" ’5", '2‘; {inf-"'1'” "'L{“*. ‘ J - .‘I’fi' '\\' I Iv,cv,':f"fik‘lj -"a F «I P: 5W} . A‘IIIZ'R, III» . “huh!” {Ha-mu 4‘ . "' ' _ x3613 , .. « «€14. ' . «I. " 3'33. .gjn (5' @ig “75435131: I'érfv M;‘ ‘ ' win; . ‘ JJLJ" "It 2—7.1. We "(3%"? I . I . , .-' II ,‘ ' . ‘ "4‘ , . V II I‘I III ': I ‘ "'1'. .I III"? . ‘ I II I. III I- I-':I“II WI I | I III'I II .. I I II. I. . " ,.‘ I]. .I I' ‘ 4 ‘I-.I| II AUéI III] ‘ . . . , \.II ‘I I I ,‘v I I»..‘I.I'IIIII 'I' IIIIII “II! .II II M . I. ' . , I III." ’I"..I:I‘ II. . ~II “I III." fl; m JII, )l'IIHH-‘Z‘J _J. II.It I. I'M." .. .III'I I“? I I '* -I.I - #“I'I ._‘... I I .. ‘.' I I ;‘;' .r'irll ”if; _: Er..’[‘;:h:l‘~ 11 In Lawi'éiufr$ig§¥‘YO'JI‘¥H‘;$1.W‘$'$}.EJE ‘ NAIL—‘néerLJLa-L‘ LIB-RA R. ‘»-. MlChlgafi SE :4 Ummxs f‘j/ .- ''''' This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF JUDGES AND THEIR REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION presented by DENNIS WAYNE CATLIN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD _degree inADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION Date /Q/¢fi 0-7 639 its a 7 '23? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF JUDGES AND THEIR REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION BY Dennis Wayne Catlin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF JUDGES AND THEIR REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION BY Dennis Wayne Catlin It was the purpose of the writer in this study to (l) examine the relative importance judges as a group place on reasons for participation in continuing judicial education, (2) identify factors which represent the underlying dimen- sions of reasons for participation, (3) analyze the possible relationships between selected judicial characteristics and the identified factors, and (4) examine the implications of the research findings for those who are engaged in the planning and implementation of continuing judicial educa- tion programs. The study population consisted of all Michigan trial judges who were officially serving on October 1, 1980 (N=523). A copy of a Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) and Respondent Information Form was mailed to each judge along with a letter of instruction. The Participation Reasons Scale contained 28 items which represented possible reasons for iparticipation in continuing judicial education. Respon- dents were asked to rate the relative importance of each reason on a seven point scale, with a 1 being "not important" and aA7 being "extremely important"-. The Respondent Information Form was designed to elicit selected demo- graphic, personal and professional characteristics from the respondents. Four hundred (400) judges responded re- presenting a response rate of 76%. The means and standard deviations for responses to the participation reasons contained on the PRS were com- puted to examine the relative importance judges placed on each reason. A factor analysis of the judges' responses was conducted utilizing both orthogonal and oblique factor ro- tation methods to identify participation factors representing underlying patterns of relationships in the responses. - Correlational and discriminant analysis techniques were employed to examine relationships between empirically de- rived participation factors and the personal and profes- sional characteristics of the responding judges. Conclusions An analysis of the research data provided the following conclusions: 1. Judges as a professional group placed high importance on the reasons for participation in continuing judicial education which are re- lated to keeping abreast of new developments in the law,being competent in their judicial work, matching their knowledge and skills with the demands of their judicial activities and improving their ability.to better respond to .the questions of law presented to them. There are three major factors which represent the underlying dimensions of the responding judges' reasons for participation. The factors were labeled based on the participation reasons which loaded on each factor. In rank order of importance, based on their mean scale scores, the factors which emerged were (1) Judicial Competence, (2) Collegial Interaction, and (3) Professional Perspective. Judges' orientations to the three participa- tion factors differed based on the character- istics of sex, years since law degree was received, tenure on current bench, and court level currently served. Female judges place significantly more importance on the reasons associated with the Judicial Competence factor scale than do male judges. Judges who were more recent graduated from law school placed more importance on participation as a means of developing a perspective of their professional role as judges. Judges who are newer to their present bench participated for reasons related to a development of competence as judge. In Michigan, judges of the Detroit Recorder's Court placed a significantly higher emphasis on reasons associated with the Professional Perspective factor scale than did any other .group of judges. Judges' reasons for participation were not significantly related to the characteristics of age, marital status, tenure, number of judges in the court or their status as a chief judge. Judges who participated in continuing judicial education on a regular basis did so for the reasons related to all three participation factors. Conversely, judges who reported that they participate infrequently or not at all were not motivated to participate for any of the reasons identified in this study. Dedicated to Jan, Michael and JoAnne ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It goes without saying.that a project of this magnitude requires the c00peration and assistance of a number of individuals. I wish to express my deep appreciation to the following professors, friends, and loved ones: Jan, who has always believed in me. Michael and JoAnne, who were beginning to think their father was never going to finish school. Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, for his willingness to assume responsibility as Chairman of my Doctoral Committee following the death of Dr. William Sweetland. His advice and .guidance have made a difficult undertaking much easier. Dr. William A. Anderson, for his invaluable assis- tance during my struggle to identify a research topic and for the constant intellectual challenges he provided. Dr. Kenneth Christian, who has been a constant source of encouragement throughout my entire graduate program. Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, for his willingness to serve on my committee and for his ongoing interest in those who are working in the criminal justice system. Dr. Arden D. Grotelueschen and Dr. Delwyn Harnisch, two leaders in the research of professionals' reasons for participation in continuing education, who freely shared their expertise and experience with me. They are professionals of iii the highest caliber. Justice James L. Ryan, whose support significantly contributed to the success of.this research effort. Marty Delgado, who sacrificed a substantial amount of her personal time in typing.the manuscript. Esther Schultheis, whose words of encouragement helped me through a critical time in my doctoral program. Finally, to my parents who, although unable to enjoy the benefits of higher education themselves, had the foresight and wisdom to encourage and support my pursuit of higher education. iv LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. “Need for the Study . . . . . II. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . FIGURES O O O O .0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C THE PROBLEM O O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Background to the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judicial Education as Viewed within Society's Overall Demand for Professional Competence . . . . . . . . Continuing Professional Education: A Developing Field of Conceptualization, Study and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . Importance and Implications Purpose . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . Theoritical Background . . . O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 Definition of Terms . . . Limitations of the Study . Overview of the Dissertation . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . IntrOduCtion O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Historical DevelOpment and Statu of Continuing Judicial Education . . . . . . . A National Perspective . . . . . . . . . . Judicial Education in Michigan . . . . . . Pioneer Research on Reasons for Participation in Adult Continuing Education . . . . . . . Research on Reasons for Participation in Continuing Professional Education . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nurses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business Professionals . . . . . . . . . . V Page ix xii 32 38 38 38 42 45 CHAPTER III. IV. Veterinarians O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O 0 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Population and Respondent Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrument DevelOpment and Validation . . Instrument Reliability . . . . . . . . . Survey Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objectives and Hypotheses . . . . . Research Objective l--To Identify the Relative Importance of Reasons for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objective 2--To Identify Participation Factors Which Represent The Underlying Patterns of Reasons for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objective 3--To Examine the Relationship Between Selected Judicial Characteristics and Participation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objective l--Relative Importance of Reasons for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objective 2--Participation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objective 3--Relationships Between Judicial Characteristics And Participation Factors . . . . . . . Chapter smary O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I DATA ANMYS IS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IntIOduction O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Judicial Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . Research Objective l--To Identify the Relative Importance of Reasons for Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 47 51 52 53 53 53 59 59 62 63 63 64 64 64 65 66 66 67 67 68 70 71 71 71 72 CHAPTER Research Objective.2——To Identify Participation Factors Which Represent The Underlying Patterns of Reasons for Participation in C.J.E. . . . . . . . Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . Factor Scale Reliability . . . . . Research Objective 3--To Examine the Relationship Between Selected Judicial Characteristics and Participation Factors 0 O O I O O O I O O O O O O O Hypothesis 1: Age . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 2: Sex . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 3: Marital Status . . . . . Hypothesis 4: Years Since Law Degree Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5: Possession of Higher Education Degrees . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 6: Tenure As a Judge . . . Hypothesis 7: Tenure on Current Bench Hypothesis 8: Court Level . . . . . . Hypothesis 9: Number of Judges in Court Hypothesis 10: Status as Chief Judge in A Multiple Judge Court . . ... Hypothesis llA: For Previous Year . . . . . . . Hypothesis 113: For Previous Three Years . . . Summary of Data Analysis Results . . Factor Analysis . . . . An Examination of the Relationship Between the Selected Judicial Characteristics and the Three Participation Reason Factors . Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Summary of the Research . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . Participation Factors Nonsignificant Results Significant . . . . . . vii Level of Participation Level of Participation Page 76 76 84 111 115 117 117 119 121 121 123 126 128 CHAPTER Page Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Implications for Judicial Educators . . . . 130 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . 134 APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 136 Appendix A: Participation Reasons Scale (Judge Form) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Appendix B: Respondent Information Form . . . . 137 Appendix C: Cover Letter From Justice James L. Ryan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 REFERENCES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 139 viii TABLE 2.1 4.3 4.4 4.5 ~4.6 4.9 LIST OF TABLES Comparison of Factors from Four Studies Using the Participation Reasons Scale . Breakdown of Study Population by Court . . Age Comparison of Population With Respondent Sample . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Population with Respondent Sample on Court Level Characteristic . Characteristics of ReSponding Judges . . . Means, Standard Deviations, Percentage Distribution of Responses to Each Reason in Rank Order . . . . . . . . . Factor Loadings from Orthogonally Rotated Three-Factor Solution . . . . . . . . . Factor Loadings from Oblique Rotation to Three-Factor Solution . . . . . . . . . Three-Factor Scale Loadings, Items, Means and Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . Estimates of Scale Reliability (Coefficient Alpha), Pearson Product Moment Correla- tions, Means and Standard Deviations For the Three Participation Reason Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix of Judicial Characteristics With Factor Scale Scores . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Age of Respondents . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Marital Status of Respondents . ix Page 49 54 55 57 73 74 78 79 80 84 87 89 90 TABLE 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.22 4.23 Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Years Since Law Degree Received . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By Tenure I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Tenure on Current Bench . . . . . F-ratios for Between Pair Group Means on Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Court Level Currently Served . . Standardized Discriminant Weights from Stepwise Discriminant Analysis of Court Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court Level Group Centroids for Function I . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Number of Judges . . . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By Criterion as Chief Judge . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Level of CJE Participation- Previous Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standardized Discriminant Weights from Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis Of Previous Year Participation . . . . . Group Centroids from Stepwise Functional Analysis of Previous Year Participation Multivariate F-matrix for Pairs of Centroids Means, Standard Deviations, and Univariate F-ratios for Three Factor Scale Scores By the Level of CJE Participation- Previous Three Years . . . . . . . . . . X Page 92 93 95 96 98 99 99 101 102 104 105 105 106 107 TABLE 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 Standardized Discriminant Weights from Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis of Previous Three Year Participation . . Centroids from Stepwise Function Analysis Of Previous Three Year Participation . . Multivariate F-matrix for Pairs of Centroids Summary of Correlational and Discriminant AnalYSiS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Comparison of Factors from Studies of Physicians, Veterinarians, and Judges . xi Page 108 109 109 112 124 FIGURE 3.1 3.2 LIST OF FIGURES Age Comparison of P0pulation With Respondent Sample . . . . Comparison of Population with Respondent Sample on Court Level Characteristic Plot of Court Group Centroids xii Page . 100 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background to the Problem Introduction The demand by the public for competence on the part of all professionals has prompted the development of a new field of post-secondary education which has come to be iden- tified as "continuing professional education". Houle (1980) suggests that fsince 1965, the general public has been more deeply and widely aroused over professional inadequacies than ever before", and the "Federal, state, and local legis- lative bodies have taken action themselves or have empowered administrative bodies to establish regulations dealing with many aspects of professional practice" (p. 6). He further observes: "a pivotal need is for every professional to be able to carry out his or her duties according to the highest possible standards of character and competence. One essen- tial way is for every practicing professional to engage in lifelong study" (p. 7). Judicial Education As Viewed Within Societyjs Overall Demand For Professional Competence Judges as a professional group have not been exempt from this public demand for professional competence. While the continuing professional education of judges has long been recognized by some as an essential part of assuring the over- all quality of justice in America, a general recognition of this need by judges themselves was slow to develop. As early as 1911, Edson Haines (1911) wrote, "Judges are not born, they are the product of growth" (p. 224). He further stated that "judges need an intensive indoctrination course supported by formal continuing education courses throughout their careers" (p. 224). As suggested, this recog- nition was slow to evolve as a general concensus among the judiciary in the United States. Cady and Coe (1975) observe that "prior to 1956, it would have been considered an affront to the judiciary to suggest that judges should continue their education after their elevation to the bench. It had been simply assumed that by donning a judicial robe a mere mortal was immediately transformed into the image of Jove on Mount Olympus” (p. 424). However, in recent years numerous national commis- sions, as well as leaders in the judiciary, began to respond to those pressures in society which were calling for profes- sional competence and to voice strong support for the devel- opment of ongoing continuing education programs at both the national and state levels. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice (1967) reported on the urgent need for continuing education of judges and found that it was wholly lacking in most states. Two years later, the Judicial Research Founda- tion (1969), in its report The Most Critical Problems of the Lower Courts, found that continuing education for lower court judges was not being provided and was urgently needed. By 1973, the rising concern about the lack of compre- hensive continuing education and the inadequacies of existing programs for judges prompted the U. S. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Goals and Standards (1973) to promulgate standards for judicial education. One year later, a report by the American Bar Association Commission on“Standards of Judicial Administration (1974) also recom- mended continuing education standards for judges. The National Conference of Chief Justices (1977) in a resolution at its 1977 Conference recognized that "training of judicial officers is both essential and necessary to the proper admin- istration of justice" (p. 32). As recently as 1978, the Judicial Education Study Group (Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project, 1978) stated that the continuing education of judicial personnel is essential to the development of the nation's judicial system and called for a comprehensive career education pro- gram consisting of "(A) Orientation, (B) Continuing inservice training, (C) Degree-granting programs and (D) Sabbaticals" (p. 7). A response to these voiced concerns began slowly during the 1950's and built in momentum during the decades of the 1960's and 1970's. By 1978, thirty-three states re- ported having established an ongoing continuing education program with a professional staff and funding to plan and conduct programs (Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project, 1978). In addition to state level programs, three major training organizations to serve judges have been established on a national level. The National Judicial College was found- ed in 1962 (Cady and Coe, 1975), the National College of Juvenile Justice in 1964 (Bickerson & Haggard, 1977), and the American Academy of Judicial Education was established in 1970 (Fairbanks, 1970). The proliferation of continuing professional educa- tion programs for judges cannot and should not be viewed as an isolated phenomenon but must be viewed within the broader context of society's overall demand for competence by all professionals. One of the responses to this demand has been the creation of continuing education programs in the profes- sions including the judiciary. As programs for the continuing education of judges developed and became professionally staffed, the administra- tors of those programs have had to struggle with the concep- tual and practical problems of this relatively new endeavor. Since continuing judicial education falls within the broader context of continuing professional education and has developed in response to the same demands which have been placed on other professions, the judicial educator can turn to the field of continuing professional education as one source to provide a conceptual framework for study and practice. Continuing Professional Education: A Developing Field of Conceptualization, Study, and Practice Continuing professional education, as Houle (1980) suggests, has evolved from the broader discipline of adult continuing education. During the process of this evolution, a body of knowledge, inquiry, research, and practice has also evolved which is distinct from general adult continuing edu- cation. He further observes that there has developed the need to formalize the means by which lifelong education for professionals can be identified as separate from general adult continuing education in terms of its practice and body of knowledge. In response to this need, the concept of "con- tinuing professional education" evolved and came into general use in the late 1960's (p. 7). Grotelueschen, Harnisch, and Kenny (1979) suggest that there is a categorical distinction in practice between adult education and continuing professional education. They suggest that not only is continuing professional education a more specialized designation, but that there is also a difference in conceptualization, study, and practice. They contend that this specialized status is based on three areas of consideration; "the referent population, the educational beneficiaries, and the nature of participation" (pp. 1-2). Houle (1980) after studying seventeen professions, identified fourteen characteristics of professions and pro- fessionalization. These characteristics, when used as a framework to establish goals for continuing professional education, as Houle suggests, further support the position that continuing professional education is categorically disr tinct from other forms of adult education and therefore its practitioners should be engaged in the development of a body of knowledge, inquiry, research, and practice. Need For the Study While judicial education is clearly a form of pro- fessional continuing education, and its development has paralleled and been influenced by the demands for competence which were brought to bear on professions generally, research in the field of judicial education has not paralleled that in other areas of continuing professional education. Only in- frequently has the research or the application of research findings from continuing professional education found its way into judicial education literature or practice. One of the critical areas of concern for all admin- istrators of continuing professional education programs is identifying and meeting the educational needs of the profes— sionals they serve. In grappling with this problem, judicial educators have primarily concentrated on the assessment of content needs in efforts to formulate a continuing education curricu- lum. This focus on content needs reflects an assumption that participation by judges in continuing education activities is primarily a function of the content of a particular activity. However, practitioners of continuing professional education in other disciplines have recognized that the rea- sons for participation on the part of professionals are com- plex and go beyond simply considering the appropriateness of or interest in the content of a specific activity. In re- sponse to this recognition, a line of research described as ”research on reasons for participation in continuing profes- sional education" has develOped. Although judicial educators