AN ANALYSIS OF PEER ACCEPTANCE AND
PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF GIT-TED JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Thesis for the Dogma of Ed. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Donald Wayne Wood
1965

1| mum; mum Lu! (l Q fill 11m will nun

1'4 Ests

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
AN ANALYSIS OF PEER ACCEPTANCE AND
PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF GIFTED
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

presented by

DONALD WAYNE WOOD

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ed.D. degree in Elementary and Special
Education

 

 

0-169

 

 

 

 

 

2L L433.

 

 

 

 

 

it I‘ 'l :I‘OOea:

 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
      
 
  

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF PEER ACCEPTANCE AND PERCEIVED
PROBLEMS OF GIFTED JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

by Donald Wayne Wood

The purpose of the first of these interrelated
research studies was to evaluate the peer acceptance of
the gifted in comparison to the nongifted in the Junior ,
high school. The purposes of the second study werea
(l) to identify those perceived problems of personal and
~social adjustment held in common by all isolates as well
as those peculiar to each subgroup, nongifted isolates and
‘ “gifted isolates; and, (2) to identify those perceived ‘ l
”problems held in common by all gifted students as well as l j
I. those peculiar to each subgroup, isolate gifted and non- I

"isolate gifted.

_ Participating in the first study were 2, 733 students
I '. n3?

V1389 boys and 1344 girls) in grades seven and eight of

   

,;-;
re 118 of these same students (67 boys and 51 girls)

   
   

These students all resided

   
  

mighth and ninth graders.
fiéonia, Michigan, a large residential suburb of h';«;_
'ngith higher than average; mean educational s飣§< y
:égeconomic level. \ -1 up>£,.tir .

berg . c g;' as isalatg

   
   

 
      
       

  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
 

1
1 1
Donald Wayne Wood ' <

The California Test of Mental Maturity was admin- ‘
istered, and the 2,733 students were classified by their ‘
{resulting total IQs into six psychometric categories, ,A
ranging from highly gifted through educable retarded. A A
sociometric device was administered employing three
acceptance-oriented questions, each calling for three
choices. The students were classifed by the total number
of choices received into six sociometric categories
'5 ranging from star through isolate.

The psychometric and sociometric taxonomies were
used to create a grid to compart the total group into
thirty-six subgroups for comparison of their relative
sizes proportionate to the total group. To facilitate the
' second study, the students were then divided into four , y
’E research categories: gifted isolate, nongifted isolate,
{gifted nonisolate, and nongifted nonisolate.

;* In the second study, in order to show the full effect
:fdfigacceptance versus nonacceptance, the members of each

 

      

.' eluded.only high status Students. Regarding the

 

  
 
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
 

Donald Wayne Wood

Three inventories, Vineland Social Maturity Scale,
‘,iiMooney Problem Check List, and Rohde Sentence Completion

' Method, were administered to the four research groups:
Agifted isolate, nongifted isolate, gifted nonisolate, and
.inongifted nonisolate, to identify those perceived problems
N“-Ahe1d in common by all isolates, as well as those peculiar
to each isolate subgroup; and, to identify those perceived
‘problems held in common by all gifted, as well as those

I ; peculiar to each gifted subgroup.

r I The major results indicate that, although the gifted
_ 'did not receive greater acceptance as a group than did the
il;irapid learners, gifted students of this age group are well
:1 accepted by their peers; those students with high socio-
;:§mtric status are more often those of above-average intelli— .I€::
.. {genes gifted did not chocse primarily from within their _ 4. j
|_E,‘ group but did choose those with above-average . l

agbility as friends; students with above-average ability are

  
   

velved in both a greater scope and depth of mutual choice

 

i 3'-' AN ANALYSIS OF
PEER ACCEPTANCE AND PERCEIVED PROBLEMS OF
GIFTED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

'} , ' t by

Donald Wayne Wood

A THESIS

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

if? "I"
'1'1~p“'fi‘l

 

 

