:No. 4, 429-49, Winter 1960.

 

Wagman, Morton. "Attitude Change and Authoritarian Personality, "
Journal of Psychology, 40:3—24, July 1955.

 

Warburton, F. W. "Measurement of Personality, " Bibliography of
Educational Research, 4:2-17, November 1961.

 

 

Webster, Harold. "Changes in Attitudes During College, " The Journal
of Educational Psychology, 49:109-117, June 1958.

 

 

Weiss, P. ,. N. Wertheimer and B. Groesbeck. . ”Achievement-Motivation,
Academic Aptitude and College Grades, " Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 19:No. 4, 663-6, Winter 1959.

 

 

69

Yoshino, Roger.. "College Drop-Outs at the End of the Freshman Year, "
Journal of Educational Sociology, 32:42-48, September 1958.

 

Zalmon,. W. R. . "Relationship of Traits of the Bernreuter Personality
Inventory to Academic Success, " American Association of College_
Registrars, 21:81—84, October 1945.

 

 

C. BULLETINS AND SPECIAL REPORTS

Bills, R. E. . Index of Adjustment and Values--Manual. Adult and High
School Senior Form, Auburn: Alabama Polytechnic Institute,
(Unpublished).

 

Fishman, J. A. 1957 Supplement to College Board Scores No. 2.
New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1957.

 

Lehmann, Irvin J. , "The Relationship Between Scholastic Performance,
and Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values, " (Unpublished Study),
Michigan State University, 1959.

Lehmann,. Irvin, S. Ikenberry and Paul Dressel. . Critical Thinking,
Attitudes and Values in Higher Education. (A Preliminary Report),
. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959.

 

Segel, D. . Prediction of Success in Collegg. Bulletin No. 15, U. 5.
Office of Education. Washington: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1934.

 

"Study of the Regents Scholarship Exam Validity, " Office of Admissions
Program, State University of New York, February 6, 1962.

"Summary of Validity Studies, " Office of Admissions Program, State
University of New York, March 5, 1962.

Wright, Wilbur H. , "A Validation Study of Selective Admission Exami-
nation Procedures, " (Unpublished Study), State University of
New York, August 1960.

APPENDICES

7O

APPENDIX A

F RESHMAN QU ES TIONNAIRE

The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about
a number of important social and personal questions. The best answer
to each statement below is your personal Opinion. We have tried to
cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself
agreeing strongly with some Of the statements, disagreeing just as
strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you
agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people
feel the same as you do.

 

Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree
or disagree with it. Please mark every one.

Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case.

+1: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE
+2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE

+3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH

71

10.

11.

12.

13.

14

15'.

16.

72

. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.

. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest

form of democracy is a government run by those who are most
intelligent.

. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal,

it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain
political groups.

. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaint-

ance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he Opposes.

Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place.
. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve

my per sonal problems .

. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.

There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in.
Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop.

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several
times to make sure I am being understood.

In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what
I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are
saying.

.. It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret
ambition is to become a great man like Einstein, or Beethoven,
or Shakespeare.

The main thing in life is for a per son to want to do something
important.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

73

If given the chance I would do something of great benefit to the
world.

In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful
of really great thinkers.

There are a number of people I have come to hate because of
the things they stand for.

A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really
lived.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause
that life becomes meaningful.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there
is probably only one which is correct.

A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely
to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous
because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

.. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion we must be

careful not to compromise with those who believe differently
from the way we do.

In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if be con-
siders primarily his own happiness.

The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly
the people who believe in the same thing he does.

In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard
against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp
than by those in the Opposing camp.

A group which tolerates too much differences of opinion among
its own members cannot exist for long.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for
the truth and those who are against the truth.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40-

 

74

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit
he's wrong.

A person who thinks primarily Of his own happiness is beneath
contempt.

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the
paper they are printed on.

In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's
going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on
until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one
respects.

In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and
associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the
future that counts.

If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes
necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all. "

Unfortunately, a good many people with whomI have discussed
important social and moral problems don't really understand

what' 8 going on.

Most people just don't know what's good for them.

APPENDIX B

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK- LIST

Teachers and students have many different personal traits. . It will help
us develop a better understanding of this college, if you would describe
yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of
your responses are kept in strictest confidence. . Following are 49 words
which are commonly used to describe people. . Try to describe yourself
as accurately as possible by completing the column.

. Please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are
this kind of person. . Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best
describes your belief about yourself.

In the example, the person responding has said in effect: I am an academic
kind of person good deal of the time (4).

 

Please proceed to complete the column.

75

 

76

TRAIT: How much of the time am I this kind of person?

 

RESPONSES: .. Seldom

.. Occasionally

. About half the time
Good deal of the time

.A Most of the time

mic-www-

 

EXAMPLE: Academic 4

 

 

 

1. Acceptable
2. Accurate
3. Alert

4. Ambitious
5. Annoying
6. Busy

7. Calm

8. Charming
9.. Clever

10. Competent
11.. Confident
12. Considerate
13. Cruel

14. Democratic

15 . Dependable

16.

17..

18.

19..

20.

21..

22

23..

24.
25.
26.
27.
28
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.

34.,

35.

36.

37..

38.

77

. Economic

Efficient
Fearful
Friendly
Fashionable

Helpful

.. Intellectual

Kind
Logical
Meddlesome
Merry

Mature

.. Nervous

Normal

. Optimistic

Poised
Purposeful
Reasonable
Reckles s
Responsible
Sarcastic

Sincere

Stable

39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
4t.

47.

48

49.

78

Studious

Suc C e S sful
Stubborn
Tactful
Teachable
Useful

Worthy
Broad-minded

Busine s slike

. Competitive

F aultfinding

 

79

CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS CHECK-LIST

Please think about the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although
your friends may be somewhat different in many ways, try to think of the
"average person" among your friends; or think of "your friends in general. "
Then try to put yourself in the place of this "average friend" and fill out

the same check-list that you completed for yourself.

 

TRAIT: How much of the time do your "friend in general"
believe themselves to be this kind of person?

 

.. Seldom

Occasionally

About half the time
Good deal of the time
Most of the time

RESPONSES:

UTIPUJNI—t

 

1. Acceptable
2. Accurate
3. Alert

4 . Ambitious

5. Annoying
6. Busy
7. Calm

8. Charming

9. Clever

 

10.

11

12..

13..

14..

15.

16..

17..

18

19..

20.

21..

22.

23.

24..

25.
26.

27

28..

29

30

31.

32.

80

Competent

.. Confident

Con siderate
Cruel
Democ ratic
Dependable
Economical

Efficient

.. Fearful

Friendly
Fashionable
Helpful
Intellectual
Kind
Logical
Meddle some

Merry

.. Mature

Nervous

.. Normal

.. Optimistic

Poised

Purpo s eful

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

33.

34.

35.

36.

37

38.

39.

40..

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.-

49.

81

Reasonable
Reckless
Responsible

Sarcastic

.. Sincere

Stable
Studious

Suc c e s sful
Stubborn
Tactful
Teachable

U seful
Worthy
Broad-minded
Busine sslike
Competitive

Faultfindin g

 

 

 

n. J.
any. x

we... (D
run-tn...

‘50‘
9.191..

“U: 4. u

"11111111111