have informally specu- lated about why judges participate in continuing education, there is a complete void in the literature of judicial educa- tion addressing the characteristics of judges as participants or research investigating the reasons why judges participate in continuing professional education activities. This void in research has placed administrators of judicial education programs in the position of relying on untested assumptions when decisions must be made about program design and deliv- ery. If judicial educators are going to significantly contribute to the competence of the judiciary, attention must be given to the total spectrum of professional and educational needs of the judges they serve. Therefore, this study is needed to identify and examine those additional reasons for judges' participation in continuing professional education which are related to the needs of the profession but are not necessarily directly related to specific curriculum content . Importance and Implications Of The Study Because judges as a group have not been the subject of educational research, there exists a void in educational research literature investigating why judges as a group are motivated to participate in continuing professional education activities. This study contributes to the educational re- search literature generally. It also contributes to the developing line of educational research on reasons why pro- fessionals participate in continuing professional education activities. In addition to contributing to the educational research literature generally, this study also contributes significantly to the growing body of judicial education literature. The identification and examination of reasons why judges participate and the relationship between reasons for participation and selected judicial characteristics has strong policy and planning implications for the administra- tors of judicial education programs. There are also signi- ficant implications for the units of government and agencies responsible for funding and evaluating judicial education programs. While, in a statistical sense, the results of this study can be generalized only to the population of trial judges studied in Michigan, there is reason to believe that the results can be conceptually generalized to populations of trial judges in states where similarities in jurisdiction, judicial education programming, and a system of voluntary participation exist. Finally, it is believed that this study is important because the instrument developed for this study can be used by other administrators of judicial education programs, as well as educational researchers, to conduct similar studies of judges in other states. P11132058 It is the purpose of this writer to (l) examine the relative importance judges as a group place on reasons for participation in continuing judicial education, (2) identify factors which represent the underlying dimensions of reasons for participation, (3) analyze the possible relationships between selected judicial characteristics and the identified factors, and (4) examine the implications of the research findings for those who are engaged in the planning and imple- mentation of continuing judicial education programs. Researchguestions The first and preliminary research question in this study related to the relative importance judges place on their reasons for participation in continuing education. In other 10 words, when presented with a series of reasons for participa- tion, on which reasons will Michigan trial judges place the most importance? The second and pivotal research question addressed by this study was whether or not there are empirically identi- fiable factors representing the underlying dimensions of reasons for participation by judges in continuing profession- al education. It was hypothesized that empirically derived participation factors would emerge from an analysis of the judges' responses to reasons for participation in continuing judicial education. The third and final question focussed on whether there exists a relationship between empirically identified participation factors and the following judicial character- istics: 1. Age 2. Sex 3. Marital status 4. Length of time since judges received law degree 5. Attainment of higher education degrees beyond the bachelor's degree other than the law degree 6. Total length of time judges have served in the judiciary (tenure) 7. Length of time the judges have served on their current bench (tenure on current bench) 8. The court level at which the judge currently serves (current bench) 11 9. The number of judges serving in a court 10. Whether or not the judges serve in the role of chief judge in a multiple judge court 11. The level of past participation in continuing judicial education a. During the previous year b. During the previous three years It was hypothesized that there would be no signifi- cant relationship between the empirically derived participa- tion factors and these judicial characteristics. Theoretical Background The theoretical background which is the basis for research on reasons for participation in continuing profes- sional education is rooted in the theories of and research on motivation for participation in general adult continuing education. One theoretical construct which has been used by a number of writers and researchers investigating participa- tion in adult education is Maslow's conception of a needs hierarchy. "This conception holds that Man's needs are or- ganized in a series of levels or hierarchy of importance, ranging from physiological needs at the lowest level to self- actualization at the highest level" (Douglah, 1970, pp. 92- 93). Douglah points out "the obvious implication that can be drawn from this conception is that adult education pro- grams must be congruent with the dominant needs of the in- tended audience. Failure to achieve such congruence will 12 result in minimum participation: (p. 93). A second motivational model is Havinghurst's devel- opmental task model which "prOposes that persons must complete a series of tasks at each developmental stage of life. Suc- cessful achievement of these tasks leads to happiness and success with future tasks; failure leads to unhappiness, societal disapproval, and difficulty with subsequent tasks" (O'Connor, 1979, p. 335). O'Connor suggests that in this model the developmental tasks are seen as the motivation for adults to participate in continuing learning activities as they seek assistance in the successful completion of suc- cessive tasks. A third motivational model which has been used extensively as a scheme for classifying reasons for partici- pation in adult education is Houle's typology of motivation orientation. In his research, Houle (1961) interviewed twenty-two adults who participate in continuing learning activities. He identified the following three subgroups of learners which formed the basis of his typology: The first, or, as they will be called, the goal oriented, are those who use education as a means of accomplishing fairly clearcut objec- tives. The second, the activity oriented, are those who take part because they find in the circumstance of learning a meaning which has no necessary connection, and often no connection at all with the content or announced purpose of the activity. The third, the learning oriented, seek knowledge for its own sake. (pp. 15-16) 13 Harnisch suggests that Houle's typology has been the most influential in shaping the research on reasons for parti- cipation in continuing adult education (Harnisch, 1980). Dickinson and Clark (1975) report that Houle's typology has been the basis for the development of three instruments which have been used extensively in participation research; the Continuing Learning Orientation Index, the Educational Participation Scale, and the Reasons for Educational Parti- cipation Scale (p. 7). Sheffield's Continuing Learning Orientation Index (Sheffield, 1964), Boshier's Educational Participation Scale (Boshier, 1971), and Burgess's Reasons For Educational Parti- cipation Scale (Burgess, 1971) were developed to explore the motivational framework developed by Houle. In the original studies, these instruments were developed and administered to participants in continuing adult education programs. Factor analysis was the primary technique used to identify the underlying motivational orientations of adults to parti- cipate in continuing adult education activities. With these studies as a foundation, it is not sur- prising that those from some professional disciplines inter- ested in professional continuing education research and prac- tice turned to the theories and methodologies developed by these adult educators and researchers to study reasons for participation in continuing professional education. For example, Dickinson and Clark (1975) based their study of registered nurses on the conceptual model of Houle's 14 typology utilizing Sheffield's Continuing Learning Orien- tations Index. In another study examining the reasons why nurses participate in continuing education, O'Connor (1979) used a modified version of Boshier's Education Participation Scale. However, the continued application of instruments designed for general continuing education to the field of continuing professional education has been questioned. Grotelueschen, Harnisch, and Kenny (1979) have suggested that the motivation-oriented studies which were largely influenced by Houle's research are "typically grounded in socio-psychological perspectives and generally utilize instrumentation and data gathering procedures that sample a broad range of individual motives for participation in continuing education activities" (p. 1). While such re- search has been valuable for those engaged in general adult education, and has certainly provided the basis for research on participation in continuing professional education, the focus of such research can and should be substantially nar- rowed for the purposes of investigating reasons for partici- pation in continuing professional education. When such broadly conceptualized research is applied to continuing professional education, it runs the risk of being superfi- cial and irrelevant. Previous research on participation has failed to focus more narrowly on the educational reasons for participation "favoring instead the broader array of socio- psychological motives to participate" (p. 3). 15 In an effort to develop a conceptual model of parti- cipation in continuing professional education and the support- ing instrumentation for research which would promote the appli- cation of research to practice, Grotelueschen, et a1., (1979) developed the Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) for assessing professionals' reasons for participation in continuing edu- cation and a supporting rationale for its focus and applica- tion. This scale has been built on three assumptions. The first assumption is "that professionals' participation in continuing education is a purposive activity" (Grotelueschen, Harnisch and Kenny, 1980, p. 19). The items on the scale such as "To further match my knowledge with the demands of my work situation" and "To improve my professional service to patients" are purposive or attainment oriented reasons for participa- tion (pp. 19-20). "As a result, the PRS yields purposive or teleological explnations of participation rather than causal explanations" (p. 20). "The second assumption is that research on reasons for participation in continuing professional education should have a fundamentally educational focus. In response to this assumption, the PRS items suggest, in various ways, that learning is involved in attaining some end relevant to pro- fessional practice" (p. 20). The third assumption is that research on professionals' reasons for participation should exhibit a holistic view of both the profession- al and of continuing professional education. It is important to attend to the traditional and explicit purposes of continuing professional education, but it is also important to attend 16 to other reasons which are responsive to the demands of the professional role. The PRS responds to the traditional and explicit purposes of continuing profes- sional education by including items which are related both to professional development and improvement and to the quality of service of professional prac- tice. The PRS also responds to the hol- istic challenge by including items re- lated to personal benefits and job security, collegial learning and interaction, and general reflection on the state of one's profession and his or her relationship The PRS has been used in studies "with both repre- sentative state samples of professionals as well as with groups of professional participants in specific programs" (Grotelueschen, et al., 1980, p. 21). A 19-item version of the PRS was administered to a sample of 325 veterinarians in the state of Illinois (Harnisch, 1980). Later, a 35-item version was administered to a second independent sample of 219 Illinois veterinarians (Harnisch, 1980). In a recent study, a 36-item PRS was administered to 211 physicians (Cervero, 1981). In each study, factor analysis yielded factors which represented the dimensions underlying the rea- sons for participation in continuing education. It was also determined that the empirically derived factors vary with the study sample and that different groups place different prior- ities on the derived factor scales (Symposium, 1980). Addi- tionally, when demographic data and respondent characteris- tics were collected and analyzed to determine the relation- ship of such variables to the empirically derived factors, patterns of relationships have been identified within study 17 groups (Grotelueschen, et al., 1980). This body of research which initially focused on the reasons why adults participate in general continuing education activities and was the basis for the current evolu- tion of research focusing on professionals' reasons for q participation in continuing professional education activities provides the theoretical foundation for this study. Definition Of Terms For purposes of this study the following definitions will be used and are provided for purposes of clarity and consistency. Circuit Court--The Circuit Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction. It has jurisdiction over all civil cases involving more than $10,000 and in all criminal cases where the offense involves a felony or Circuit Court misde- meanor. Common Pleas Court--The Common Pleas Court has civil jurisdiction within the City of Detroit in matters up to $5,000 and concurrent jurisdiction with the Wayne County Circuit Court in cases where debt or damages do not exceed $10,000. Continuing Judicial Education (CJE)--A planned continuing education activity designed to assist Michigan trial court judges in the continuing development of know- ledge, skills and attitudes throughout their judicial careers. 18 Current Bench--Current bench refers to the current court to which the judge has been appointed or elected (i.e., Circuit, Probate, District, etc.). District Court--The District Court has jurisdiction in civil cases up to $10,000. In the criminal field it has jurisdiction of all misdemeanors where the punishment does not exceed one year, as well as the arraignment, setting and acceptance of bail, and conducting preliminary examinations in felony cases. It also handles garnishments, eviction proceedings, land contract and mortgage foreclosures, and traffic cases. Municipal Court--The Municipal Court has civil juris- diction within the boundaries of a city in cases up to $1,500 and the same criminal jurisdiction as a District Court within those same boundaries. Participation Factor--Participation factor refers to an empirically derived factor based on an analysis and grouping of reasons for participation in continuing profes- sional education. The factor represents the dimensions under- lying the reasons for participation. Participation Reason--Participation reason refers to a statement of reason for participation in continuing profes- sional education activities contained on the Participation Reasons Scale (PRS). Probate Court-~The Probate Court has jurisdiction in such matters as juvenile proceedings, adoption, guardian- ships, wills, estates, and commitment of mentally ill persons 19 to mental institutions. It also hears cases involving the condemnation of land. Recorder's Court--Recorder's Court has jurisdiction over all criminal cases arising within the City of Detroit. Tenure--The number of years a judge has continuous- ly served. Trial Court Judge--A judge who serves on one of the several trial courts in Michigan. These courts include the Circuit Court, Probate Court, District Court, Municipal Court, Court of Common Pleas and Recorder's Court. All trial court judges in Michigan must be lawyers and are elected to terms of six years on nonpartisan ballots in general elections. Limitation Of The Study This study is limited to the survey population which is composed of the trial judges in the state of Michigan. The study population does not include the judges of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Michigan. Because a specific group of judges was surveyed at a particular point in time, the results may become invalid over time as the judicial population changes. It is also limited to the ex- tent that the instrument used to elicit judges' responses to reasons for participation in continuing professional education measures only those educational and professional domains for which it was designed and does not measure all of the possible reasons. Finally, it is limited to a study of the relationship of only those selected demographic, 20 personal, and professional characteristics of judges elicited through the Respondent Information Form (RIF) and those factors which are empirically derived through a factor analysis of responses to the Participation Reasons Scale. Overview Of The Study Chapter Two of this study contains a review of the pioneer studies of reasons for participation in adult con- tinuing education, as well as pertinent literature and re- search on reasons for participation in continuing profes- sional education. It also includes a brief review of the historical development of continuing judicial education from a national perspective, as well as the development of judi- cial education in Michigan. Chapter Three includes a description of the study population, a description of the instruments used, a report on the methods and procedures used, a restatement of the research questions in the form of research objectives, and a discussion of the data analysis techniques employed. Chapter Four contains a presentation of the results of the data analysis. Chapter Five includes a presentation of the summary of the research, conclusions, a discussion of the results, and a statement of the implications for judicial educators, as well as for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This review of the literature is presented in three sections. The first section is a brief overview of the historical development and status of continuing judicial education (CJE) both from a national perspective and in the state of Michigan. The second section is a review of the pioneer studies by adult continuing educators researching the reasons why adults participate in continuing profes- sional education. The third section is a review of the perti- nent studies of reasons why nurses, business professionals, physicians, and veterinarians participate in continuing professional education activities. Historical Development and Status of Continuing Judicial Education A National Perspective While many individuals, organizations, and study groups had for some time recognized the need for the continu- ing professional education of judges, the first organized efforts to provide such programs did not get under way until the 1950's with the most significant growth occurring during the decades of the 1960's and 1970's. 21 22 Cady and Coe (1975) report that "the first collective effort to provide continuing education for the judiciary was a seminar conducted at the New York University Law School in the summer of 1956 under the auspices of the Institute of Judicial Administration. This program was attended by approx- imately twenty judges from State Supreme Courts and the United States Courts of Appeals" (p. 424). The first organized effort on a national level to meet the needs of state court trial judges was the National College of the State Judiciary, which was founded in 1962 (Cady and Coe, 1975). This effort was followed by the estab- lishment of the National College of Juvenile Justice in 1964 to train juvenile court judges, as well as judges who handle probate and estate matters (Bickerson & Haggard, 1977). In 1970, the American Academy of Judicial Education was created to meet the needs of the judges from state courts who have limited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters (Fairbanks, 1970). Judicial education began developing on the state level in the late 1950's and early 1960's. For the most part, the early continuing education efforts on the state level consisted of educational programs offered in conjunction with annual meetings or conferences of judges held in the states. These annual meetings were typically created to focus on the administrative matters in a court system but became a con- venient vehicle for continuing education activities. In general, states did not have a separate educational ~'~‘--"*— 23 organization with a professional staff and ongoing funding (NCSC, 1974, pp. 11-23). However, the decade of the 1970's saw a phenomenal growth in state level judicial education programs. By 1978, thirty-three states had established on- going programs with professional staffs and funding (CCTAP, 1978). . This growth was probably prompted by two factors. First was the increasing general trend toward continuing education in all of the professions (Houle, 1980). A second factor was the infusion of substantial federal funds to both the national organizations and the state programs as a result of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968 and 1976. These Acts created and funded the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) which funneled millions of federal dollars into the criminal justice system. A study in 1976 by the National Center for State Courts indicates that of those states reporting, 72% received all or a portion of their funding for judicial education from LEAA (NCSC, 1976, p. 1-7). The formation of the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) in 1975 was an indicator that continuing judicial education on the state level had made the transition from ad hoc efforts to planned programs with professional staffs. The NASJE was established to: a. improve the quality of judicial education through the development of professional standards; b. promote research and development in the field of judicial education; 24 c. provide a forum for the development of progressive theories of judicial education; d. increase the awareness and utilization of adult education concepts and techniques; e. establish a mechanism for the exchange of judicial education and information; f. cooperate with other organizations in the field of judicial and criminal justice education; g. promote and represent the interest of the state and local judicial education programs; and h. meet the changing needs of the members (NASJE). One of the initial concerns of judicial educators was the development of standards and curricula for CJE acti- vities. A number of national commissions and study groups have been among those suggesting such standards. In 1977, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Goals and Standards promulgated the following standards for judicial education: Every State should create and maintain a comprehensive program of continuing education. Planning for this program should recognize the extensive commitment of judge time, both as fa- culty and as participants for such programs, that will be necessary. Funds necessary to prepare, administer, and conduct the programs, and funds to permit judges to attend appropriate national and regional education programs should be provided. (U.S. National Advisory Commission, 1973, p. 156). These standards for judicial education were echoed one year later by the American Bar Association Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration. 