FA \
1
73 1 - iflfi 1
.3 h
if 3' [and
f a
, E s ‘. F}-
If I' ’ ‘ A 1-1, .I
1
x I ’7 d. 0 ‘
Y
_ I Copyright by ._,
V DONALD WAYNE WOOD ‘ 9 yids-‘3

; e r: A s

          

rh, ‘ ‘ ' "73H€ “A! td1fiit ,'“fl“‘,
. ‘r' ' . . : iu.;hu TIPix'hdgk'wJW* 'r‘ '
,A’e'i.‘ -L." Ly. ‘A 3 s ’ 3." IL L ”71 L 1V": "1 UV» 965"?31W% .- ‘

  

spy Mss'amz' c. wuwu m
We ‘ :Wmnos “at m - -

\

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To: Dr. John E. Jordan, my committee chairman, and Dr.
Gregory A. Miller for their continued interest,
encouragement, and guidance throughout my entire
doctoral program.

To: Dr. William K. Durr for his early assistance in
planning the organization of my studies of the gifted
'and for his friendly cooperation and understanding
direction throughout the completion of these studies.

To: Dr. Charles R. Hoffer, advisor in my minor field, who
continued to spend his own valuable time upon
becoming professor emeritus, to meet with my committee
and me.

To: Livonia Public Schools, Livonia, Michigan, for permit- '
ting me to gather the data for these research studies
from the five junior high schools; and to Dr. Paul
Johnson, Assistant Superintendent, for evaluating the
initial prOposal and for his valuable suggestions.

To: The principals of the five Junior high schools, Mr.
Kenneth Cogswell, Mr. William McMurtrey, Mr. William
Warren, Mr. James Casebere, and Dr. Bruce Hudson, for
their cooperation in making the necessary scheduling
adjustments to provide time and room space for the ad-
ministration of the testing necessary for these studies;
and to their teachers for the administration of the
{L sociometric device.
ijbt. Mrs. Mildred Tungate and Mr. Herbert Hutchison, coun-
. . £"'i' selors, for their assistance in proctoring the adjust-
" éu.ment inventories; and to all Livonia Junior high school
TJZJ.counselors for the administration of the psychometric
3? al'ftest.

T" .'

   
  
   
 

mar. Stanley Marzolf of Illinois State University for:

is: early assurance that the special serviCes area: " .
a logical professional choice, and for .hiL 'u"
as contribution to my necessary backgrounfl‘ufl“ , 4
ledge in  the behavioral sciences.i- e 5%; n$s¢c ‘ h

    
   
 
 

    
  

 

Donald W. Wood
Candidate for the degree of

Doctor of Education

K Thesis:

| An Analysis of Peer Acceptance and Perceived Problems of
Gifted Junior High School Students

1 Outline of Studies:

1

‘. Major subject: Special Education
Cognate: Guidance and Counseling
1 Minor subject: Sociology

L Biographical Items:

. Born: August 21, 1926; Putnam, Illinois

4] Undergraduate Studies: Illinois State University, B.S. Ed.

" Degree, Divisions of Elementary and Special Education,
June, 1949.

Graduate Studies: Illinois State University, M.S. Ed.
Degree, Divisions of School Administration and Special
Education, June, 1954; University of Florida, 1955-56;

, Central Michigan University, 1959- 61; Wayne State Univer-

-u sity, 1962- 63; Michigan State University, Ed. D. Degree,

‘ June, 1965.

Experience: Visiting Counselor, Bloomington, 111., Public
Schools, 1947—48; Teacher, sixth and seventh-grade math,
science, reading, Metcalf Training School, Normal, 111.,
1948-49: Teacher, hospitalized, homebound, Bloomington,
111., Public Schools, 1949-50; Hospital Teacher, physi-
cally handicapped, emotionally disturbed, University of
Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor, 1950-51; Teacher, educable
mentally handicapped, Fairchild Hall of Special Education,
Illinois State University, summer, 1951; Teacher, educable

- ! mentally handicapped, Elmhurst, 111., Public Schools,

. 1951-53; Educational Director, Hamilton County Council

for Retarded Children, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1953-55; Director

Special Services, Monroe County Schools, Key West, Fla.,

1955-56; Instructor, psychology, special education,

guidance, Central Michigan University, 1956—61; Counselor,

Livonia, Mich. , Public Schools, 1961--.