25 Judges should maintain and improve their professional competence through con- tinuing professional education. Court systems should operate or support judges' participation in training and education, including programs of orientation for new judges and refresher education for ex- perienced judges in developments in the law and in techniques in judicial and administrative functions. (ABA,.1974, p. 65) The National Conference of Chief Justices in a resolution at its 1977 Conference recognized that "training of judicial officers is both essential and necessary to the proper administration of Justice" (Conference of Chief Justices, 1977, p. 32). They further promulgated the follow- ing set of guidelines for an effective judicial education program: 1. New Judge Judicial Education A. A new judge judicial education program should be established and funded in each state or region. Each new judicial offi- cer should be required to attend a pre- scribed judicial education program within his or her first two years of judicial office. Educational leave should be allowed for this purpose. B. Each new judge should be encouraged to attend a national judicial education program during this first three years as a judicial officer. State funds should be provided for this purpose and the judge should be allowed three weeks educational leave to attend this type of educational program. 2. General Judicial Education A. Each existing judicial officer should be required to attend a minimum of one week or forty hours of approved state, regional or national legal educational courses every three calendar years. Educational leave should be allowed for this purpose. 26 B. Each existing judicial officer should be encouraged to attend national or regional educational programs in addition to that required by subparagraph A. State funds should be provided for attendance at these programs and the judge should be allowed an additional two weeks of educational leave every three years for this purpose. (Conference of Chief Justices, 1977, p. 33). In a 1978 national study of judicial education, the Judicial Education Study Group stated that the continuing education of judicial personnel is essential to the devel- opment of the nation's judicial system and called for a comprehensive career education program consisting of "(A) Orientation, (B) Continuing inservice training, (C) Degree- granting programs, and (D) Sabbaticals" (Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project, 1978, p. 7). Judicial educators have also been among those who have suggested the need for judicial education standards. Li (1976) suggests that “a comprehensive state judicial education program should ultimately endeavor to cover all educational subjects of importance to judges and on all educational levels, including the orientation of new judges (basic),and the continuing education (intermediate) and graduate education (advanced) of experienced judges" (p. 61). Stumpf, in addressing curriculum standards for CJE observes that: ...prior education, legal experience as a practitioner and professional aspirations are not the same for all judges and indeed may even change during a judicial career. Since no two judges will have the same kind of legal background, the ideal curriculum 27 is not feasible either administratively or financially. The situation therefore calls for a curriculum that will establish categories of courses based upon types of judicial tasks customarily performed and the levels of competence required to carry Stumpf suggests five levels of courses: (1) Orien- tation courses for new judges immediately upon becoming a judge; (2) Basic courses in all areas of judicial service, such as evidence, procedure, family law, etc.; (3) Advanced courses offered periodically to instruct judges in more complex areas of the law; (4) New development courses to keep judges abreast of current developments and emerging areas of practice; and (5) Refresher courses designed to periodi- cally update and renew skills and knowledge (pp. 3-5). Another issue which has occupied the attention of judicial educators across the nation is mandatory judicial education. A description of the status of mandatory CJE is complex since there has existed little concensus as to what constitutes a system of mandatory continuing education. In one study of CJE, it was suggested that: Mandatory judicial training can be divided into four categories: (1) mandatory atten- dance for all judges at judicial conferences; (2) single-session mandatory education and/or training for judges in certain courts, usually courts of limited jurisdiction; (3) mandatory continuing legal education for all lawyers and thus for law-trained judges; and (4) ongoing mandatory training of judges via a specific continuing judicial education plan. (NCSC, 1976, p. 10) In a recent survey of all state judicial education programs, the Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project 28 (1981) identified three general types of programs in which participation might be mandated: New Judge Orientation/ Certification, Annual Judicial Conference/College, and continuing education (p. l). The report concludes that "mandatory continuing education programs operate in 26 states. Program requirements vary from state to state in terms of the type and extent of education program participation required" (p. 3). Mandatory judicial education seems to have followed the general trend toward mandatory continuing education in other professions, such as medicine, where Houle (1980) re- ports "as of July 1, 1979, twenty states had some legal re- quirement for physicians to use continuing medical education as a basis for relicensure and in four other states such a requirement had been authorized by the legislature but not yet implemented" (p. 283). As with other professions, the authorities are not of one mind on the issue of mandatory judicial education. The 0.8. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Goals and Standards (1973) recommended that mandatory con- tinuing education should be a "component of judicial office, with power in a judicial conduct commission to discipline or remove judges who will fully fail to participate in the required programs" (p. 156). However, the Judicial Education Study Group (CCTAP, 1978) in a recent report took a position against mandatory judicial education. The National Center for State Courts 29 summarized the two positions by stating that: The supporters point to one obvious advantage--all judges receive training, and not simply those who voluntarily avail them- selves of educational opportunities. Opponents argue that there is no way to force judges to learn if they are not willing to do so. These issues will doubtless be dealt with in more depth as states continue to experiment with different approaches to mandatory judicial education. (NCSC, 1976, p. 11) While the issue has its strong supporters and Oppo- nents, in all likelihood the general resistance to mandatory continuing professional education which is developing in other professional groups will have an impact and slow the development of mandatory judicial education (Houle, 1980; Watkins, 1980). Judicial Education in Michigan The development of CJE in Michigan has followed a pattern which is typical of the national trend. Early formal offerings of CJE occurred in conjunction with the Annual Judicial Conference. This conference was originally estab- lished in 1954 to conduct: ...a continuous study of the adjective and substantive laws of the state, as well as the organization, roles, methods of procedure and practice of the judicial system of the state and (to) make recommendations for the improvement thereof to the Supreme Court and the Legislature. (Michigan Public Acts 1945, P.A. 195) During the first few years, the Annual Conference focussed on administrative matters related to running the court system. However, as early as 1956, the Conference 3O began to become a vehicle for CJE and by 1966 the Conference was billed as: ...one of the nation's oldest programs of continuing judicial education. The program is aimed at increasing the knowledge and skills of judges, as well as keeping them current on changing laws and procedures... Michigan is one of the first states in the nation to institute such a compulsory system of continuing judicial education and it has been widely praised by bench, bar, and public. (MSC, 1966) (These programs were, however, typically planned on an ad hoc basis by committees of judges and lawyers. It was not until 1971, with the establishment and funding of the Center for the Administration of Justice, that an ongoing, professionally staffed and funded program of CJE began in Michigan. Over its six year history, the Center was funded through a combination of federal, state, and Kellogg Founda- tion funds (CAJ, 1977, pp. 1-3). The Center for the Admin- istration of Justice conducted continuing education programs for Michigan's judges and state court personnel. With the termination of Kellogg Foundation funding in 1977, the Center for the Administration of Justice was phased out and the responsibility for CJE was transferred to the Michigan Supreme Court. In October of 1977, the Supreme Court created the Michigan Judicial Institute as its con- tinuing education arm. The Institute maintains an ongoing program of continuing education for Michigan judges and court support personnel. The Institute is totally funded by state appropriations and maintains a professional staff to 31 plan and conduct continuing judicial education programs. The judicial education programs of the Institute fall into two categories: New Judges' Orientation and Continuing Judicial Education. New Judges' Seminars are conducted for newly elected and appointed judges. Continuing education programs are of two types: Regional Judicial Seminars and Residence Courses. The Regional Seminars are two days in length and are offered at four regional locations throughout the state. The content for the seminar is repeated at each location. The Residence Courses are designed to meet the career education needs of judges by offering three—day courSes during which a judge can devote a concentrated period of time to one subject matter area. These courses have included The Judicial Decision Making Process, Judicial Writing, Judicial Management, and The Rules of Evidence. While CJE in Michigan is voluntary, high levels of participation have been experienced. Participation data indicates that, on an average, 75% of the judges attend at least one continuing education program each year. During the first two years of the Institute's existence, 92% of the judges were found to have participated in at least one program (Michigan Judicial Institute, 1979; 1980). At the present time, a system of mandatory CJE is not being con- templated. In order to maintain a high level of participation and to identify ways to increase participation under such a voluntary system, an understanding of the reasons why judges 32 as a professional group participate in continuing education is essential. Pioneer Research On Reasons ForjParticipation In Adult Continuing Education As previously suggested in Chapter I, the research on reasons for participation in continuing professional education is rooted in the research on motivation for parti- cipation in general continuing adult education. It was pointed out that several theoretical constructs and motiva- tional models have been used by a number of writers and re- searchers in investigating participation in adult continuing education. These include Maslow's conception of a needs hierarchy, Havinghurst's developmental task model, and Houle's typology of motivation orientation (Douglah, 1970; Houle, 1961; O'Connor, 1979). Houle's typology seems to have been the most influ- ential in shaping the research on reasons for participation in continuing adult education (Harnisch, 1980). In his re- search, Houle (1961) interviewed twenty-two adults who parti- cipate in continuing learning activities. He identified the following three subgroups of learners which formed the basis of his typology: The first, or, as they will be called, the goal oriented, are those who use education as a means of accomplishing fairly clearcut objec- tives. The second, the activity oriented, are those who take part because they find in the circumstance of learning a meaning which has no 33 necessary connection, and often no con- nection at all with the content or announced purpose of the activity. The third, the learning oriented, seek knowledge for its own sake. (PP. 15-16) Boshier (1976) suggests that "despite the small size of Houle's sample and the absence of empirical analysis, it has become a useful and durable point from which to begin research into motivational orientations" (p. 41). Houle's typology has been the basis for the development of three instruments which have been used extensively in participa- tion research; the Continuing Learning Orientation Index, the Educational Participation Scale, and the Reasons for Educational Participation Scale (Dickinson & Clark, 1975). Probably the initial effort to operationalize Houle's typology was in a study conducted by Sheffield (Dickinson & Clark, 1975). In his study, Sheffield (1964) hypothesized that: "The three orientations of continuing learners are goal-orientation, activity orientation, and learning orientation" (p. 3). For purposes of his study, Sheffield constructed a Continuing Learning Orientation Index (CLOI) utilizing four sources. He reviewed Houle's transcripts from the twenty- two learners interviewed. Second, he analyzed Houle's Inquiring Mind (Houle, 1961). Next, a number of adult edu- cators and experienced students of adult education were asked to list reasons why they thought adults participated in learning activities. In addition, the literature was re- viewed to identify additional reasons why adults participate 34 in continuing learning activities. The sources yielded 120 items which were eventually reduced to 99 statements of reasons for participation in adult education (p. 5). Respondents to the CLOI were asked to indicate the importance of the reason for participation on a five (5) point scale which ranged from "Very Frequently Important For Me" to "Never Important For Me". The CLOI was administered to a total sample of 453 adults who were participants in 20 conferences held in 8 universities throughout the United States (p. 6). A factor analysis yielded five orientations of adults to participation which he identified as: "(1) the '1earning orientation, (2) the sociability orientation, (3) the personal-goal orientation, (4) the societal-goal orientation, and (5) the need-fulfillment orientation" (p. 9). Sheffield concluded that this study basically sub— stantiated Houle's typologies, but that the "goal" and "acti- vity" orientations needed further refinement. The goal orientation "divided into personal-goal and societal-goal definitions" (p. 18). He further concluded that "these re- sults also show that all five of the orientations are likely to be represented by adult learners in any given continuing learning situation where a sufficient number of participants are involved" (p. 21). In an effort to further test Houle's typology, Boshier (1971) developed a 48 item Educational Participation Scale (EPS) as a factor analytically-based measurement of motivation for participation (p. 1). He reports that "after 35 a close examination of The Inquiring Mind and the highest loading items from Sheffield's study, 48 items dealing with reasons for participation (e.g., 'to get a break in the routine of home and work') were assembled. Respondents were asked to check on a nine point scale 'to what extent did the following reasons influence you to enroll in your adult education course?'" (p. 7). Boshier administered the EPS to 233 randomly se- lected participants at the Wellington High School Evening Institute, the Department of University Extension of Victoria University and the Wellington Workers Education Association (p. 9). The responses were factor analyzed resulting in four- teen first-order factors or "motivational orientations", seven second-order factors and four third-order factors (pp. 11-19). Boshier reported that third-order factor 1, "other directed advancement" identifies goal-oriented participants responding to some, probably vocational environmental press. Third-order factor 2 is akin to Houle's learning orientation except that learning is undertaken not as an end in itself but to prepare oneself for some future, probably educational, activity. Third-order factor 3 could be described as a bipolar measure of "self versus other centeredness“. Third- order factor 4 is almost pure social contact (p. 19). Boshier concludes that although many of the factors seem to be re- lated to Houle's motivational typology, participation is a 36 more complex phenomenon than Houle.suggested (Pp. 19-24). In another effort to explore the motivational frame- work developed by Houle and investigated by Sheffield and Boshier, Burgess (1971) developed a Reasons for Educational Participation (REP) scale which was administered to adult learners in the St. Louis area (p. 11). The REP scale included 70 possible reasons for participation on which the respondent was asked to circle one response on a seven point interval "never-to-always" as an indication of how often each reason influenced them to take part in an educational activity. "The seventy state- ments included on the instrument were representative of the original list of 5,773 reasons secured from the literature, from 300 adult educators and from 1,000 adult students. The reduction was achieved with the assistance of two sets of judges and by two different groups of adult learners who responded to statements on two different dates at least two weeks apart" (p. 12). After seeking the reasons for participation found in previous research, Burgess hypothesized that when the rea- sons for participation were factor analyzed, eight factors would emerge: (1) the desire to know for the sake of knowing, (2) the desire to gain knowledge in order to achieve a per- sonal goal, (3) the desire to gain knowledge in order to achieve a social goal, (4) the desire to take part in social activity, (5) the desire to escape some other activity or situation, (6) the desire to comply with requirements, 37 (7) the desire to comply with pressures exerted by relatives, friends and society, and (8) the desire to study alone or just be alone (p. 9-11). Burgess received responses to the REP from 1,098 participants attending fifty-four continuing education acti- vities in the St. Louis area. Of these, 1,046 were usable for analysis (p. 13). Factor analysis yielded seven factors which accounted for 63.1% of the variance in the items. These factors were named as follows (pp. 17-18): I. The desire to know II. The desire to reach a personal goal III. The desire to reach a social goal IV. The desire to reach a religious goal V. The desire to take part in social activity VI. The desire to escape VII. The desire to meet formal requirements Burgess concluded that there was a slight difference between the hypothesized and the emerged factors and that his study further supported Houle's typology and the research of Sheffield (p. 27). While these studies have certainly been helpful in exploring the reasons for participation in general adult continuing education, the direct application of their find- ings to the field of professional continuing education seems somewhat limited. For example, it would be difficult to con- ceive of professionals participating in continuing education out of a desire to reach a religious goal. In addition, 38 there is a difference in the nature of the participants them- selves. While the participants in general continuing educa- tion are a diverse population in terms of background, educa- tion and profession, the participants in continuing profes- sional education are more likely to be homogeneous in these characteristics. This would suggest that research on profes- sional pOpulations could be somewhat narrowed for more speci- fic results. Research on Reasons For Participation In Continuing Professional Education Introduction There is little doubt that the research on reasons for participation in continuing adult education laid the foundation for the research on reasons for participation in continuing professional education. In some instances, those researching professional continuing education reasons have used adaptations of the instruments previously discussed. Other researchers have used methodologies and have developed instruments unique to the study of continuing professional education. Nurses A study by Dickinson and Clark (1975) represents what might be termed a transition study where the study popu- lation was a professional group of registered nurses but where the goal of the research still focused on attempts to further 39 clarify Houle's typology. In this.study, Dickinson and Clark administered Sheffield's CLOI to a random stratified sample of 250 nurses employed at five large general hospitals in Vancouver, British Columbia. The nurses were specifically instructed "to consider their reasons for participating in All learning activities, not just those related to nursing" (p. 10). (Emphasis added.) A factor analysis yielded a clustering of the 58 items into eight factors labeled: (1) learning orientations, (2) sociability orientations, (3) occupational orientations, (4) professional orientations, (5) societal orientations, (6) interactive orientations, (7) relief from boredom and frustration, and (8) not named (pp. 11-12). They concluded that the factors "did not differ markedly from other factors identified by Sheffield and Scovie using the same instrument" (pp. 10-11). They also suggested that "the seven inter- pretable factors are conceptually consistent with the typo- logy suggested by Houle" (p. 12). Dickinson and Clark's study lends little to the understanding of the reasons why nurses as a professional group participate in continuing professional education. Other researchers have, however, applied Sheffield's CLOI and Boshier's EPS scales to the study of professional study groups to specifically identify the reasons for their participa- tion in continuing professional education. One of the first efforts in this line of research was a study by Bennett (1968) of Air Force nurses. Bennett 40 surveyed a sample of 1,000 United States Air Force nurses stationed in the continental United States. These nurses received the CLOI along with instruments designed to collect demographic data as well as levels and types of continuing professional education participated in (p. 50). Five hundred and eighty-nine (589) usable responses were obtained. (p. 131). Unfortunately, Bennett did not conduct an indepen- dent factor analysis of the responses to the CLOI but rather used the five factors which emerged in Sheffield's study and the items loading on those factors as the criteria for the clustering of responses by the nurses to the CLOI. This pro- cess failed to add any significant new knowledge as to the motivations of Air Force nurses to participate in continuing professional education in an empirical sense. In another study of nurses, O'Connor (1979) used a modified version of Boshier's Education Participation Scale (EPS) to identify the reasons why nurses participate in con- tinuing professional activities. O'Connor also was inter- ested in determining whether nurses who served in states where continuing education was mandatory differed in their reasons for participation from nurses who worked in non- mandatory states. O'Connor modified the EPS by adding 8 items "on the basis of a pilot study in which nurses similar to those sampled for the main study were asked to list reasons for participation" (p. 356). The sample for the survey included 41 nurses in states with mandatory requirements and those from states in which participation is voluntary. "A total of 843 nurses completed the study questionnaires, 315 in mandatory states, 235 in proposed states, and 293 in voluntary states" (p. 356). A factor analysis of the responses was conducted using the Varimax orthogonal rotation method. This analysis yielded seven factors which "labeled on the basis of com- ponent items are compliance with authority, improvement in social relations, improvement in social welfare skills, professional advancement, professional knowledge, relief from routine and acquisition of credentials" (p. 357). To test the relationship between the legal status of continuing education and the motivational orientations, an analysis of variance was conducted. It was found that legal status of education had little effect on the reasons for participation (p. 358). O'Connor concluded that the "motivational orientations are comparable to those identified in previous research" using the EPS (p. 358) and that: The professional knowledge orientation identified in this investigation is similar in meaning to the 'cognitive interest' and '1earning' orientations which have been consistently iden- tified in motivational orientation studies. In the present investigation, however, this orien- tation contained a definite professional com- ponent not found in the two reports of nurses' orientations. (p. 358) 42 It is interesting to note that O'Connor found it necessary, based on a pilot test, to modify Boshier's EPS by adding items specifically related to the reasons why nurses participate in continuing education. This suggests that there are reasons for participation in professional educa- tion which are not found in the instruments used for the research in general continuing education. Continuing educators in other professions have like- wise investigated reasons for participation in continuing professional education. These have included research in the professions of human medicine, business and veterinary medi- cine. Physicians Reasons for participation by physicians in continuing medical education (CME) has only recently been a focus of inquiry by continuing medical educators. Richards and Cohen (1980) suggest that "in most studies reported in the past 25 years, physicians' reasons for CME attendance have been considered only as a peripheral issue" (p. 480). Richards and Cohen undertook to identify any reasons for participation which may have emerged as secondary or peripheral issues in CME research. They suggest that five categories of reasons can be identified: (1) the belief by physicians that atten- dance in CME is an integral part of professionalism, (2) they are interested in the topics presented, (3) attendance 43 validates their prior learning and, to a lesser extent, they modify their practices based on the experience of other phy- sicians, (4) participation meets specific learning goals or attains a personal objective, and (5) it provides the oppor- tunity for a change of pace from their daily practice (Pp. 480-484). They conclude that: Although the nature of physicians' reasons for participation in CME programs requires addi- tional research, the following observations about participation appear to be valid: 1. Physicians are required to participate as much by their inner standards of achievement as by outer forces, such as peer pressure or regulation. Physicians participate for reasons that are more complex than 'keeping up' with the newest developments in medicine--the phrase used most often to describe the purpose of CME. Physicians' need to validate their know- ledge and practices is a primary moti- vator for participation. The opportunity that traditional CME offers for change of pace and socialization with colleagues is a significant reason for participation but is not the most important motivator. Most physicians now participate in traditional CME programs, and they do so for a variety of reasons at a variety of motivational levels. (p. 484) Cervero (1981) observes that "the literature on physicians' reasons for participating in continuing education is more descriptive than analytical, more hortatory than explanatory and more impressionistic than empirical" (p. 29). He goes on to observe: 44 What little empirical data exist have been collected by methods which are unsystem— atic, making it difficult to draw any but the most tentative conclusions regarding reasons for participation. The typical research method has been to provide physicians with four or five general reasons for partici- pation from which they could choose the most important. Further, the authors of these studies have chosen not to describe the processes by which these reasons were gener- ated, leaving the impression that there were no explicit bases for their selection. (p. 29) In an effort to develop an empirical base for under- standing participation, Cervero conducted a study of physi- cians who were participants in CME programs in "four Chicago area hospitals accredited for CME" (p. 30). For purposes of this study, Cervero used a Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) which was "developed by A. D. Grotelueschen and colleagues at the University of Illinois to assess professionals' reasons for participating in continuing education” (p. 30). The PRS contained thirty-four statements which re- presented reasons for participation in medical education. Respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of the reasons on a "seven point scale ranging from 'not important to me' (one) to 'extremely important to me' (seven). Two hundred and eleven (211) physicians responded to the survey representing a 35% response rate (p. 30). The responses to the PRS were factor analyzed using both orthogonal and oblique rotation methods. A four-factor solution was found to provide the best fit to the data. The items loading on these factors were analyzed and the four 45 factors were given descriptive labels. These factors in rank order, based on the mean scale score were: (1) Maintain and improve professional competence and service to patients, (2) Enhance personal and professional position, (3) Under- stand oneself as a professional, and (4) Interact with col- leagues (pp. 32-37). While these findings represent an initial step in empirically identifying the reasons why physicians participate in CME, Cervero admits that "the study sample has limita- tions which restrict the generalizability of the results" (p. 34). Cervero concludes "these findings demonstrate that physicians participate in continuing education for reasons more complex than to keep up with new developments in medi— cine or to improve patient care" (p. 33). Cervero did not report any attempt to determine how the personal and profes- sional characteristics of physicians relate to the identified reasons for participation. Business Professionals The Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) used by Cervero was initially developed by Grotelueschen, Harnisch, and Kenny (1979) and first administered to 440 business profes- sionals who were participants in continuing education acti- vities held at the Executive Development Center at the Uni- versity of Illinois (p. 5-6). (A complete discussion of the development of the PRS is found in Chapter III of this Study.) 46 A factor analysis of the responses to the PRS yielded a four-factor solution. The factors were "tentatively given a name which was felt to represent the underlying construct tapped. They included: Collegial Learning/Interaction (Factor I), Personal Benefit/Job Security (Factor II), Professional Improvement and Development (Factor III) and Professional Service (Factor IV)" (p. 10). In addition to the factor analysis, an examination of the relationship between some of the characteristics of the respondents and their reasons for participation was conducted. Grotelueschen, et al. found that among these business profes- sionals those who were in finance courses had mean scores which were significantly lower on the Professional Service scale than those who were participating in executive courses. The educational level of participants was also found to be related significantly to different reasons for parti- cipation. Those participants with less than a bachelor's degree were found to have higher scores on the Personal Bene- fits/Job Security factor scale as well as on the Professional Service factor, as opposed to groups with bachelor's, master's or doctor's degrees (p. 23). When the income of respondents was examined, those with low (less than $20,000) and medium ($20,000-29,999) in- come levels were found to have higher scores on the Profes- sional Service scale. In addition, medium income participants were found to be more oriented toward Collegial Learning/ Interaction than were low and high income participants (pp. 29-30): 47 Grotelueschen, et a1, admit that the sample for this study does not represent the general population of business professionals and therefore the results of the study cannot be generalized to the population as a whole (p. 31). Another concern of this study is the relatively low estimates of factor scale reliability which were computed using the Corhnbach coefficient alpha method. Later studies using a scale with an increased number of items and the identifi- cation of the most reliable items through item analysis significantly overcame this problem. The major purpose of the study was the development of an instrument which could be used across professional fields. Another major contribution of the study was the finding that different groups (i.e., interest and income) within the same profession may differ with respect to the reasons why they participate in continuing professional education. Veterinarians The Participation Reasons Scale was also employed by Harnisch (1980) in an extensive study of two groups of veterinarians in Illinois. In the first study, a regionally stratified sample of 325 veterinarians completed a 19-item PRS. In the second study, a second independent sample of 219 veterinarians completed a 35—item PRS. The overall response rate for the first sample was 76% (p. 34) and 70% (p. 65) for the second study. In addition to studying 48 the educational reasons why veterinarians participate in continuing veterinary education, Harnisch also studied "(a) the relationship between educational participation reasons and personal and professional characteristics of veterinarians, (b) the relationship between veterinarian educational participation reasons and the participation reasons of business professionals, and (c) the validation of the Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) (PRS-l9 with PRS-35)" (p. 2). A factor analysis of the responses by each study group to the PRS was conducted. In the first study, four major factors were identified. Five major factors were identified in study two (p. 23). Harnisch then compared the factors emerging from these two studies with those which emerged in the studies of physicians (Cervero, 1981) and business professionals (Grotelueschen, et al., 1979). The factors derived in each of these studies are displayed in Table 2.1. The factors are presented in rank order of importance based on the mean factor scale scores. Harnisch suggests that while the factor scales which emerged in the studies of business professionals and veterinarians using the PRS-l9 may have some similarities and may be comparable (p. 123), a "confirmatory factor model testing procedure revealed that the four-factor model of business professionals' reasons was not the same for veter- inarians" (p. 124). In comparing the results between his second sample with those of physicians, it was found that coHuflmom Hmcoflmmomoum can am:0muom oocmncm .>H Hmcoflmmomoum c we mammoco ocmumuoncs .HHH 49 mosmmoaaou cues uomuoucH .HH mucoeumm ou ooH>Hom Hmcoemmomoum o>oudEH cam caduceus .H :ofiuomamom apnoemmmmoum .> huflusoom non can mnemocom accomuom .>H :oHuomumucH cam mcflcumoq Haemmaaoo .HHH 00fl>uom HMGOHmmONOHm . HH ucmemoao>ma can ucoEo>oumEH apnoemmmmoum .H sowuomnoucH tam msficumon anamoaaoo .>H huwuooom non cam mnemocom HmGOmHom .HHH ucoemoao>on Hmoumu accowmmomoum .HH ooa>umm Hmcoflmmmmoum .H auausoom now can muwumcmm Hchmumm .>H :ofluomuoucu can mcwcucoq anamoaaoo .HHH oofl>nmm HMGOHmmOMOHm .HH ucoemoao>oo umoumu accowmmmmoum .H vm mmm mGMHOAmhnm Ham mo sesum mm mmm mamaumcfiumum> mam mo scuba ma mam maneumcfluouo> mmm mo scuba ma mmm mm>flusomxm see «0 sesum carom mcommom GOAUMQHOHuHmm on» mean: moaosum usom Scum muouomm mo COmAHmmEOOIIH.~ wands 50 the rank order of the factors was similar. This suggests "that the ordering of factors may be similar for other medi— cal professional groups" (p. 124). As was the case with business professionals, Harnisch found that the reasons for participation by veterinarians were related to some of the personal and professional character- istics of the respondents. Early career veterinarians in the first study were found to be positively oriented toward the Professional Service and Collegial Learning/Interaction fac- tor scales and in the second study they were also oriented toward Personal Benefits and Job Security, as well as the Professional Improvement and Development factor scales (pp. 126-129). The results of the study indicated that single veterinarians had "high.professional career development inter- ests" (p. 127), and that those who had been engaged in their present duties for fewer years placed greater importance on the reasons associated with the Personal Benefit and Job Security factor scale (p. 127). Harnisch reports that "differences in reasons for participation were observed for veterinarian types of prac- tice (i.e., small animal, mixed animal, large animal) and principle setting of employment (e.g., animal clinic, farm or agency)" (p. 139). Veterinarians who practiced in a farm setting were found to be more oriented toward the Profes- sional Service factor. Those who practiced in an agency setting as opposed to a clinical setting were found to have a significantly low orientation toward Professional Service 51 (p. 131). The place of practice also seemed to make a differ- ence. Those who were practicing in rural settings "placed greater importance on Collegial Learning and Interaction than did those practicing in larger communities" (p. 132). For the most part small animal vets fill a profile of placing greater importance on Professional Improvement and Development and less importance on Collegial Learning and Inter- action in contrast to a group of non-small animal veterinarians who place greater impor- tance on Collegial Learning and Interaction and less importance on Professional Improve- ment and DevelOpment (PP. 133-134) Harnisch concludes that there are at least five factors representing the underlying reasons why veterinarians participate in continuing education, and that the reasons for participation are related in varying ways to the characteris- tics of the professionals responding to the study. He also suggests that "professional groups' reasons for participa- tion may vary in their similarity over time and with other professional groups" (p. 138). Summary In reviewing the studies reported here, it is difficult to come to any general conclusion about the reasons why professionals participate in continuing education due to the varieties of methodology, instruments, sampling tech- niques and the detail of reporting in the literature. In addition, many of the studies are more descriptive than analytical. However, the development of the Participation 52 Reasons Scale and the preliminary testing of the scale by Cervero, Harnisch, and Grotelueschen, et a1. promises to provide a tool which can be used to study other profes- sional groups, thereby making cross-professional comparisons possible. Chapter Summary The historical development of CJE both nationally and in the state of Michigan has been reviewed. Also pre- sented was a review of the pioneer studies of reasons for participation in continuing adult education which provided the foundation for the research on reasons for participa- .tion by professionals in continuing education. The pertinent studies of the reasons why profes- sionals participate in continuing education were discussed. These included studies which used instruments developed for studying adult continuing education participation, as well as those studies which have utilized the Participation Reasons Scale designed specifically to identify the contin- uing education participation reasons of professionals. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction The study methods and procedures are presented in this chapter. They include a discussion of the study pOp- ulation and the representative nature of the reSpondent sample; a discussion of instrument develOpment, validity and reliability; a description of the survey procedure; identification of the study variables; and a restatement of the research questions in the form of research objectives along with relevant hypotheses. A description of the data analysis techniques related to each research objective is also included. Finally, a summary of the research methods and procedures is presented. Study Population And Respondent Sample The population for this study consisted of those Michigan trial court judges who were officially serving in office on October 1, 1980 (N=523). Seven judgeships were vacant at the time of the study. The number of judges from each court type who received the survey questionnaire is reflected in Table 3.1. 53 54 TABLE 3.l--Breakdown Of Study Population By Court Court Level ‘Number of Judges Circuit Court 161 District Court 211 Probate Court 105 Detroit Recorder's Court 23 Recorder's Court Traffic And Ordinance Division 3 Detroit Common Pleas 12 Municipal 8 523 A total of 400 judges responded to the survey. This represented an overall response rate of 76.5%. In order to assess the representative nature of the response, two known characteristics of the population, one personal and one professional, were selected and compared with the response frequency. The known personal characteristic selected was age. The records of the Michigan State Court Administrative Office were used to acquire the information on this characteristic. This data was then compared with age as given by the re- spondents. Of the 400 resPondents, three hundred ninety- seven (397) gave their age. This comparison using equal interval age cohorts for comparison is shown in Table 3.2. The mean age for the respondent sample, 51 years, compared 55 favorably with the mean age of the judge population, 51.6 years. TABLE 3.2--Age Comparison of POpulation With Respondent Sample Age Population Respondents % of Response 31-39 77 64 83% 40-49 169 116 69% 50-59 157 130 83% 60+ 12_0 .21 22. TOTAL 523 397 76% Mean Age 51.6 51.0 The frequency of actual reSponses as compared with the estimated number of responses reflecting the representa- tive nature of the respondent sample on the age characteris- tic is represented in Figure 3.1. The professional characteristic selected was the court level on which the judge serves. Three hundred ninety- nine (399) of the 400 respondents indicated the court on which they currently serve. A comparison of the number of judges who serve on the various court levels with the fre- quency of respondents who serve on those courts is shown in Table 3.3. The response rate on the age characteristic is graphically shown in Figure 3.2. 200 180 160 140 120 100 FREQUENCY 80 60 40 20 56 31-39 40-49 50-59 AGE COHORTS 60+ LEGEND .=Number of Surveys Sent D=Number of Survey Responses FIGURE 3.l«-Age Comparison of Population with Respondent Sample 57 TABLE 3.3—-Comparison of POpulation With Respondent Sample On Court Level Characteristic Court Level Population Respondents % of Response Circuit Court 161 126 78% District Court 211 157 74% Probate Court 105 85 81% Detroit Recorder's Court 23 15 65% Recorder's Court Traffic And Ordinance Division 3 2 67% Detroit Common Pleas 12 10 83% Municipal Court __8 __4 59% TOTAL 523 399 ' 76% The overall response rate of 76%, as well as the high rate of response in each court level category with the excep- tion of the Municipal Court level, indicated an acceptable response rate which on the whole was representative of the pOpulation (Babbie, 1973). The low response rate for muni- cipal court judges can best be explained in light of the fact that, of all the judges in Michigan, they are the only group composed of part-time judges with small or virtually non- existent staffs. The implications of this response rate for municipal judges as it applies to the conclusions of this study is minimized since the municipal courts are being phased out of the court system. Based on the analysis of the two characteristics of age and court level served, the 58 220 1%: 200 i 180 sfii 160 ’" 140 >¢ U —— 2 g; 120 P 100 80 ' so 40 20 District Municipal Common Traffic Circuit Recorders Probate Pleas & Ordinance COURT TYPES LEGETH) @Ntnnber of Surveys Sent D-Number of Survey Responses FIGURE 3.2-~Comparison of Population with Respondent Sample on Court Level Characteristic. 59 respondent sample was found to be representative of the pOp- ulation and the results of this study can bqueneralized to the pOpulation as a whole. Study Instruments The two instruments used in this study were a Partcipation Reasons Scale (Judge Form) and a Respondent Information Form. The Participation Reasons Scale (Judge Form) (Appendix A) is a self-reporting instrument on which respondents rate the relative importance of 28 educational reasons for participation in continuing judicial education. The respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of each reason on a seven point scale, with a 1 being "not important" to a 7 being "extremely important". The Respon- dent Information Form (Appendix B) was designed to elicit selected demographic, personal, and professional character- istics from the respondents. Instrument Development and Validation The validation of the Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) has been, and is, an ongoing process which began with the construction of the original PRS and was continued as part of the modification and validation process described below for the Judge Form of the PRS. The original PRS was developed by Grotelueschen, Harnisch, and Kenny (1979) through a five-step process. 60 First, a small group of adult researchers was asked to deliberate on the need and rationale for such an instru- ment and to suggest possible categories for item deve10pment. Next, a small sample of nurses, physicians and business executives completed an Open-ended questionnaire which asked them to state their reasons for participation. Themes were developed from these responses and were compared with themes in the existing literature of participation. Items for each identified theme were developed. This pool of items was administered to a group of professional nurses and an item analysis was conducted for each item. This original l9-item version of the PRS was administered to 404 business executives participating in continuing professional education activities held at the Executive Development Center at the University of Illinois (pp. 5-6). Factor analysis of the responses yielded a four-factor solution. Each factor was "tentatively given a name which was felt to represent the underlying construct tapped". They included: Collegial Learning/Interaction (Factor I), Personal Benefit/Job Security (Factor II), Pro- fessional Improvement and DevelOpment (Factor III), and Professional Service (Factor IV) (p. 10). The PRS has gone through a number of revisions during subsequent studies with the number of items ranging from 19 to 35. In these studies with physicians (Cervero, 1981) and veterinarians (Harnisch, 1980), the PRS has consistently yielded factors representing the underlying dimensions of reasons for participation in continuing professional education. 61 While the PRS has remained essentially the same for other studies, a substantial modification was necessary for this study to insure that the wording of the items was within the judicial frame of reference. In addition, the modification and validation process was conducted to respond to the con- cern that the generalized validity of the original PRS might be affected by the specific contextual factors associated with judges as a professional group. The Judge Form of the PRS was developed with the direct assistance of Dr. Arden Grotelueschen, Director of the Center for the Study of Continuing Professional Education at the University of Illinois. The most recent 30-item version of the PRS was used as a basis (Grotelueschen, Personal Communication). Initially, several of the items were reworded to produce a draft form. For example, references to "clients" were changed to refer to "the public" or "the parties before me". A copy of the draft form was then reviewed by three Illinois State trial court judges. It was also reviewed by a Michigan Supreme Court Justice and a Michigan Court of Appeals Judge, both of whom have had extensive trial court experience, as well as extensive involvement in judicial education activities. These reviewers suggested modifica- tions of the items and recommended the elimination of two items which were, in their judgement, not valid within the ~contextual frame of reference for judges. This process produced the final version of the Judge Form of the Parti- cipation Reasons Scale (Appendix A). 62 The Respondents Information Form (RIF) (Appendix B) was designed to elicit from the respondent selected demo- graphic, personal and professional characteristics which are used to describe the respondent sample and to examine the relationship between these characteristics and empirically derived participation factors. Instrument Reliability The estimates of factors scale reliability for the original l9—item version of the PRS were determined by com- puting the coefficient alpha for each of the four factor scales which emerged. "This reliability coefficient is a . measure of the internal consistency of responses of each item of a scale across respondents. It is determined for scales where respondents may receive a different numerical score on an item (e.g., 1-7 on the PRS)". For this original study "the coefficient alpha estimates of scale reliability for the four PRS scales ranged from .46 to .77" (Grotelueschen et al., 1979, p. 7). In a study by Harnisch (1980), two versions of the PRS were administered to two groups of veterinarians. In the first study, a l9-item version similar to the original PRS was administered to 325 veterinarians. The four factor scales which emerged from this study had coefficient alpha esti- mates of reliability ranging from .59 to .77 (p. 48). In a second study of 19 veterinarians, a 35-item PRS was admini- stered in an effort to improve the factor scale reliability. 