- ,Professional Memberships: American Association of Univer-

” sity Professors; National Association for Gifted Children;
Council of Administrators, Supervisors, and Coordinators
of Special Education; Northwest Wayne County Counselors

‘ Association; United Education Profession including
DiVisions of Department of Classroom Teachers, Council

"for Exceptional Children, Teacher Education, and Associa—

tion for the Gifted.

are: Fellow, American Association on Mental Deficiency;

C Delta Kappa; Honorary Life Member, Ohio State Associa-' “.1” 0

pm of Teachers of Mentally Deficient Youth; and Who's ‘ ,g‘qfi—
11$ American Education. ”1

 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
   

 

iv

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
VITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

. J
.LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

    
     
       

LIST OF APPENDICES o o o o t n a o o u o o ' x

r

‘ Chapter 1 .

I I INTRODUCTION 0 o o o o c o o I O O :1'

Purposes of the Study . . . . 2

Justification of the Study . . . . .2

. Limitations . . . . . . . . 3

; _ Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . 3!
The Thesis in Perspective. . . . . . . ‘8

-;o II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . . :9

t 1. {a
.’JQ‘ Intelligence and Sociometric Results . . ‘9'

1.7:» Highly Gifted c a o o o u I u a Q ~ 9

h I Gifted o O a I I c a o I I O O 11
Mutual Choices. . . . 15

Personal- Social Adjustment and Sociometric I

Results

How an Individual is Perceived by Others
Peer Evaluation. . . . . . . .
Adult Ratings . .

How an Individual Perceives Himself. .
Self-Report Techniques . ._ . . .
Projective Techniques.‘ . . . . .

summary I a o o in o- n 6 .5. o n

i "D i i o I o o

:.RESEIRCH PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES OF

H...

. 13.7.‘Vlbilr; Hath“
to; 12%.! Lsh‘d Pnoc gear 9r“?!
,3 Wimmc fl. mesh "
Wfiatuntaflu s,
z , L§ '

 
 
   

  

Chapter

Methods of Gathering the Data .

California Test of Mental Maturity

Sociometric Test . . . .

Adjustment Inventories . . .
Vineland Social Maturity Scale. . .
Mooney Problem Check List . . .
Rohde Sentence Completion Test. . .

Methods of Collating and Recording the Data.

Psychometric Data. . . .

} Psychometric Categories
Sociometric Data . .
L Matrix Tables .
Sociometric Categories
A Psychometric and Sociometric
Categorization of Data .
Summary Tables
Mutual Choice Tables
l Frequency Tables . .
; Adjustment Inventory Data .
Data Analysis. .

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA

Psychometric Data
Sociometric Data . -
Psychometric and Sociometric Categorization
of Data . . . . . .
Decile Distributions.
Comparting the Data .
Psychometric and Sociometric Means
Mutual Choice Data . . .
Distribution of Mutual Choices
Patterning of Mutual Choices
Comparative Involvement in Mutual
Choosing . . . .
Adjustment Inventory Data.
Locating Perceived Problems of Isolates
and Nonisolates . . .
Vineland Social Maturity Scale. . . .
Mooney Problem Check List . . . .
Rohde Sentence Completion Method .
Locating Perceived Problems of the Gifted
and Nongifted . . .
Vineland Social Maturity Scale. . . .
Mooney Problem Check List . . . . .
Rohde Sentence Completion Method .
Locating Perceived Problems of the Two
Isolate and the Two Gifted Groups . . .
Vineland Social Maturity Scale . . .
Mooney Problem Check List . . . .
Rohde Sentence Completion Method . . .

vi

 

 

 

 

33" V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND APPLICATIONS . . . 115
Summary............. 1.3.5-

. . Conclusions . . . . . . 11-?

'—'*'N- Implications and Applications. . . . . . “I26

. ‘ Applications . . . . . '123
I1 ' ~ Recommendations for Further Research . . . 128=

\‘msnsxcssv....»............ 1.39.
urmx.css...............13A.

{(-é'g. i
.L;

:qh'.

No-93?)
«.0
I

i
"t

135$5Kfp

4

1
I

373’
‘l

h T: 3" J
' If
A. 2.4;”.
'l
‘4!

"netrlu

_ '.::.. -,.a .l.he actionstti
W--0roupa ‘n ru:-;; ;n3.u)ug :- .13”

'. _-‘-.‘ . -
was Banner: 13613118 9“ a: ’ in;
is: $7 . if . . ~

j-‘.L‘E

 

  
    
 
   
    
  
   
   
   
   
      
 

LIST OF TABLES . ‘ I‘.

r" Table . Page ‘ 3 7
.‘- -f
..;' 1. Number and Per Cent of Students in Each 4"?
' 9; Psychometric Category . . . . . . . . 49 ‘T;}“w
2. Number and Per Cent of Students in Each AVTEA

Sociometric Category . . . . . . . . 50‘ ' ;“3

:L - ,, w i ‘J"_."‘
:;;' I "3. Psychometric Decile Distribution With Mean . 'i
“ i-fiv Number of Choices . . . . . . . 51 ‘ _ .W‘gfi
5 ~ ,

A. Sociometric Decile Distribution With Mean IQs . 52

5. Organization of Psychometric Data Under ~ I
Sociometric Categories. . . . . . . . 54 y..

6. Organization of Sociometric Data Under Psye . " I;
chometric Categories . . . . . . . . 55_ "‘

"V7.- Compartmentalization of the Psychometric and ’ .
SOCiometriC Data- 0 o a o o o s a 57' M '5%

8. Psychometric Means for Sociometric ' " .FWui
categories. c o u 0 s s o o o a o 59 ” Why ;

“H“, 9. Sociometric Means Means for Psychometric ‘1::[A5
” Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . 59 ' 3%" in;

     
       
 

Psychometric Distribution of Mutual Choices. . 61 h fi-JW:

Sociometric Distribution of Mutual Choices . . 63

           
     
     
    

-Psychometric Patterning of Mutual Choices . . 65' “g:

Sociometric Patterning of Mutual Choices ‘éyffl‘

   

Comparative Involvement of the Psychometric
. Groups in Mutual Choosing '

:fifiemparative Involvement of the Sociometric
Groups in Mutual Choosing '

Tferénces Between ISelate and Naniééigte
ups on 27 Items.af the VII,;. ‘. ‘
unity Scale 1. ., '

  

"NW f.
1.1%., * ~.
{

   
   
   
    
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
       
   
  

 

Page

Differences Between Isolate and Nonisolate .
Groups on “1 Items of the Mooney Problem ' . g .‘M

Check List I I I I I I I I I I I 76‘ A“ y ‘ '

" '18. Cathections of Junior High School Isolates - ' ‘ "if
. - and NORiSOlateS I I I I I I I I I ‘ 89 _ . " j
‘ 19. Differences Between Gifted and Nongifted W , ‘ ' 7 ~?
‘ a Groups on 27 Items of the Vineland ' ‘.:3
social Maturity scaleu I 9 I I I I I I 85 ' “ ‘
20. Differences Between Gifted and Nongifted ‘ . ‘.i Ii
Groups on 33 Items of the Mooney Problem , ' . -h

Che Ck List I I I I I I I I I I I 89 - I

' . 21. Cathections of Junion High School Gifted ?I::
I . and Nongifted I I I I I I I I I I 92 ' «a!
22. Differences Among the Four Subgroups on- 27 fl ‘
Items of the Vineland Social Maturity ‘ .v“ 1

Scale I I I I D I I I U I I 97:. . ‘r‘. : '1

i i I ' ll.