63 On the five factor scales which emerged in this study, the coefficient alpha estimates of.sca1e reliability ranged from .78 to .92 (p. 81). The internal reliability of the PRS (Judge Form) was likewise estimated by computing the coefficient alpha esti- mates for the scale reliability of the three factor scales which emerged. The scale reliabilities for the Judge Form were .90 for factor scales I and II and .83 for factor scale III. Survey Procedure The Judge's Form of the PRS and the Respondent In- formation Form were mailed to all Michigan Trial Court judges. The instruments were accompanied by a cover letter from the Honorable James L. Ryan, Justice, Michigan Supreme Court, which explained the study and instructed the judges on completion and return of the instruments (Appendix C). To encourage respondents to return the instruments, a prepaid return envelope was enclosed. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey, it was impossible to determine who had not responded, therefore, no followup procedure was conducted. Study Variables In this study, the dependent variables were the scores of respondents on the empirically derived factor scales. These scores were calculated by summing the value assigned by each respondent to each item loading on a factor 64 scale and then dividing the total by.the number of items in the factor sc 1. ale. The independent variables were: Age Sex Marital Status Length of time since earning law degree Whether or not graduate degrees other than the law degree have been earned Tenure as a judge Tenure on current bench Current court level served Number of judges in the court currently served Status as chief judge Levels of past participation in continuing judicial education Research Objectives And Hypotheses Research Ob'ective l--To Identify the Relative Importance 7—1—‘ 0 Reasons For Participation A pr search was to eliminary and necessary objective of this re- identify the relative importance that Michigan judges as a whole placed on reasons for participation in continuing judicial education. Research Obje Represent the This objective for examining the ctive 2--ToIdentify Participatign Factors Which Underlying Patterns of’Reasons For Participation objective represented the pivotal research this study. The remaining research objective, relationship between the participation factors 65 and judicial characteristics, was based on this objective. Specifically, it was hypothesized that a factor analysis of responses to the participation reasons on the PRS would yield empirically identifiable factors representing the dimensions underlying judges' participation in continuing professional education. Research Objective 3--To Examine the Relationship Between Selected Judicial Characteristics and—Participation Factors This objective addressed relationships between the empirically derived factors and the selected characteristics of judges. For purposes of analysis, eleven hypotheses were develOped. The hypotheses are stated here in the null form. Hypothesis #1. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived participation factors and the age of the responding judges. Hypothesis #2. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the sex of the responding judges. Hypothesis #3. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the marital status of responding judges. Hypothesis #4. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the year that the responding judges received their law degrees. Hypothesis #5. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the possession of higher education degrees beyond the bachelor's degree 66 other than the law degree. Hypothesis #6. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the total tenure of respondents. Hypothesis #7. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the respondents' tenure on the current bench. Hypothesis #8. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the court level at which the respondents currently serve. Hypothesis #9. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and the number of judges in the court in which the respondents serve. Hypothesis #10. There will be no relationship between the empirically derived factors and whether or not the respondents are serving in the role of Chief Judge in a multiple judge court. Hypothesis #11. There will be no relationship ‘ between the empirically derived factors and levels of parti- cipation in continuing judicial education for: (a) the pre- vious year and (b) the previous three years. Analysis Techniques Introduction The coding and analysis of the data was done at the Computer Center at the University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, Assistance in interpreting the results of the 67 analysis was provided by Dr. Arden Grotelueschen and Dr. Delwyn Harnisch, Center for the Study of Continuing Profes- sional Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign. Various data analysis techniques were employed for each of the research objectives. This section identifies the technique(s) employed for each objective. Research Objective l--Relative Importance of Reasons For PartiEipation In this initial analysis of the relative importance judges as a group place on the reason for participation, the mean score for each item on the PRS was calculated along with the standard deviation. This technique was used to provide an overall rank ordering of the participation reasons. Research Objective 2--Participation Factors In order to determine whether or not there existed empirically identifiable underlying patterns of relationships in the judges' responses to the PRS, a factor analysis was conducted. These empirically identifiable relationships, referred to as "participation factors" in this study, theoretically represent the dimensions underlying judges' reasons for participation in CJE. The first step in the factor analysis was the pre- paration of a correlation matrix consisting of Pearson pro- duct moment correlation coefficients. Missing responses by 68 judges to participation reasons were handled by the listwise deletion method. This causes a "case to be omitted from the calculation of all coefficients when that case contains a missing value" on any of the items (Kim, p. 504). This method was selected because it is preferred and insures "that the factor analysis is conducted on the same number of cases" (Kim, p. 505). The resulting correlation matrix was analyzed using the Factor Analysis of Covariance Matrix with Multiple Vari- ances Technique. The eigenvalues produced from this analysis were used as an indicator of the potential numbers of factors to be found in the matrix. Following currently accepted practice, an orthogonal followed by an oblique rotation of factors was conducted. This was done because "the orthogonal solution is used as a basis for creating an ideal oblique solution" (Gorsuch, 1974, p. 197). The Varimax Procedure was used to accomplish the orthogonal rotation followed by an oblique rotation to a final solution using the Direct Artificial Personal Pro- bability Factor Rotation (DAPPFR) method (Harnisch, Personal Communication). Research Objective 3--Relationships Between Judicial Characteristics and Participation Factors Correlational and discriminant analysis techniques were used to examine the relationship between the empirically derived participation factors and the selected personal and 69 professional characteristics of.the judges. To provide an initial analysis, Pearson product moment correlations between the judicial characteristics and the scores on the participation factors scales were com- puted. Factor scale scores for this analysis and the.dis- criminant analysis were computed by summing the value assigned by a reSpondent to each item loading on a factor scale and dividing the total by the number of items on that scale. In order to more clearly understand the way in which groups of judges may significantly differ in their orienta- tions to the empirically derived participation factors, uni- variate and multivariate discriminant analysis techniques were employed. The purpose of discriminant analysis is to determine how groups differ on a variable or group of variables and to understand the nature of those differences (Tatsuoka, 1970). "The mathematical objective of discriminant analysis is to weight and linearly combine the discriminating variables in some fashion so that the groups are forced to be as sta- tistically distinct as possible. In other words, we want to be able to 'discriminate' between the groups in the sense of being able to tell them apart" (Klecka, p. 435). For each characteristic, the group mean score and standard deviation for each factor scale was computed along with the univariate F-statistic for that group. In addition, the F-ratio yielded by the multivariate analysis was computed, when the multivariate F-ratio was found to be significant (p g .05). A multi-group stepwise discriminant function 70 analysis was conducted to further analyze any significant jgroup differences. Chapter Summary The population for this study was all Michigan trial judges who were officially serving on October 1, 1980} Judges were mailed a c0py of the Participation Reasons Scale and Respondent Information Form along with a letter of instruc- tion. A prepaid return envelope was enclosed to encourage response. An overall response rate of 76% was achieved. The respondent sample proved to be representative, based on a comparison of the respondents with the population on the characteristics of age and court level served. The means and standard deviations for reSponses to the participation reasons were computed to examine the rela- tive importance judges placed on the reasons. A factor analy- Sis was conducted to identify the major participation factors. Coefficient alpha estimates of scale reliability were com- puted for the emerging factor scales. Correlational and discriminant analysis techniques were employed to examine the relationship between the characteristics of the respondents and the participation factors. The following chapter contains a presentation of the results of the data analysis. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS Introduction This chapter contains the presentation and analysis of the judges' responses to the Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) and ReSpondent Information Form (RIF). The judicial characteristics of the respondent sample as reported on the RIF are presented first. The second section contains the analysis of the judges' responses to the PRS items and an-examination of the relative importance judges place on these items. The third section presents the results of the factor analysis of the reSponses to the PRS. The fourth section presents the correlation and discriminant analyses examining the relationship between the judicial characteristics and the underlying participation factors yielded in the factor analysis. The analyses are presented for each of the relational hypotheses formulated for this study. The results of the data analysis are summarized in the fifth section. The second through fourth sections relate directly to the research objectives of this study. Judicial Characteristics Judges were asked to provide information about them- selves and their level of past participation in continuing 71 72 judicial education (CJE). This information was gathered on the RIF. A total of 400 judges completed the RIF. The re- sponse frequency to each characteristic is displayed in Table 4.1. The majority of judges (57%) were over 50 years of age. Of the total 400 respondents, only 15 (4%) were women. This is reflective of the total population of judges in Michi- gan where 19 or 3% are women. The vast majority were married (90%). Most of the responding judges (77%) received their law degrees since 1950. It is interesting to note that 59% had only been judges for 10 years and that three-fourths (76%) have assumed their current bench only within the last 10 years. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the judges reported that they serve in courts with five or fewer judges and 19% reported they are the chief judge in multiple judge courts. Research Objective_l--To Identify The Relative Importance Of Reasons For Participation The judges in this study were asked to respond to a Participation Reasons Scale which contained 28 reasons for participation in continuing judicial education. On a seven point scale ranging from 1 "not important" to 7 "extremely important", they rated the relative importance attached to each reason. The means, standard deviations, and percentage distribution of responses to each reason are shown in rank order in Table 4.2. 73 TABLE 4.l--Characteristics of Responding Judges. (N=400) Characteristic Frequency Adjusted Characteristic Frequency Adjusted Proportion* Proportion* AGE YEAR FIRST ASSUMED CURRENT BENCH 31-39 64 .16 Prior to 1960 I4 .04 40-49 116 .29 1960 - 1964 18 .04 50-59 130 .33 1965 - 1969 95 .24 60 and above 87 .22 1970 - 1974 76 .19 1975 - 1977 112 .28 SEX 1978 - present 83 .21 Male 385 .96 Female 15 .04 COURT CURRENTLY SERVING District 157 .39 CURRENT MARITAL STATUS Municipal 4 .01 Single 40 .10 Common Pleas 10 .03 Married 360 .90 Traffic 8 0rd. Div. Recorder's Court 2 .01 YEAR LAW DEGREE RECEIVED Circuit 126 .32 1930 - 1939 22 .06 Recorder's Court 15 .04 1940 - 1949 67 .17 Probate 85 .21 1950 - 1959 135 .36 1960 - 1969 114 .30 NUMBER OF JUDGES IN COURT 1970 - 1979 41 .11 l 116 .29 2 86 .22 YEAR FIRST BECAME A JUDGE 3 - 5 97 .25 Prior to 1960 42 .11 6 - 15 57 .14 1960 - 1964 28 .07 16 and above 44 .11 1965 - 1969 93 .23 1970 - 1974 83 .21 CHIEF JUDGE 1975 - present 152 .38 Yes 75 .19 No 322 .81 DAYS PARTICIPATED IN CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION LAST YEAR 0 - 2 73 3 - 4 93 5 - 6 88 7 - 10 61 11 and more 54 DAYS PARTICIPATED IN CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION LAST 3 YEARS 0 - 4 29 .06 5 - 9 SS .16 10 - 14 74 .20 15 - 19 62 .18 20 - 24 40 .11 25 or more 97 .27 *2 may not - 100 due to rounding 74 TABLE 4.2--Means, Standard Deviations, Percentage Distribution of Responses to Each Reason in Rank Order Percentage Distribution Reason Not Moderately Extremely lkuk.1mmber Reasmi nmxmtant Imgnnent nmxxtant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean 3.0. 1 16 Tokmflplmekeepaflneast ofrunrdevehxments:kathe law 0 1 0 2 8 26 63 6.47 0.86 2 19 To help me be more carpetent in my judicial work 2 l 0 3 8 26 59 6.30 1.20 3 1 Tb finnhernatdany‘huudakp or skills with the demands of my judicial activities 1 l 2 5 10 23 58 6.23 1.16 4 8 To better respond to the questions of law presented to me 1 l 2 6 11 27 53 6.17 1.12 5 25 Tb develop proficiencies necessary to maintain quality performance 1 0 2 6 ll 33 48 6.14 1.11 6 27 Tb maintain the quality of my judicial service 1 1 1 7 ll 31 47 6.08 1.18 7 12 Tb increase my proficiency in applying legal principles 2 1 2 8 10 32 45 6.00 1.28 8 14 Tb develop new professional knowledge and skills 1 2 1 9 14 31 42 5.94 1.26 9 17 Tb help me improve the quality of service being rendered to the public 1 l 2 7 17 28 43 5.94 1.25 10 23 ‘Ib inprove my individual service to the public as a jurist 2 2 2 8 15 31 41 5.90 1.31 11 3 Tb help me be more productive in my professional role 2 3 2 11 16 27 40 5.77 1.39 12 5 Tb maintain my current abilities 1 2 4 13 19 28 34 5.64 1.37 13 2 Trinutually exchange thoughts with other judges 4 8 20 23 21 23 5.14 1.46 14 10 Tb learn from the interaction withother judges 2 s 9 18 2325 18 5.04 1.50 '75 TABLE 4.2--Continued. Percentage Distribution (con't.) Remxm 1km Mainaufly Emtnmeky rumk lumber Reasui nmxxtant lhporbmu: nmxmtant l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mean 8.0. 15 4 Tbiemflfleeme notetter neet fluepubtufls expectations 5 6 13 23 17 15 20 4.66 1.74 16 15 Tb sharpen my perspective of my professional role 7 9 9 23 18 19 15 4.50 1.77 17 28 Tb reflect on the value of my judicial responsibilities 13 8 10 19 18 17 15 4.32 1.94 18 21 'no be challenged by the thinking of my judicial colleagues 10 8 9 21 26 17 9 4.32 1.72 19 6 Tb relate my ideas to those of my professional peers 8 11 12 20 24 17 9 4.27 1.70 20 24 Tb consider the limitations of my role as a judge 10 12 12 21 l9 14 11 4.16 1.79 21 18 Tb assess the direction in which my profession is going 10 ll 12 25 19 14 9 4.10 1.73 22 9 Tb review my commitment to my profession 14 12 12 18 18 16 10 4.06 1.89 23 ll Tb help me develop leadership capabilities for my profession 12 12 ll 24 22 ll 8 3.98 1.74 24 7 Tb maintain my identity - with my profession 12 13 13 24 19 13 7 3.90 1.74 25 22 Tb enhance the image of my profession 15 11 12 23 17 13 10 3.93 1-88 26 13 Tb consider changing the aphasia of my present judicial assignment 28 17 14 18 11 6 5 3.04 1.81 27 26 Tb enhance my individual security in my present judicial office 39 l4 13 15 10 5 5 2.75 1.83 28 20 Tb increase the likelihood of advancement to a higher judicial office 48 14 ll 13 8 3 2 2.35 1.64 76 Seven reasons (numbers 16,,19, l, 8, 25, 22, and 12) received mean scores of 6.00 or greater indicating a rela- tively high level of importance. With the rapid change in the law, it is not surprising that item number 16, "to help me keep abreast of new developments in the law", received the highest mean score of 6.47. Items 26, "to enhance my individual security in my present judicial office", and 20, "to increase the likelihood of advancement to a higher judicial office", ranked relatively low. It is, however, interesting to note that while these items ranked lowest in relative importance, a substantial percentage of judges rated these items moderately to extremely important. For item 26, 48% gave this a score of 3 or higher. For item 20, 37% gave a score of 3 or higher. This would indicate that some judges do attach importance to these rea- sons for participation. Research Objectivg_2--To Identify Participation Factors Representing The Underlying Pattern Of Reasons For Participation In CJE Factor Analysis A factor analysis of the responses to the PRS was conducted. First, a 28 x 28 matrix of Pearson product moment correlation coefficients was prepared. This matrix was then analyzed using a factor analysis of covariance matrix with multiple variables. Three eigenvalues greater than 1.0 emerged. This suggested a three-factor solution was likely to produce the best fit. 77 Two-, three-, four-, and five-factor solutions using the Varimax orthogonal rotation method were attempted. A three-factor solution was found to provide the best fit to the data (Gorsuch, 1974, pp. l3l-l33; 57-60). The re- sulting three-factor solution with the items loading on each factor and the factor loadings for each item are shown in Table 4.3. This orthogonal rotation provided the basis for the oblique rotation to a final solution. The oblique rotation produced the same three-factor solution with the same items loading on factors 1, 2, and 3. Table 4.4 reflects the factor loadings for each item as a result of the oblique rotation. An examination of Table 4.4 indicates a clear loading of items on the three factors with no double loading of items on any factor. A factor loading of .40 or greater indicates a significant loading of an item on a factor (Gorsuch, Chapter 10). After examining the items which loaded on the three factors, the factors which represent underlying patterns of responses to reasons for participation were given the follow- ing names: Factor I - Professional Perspective (12 items) Factor II - Judicial Competence (12 items) Factor III - Collegial Interaction (4 items) The factor identifications and the items loading on each factor along with their respective means and standard deviations are given in Table 4.5. 78 TABLE 4.3--Factor Loading From Orthogonally Rotated Three-Factor Solution REASON REASON FACTOR NUMBER 1 2 3 4. Tb enable me to be more productive in my professional role... .50* .43 .17 7. To maintain my identity with my profession................... .57* .10 .30 9. Tb review my ccmnitment to my profession..................... .73* .12 .14 ll. Tb help me develop leadership capabilities for my profession. .69* .16 .21 13. Tb consider changing the emphasis of my present judicial migmntOO0..OOOOIOOOOOIOIOOOOOI...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .68* .04 .13 15. Tb sharpen my perspective of my professional role............ .72* .25 .11 18. Tb assess the direction in which my profession is going...... .70* .28 .14 20. Tb increase the likelihood of advancement to a higher judicial office............................................. .46* .02 .04 22. Tb enhance the image of my profession........................ .58* .29 .15 24. Tb consider the limitations of my role as a judge............ .54* .32 .21 26. Tb enhance my individual security in my present judicial office...................................................... .53* .12 .10 28. Tb reflect on the value of my judicial responsibilities...... .68* .28 .09 l. Tb further match my knowledge or skills with the demands of my judicial activities...................................... .22 .43* .03 3. To help me be more productive in my professional role........ .36 .53* .09 5. Tb maintain my current abilities............................. .31 .45* .05 8. To better respond to the questions of law presented to me.... .05 .69* .09 12. To increase my proficiency in applying legal principles...... .18 .70* .00 14. Tb develop new professional knowledge and skills............. .17 .S4* .04 16. Tb help me keep abreast of new developments in the 1aw....... .04 .67* .09 17. Tb help me improve the quality of service being rendered to the public............................................... .29 .70* .08 19. To help me be more competent in my judicial work............. .08 .79* .03 23. Tb inprove my individual service to the public as a jurist... .22 .70* .08 25. Tb develop proficiencies necessary to maintain quality performance................................................. .04 .81* .08 27. Tb maintain the quality of my judicial service............... .17 .71* .04 2. Tb mutually exchange thoughts with other judges.............. .14 .00 .81. 6. Tb relate my ideas to those of my professional peers......... .37 .05 .63* 10. Tb learn from the interaction with other judges.............. .18 .11 .80* 21. Tb be challenged by the thinking of my judicial colleagues... .26 .19 .55* * Items Loading on a Factor 79 TABLE 4.4--Factor Loading From Oblique Rotation To Three-Factor Solution REASON REASON FACTOR NUMBER 1 2 3 4. Tb enable me to be more productive in my professional role... .45* .34 .06 7. Tb maintain my identity with my profession................... .55’ .02 .20 9. Tb review'my'ccmmutment to my profession..................... .76* -.03 -.01 ll. Tb help me develop leadership capabilities for my profession. .70* .12 .07 13. ’lb consider changing the arphasis of my present judicial usigmntOOOOO0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOC...OOOCOOOOOOO 072* -010 .01 15. Tb sharpen my perspective of my professional role............ .74* .ll -.02 18. Tb assess the direction in which my profession is going...... .71* .15 .01 20. Tb increase the likelihood of advancement to a higher jMiCial OffimOOOOOOOCOO...0.0..O...IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 052* -008 - -005 22. Tb enhance the image of my profession........................ .59* .17 .04 24. To consider the limitations of my role as a judge............ .51* .21 .09 26. Tb enhance my individual security in my present judicial ' OffimOOOO0.0.0.0...O..0.0...O.I.0.00.00.00.00000000000000IO 055* .01 -001 28. To reflect on the value of my judicial responsibilities...... .69* .15 -.05 l. Tb further match my knowledge or skills with the demands of my judicial activities...................................... .18 .40* -.03 3. Tb help me be more productive in my professional role........ .29 .48* .01 5. Tb maintain my current abilities............................. .27 .43* -.O3 8. Tb better respond to the questions of law presented to me.... -.07 .71* .05 12. To increase my proficiency in applying legal principles...... .10 .69* -.07 14. Tb develop new professional knowledge and skills............. .10 .53* -.02 16. '1b help me keep abreast of new developments in the 1aw....... -.07 .69* .05 17. Tb help me improve the quality of service being rendered to the public............................................... .20 .67* -.Ol 19. '1b help me be more carpetent in my judicial mrk............. -.03 .82* -.02 23. Tbrimprove my individual service to the public as a jurist... .12 .68* .01 25. Tb develop proficiencies necessary to maintain quality performance................................................. -.10 .84* .03 27. Tb maintain the quality of my judicial service............... .07 .70* -.02 2. Tb mutually exchange thoughts with other judges.............. .01 -.05 .83* 6. Tb relate my ideas to those of my professional peers......... .23 -.05 .58* 10. Tb learn from the interaction with other judges.............. .04 .05 .81* 21. Tb be challenged by the thinking of my judicial colleagues... .16 .12 .52* * Items Loading on a Factor 80 :3 an... 88288888 8888.” e. 8 88> of 8 8888 8. 8 8. 8.8 88 888 888% ...888 e. 8 58888 883888 e. 8888 8. ow e... 2.8 S... 88% a 8 88 e. 8 8833838 of 8888 8. a s. 8.8 8..” 888888 e. 8 88: mfi 88:8 8. «a a... 8.8 88 8:8 88th 882 a B 88888... 8 8229.: of 8885 8. 8 a... mn.~ c~.w modem mu scammmuouo he sous: :« scuuoouab ecu mmommm be ad an. h>.~ om.v once achanmoMOuo as no o>fiuooonuoo as someone be ma vb. Hm.n co.m ucweemfimmm unavabSH unwound be no masseuse on» mcfimcmsc umrfimcoo be ma up. :4 8..” 88888 e. ...8 832888 888888 8858 8. 89. 8. : E. 8.8 8.4 88888 e. B 88388 e. 888 8. a 2.. :4 86 88888 e. 58 .3388 e. 8358 8. a 8. :4 so... 1.838888 9838 of 88... 888 B as 888 8. a. 8. o>fiuooommom unscammmMOum ”H acuomm dd :8: 888 88:2 9:83 .ammsm hxfiomm Ammmuzv .mcowuma>oo bumocmum com .mcmmz .meouH ocabmoa sew: oamom wouomm counalum.v Ham‘s 81 8.8 8... 8.88 88.8“ e. 8 .3888 85 58:8... 8. R 2.. :4 =6 8:950...qu 3:25 5359.. cu ammmmgoc 8.853395 dodger on. mm 3. a; 8.... 8......“ a 8 888 2... B 8888 88888 e. 258... 8. 8 8. 8.8 one x83 88.8“ e. 5 88886 89. 8 m... 88 8. 2 8. 8.8 3.... 888 we... 8 8888 8.8 888... 8 8:88 we... 2685 2. .8: 8. S S. cm. :6 33 on... 5 musselggoo so: no unmomom ocea— o... dam: on. 3 mm. 8.8 2...... 8:8 8... 88885 888888 8: 888.. 8. 3 mm. 34 86 8335.8“ 8.me 9.33% 5 85330.3 be momma—cc“ on. NH mm. 2.8 S... a... B 88888 38 8 80888. on... o... 888.. 888 8. a an. 8.8 85 83:8... 88:8 8.. 88:8... 8. m 2.. mmé Sum 30» Hmcoawmouoa as 5 $3050....“ one... on we mace 8. m 3.. 8.8 8... 888.8... 8888“ s... 8 ".888 «8 5.... 83...... 8 88885. e. 88... oofioa 8. 8 2.. 8:885 8888. .8 888 5...... com: Samoa acne—oz mcfibmon 888! acuomm. . fiwzcwucoollm . v mamfla 82 N: 84 888828 888% 8 8 8885 «5 E 88886 8 8. 8 8. SA 8...“ 88% 85o 58 888888 8: .88 :88 8. S 8. 2.4 5.8 8me Hmcofimmmuoum >5 uo $05 3 833 a... 33m.» on. m cm. 8.8 :8 88% 85o 58 8:805 8:888 8838. 8. N S. 880835 88828 8: 888 .98 8...: 888 “382 8883 comma: noun—mm . @059." UGOUIIm . v wands 83 Factor I: Professional Perspective. Twelve (12) participation reasons loaded on this factor. The majority of the items loading on this factor scale were associated with the professional role of the judge. Items such as "to assess the direction my profession is going", "to sharpen my per- Spective of my professional role", "to review my commitment to my profession", and "to maintain my identity with my profession" characterize this factor. This factor suggests that judges participate out of a need to continually rein- force their identity with the profession, to assess the role they play in that profession, and, to a lesser degree, re— flect on their own specific judicial assignment. Factor II: Judicial Competence. The need to maintain an acceptable level of competence and develop new judicial skills characterized the twelve (12) items which loaded on this factor. This is exemplified by such items as "to help me be more competent in my judicial work", "to deve10p proficiencies necessary to maintain quality performance", and "to keep abreast of new developments in the law". The mean scores of the items loading on this factor were all greater than 5.5 indicating that all of the items were believed to be very important reasons for participation. Factor III: Collegial Interaction. All four (4) of the participation reasons loading on this factor were related to a need for interaction with other judges and to mutually exchange ideas and thought, as well as the need to be challenged by the thinking of other judges. This 84 interaction with colleagues is purposive from the educational, as well as professional practice standpoint. Factor Scale Reliability In order to establish the reliability of the three factor scales which emerged, Cronbach's coefficient alpha estimates of scale reliability were computed. In addition, Pearson product moment correlation ratios were computed to determine the inter-scale correlations. The coefficient alpha for each factor scale, the inter-scale correlation coeffi- cients, as well as the means and standard deviations for each factor scale are reflected in Table 4.6. TABLE 4.6--Estimates of Scale Reliability (Coefficient Alpha), Pearson Product Moment Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations for the Three Participation Reason Factors. (N=398) ”"“'” ‘ ' Coefficient Factor Scale Factor Scale Alpha I II III 'Mean S.D. I. Professional Perspective .90 1.00 .52 .47 3.80 1.24 II. Judicial Competence .90 1.00 .29 6.05 .84 III. Collegial Interaction .83 1.00 4.69 1.29 The results of this analysis indicated high factor scale reliability estimates for each of the factors scales and that there was minimal correlation between any of the 85 factor scales. The rank order of the factor scales based on their mean scores was Factor II - Judicial Competence, Factor III - Collegial Interaction, Factor I - Professional Pers- pective. Research Objective 3--To Examine the Relationship Between Judicial Characteristics and Participation Factors An analysis of the relationships between judicial characteristics and the previously identified participation reasons factor scales is presented in this section. The judicial characteristics examined were: age, sex, marital status, number of years since law degree was received, ad- vanced degrees held, tenure as a judge, tenure on current bench, number of judges in the court, court currently served, current service as a chief judge in a multiple judge court, the number of days of CJE attended in the last three years, and the number of days of CJE attended in the last year. All of the characteristics were subjected to both correlation and discriminant analysis with the exception of the characteristic of sex and court level currently served. In the case of the sex characteristic, only a correlational analysis was conducted. The small number of women judges precluded a meaningful discriminant analysis. In the case of the court level characteristic, a correlational analysis was not conducted since this variable could not be converted into a continuous, dichotomous or equal interval variable. It was, however, the subject of discriminant analysis. 86 Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were computed for purposes of the correlational analysis. The discriminant analysis for each characteristic was conducted by using the factor scale scores as the dependent and dis- criminating variables. The factor scale scores were computed by summing the value assigned by a respondent to each item loading on a factor scale and dividing the total by the num- ber of items which loaded on that factor scale. Both uni- variate and multivariate F-ratios were computed. A stepwise discriminant function analysis was conducted when a signifi- cant multivariate F-ratio (p g .05) emerged. In the remainder of this section, the analysis con- ducted in conjunction with each of the hypotheses is pre- sented. The results of the correlational analysis is dis- played in Table 4.7 and will be referred to throughout the remainder of this section. The hypotheses were stated in their complete null form in Chapter III, however, for the purpose of presentation here, they are identified only by the judicial characteristic being examined. Hypothesis 1: Age Correlational Analysis. None of the factor scales significantly correlated with the age characteristic. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of discriminant analysis, the respondents were grouped into four age cohorts; Group 1 (Bl-39), Group 2 (40-49), Group 3 (SO-59), and Group 4 (60+). The means, standard deviations, uniVariate F-ratios 87 TABLE 4.7--Correlation Matrix of Judicial Characteristics With Factor Scale Scores. (N=398) Factor Scales Judicial Characteristics I _‘iI -_TTT__ 1. Age -.04 .00 .02 2. Sex (Female) .02 .09* -.02 3. Marital Status (Married) -.03 .03 .00 4. Years Since Law Degree Received -.10* -.04 .00 5. Tenure as a Judge -.08 .00 .04 6. Tenure on Current Bench -.05 -.09* .02 7. Number of Judges in Court .08 .06 .01 8. Chief Judge (Yes) .03 .04 .03 9. Days of CJE Last Year .19** .11* .ll* 10. Days of CJE Last 3 Years .l9** .ll* .09* * p g .05 ** p g .01 88 and the multivariate F-ratio for the three factor scales are displayed in Table 4.8. None of.the univariate F-ratios for the factors scales were significant (p g .05). The multi- variate F-ratio also was not significant (p g .05). Hypothesis 2: Sex Correlational Analysis. A significant (p g .05) correlation was observed for Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence. The direction of the correlation indicated that responding female judges have significantly higher scores on this factor scale. Disciminant Analysis. The relatively low number of female judges both in the pOpulation (N=l9) and respondent sample (N=15) was insufficient to provide a powerful test using discriminant analysis. Hypothesis 3: Marital Status Correlational Analysis. None of the factor scales significantly correlated with the marital status of the - responding judges. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of the discrimi- nant analysis, reSpondents were grouped as either single or married. The results of the discriminant analysis are dis- played in Table 4.9. The univariate and multivariate F-ratios were found to be nonsignificant. 89 mmm can m a Eoommum mo momumma w Hm. um oumaum>wuasz mm. mm.a mm.v oq.a oa.v o~.H No.4 a~.H Hp.v :ofluomumucH HmflmmHHoo .HHH Ho. mo. NH.G om. mo.o mm. am.m an. GH.G moamumasoo Hmflowczn .HH ow. m~.H mm.m m~.H Ha.m m~.H mm.m ma.H mm.m m>auomamumm HMCOflmmomoum .H monummum .o.m cams .o.m cam: .o.m cam: .o.m cums mumflum>flao loaned Amoauqv immune immune mamom uouomm +oo mmnom aquov amnam v moouw m msouw m moouw a msouw Ammmnzv .mucmocommmm mo mod on» an mmuoom mdmom Houomm mouse new moHHMMIm mumaum>wcn new .mcowumw>mo oumocmum .mcumzlum.q mqmda 90 TABLE 4.9--Means, Standard Deviations and Univariate F-Ratios For Three Factor Scale Scores By the Marital Status Of Respondents. (N=333) GROUP 1 GROUP 2 SingIe Married Factor Scale (n=35) (n=298) Univariate * Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F-Ratios @ I. Professional Perspective 3.98 1.03 3.79 1.27 .74 II. Judicial Competence 5.96 1.05 6.07 .82 .57 III. Collegial Interaction 4.70 1.24 4.65 1.31 .38 @ Degrees of freedom = 1 and 331 Hypothesis 4: Years Since Law Degree Received Correlational Analysis. The correlational analysis indicates that there was a significant correlation (P.S .05) between the Factor Scale I: Professional Perspective and the number of years since the law degree was received. The nega- tive direction of the correlation (-.10) indicated that more recent graduates from law school placed higher scores on the items associated with the Professional Perspective scale than did those who have held a law degree for a longer period of time. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of the discri- minant analysis, respondents were grouped into six equal in— terval groups indicating the number of years since receiving their law degree: Group 1 (3-15), Group 2 (16-20), Group 3 91 (21-25), Group 4 (26-30), Group 5 (31-39), and Group 6 (40+). The results of this analysis are reflected in Table 4.10. None of the univariate F-ratios for the factor scales were significant (p 5 .05). The multivariate F-ratio was not significant. Hypothesis 5: Possession of Higher Education Degrees This hypothesis was not tested since none of the responding judges indicated that they possessed any degrees beyond the bachelor's degree other than the law degree. Hypothesis 6: Tenure As A Judge Correlational Analysis. The correlational analysis reflected no significant correlation between tenure and the three factor scales. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of the discrimi- nant analysis, the respondents were grouped into four groups according to the number of years they have served as a judge: Group 1 (1-5 years), Group 2 (6-10 years), Group 3 (ll-15 years), and Group 4 (16+ years). The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 4.11. The univariate and multivariate F-ratios were found to be nonsignificant indicating that the factor scales did not meaningfully discriminate among these groups. 92 Ham 0cm m u Eonmmuu mo nomummo w am. an mumwum>wuasz 'I'I'i'l-l|l|ll|'||"lll|'|'|'-|l'|l"t|'l'-|'|""'ll-|"|"""l""-'"|'|I'Il""|"'l"' mm. mm.a «v.4 mq.a mm.v o~.H ea.e ac.” om.q o~.~ mv.4 o~.H mp.v :ofiuomumucm HmammHHoo .HHH em. mc.a HH.o on. om.m mm. mo.o mm. mm.m we. mH.m em. md.m oucmquEOU HMAOfivah .HH mm. mN.H mm.m ON.H mm.m om.a mm.m mv.H am.m Hm.d oh.m mH.H «m.m m>fiuoommumm HMGOHmmmmanm .H wofiummlm .o.m cams .a.m com: .o.m coo: .o.m cum: .Q.m coo: .Q.m cool 3333.5 anus 37.5 anus 5...... 3.65 575 3.3 83$ +O¢ mmldm onion mNIHN omlod main 9 moouw m moouo v moouo n moouw N macaw A moouw Ahamuzv .om>wmomm omuomo 3mg mocwm whom» on» an moamom uouomm mouse MOM mofiuwmnm oumflum>asa can .mcoHuma>mo pumpcmum .mcmmZIIoH.v Hands 93 mmm oco m u Eoooouu mo mmoummo @ NH.H um muouuo>uuasz uu.u mu.u um.v vv.u mq.v mm.u no.4 v~.u mm.¢ aouuomumucu umummuuoo .HHH sm.u mm. no.0 «m. mm.m mm. no.0 an. uu.o mucouodsoo umuouosn .Hu uu.u a~.u ou.m om.u mo.m qm.u om.m eu.u em.m m>uuooamumm Honoummmuoum .H acuummum .a.m cum: .a.m cam: .a.m cum: .o.m cams muoeuo>uaa Amoucv Aomucv Ammucv “Nancy oaoom uouoom +Gu muuuu ouum .muu muu v moouo m moouu N moouw a msouo Ammmuzv .ouocoe an mouoom oaoom uouoom mouse u0m mOuummlm ououuo>uca oco .oQOuuou>mo Uumocoum .mcomzllaa.v mqmde 94 Hypothesis 7: iTenure on Current Bench Correlational Analysis. The correlational analysis resulted in a significant (p‘g .05) correlation ratio (-.09) between this characteristic and Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence. The direction of the correlation indicates that judges with shorter tenure on their current bench gave signi- ficantly higher scores to items associated with this factor scale. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of this analysis the responding judges were divided into five groupings re- flecting their tenure on the bench they currently serve: Group 1 (1-2 years), Group 2 (3-5 years ), Group 3 (609 years), Group 4 (10-14 years), and Group 5 (15+ years). The results of this discriminant analysis are dis- played in Table 4.12. A significant (9.3 .05) univariate F-ratio for Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence, resulted. The univariate F-ratios for the remaining two factor scales and the multivariate F-ratio were nonsignificant. This result indicated that Factor Scale II signifi- cantly discriminated between the five groupings. While the mean scores provided some intuitive suggestions as to where the differences were within groups, further analysis was re- quired to identify where these groups statistically differed. A post hoc comparison between groups for this factor scale is reflected in Table 4.13. This test was the result of a stepwise discriminant functional analysis in which Factor Scale II entered as the mo. W G « hmm com o Eoomoum mo mooumoo w um ououuo>uuaoz me. mN.H mm.v vv.a mm.v mm.H mm.v o~.H Nh.v mN.H He.v GOuuoououcH umummuuoo .uuu «He.m mo. mo.o em. nm.m mo.a mm.m me. mo.w mm. am.m oocoummaou Hououosb .HH mm.u Hm.a mm.m vm.u mo.m ma.a ~m.m NN.H em.m ma.a hm.m o>uuoommuom floccummmuoum .H @0uuomlm .Q.m com: .Q.m coo: .Q.m com: .o.m coo: .Q.m coo: ououuo>uca Ammucv Ampucv Ammucv Aqmucv Aahucv oaoom uouoom +mu euuou mum mum muunuu m moouu v msouw m moouo N moouo a moouw Ammmuzv .nocmm ucouuoo co ouoooe on» an mouoom oaoom Houowrm QMHSB HON mOHUMMIh GuamHHMK/flca UGM .m20uuou>oo ouoocoum .mcmmZIINH.v mamde 96 first and most significant discriminating variable and there— fore, represents.a conservative test of the difference between _group means. TABLE 4.13--F-Ratios for Between Pair Group Means on Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence @ Group 1 2, 3 4 2 1.35 3 1.96 1.60 4 3.38* 1.31 .56 7 5 1.54 .34 .96 .87 @ Degrees of freedom = 3 and 325 * p 5 .05 The interpretation of the results of this test in- dicates- that Factor Scale II significantly discriminated between Groups 1 (1-2 years) and 4 (10-14 years). The mean factor scale scores for these two groups suggests that judges with 1-2 years tenure on their current bench placed more importance on the participation reasons associated with this factor scale than judges who had served 10-14 years on their present bench. Hypothesis 8: Court Level Correlational Analysis. A correlational analysis was not conducted since this characteristic did not fit the criteria of being a continuous, dichotomous, or equal 97 interval variable. “Discriminant‘Analysis. For purposes of this analysis, responding judges were grouped by.the following court levels at which they currently serve: District Judges, Circuit Judges, Recorder's Court Judges, and Probate Judges. The fifth group consisted of Municipal, Common Pleas, and Traffic and Ordinance Judges. These were grouped together because of their relatively concurrent jurisdictions. Table 4.14 reflects the computed means, standard deviations and the univariate F-ratios for each of the three factor scale scores, as well as the multivariate F-ratio. While no significant univariate F-ratios were found, the significant (p‘g .05) multivariate F-ratio indicated that there existed a relationship of some type between the court level groups and the three factor scale scores. To further analyze this relationship, a stepwise discriminant function analysis was performed. The discriminant analysis was performed with all three of the factors scales entering the analysis (f‘Z 1.0). Three discriminant functions were produced as a result of the analysis, however, only the first function was determined to be statistically significant (x2 = 21.036, df = _12, p _<_ .05) . Seventy-five percent of the variance in the factor scale scores were explained by the function. The standardized discriminant weight for each factor in this function is shown in Table 4.15. This function was comprised primarily of two scale scores. Collegial Interaction 98 mausou monocuvuo 0cm Ouwumue .mooam cOEEoo .HMQHOucoz n ts mo. W Q n a th can v u Eooooum mo mooumoo w mm.u H~.H mh.q ow.a m~.v m~.H mm.v hv.u mm.v hm.H me.¢ acuuoououcu usumauuoo .uuu us. as. uo.o om.u um.m om. mu.s am.u ms.m ms. mo.o mosmumasoo Hououooo .HH we. em.a Ah.m Hm.a vm.v ~m.a om.m mc.a mn.m mH.H Hm.m o>uuoomouom AMGOummomoum .H .o.m coo: .n.m coo: .o.m coo: .o.m coo: .o.m coo: wOuuMMIm Amonzv Amauzv Amoauzv .muuzv Avmuuzv oaoom uouooh ououuo>uco «40a muonoum m.umouoomm uuoouuo e .mu .2 uouuunwn m msouo v moouu m moouo N moouu H moouw Ammmnzv .oo>uom auucmuuou Hm>oq uuoou on» an mouoom oaoom uouoom mouse u0u mOuuomlh ououum>wca can o20wumu>oo oumocmum ancoozln¢a.v fiance was on the positive end of this dimension and Professional PerSpective on the negative end. TABLE 4.15--Standardized Discriminant Weights From Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis of Court Level Factor Scale Factor Scale Standardized Discriminant Weights I. Professional Perspective II. Judicial Competence III. Collegial Interaction -l.lO .58 .94 Examination of the court level group centroids for this function shown in Table 4.16 indicated that this function most strongly differentiated Recorder's Court Judges from the other groups in that they were strongly oriented toward the "Professional Perspective" factor scale of this function. TABLE 4.16--Court Level Group Centroids for Function I Court Level Centroids District -.12 Municipal, Common Pleas, Traffic & Ordinance -.23 Circuit .19 Recorder's -.84 Probate .14 lOO PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIAL PERSPECTIVE INTERACTION (-) R D P H') M c I; TIIT I .2 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 0 R=RECORDERS COURT M=MUNICIPAL, COMMON PLEAS, TRAFFIC 8 ORDINANCE D=DISTRICT COURT P=PROBATE COURT C=CIRCUIT COURT FIGURE 4.1--Plot of Court Group Centroids. The relative location of the group centroids on this function is graphically represented in Figure 4.1. It illus- trates the orientation of Recorder's Court judges toward the Professional Perspective reason for participation in continuing education. Hypothesis 9: Number of Judges in a Court Correlational Analysis. None of the factor scales correlated significantly with the number of judges variable. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of the dis- criminant analysis, responding judges were divided into the following groups representing the number of judges serving in their courts: 1 Judge Courts, 2 Judge Courts, 3-5 Judge Courts, 6-15 Judge Courts, and Courts with 16 or more judges. The results of the univariate discriminant analysis are re- flected in Table 4.17. The univariate F-ratios were nonsig- nificant, as was the multivariate F—ratio. No further analysis was conducted. mNm can 4 u Eoomoum mo momumoo @ lOl 4u.u ou.u 44.4 m4.u 44.4 H4.u «4.4 m~.u 44.4 o~.u 45.4 souuomumusu umumouuoo .Huu sm.u mm. mu.s -.u om.m no. u~.a as. mc.o as. cm.m mosmuwasoo uauoutsn .uu ms.u mm.u sc.4 om.u 44.4 su.u ma.m ou.u mm.m -.u mo.m o>uuomamsma HmCOfimmwwOHuw .H a cussmus .o.m sum: .o.m saw: .o.m saw: .o.m saw: .o.m saw: mususs>usa Ammuzv A44uz. somuzv .4suzv s44uzv Ousom souoas momooo +mu momoso mane momooo mum momoso N omooo a m moouo 4 msouo m msouw N moouw a moouw Ammmuzv .uuooo o :u momoon mo uoseoz osu as mouoom maoom uOuoom mouse uom mouuomnh ououuo>uca oso mucuuow>oa ouoosoum .nsoozIIhH.v mqmce 102 Hypothesis 10: Status as Chief Judge in a Multiple Judge Court Correlational Analysis. None of the factor scales correlated significantly with the respondent judges' status as Chief Judge. Discriminant Analysis. Respondents were grouped as either a Chief Judge or not a Chief Judge. The results of the discriminant analysis are reflected in Table 4.18. None of the univariate F-ratios were found to be significant. The multivariate F-ratio was nonsignificant. No further analysis was conducted. TABLE 4.18--Means, Standard Deviations and Univariate F-Ratios For Three Factor Scale Scores by Criterion as Chief Judge. (N=331) GROUP 1 GROUP 2 Non- hief Judge Chief Judge Factor Scale (n=266) (n=65) Univariate Mean S.D. Mean S.D. F-Ratios @ I. Professional Perspective 3.79 1.26 3.87 1.17 .21 II. Judicial Competence 6.04 .85 6.09 .83 .20 III. Collegial Interaction 4.64 1.31 4.68 1.28 .46 ll 0 oo oo Multivariate F @ Degrees of freedom = 1 and 329 103 Hypothesis 11A: Level of Participation for Previous.Year Correlational Analysis. .The correlational analysis resulted in significant (p g .05).corre1ations on all three factor scales. The positive direction of the correlation indicated that those with higher participation levels gave higher scores to the items associated with factor scales than did those who participated fewer days. Discriminant Analysis. For purposes of this analysis, judges were grouped by the number of days they had participated in CJE during the last year as follows: Group 1 (0-2 days), Group 2 (3-5 days), Group 3 (6-9 days), Group 4 (10+ days). Group means, standard deviations, univariate F-ratios, and the multivariate F-statistic for each factor scale are displayed in Table 4.19. The univariate F-ratios were found to be significant for each factor scale (p‘g .05), as was the multivariate F-ratio. A stepwise discriminant function analysis was per- formed with all three factor scales entering into the analy- sis. Three discriminant functions were produced with only one function being statistically significant (X2 = 28.703, df = 9, p S .001). This function accounted for 70% of the variance in the factor scale scores. The standardized discriminant weights for each fac- tor in this function are shown in Table 4.20. This function was composed of all three factor scales with positive discriminant function weights. 