‘23. Vineland Items Isolates Perceive as Problems. 98 j- 1
2H. Vineland Items the Gifted Perceive aS' 4t‘5
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 101 =3 Q

25. Differences Among the Four Subgroups on 73 , ftx’I
Items of the Mooney Problem Check List . . ’ 103 L ;f

- . ~ ,1

' 26. Mooney Check List Items Isolates Perceive as , nfi’
'-‘ Problems . . . . . . . . . 165 . gwip
Mooney Check List Items the Gifted Perceive ED e

as Problems . . . . . . . 109 i, ;

Cathections Among the Four Subgroups of .1
Junior High School Students. . . . . . 112 i.,

     

 

LIST OF APPENDICES

' i _v {V 1‘ "1."

Students by CTMM

Appendix
A. Sociometric Test Form. .
'3”...B' Matrix Tables . ‘. . .
7V I‘C.' Summary Table . . . .
P in. Mutual Choice Table . .
.-r‘ E. Frequency Distribution of
1‘ " Total Scale IQ Scores .
‘ 5"‘F. Frequency Distribution of Students
uIE Number Choices Received
'Poi
Sutub

berstdI *

E [M C! 1"

P583
135

137 .

131

1145

15a

 

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Some gifted individuals do not attain social accep-
tance, and an error of Judgment may then be made that
I their giftedness will be responsible for a continuing lack
of acceptance. When a student is the only gifted member
; of a class, he may be Jealously envied in terms of com-
parative success. Thus, some gifted students, indeed,
may suffer temporary localized lack of acceptance because
of their level of intelligence.
Other gifted students, like some of their intellec-
tually normal peers, may suffer lack of acceptance
1 because of prejudices or intollerances held by their peer

V'group that have nothing to do with the level of intelli-
v

‘. rIsence 0
.,,;11m It should be recognized that still other gifted

 

fl indents, along with many of their intellectually normal

  

Purposes of the Study

   

The purposes of this investigation are to evaluate “ t': “e!
‘the peer acceptance of gifted students and to compare the
/. perceived problems of isolate and nonisolate gifted and

'MS *nongifted students in the Junior high school.

    
  
  
   
   
 

‘ I ' lustification of the Study 3‘

This study can provide teachers and counselors with

 

_many clues concerning the personal and social adjustments

 

 

”b

1 _

,‘ of those students with either high or low sociometric '7 th’
V «’
m

J_ I ~acceptance factors will enable them to aid the high ,7 ‘7'
y. ' :6}
'fif: -status student in his bid for leadership and the low status "9 3,?

status. A better understanding of acceptance and non--

 

fi;3’ student in his struggle for social acceptance.

  
  
    
     
    
   

The results can contribute to leadership training
programs by early identification of gifted students with

‘fleadership potential, and by spot— lighting those who have

   

 

already begun to emerge as leaders. By pointing out'those

 

  

dividual students with leadership potential who have not

”33$ emerged as leaders, the study will underscore the fer!

 

social relationships of some students indicate the imper-
tance of using sociometric procedures and adjustment inven-
tories in evaluating the extent to which the school prc-.
Bram is meeting the social—emotional needs of each student.

The low sociometric status of school dropfouts, truants,

and students who are discipline problems, points out some
at the effects of faulty social adjustment upon the
parsonality development of the individual.
When those individuals with leadership potential
who are making a faulty social adjustment are identified
by this type of study, and teachers and counselors became
canvinced of the resulting ego damaging effects, they may
be moved to assist these individuals in their effort to

attain acceptance. Upon attaining social acceptance,

 

these students may, thereby, acquire the success I -

feeling that will cause them to make the necessary effort

-* I, ‘

|
I
‘ I
”headed for academic success and eventual recognition by _ I

I ‘ i
§E§}r_peers as potential leaders. I
V l

Limitations

‘1.-
5“
’e'IL"
0".

 

It“

u'mr
The second phase is limited ta 118 SI;
I» HAD: ’

’ ‘ $178 as éisfith and ninth 'graaem,
,. ‘“W‘£. .31. LUGE‘ I}. ‘sq9¢4w§p

 

4

   
   
    
   
  
   
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

2. This study is also limited to the extent that

   

Livonia, Michigan is a well—to—do, residential, suburban
I community within the periphery of the Detroit Metropolitan
II. area and does not contain the diversity of socio-economic
yfir groups of a typical city of 87,000 population.
.5 3. The study employed a group test of mental abil-
'MI ity, rather than an individual test, to determine which stu—
I dents were placed in each psychometric category.

4. Negative criteria were not used in the socio-
metric test for the sake of not evoking or promulgating

\Q' an idea that a given student was rejected by one or more

   
  
   
  
  
  
 
   
 
   

of his classmates. This limits the study in that the
reader cannot differentiate between a true rejectee and an
isolate. The latter may become relatively well accepted

by classmates after more opportunity for interaction.

Definitions of Terms

I“fiflf:§pciometric Terms

v-7cm g] The following terms were coined by J. L. Moreno
'Egl93#), the founder of sociometry, and are unique to
“fuiétiometric measurement.

Ifigcigmetric test.—-This is a method of evaluating
:feelings of the group members toward each other with
afict'to a common criterion. It requires individuals fiéf‘r

‘,,e given number of associates for some group 1 .I‘; .f

 
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  

Sociometric status.--This term, sometimes spoken of
as group status, refers to the number of choices that each
individual receives on a sociometric test.

§tar.--The term star refers to an individual who
receives a large number of choices on a sociometric test.
In his original use of the sociometric test, Moreno
reported that some of the pupils "attracted so many choices
that they captured the center of the stage like stars."

Neglectee.--This term is used to identify the indi—
vidual who receives relatively few choices on the socio-
metric test. Although he receives some choices, he tends
to be neglected by the majority of the group members.
Neglectees are also referred to as "fringers," since they
are located on the fringe of the group. The term neg—
lectee is preferred since it is more definitive.

Isolate.--The isolate is an individual who receives
no choices, either positive or negative, on a sociometric
test. On occasions, he may be referred to as an "outsider"
or a "social island,” although these designations are not
as common as the term isolate. Most of the individuals
receiving no choices are truly isolates; others might be
rejectees if the sociometric test contained the possi-
bility of negative choices; still other individuals may
have had little or no opportunity for interaction with a
group, and thus they go virtually unnoticed. Given the

q a-

Arr— iw 7v

   
  
  
   
 
 
  

 

opportunity for such interaction, these individuals may '
receive a measure of acceptance.

Rejectee.-—The rejectee is an individual who re—
ceives negative choices on a sociometric test. Thus, he
attracts attention from some group members, but the atten—
tion is of a rejective nature.

Mutual choice.——This term indicates that two indi-
viduals have chosen each other on the same sociometric cri-
terion. This is also called a reciprocated choice or a
pair. The important aspect of the definition is that the
choice must be reciprocated on the same criterion, thus in-
dicating a mutual desire to associate with one another in
the same group activity.

These sociometric terms employed in the study are

operationally defined in Chapter III, page 43.

Psychometric Terms
The terms used to describe students with high intelli-
gence have been defined by J. M. Dunlap (1958, p. 149).
Superior.——The term superior or rapid learner refers
to children who are markedly above average in intelli-
gence and have the potential ability to complete college
and as adults to assume substantial positions in their com-
munities.

Gifted.--The term gifted is applied to the top frac-

"; ItIOn of the superior group who have good intelligence and

 

.-

 

   
  
 
 
 

Mnaw potential promise of making contributions of a high
order to their generation.