104 us. w a u 44 mo. w a u 4 mom can m n Eooooum mo mooumoo w sa4~.m u m mumuum>uuusz «Hm.m ON.H Hm.4 mm.a $9.4 mN.H oh.4 om.a NN.4 souuomuousH umumouuoo .uuu 4«NN.m Hm. Ha.o mo. mN.o we. oa.o ON.H mo.m mosoummsou Hououoob .HH «tha.m mm.a ma.4 0N.H Nm.m no.4 mn.m om.a em.m o>uuoommumm auscummmwoum .H w Ofluomlm .Q.m Gooz .Q.m com: .O.m sums .Q.m coo: mumuum>usa soauzv soouzv smuuuzv sumuzv Oumom uouomm memo +oa memo mIm ammo mum memo Nv 4 msouo m msouw N moouo H moouo Aoamuzv .uooe m50u>oum I sONuomuouuuom who no Ho>ms osu as nouoom onom uouoom mouse uom mOuuomIm ououuo>usa can msowuou>oo vuoosoum .msoozIImH.4 mnmse 105 TABLE 4.20--Standardized Discriminant Weights From Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis of Previous Year Participation Standardized Factor Scale Discriminant Weights I. Professional Perspective .33 II. Judicial Competence .57 III. Collegial Interaction .38 The group centroids are displayed in Table 4.21. TABLE 4.21--Group Centroids From Stepwise Function Analysis of Previous Year Participation Group Group Centroids 1. 0-2 days -.51 2. 3-5 days .06 3. 6-10 days .16 4. 10+ days .22 The relative locations of the group centroids in- dicated that Group 1 was significantly less oriented to all three factor scales than were Groups 2, 3, and 4. This was confirmed by the matrix of pairwise F-ratios displayed in Table 4.22 which indicated that Group 1 differed signifi- cantly from Groups 2, 3, and 4. 106 TABLE 4.22--Multivariate F-Matrix for Pairs of Centroids @ Group 1 2. 3 2 4.36* 3 4.92* .76 4 6.05* 2.42 1.67 @ Degrees of freedom = 3 and 304 * p S .01 Hypothesis 113: Level of Participation for Previous Three Years Correlational Analysis. The correlational analysis resulted in significant (p g .05) correlations on all three factor scales. The positive direction of the correlation indicated that those with higher participation levels gave higher scores to the items associated with all factor scales than did those who participated fewer days. Discriminant Analysis. For this analysis, judges were grouped by the following levels of participation in CJE during the last three years: Group 1 (6 days or less), Group 2 (7-15 days), Group 3 (16-26 days), Group 4 (27+ days). Group means, standard deviations, the univariate F-ratios and the multivariate F-ratio are displayed in Table 4.23. The univariate F-ratio for each factor scale was significant (p g .05), as was the multivariate F-ratio. A stepwise discriminant function analysis was per- formed. All three factor scales entered into the analysis. 107 uo. v a u «« mo. w a n 4 mmN can m u Eooooum mo momummo @ asmo.~ u m mumuum>uuusz aoo.~ («was no.4 4m.u oo.4 om.u mo.4 om.u u~.4 souuomuousu umuoouuoo .HHH .4m.m oo. 4u.o us. om.o so. so.o ou.u oo.m oosmumaeoo . umuouoso .HH «44m.4 om.u ou.4 4~.u oo.m os.u os.o um.u -.m O>uuomamuma HMCOHmmOMOHm .H o ouuomum .a.m saw: .o.m smmz .o.m saw: .o.m sow: muauusauso .4ouzo somuzo Aomuuzo Ao4uzo muaom scouts mums +s~ mums omnou sumo muns mums ov 4 moouw m moouo N moouw a moouo Amomuzv .muooe m m50u>oum I souuomuouuuom who no Ho>mq ms» as mouoom mHmom HOHOflh 0®H£B HOW mOflflmmlh 0HMflHG>HCD UCQ MCOfiU6fl>QD UHMUCMUQ .msoozIImN.4 mqmse 108 Three discriminant functions were produced with only one function being significant (X2 =_l9.09, df = 9, p‘g .05). This function was found to account for 80% of the variance in the factor scale scores. The standardized discriminant function weights for each factor scale in this function are displayed in Table 4.24. TABLE 4.24--Standardized Discriminant Weights From Stepwise Discriminant Function Analysis of Previous Three Year Participation Standardized Factor Scale Discriminate Weights I. Professional Perspective .51 II. Judicial Competence . .39 III. Collegial Interaction .37 All three factor scales in this function were found to have positive values. The group centroids for this func- tion can be found in Table 4.25. TABLE 4.25--Group Centroids From Stepwise Function Analysis of Previous Three Year Participation Group Group Centroids 1. 0-6 days -.56 2. 7-15 days .02 3. 16-26 days .13 4. 27+ days .22 109 The relative locations of.the group centroids suggests that Group 1 was significantly less oriented to all three factor scales than were Groups 2, 3, and 4. This was confirmed by the matrix of pairwise F-ratios found in Table 4.26 which indicated that Group 1 did, in fact, differ significantly from Groups 2, 3, and 4. TABLE 4.26-—Multivariate F-Matrix for Pairs of Centroids @ Group 1 2 3 2 3.04*- 3 3.95* 4.22 4 5.32** 1.32 .70 @ Degrees of freedom = 3 and 297 * p‘g .05 ** p S .01 Summaryyof Data Analysis Results This section summarizes the results of the factor analysis of the PRS and the analysis of the relationship be- tween the selected judicial characteristics and the three factor scales which were empirically identified. Factor Analysis The factor analysis of the responses to the PRS re- sulted in the identification of three factor scales which represented the underlying pattern of relationships among the 110 items on the PRS. The factor loading coefficients indi- cated that the items which loaded on each factor were highly generalizable to that factor. There were no instances of an item loading on more than one factor. Based on an examination of the items which loaded on the factor scales, the scales were given the following labels which were believed to describe the underlying construct represented by each factor: Factor I: Professional Perspective Factor II: Judicial Competence Factor III: Collegial Interaction In any study of this nature, a primary concern is the internal reliability of the factor scales and the inter- correlation of the factor scales. The three factor scales for this study were found to have high internal reliability as estimated by Cronbach's coefficient alpha estimate of scale reliability. The calculation of Pearson product mo- ment correlation coefficients to test the correlation between the three factor scales indicated only minimal correlation, suggesting that the factor scales measure relatively inde- pendent constructs. The high reliability and low inter- correlation of the factor scales provided the foundation for the examination of the relationship between the three factor scales and the selected characteristics of the re- sponding judges. 111 An Examination of the Relationship Between the Selected Judicial Characteristics and the Three Participation' Reason Factors ’ ' Both correlational and discriminant analysis tech- niques were used to examine the relationship between the personal and.professional characteristics and the three participation reason factor scales which were empirically derived from the factor analysis. The results of the correlational and discriminant analysis as it relates to each judicial characteristic is summarized in Table 4.27. Nonsignificant Results. The correlational and discriminant analysis failed to yield significant results in the tests of relationships between the three factor scales and the fol- lowing judicial characteristics: 1. Age . Marital Status 2 3. Tenure as a Judge 4. Number of Judges in the Court 5 . Status of Respondents as Chief Judge in a Multi-judge Court While the statistical tests used here to examine the relationship between these characteristics and the three factor scales did not yield significant results, caution must be used in stating that no relationship exists. This study was unable to identify any existing relationship within the constraints of this research design. TABLE 4.27-~Summary of Correlational and Discriminant Analyses 112 Characteristic Correlational Discriminant Analysis Variable Analysis Univariate Multivariate Age N.S. N.S. N.S. Sex S(II) N.C. N.C. Marital Status N.S. N.S. N.S. Years Since Law Degree S(I) N.S. N.S. Tenure N.S. N.S. N.S. Tenure on Current Bench S(II) S(II) N.S. Court Level Served N.C. N.S. S Number of Judges in Court N.S. N.S. N.S. Status as Chief Judge N.S. N.S. N.S. CJE Participation (Last year) S(I,II,III) S(I,II,III) S CJE Participation (Last three years) S(I,II,III) S(I,II,III) S N.S. = Non-Significant S = Significant (p g .05) N.C. = Analysis not conducted (I, II, III) = Factor Scale 113 Significant Findings. The correlational and discriminant analyses resulted in identifying relationships between several of the judicial characteristics and the three participation reason factor scales. The sex of the responding judges was found to correlate with Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence. The direction of the correlation indicated that female judges placed higher value on the participation reasons associated with this scale than did male judges. Further examination of this result was not conducted using discriminant analysis because the relatively low number of female judges in the pOpulation and responding sample prohibited a powerful test using discriminant analysis. The number of years since the responding judges received their law degrees was found to be significantly correlated with Factor Scale I: Professional Perspective. This factor scale is composed of items related to the devel- Opment of a professional identity as a judge. The direction of the correlation suggests that more recent graduates from law school are more oriented to the reasons associated with this factor scale. The results of the discriminant analysis were, however, inconclusive in that none of the three factor scales significantly discriminated among the groupings of reSpondents. The respondents' tenure on their current bench significantly correlated with Factor Scale II: Judicial Competence. The direction of the correlation suggested that 114 judges newer to their present bench placed greater im- portance on the items associated with this factor scale than did those with longer tenure on their current bench. In conducting the discriminant analysis, it was found that Factor Scale II significantly discriminated among the groups of judges based on this characteristic. The post hoc analysis and examination of group means suggested that judges with 1-2 years of tenure on their current bench placed higher importance on the reasons associated with the Judicial Competence Factor Scale than did judges of 10=14 years on their current bench.' The court level at which the responding judges served was found to be significantly related to the partici- pation factor scales. The stepwise discriminant function analysis of this characteristic resulted in the identifi- cation of a significant function composed of Factor Scale I: Professional Perspective, and Factor Scale III: Collegial Interaction. An examination of the group centroids for this function suggested that Recorder's Court judges significantly differ from all other groups of judges in their orientation toward the Professional Perspective Factor Scale. In examining the relationship between levels of past participation in CJE by judges during the previous year and the three factor scales, the correlational analysis was found to be significant for all three factor scales. The direction of the correlation suggested that those judges who partici- pated more often placed more importance on the participation 115 reasons associated with all three.scales than those who participated less often. The results of the multivariate stepwise discriminant function analysis indicated that those judges who attended two days or less of CJE in the previous year were significantly less oriented to these three factor scales than were those who attended 3 days or more. A similar result was found when attendence for the previous three years was examined. Chapter Summary The results of the research data analysis and a summary of the results have been presented. The relative importance that judges as a group placed on the participa- tion reasons contained on the PRS was examined. A Factor Analysis of the responses to the PRS was conducted. The participation factors identified as PrdfeSsional Perspective, Judicial Competence, and Collegial Interaction emerged. Correlational and discriminant analysis techniques were used to examine the relationship between the selected judicial characteristics and the three participation factors. Nonsignificant results were found for the characteristics of age, marital status, tenure, number of judges in the court, and status as chief judge. Significant relationships were found to exist between various factor scales and the charac- teristics of sex, years since law degree received, tenure on current bench, court level served, and levels of past parti- cipation in CJE. 116 The next chapter contains a summary of the study, conclusions, discussion of the results, and implications of the results for judicial educators, as well as implications for future research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of the Research It was the purpose of the writer in this study to (1) examine the relative importance judges as a group place on reasons for participation in continuing judicial educa- tion, (2) identify factors which represent the underlying dimensions of reasons for participation, (3) analyze the possible relationships between selected judicial charac- teristics and the identified factors, and (4) examine the implications of the research findings for those who are engaged in the planning and implementation of continuing judicial education programs. The study population consisted of all Michigan trial judges who were officially serving on October 1, 1980 (N=523). A c0py of a Participation Reasons Scale (PRS) and Respondent Information Form was mailed to each judge along with a letter of instruction. The Participa- tion Reasons Scale contained 28 items which represented possible reasons for participation in continuing judicial education. Respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of each reason on a seven point scale, with a 1 being "not important" and a 7 being "extremely impor- tant". The Respondent Information Form was designed to 117 118 elicit selected demographic, personal and professional char- acteristics from the respondents. Four hundred (400) judges responded, representing a response rate of 76%. The means and standard deviations for responses to the participation reasons contained on the PRS were com- puted to examine the relative importance judges placed on each reason. A factor analysis of the judges' responses was conducted utilizing both orthogonal and oblique factor rotation methods in an effort to identify any existing under- lying pattern of relationships in the responses. Three factors emerged as a result of this analysis. Based on an examination of the participation reasons loading on each factor, the factors were labeled Professional Perspective, Judicial Competence, and Collegial Interaction. The co- efficient alpha estimates of scale reliability for the fac- tor scales were .90 for Professional Perspective, .90 for Judicial Competence, and .83 for Collegial Interaction. Correlational and discriminant analysis techniques were employed to examine the relationship between the empirically derived participation factors and the personal and professional characteristics of the responding judges. Non-significant results were found for the characteristics of age, marital status, tenure, number of judges in the court, and status as chief judge. Significant relationships were found to exist between various of the factor scales and the characteristics of sex, years since law degree received, 119 tenure on current bench, court level served and levels of past participation in CJE. Conclusions It can be concluded that judges' reasons for parti- cipation in continuing professional education revolve around a complex set of needs and may vary based on personal and professional characteristics. This general conclusion .can be arrived at through an examination of the following conclusions based on the analysis of the research data: 1. Judges as a professional group placed high importance on the reasons for participation in continuing judicial education which are related to keeping abreast of new develOp- ments in the law, being competent in their judicial work, matching their knowledge and skills with the demands of their judicial activities and improving their ability to better respond to the questions of law pre- sented to them. 2. There were three major factors which repre- sented the underlying dimensions of the re- sponding judges' reasons for participation. The factors were labeled based on the participation reasons which loaded on each factor. In rank order of importance, based 120 on their mean scale scores, the factors which emerged were Judicial Competence,. Collegial Interaction and Professional Perspective. Judges' orientations to the three partici- pation factors differed for the character- istics of sex, years since law degree was received, tenure on current bench, and court level currently served. Female judges placed significantly more importance on the reasons associated with the Judicial Competence factor scale than did male judges. Judges who were more recent graduates from law school placed more importance on participation as a means of developing a perspective of their profes- sional role as judges. Judges who were newer to their present bench participated for reasons related to a development of compe- tence as judge. Judges of the Detroit Re- corder's Court placed a significantly higher emphasis on reasons associated with the Pro- fessional Perspective factor scale than did any other group of judges. Judges' reasons for participation were not significantly related to the characteristics of age, marital status, tenure, number of 121 judges in the court.or their status as a chief judge. 5. Judges who participated in CJE on a regular basis did so for the reasons re- lated to all three participation factors. Conversely, judges who reported that they participated infrequently or not at all were not motivated to participate for any of the reasons identified in this study. Discussion Introduction The PRS used in this study was developed to assess reasons for participation which are directly related to the professional development of the participants. While there might be reasons for participation which are personal in nature, identifying those reasons would be of limited value to judicial education administrators (Grotelueschen, et al., 1979). Therefore, this study was intentionally limited to identifying those reasons for participation which were educational in nature and those which were directly related to the participant's role as a professional. For purposes of this study, the PRS was administer- ed to all judges in the state of Michigan. The judges were asked to respond to the reasons for participation in CJE as a general proposition. This approach was used, as opposed to administering the PRS to judges in attendance at a program ..J,‘-[l 122 of continuing education as was the case in the studies of business professionals (Grotelueschen, et al., 1979) and physicians (Cervero, 1981). Had the PRS been administered while judges were participating at a specific continuing education program, the results would have in all likelihood, been influenced by the participants' reasons for partici- pation in that particular program. This approach would have merit if the objective of the research was to use a particular continuing education activity as the unit of analysis. It was, however, the objective of the researcher to identify reasons for participation independent of a specific continuing education program or activity. The population of this study and the extent to which the results are generalizable to other groups of judges deserves discussion. The population of this study consisted of Michigan judges who were serving on October 1, 1980. No attempt was made to select a random sample, but rather the survey instruments were sent to the entire population. A post hoc analysis of the representative nature of the re- sponding sample suggested that it was sufficiently repre- sentative of the population of Michigan judges serving at that point in time. Because a specific group of judges was surveyed at a particular point in time, the generalizability of this study may become invalid over time. In addition, caution must be exercised in attempting to generalize the findings to any group of judges other than those in Michi- gan. 123 Participation Factors The results of this study confirmed to a certain extent the findings of other researchers using the PRS in that judges' reasons for participation are multidimensional and more complex than has been believed (Cervero, 1981; Grotelueschen, et al., 1979; Harnisch, 1980). In addition, the factors scales which emerged in this study are similar to those which emerged when a comparable form of the PRS was administered to physicians (Cervero, 1981) and veteri- narians (Harnisch, 1980). A comparison of the factor scales for these three studies is presented in Table 5.1. Caution must be taken in trying to literally com- pare the factor scales from these three studies. While there may be similarities in the labeling of the factor scales, this study did not undertake an empirical compari- son of the items which composed the respective factor scales. However, with that caution in mind, some general comparative observations might be useful. As reflected in Table 5.1, three factor scales emerged in this study of judges as compared with five for physicians and four for veterinarians. This suggests that judges may be more homogeneous as a professional group than are physicians or veterinarians, in that judges really represent a speciality of the larger legal profession.. This would be comparable to studying pediatricians as a special- ized group of physicians. 124 TABLE 5.l--Comparison of Factors from Studies of Physicians, ~ Veterinarians, and Judges. Study of 211 Study of 219 Study of 400 Physicians Veterinarians Judges PRS 34 PBS 35 PRS 28 Maintain and Improve Professional Judicial Professional Service Improvement and Competence to Patients Development Understand Oneself as Professional Professional a Professional Reflection Perspective Interact with Collegial Learning Collegial Colleagues and Interaction Interaction Enhance Personal and Professional Position Personal Benefit and Job Security Professional Service F Ru '-' $.35!” 125 One clear distinction can be made in comparing these. three studies. In each of the other studies a factor scale composed of reasons related to personal benefits, profes- sional advancement and job security emerged. That was not the case in this study. As individual items, the partici- pation reasons relating to personal benefits, professional advancement and job security ranked at the bottom in terms of relative importance for judges. In addition, the items did not emerge as a fourth factor scale. On the surface, this result may not appear sig- nificant, however, it points out an important distinction between judges and the other professional groups studied. Judges, as elected public officials, constitute a profes- sional group different from those professions which are essentially in the private sector. The difference appears most dramatically when the reward system is examined. Physicians may participate in continuing professional edu- cation in order to learn a new skill which may have the potential of increasing their income. Judges may also participate to develop new skills in order to be more competent, however, judges cannot use that skill to in- crease their income. The development of competence, in the case of the judge, must be a reward itself. This fundamental distinction has implications, to be discussed later for those who will do future research in continuing professional education, as well as for those who administer CJE programs. 126 Another fundamental distinction which differen- tiates judges from other professional groups studied bears comments here. Judges, unlike the other professionals studied, lack a distinctly identifiable patient or client relationship. Therefore, the development of Judicial Competence is a factor which is much broader than the one identified for physicians labeled "Maintain and Improve Professional Service". Nonsignificant Results The analysis of the data from this study suggested that there are a group of personal and professional charac- teristics which were not significantly related to the parti- cipation reason factors. These characteristics included age, marital status, tenure, number of judges in the court, and status as chief judge. This is not to suggest that no re- lationship exists, but rather that the data analysis tech- niques did not uncover these relationships if they do exist. However, within the context of the current study, some discussion of why these results may have occurred is war- ranted. In examining why age did not significantly dif- ferentiate judges in terms of their reasons for partici- pation, it should be pointed out that, unlike other pro- fessions, a person does not graduate from law School at 21 years of age and then enter into the profession of being a judge. Therefore, the age of a judge when first elected or 127 appointed to a judicial position may vary considerably. With respect to the number of judges in a court, it might have been speculated that those judges from a one judge court would be oriented toward the Collegial Inter- action factor scale as opposed to those who are in a multi- ple judge court. It would suggest that the need for colle- _gial interaction is universally important to judges.as a reason for participation without regard to size of court served. Judges who were serving as chief judge did not place significantly different importance on any of the factor scales than did those who were not chief judges. This would suggest that the designation as chief judge does not carry with it any special distinction in terms of professional development needs. It should be pointed out that until re- cently, the designation of chief judge was in most cases a title that had little significance. However, a recent rule promulgated by the Michigan Supreme Court delineated speci- fic responsibilities for the chief judge. A similar study conducted in the future could conceivably find that chief judges would be significantly oriented to one or more of the factor scales than non-chief judges. Overall tenure as a judge did not seem to make a difference with respect to differing orientations to the participation factors, while tenure on the current bench was significantly related to the Professional Competence factor scale. In all likelihood, this result occurred 128 because these two characteristics are not mutually ex- clusive and therefore the results were to a certain extent confounded. Significant Results The results of this study generally confirm the findings of Grotelueschen et a1. (1979) and Harnisch (1980) that the reasons for participation may vary within a pro- fessional group based on various personal and professional characteristics. The sex of the responding judges was found to sig- nificantly correlate with the Judicial Competence factor scale. Female judges were found to be more oriented toward this scale than male judges. This result may not be at all atypical. WOmen professionals may tend to be highly con- cerned with their professional competence in order to prove themselves in their professional roles. As time passes and more women attain positions in professions, it might be Speculated that this difference will lessen. Judges who were more recent graduates from law school placed significantly higher importance on the parti- cipation reasons associated with the Professional Perspective factor scale.’ This result suggests that these judges are in the process of identifying themselves as professionals, as well as identifying the role they will play in their profes- sion and, further, that participation in CJE is one way of developing this professional identity. Judges who are recent 129 graduates from law school may be struggling both with their role in the legal profession, as well as their judicial role. It might be speculated that a study of lawyers in private practice would result in a similar finding. Judges who were new to their current bench (1-2 years) were found to be more oriented toward the Judicial Competence factor than those who had been serving on the bench for some time. It should be pointed out that while judges in Michigan are lawyers, becoming a judge requires a new set of skills. In addition, each court level has its own set of special skills which must be learned by a judge who assumes that bench. This situation would be comparable to a physician who changes specialities. While the identity as a physician does not change, the new speciality requires a new set of skills. This result suggests that a striving for judicial competence is stimulated when a judge first assumes a bench or when the judge changes from one bench to another. The court level at which a judge serves was found to be significantly correlated to the factor scale. Specifically, Detroit Recorder's Court judges were significantly more oriented toward the Professional Perspective factor scale than were other judges. This result might be best explained by the special nature of this court. It is a specialized court and is the only court of its kind in Michigan. Because it is viewed as something of an aberration, the judges of that court could be struggling with their role in the profession. In addition, the Recorder's Court has come under substantial 130 criticism in recent years by the public and news media. These attacks may have contributed to the lack of a sense of a well- defined professional role as judges. Those judges who reported that they were frequent participants in CJE appear to do so for reasons associated with all three factor scales. This result indicates that regular participants in CJE place a high importance on participation as a means of develOping their competence as judges, interacting with and learning from their colleagues and furthering their identity as professionals. Those who could be characterized as non-participants are not strongly attracted to CJE for any of these reasons. Three possibilities exist with respect to the result as it applies to non-parti- cipants. Some judges may in fact not be interested in fur- ther developing their competence, identifying themselves with their profession or interacting with their colleagues. Other judges might not even perceive the need. Finally, there may be judges who fulfill these needs in ways other than participation in continuing education activities. What- ever the case, this result has significant implications for judicial educators. Implications Implications for Judicial Educators The results of this study suggest several implica- tions for those who plan and conduct judicial education pro- lgrams. 131 Judicial educators have generally narrowed their focus in program design to the best way of meeting the content needs of judges. The results of this study indicate that judges participate for reasons which are not necessarily wholly dependent on the content of the program. While content is important and is probably closely aligned to the reasons associated with the Judicial Competence factor scale, program design must also pay adequate attention to meet- ing the needs of judges by allowing for con- structive interaction and learning from their colleagues. In addition, program design must attend to those needs of judges which are associated with the Professional Perspective factor scale. CJE activities must be con- sciously designed to allow judges the Oppor- tunity to develOp a perspective of their pro- fessional role, review their commitment to their profession and to develOp leadership capa- bilities in their profession. In essence, the results of this study provide a framework for the design of a comprehensive system of CJE which would meet the needs of judges. There are major implications for the way in which judicial educators advertise their program offering. Communications with judges about 132 programs should include references to the way in which the program will address the reasons for participation identified in this study. This is of particular importance in states where participation is voluntary. Such an advertising approach could assist in maximizing partici- pation. This study found that within an audience of judges, the reasons for their participation were related in various ways to the personal and pro- fessional characteristics of sex, years since law degree received, tenure on current bench and court level currently served. If information related to these characteristics was gathered from judges prior to their attendance at a speci- fic CJE activity, it would be possible to pro- file that audience in terms of their orienta- tions to the three identified participation fac- tors. This would be of assistance in designing the program to meet those needs. It would also assist those who were teaching in the programs by alerting them to the primary reasons why the participants were attending that particular program. Those judges who were identified as non-partici- pants differed significantly from those who were regular participants in that they were not 133 oriented toward any of the three factors scales identified. This suggests that ways must be found to identify and meet the needs of non- participating judges, as well as finding ways to attract their initial participation in CJE activities. For example, non-participating judges might be placed on a planning committee to initially attract their interest. In addi- tion, research must be conducted to identify the possible motivational blocks to participation which exist among this group of judges. In the studies of physicians and veterinarians using the PRS, factor scales emerged which were composed of reasons related to personal benefits, professional advancement and job security. This, however, was not the case with this study of judges. The absence of a professional advance- ment/personal gain factor as a reason for parti- cipation has serious implications for the future of judicial education. Typically, judicial edu- cation programs are offered free of charge to participants. This has been possible because many of the programs have received substantial state and federal funding. As these funds begin to decrease, pressure is being placed on judicial educators to charge for programs. The city, state, and federal governments which have Implications 1. 134 apprOpriated funds in the past argue that all other professionals are required to pay for their own continuing education and they believe that the same should be true for judges. Based on the absence of a professional advancement/ personal gain factor, serious questions are raised about the effect of requiring judges to pay for their own continuing education. While it is possible that the other reasons for parti- cipation identified in this study might out- weigh such a block to participation, it would appear that such a move would result in lower levels of participation, particularly in states where participation is not mandated. for Future Research Further research of the reasons why judges parti- cipate in CJE should include comparable studies in. other states to determine if the reasons for participation vary depending on the overall judi- cial environment of a state. For example, studies should be conducted in states where judges are appointed instead of elected. Of particular interest would be a study to compare states where mandatory CJE exists with states such as Michigan where CJE is voluntary. Such studies should include an empirical analysis comparing 135 .the clustering of participation reasons into participation factors.. This would allow more than an intuitive conclusion about the simi- larity of participation factors which emerge. Research should be conducted where the unit of analysis is the specific continuing education activity. By administering the PRS to judges at a variety of prOgrams, it would be possible to determine whether or not reasons for parti- cipation vary with the type of program being attended. While this study concentrated on the reasons for participation in CJE, it was found that non-participants were not attracted to CJE programs for any of the reasons identified in this study. Further investigation should be conducted to identify those blocks to partici- pation which exist. This study did not attempt to empirically compare the participation factors for judges with those identified in the other studies of professionals using the PRS. Further study should be conducted to empirically compare the participation factors identified in each of the studies through an analysis of the items composing the factors. APPENDIX A PARTICIPATION REASONS SCALE (JUDGE FORM) APPENDIX A PARTICIPATION REASONS SCALE (Judge Form) There are many reasons for participating in continuing professional education activities. The following items are designed so that you can indicate the relative importance of the general reasons you might have for participating in a continuing judicial education activity. For each item circle the numeral which best represents the degree of importance you attach to each reason. nu W leases W Important Important 1. To further match my knowledge or skills with the demands of my judicial activities ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. To mutually exchange thoughts with other judges .............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. To help me be more productive in my professional role ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. To enable me to better meet the public's expectations .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. To maintain my current abilities ............................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. To relate my ideas to those of my professional peers ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. To maintain my identity with my profession .................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. To better respond to the questions of law presented to me ..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. To review my commitment to my profession ................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. To learn from the interaction with other judges ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. To help me develop leadership capabilities for my profession ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. To increase my proficiency in applying legal principles ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. To consider changing the emphasis of my present judicial assignment .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. To develop new professional knowledge and skills ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. To sharpen my perspective of my professional role ............. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. To help me keep abreast of new developments in the law ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. To help me improve the quality of service being rendered to the public ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. To assess the direction in which my profession is going ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. To help me be more competent in my judicial work ............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. To increase the likelihood of advancement to a higher judicial office ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. To be challenged by the thinking of my judicial colleagues ....... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. To enhance the image of my profession ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. To improve my individual service to the public as a jurist ........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. To consider the limitations of my role as a judge ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. To develop proficiencies necessary to maintain quality performance ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. To enhance my individual security in my present judicial office ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 7 27. To maintain the quality of my judicial service .................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. To reflect on the value of my judicial responsibilities ............ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It"! aha-II 009mm 0 1w by Evaluation and Development Services Co. 136 APPENDIX B RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM APPENDIX B RESPONDENT INFORMATION FORM Directions: This form is designed to obtain descriptive information from judges so that a greater understanding might be obtained about their participation in continuing education activities. Most responses will only require a check [ \/ ] in the appropriate set of brackets. All responses will be kept confidential. Thank you for your assistance. 1. Your age? __ years 8. Court you currently serve? District ...................... 1 j ] Municipal .................... 2 [ ] Common Pleas .............. 3 [ ] 2. Your sex? Traffic 8 Ordinance Division - M I of Recorder’s Court ......... 4 [ ] Fa°l ------------------------ 'l 1 Circuit ....................... 5[ ] ema e ...................... 2 [ ] Recorder’s Court ............. 6 l l Probate ...................... 7 [ ] 3. Current marital status? Single ....................... 1[ ] Married ...................... 2[ ] 9. Number of judges in your court? 4. Year law degree received? 5. What degrees otherthan the law degree have you earned beyond the bachelor's? 10. Are you Chief Judge of your court? Yes ................. 1[] No .................. 2[] 6. Year you first became a judge? 11. How many days of continuing judicial 7. Year you first assumed yom current education do you estimate you have bench? participated In during: The last year: days The last 3 years: days 137 APPENDIX C COVER LETTER FROM JUSTICE JAMES L. RYAN APPENDIX C COVER LETTER FROM JUSTICE JAMES L. RYAN VARY S. sates». :...¢r .oer :1 *. [T t vaonas 3. aavauaopo $11? In L I! r O. «(Niven WILI..A~S r2 2 e a CNARLES ;.L.EVIN souls N. 'l’ZDERALD “W‘s on“. LANSING. MICHIGAN CLAIR MOODY.-R. 4.909 season: --sricse "A'OCD ROAD =a-4 October 3, 1980 Dear Judge: As you know, the Michigan Judicial Institute is con- stantly striving to find better ways of serving you through its continuing education programs. To assist us in this goal, we need to gather some information from you which will give us a better insight into the reasons why judges participate in judicial educa- tion programs. With this type of information, the Insti- tute will be better able to meet your needs and those of the judiciary as a whole. To gather this information in a way which is most con- venient to you and will not impose on your busy trial docket, we have developed a short two-page questionnaire which will require only a few minutes to complete. In most cases, you only have to circle the appropriate response. You will also note that we have designed the questionnaire so that your response is anonymous, and therefore, completely con- fidential. Please complete both sides of the questionnaire and return it to the Institute in the prepaid envelope which is enclosed for your convenience. We would like to receive your response by October 20, 1980. When I was asked to supervise the activities of the Institute, I resolved that we would not needlessly burden you. This request for your assistance represents the first time in the three year history of the Institute that we have conducted a survey of all the trial judges in Michi- gan. We are doing so now only because we feel strongly that you alone can provide us with the necessary insight, and so I ask you to take the few minutes necessary to complete and return this questionnaire. Thank you in advance for your support. I remain, JLR/DWC/vc ,Enclosures 138 REFERENCES REFERENCES ' American Bar Association Commission on Standards of Judicial Administration. ‘Standards relating to court organi- zation. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1974. American Psychological Association. Publication manual. Washington, D.C.: American PsychBIogical Associa- tion, 1974. Babbie, E. R. Survey research methods. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing,’l973. Bennett, L. R. Air Force nurses' participation in programs of continuing educatiOn as related t9 selected criteria. Unpubliéhéd doctoral dissertation. Boston University, 1968. ‘ Bickerson, L. & Haggard, L. The education and training of judges in the United States. Managing the state gourts: Text and readings. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1977,_142-l49. Boshier, R. Motivational orientation of adult education participants: A factor analytic exploration of Houle's typology. Adult Education, 1971, El, 3-24. Burgess, P. Reasons for adult participation in group edu- cational activities. Adult Education, 1971, 2' 3-29e Cady, F. C. & Coe, G. E. Education of judicial personnel- Coals to New Castle? Connecticut Law Review, 1975, 1, 423-477. Center for the Administration of Justice. Judicial education in Michigan. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1977. Cervero, R. M. A factor analytic study of physicians' reasons for participation in continuing education. Journal of Medical Education, 1981, 56, 29-35. Conference of Chief Justices. Resolution II-Guidelines for judicial education, 1977. Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. Report of the Judicial Education Study Group. Washington: American UniVersity, 1978. 139 140 Criminal Courts Technical Assistance Project. Survey of state mandatoryijudicial:education requirements. Wadhington: American University, 1981. Dickinson, G., & Clark, K. M. Learning orientation and participation in self-education and continuing learning. Adult Education, 1975, gg, 3-15. Douglah, M. Some perspectives on the phenomenon of parti- cipation. Adult Education“ 1970, £2, 88-98. Fairbanks, P. M. The American Academy of Judicial Educa- tion. Judicature, 1970, i2, 226-229. Gorsuch, R. L. Factor analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1974. ' Grotelueschen, A. D. Personal communication, September, 1980. Grotelueschen, A. D., Harnisch, D. L., & Kenny, W. R. An analysis of the Participation Reasons Scale adminis- tered to busifiessprofgssiOnaIs. Occasional Paper No. 7, Office for the Study of Continuing Profes- sional Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979. Grotelueschen, A. D., Harnisch, D. L., & Kenny, W. R. Research on reasons for participation in continuing profes- sional education: A statements ofuposition and’ rationale. Occasidnal Paper No. 5, Office for the Study odeontinuing Professional Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980. Haines, E. Judicial education. The Law Society Gazette, 1911, Vol. 4, 224-227. Harnisch, D. L. The continuing education reasons of veterinarians. Unpublisheddoctoral’dissertation, University of Illinois-Urbana, 1980. Harnisch, D. L. Personal communication. January, 1981. Houle, C. O. The inquiring mind. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1961. Houle, C. 0. Continuing learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Institute of Judicial Administration. Judicial education in the United States:" ‘survey. New York: Institute of Judicial Administration, 1965. 141 Judicial Research Foundation. Struggle for equal justice: A report on neglect'and crisis in the lower courts. Washington: Judicial Research Foundation, 1969. Kim, J. Discriminant analysis. 'Statistical package for the social sciences. New Yofk: McGraw Hill, 1975. Klecka, W. R. Factor analysis. Statisticalipackage for the social sciences. New York?’ McGraw Hill, 1975. Li, P. Keeping judges awake to contemporary needs. Judges Journal, 1976, ii, 78-81; 103. National Association of State Judicial Educators. Constitu- tion and By:Laws. Michigan Judicial Institute. Summary of judicial participa- tion at Michigan continding education programs. Lansing: Midhigan State Court Administrative Office, 1979. Michigan Judicial Institute. Summary of judicial participa- tion at Michigan continuing education programs. Lansing: Michigan State Court Administrative Office, 1980. National Center For State Courts. State judicial training profile. Denver: National Center For State Courts, National Center For State Courts. State judicial training rofile. Denver: National Center For State Courts, I976 O'Connor, A. B. Reasons nurses participate in continuing education. Nursing Research, 1979, $8, 354-359. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administra- tion of Justice. Task force report:fi The courts. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1967. Richards, R. K. & Cohen, R. M. Why physicians attend traditional CME programs. Journal of Medical Education. 1980, ii, 479-485. Scheffield, S. B. The orientations of adult continuing learners. In David Solomon (Ed.) The continuing learner. Chicago: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1964,1-22. 142 Stumpf, F. Classification of courses.in'aijudicial education curriduIfim. A paper presented at the National AssociaEion of State Judicial Educators Conference, Louisville, October, 1979. ' Symposium on research on reasons for participation in continuing professional education. .American Educational Re- search Association Conference, Boston, 1980, Session No. 10.20. Tatsouka, M. Discriminant analysis: The study of group differences. Champaign: Institute ofdPersonality anddAbiIity Testing, 1970. U. S. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. Courts. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1973. Watkin, B. T. Move to require continuing education for professionals appears to be stalling. Chronicle of Higher Education. 1980, 3i, 1; 16. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES NW WI"III“IIIIIIWUIH IIIWWHIHIHI 31293100922388