Hi 1 ifted.—-The term highly gifted or extremely
giifted is used in reference to a small fraction of the
gif‘ted group who have an exceedingly high level of ability
andl whose potential powers should enable them to make origi-
nal. and significant contributions to the welfare of their
owrl and succeeding generations.

The terms used to describe students with low intel-
ligerme have been defined by S. A. Kirk (1962, p. 85).

Slow learner.--The sl w learner is capable of
achieving a moderate degree of academic success though at
a slower rate than the average child. He is educated in
the regular classes without special provisions except an
adaptation of the regular class program to fit his slower
learning ability. At the adult level he is usually self-
Supporting, independent, and socially adjusted.

Educable retarded.——The educable mentally retarded
child is one who, because of slow mental development, is
unable to profit to any great degree from the programs of
the regular schools,_but who has these potentialities for
deVelopment: minimum educability in reading, writing,
sFelling, arithmetic, and so forth; capacity for social

adJustment to a point where he can get along independently

_win the community; and minimum occupational adequacy such

that he can later support himself partially or totally at

}Ӵ: a Marginal,level.

 

Self—concept.—-This term is defined as a person's

I
view of himself—~what he perceives himself to be and ‘
what he conceives that others consider him to be, con-

trasted with what he would like to be.
These psychometric terms employed in the study are

operationally defined in Chapter III, page 40.

The Thesis in Perspective

 

This dissertation is divided into five chapters as

‘follows:

l'purposes of the study, justification of the study, limita-
tions, and definitions of terms.

Chapter II is a review of related research.
I Chapter III explains the research procedures and
'techniques of analysis used in this study. This includes
Lthe hypotheses tested, population and samples used, methods
1%ef gathering the data, and methods of collating and

jifiecording the data.

  
     
 
      

§ Chapter IV comprises the analysis of the data. This

Chapter I has included the nature of the problem, I
I

I

I

|

I

I

I

I

I

I

. .. I
‘1 «es the sociometric and psychometric categorization I

”the‘data, distribution and patterning of mutual choices,

  

hdings or the adjustment inventories.
iflfifiapter V summarizes the entire studyi'reedréé7fifiethe‘

b

the ¥he writer has draws from thé¢d£téhr*iril

 

 

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH

This chapter presents summaries of related research
studies found in the professional literature of psychology,
sociology, and education of the past twenty years.‘ The‘
studies included here have contributed either in whole or
in part to the development of the measurement of peer accep—
tance as it relates to intellectual ability and personal

and social adjustment.

Intelligence and Sociometric Besults
Few studies have been concerned specifically with
the relationship between intelligence and sociometric
results of peer acceptance. These studies, for the most
I;art, took place in the elementary schools, and only one

giggudy summarized herein relates to junior and senior high

 

yool students.

We a» '[jj

 
   
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  

10

M "I was found that 80 per cent of these highly gifted children
had above average sociometric status, and the remaining 20
per cent had below average sociometric status. Whereas 53
per cent of these highly gifted pupils fell in the top 7“

'guartile of their classroom groups in peer acceptance, only
7 per cent of them were in the bottom quartile.
Gallagher (1958a, pp. 465-470) investigated the degree
of peer acceptance of 54 highly gifted elementary pupils with

I Stanford Binet IQ's of 150 or higher. He found these CI ‘Ih

.I'ehildren to be significantly more often accepted as "best
‘friends" in regular classroom situations. This significance ‘P‘ I;
.was not appreciably affected by sex or grade level.
iConversely, the highly gifted group were found to have se-

.P%%:lected their friends from the entire intellectual range.

‘h‘ Examining the relationship of peer acceptance to

‘such variables as intelligence, social perceptiveness, and

‘ I“ race level, Gallagher (1958b, pp. 225- 231) asked 54 highly '
'IIQ' p,‘ I .
1ifs-fitsd elementary pupils to select five friends on a ' H‘IP=I

     
      
    
   
   
 

{t
q

cicmetric questionnaire. The results indicated that

  

_1arity was positively related to intellectual status;
'Jl‘: ' . '

ihighly gifted children were frequently recognized as‘I

   
  

g,"

¥:; and that propinquity was a faste¥.&5
,3: I": new " auxin _
=3; cially among the elder- - ~AZfiz'

   

7

 

11

She studied 25 children with IQs from 160 to 202 in
ismades two through seven in New York City and found these
'highly gifted pupils to be well adjusted and accepted by

their peers.

Gifted
A study by Mann (1957, pp. 199- 201) illustrates the

use of the sociometric test in the evaluation of the
ieffect of part-time special class placement on the peer
acceptance of gifted pupils. This study involved 281 fourth,
fifth, and sixth- -grade children of which 67 were found to
have a Stanford Binet IQ of 130 or higher. The 67 gifted
pupils spent half of their school day in special classes.
for the gifted and the other half day in their regular
Iclasses. It was assumed that such a school program”
:might enable the gifted pupils to maintain normal peer
relations while obtaining the benefits of special classes.
“J’z On the sociometric test, both the gifted and the

Hnical pupils gave the majority of their sociometric

1ces to the members of their own group. This

ailzt. ;~ --und mu
fiber the eppertunity for peer rei-

' «6:: .xU‘L 82m“
. ts be reund in tfigfigua

 

-12

    

Parents reported that members of the gifted group
associated with each other outside school rather than with '1
intellectually average peers. Mann concluded that the
sch001 setting helps to produce and reinforce friendships
'F‘ of gifted pupils in and out of school but does not

I measurably increase substantial relationships between

gifted and typical-children who are together only part-

}. time in class.

' ‘ Wood (1961) made a study of 90 pupils in the fourth,
fifth, and sixth—grades of a university laboratory school.
Sixteen children were considered gifted with California
Test of Mental Maturity IQs of 130 through 164. Socio-
metric test scores produced the following results: the

~ ;gifted pupils were chosen by classmates of all levels of

.::\;ability; most gifted children showed a preference for

L Kfimdividuals with ability comparable to their own; those

V..,
‘éifiith higher intellectual ability received greater accep-

'1

higher Cunningham mean-accetance scoresftmafledfii ‘

‘3.d$f£erefices were not signifii

 

l3

acceptance of gifted students was as high as, or higher than,
that of their nongifted classmates.’

Grace and Booth (1958, pp. 195—196) studied 294
heterogeneously grouped pupils in grades one through six.
They found that 8 of the most popular children were also
the most gifted; pupils do not become social isolates within
the elementary school, as the most gifted children were
still among the best liked in the sixth-grade as they had
been in the first grade; and the gifted child was not a
social isolate within the first six grades of that urban
school.

A study to determine whether significant differences
exist between mentally superior, typical, and retarded pupils

in regular upper elementary classes with regard to peer

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

acceptance was done by Miller (1956, pp. 114-119). His
study included 120 pupils, 20 in each IQ group of superior,
| . typical, and retarded, in the fourth and sixth-grades.

j He found that the superior pupils were most wanted as
friends by their classmates while the retarded were least
wanted, and no group was rejected as a whole; the superior
pupils were significantly more accurate than the typical or

.the retarded in predicting their own popularity and that of

,wbupils as friends more frequently than they chose the

 

  
   
 

 

l4

rMiller concluded that up to certain limits on the
intellectual continuum, sociometric status increases with
intelligence; high peer acceptance is conferred upon the
superior, not only because of their intelligence, but I
because of socially desirable traits of personality which
they seem to acquire with greater ease than do other
people; and the ability to judge one‘s own and others' socio-
metric status is largely an intellectual task.

Grossman and Wrighter (1948, pp. 346-355) studied
the relationship between intelligence and sociometric
status among sixth-grade pupils and reported that intelli—
genes and sociometric status were related, but that high
intelligence did not always assure high sociometric status.

. Bonney and Powell (1953, pp. 481-495) compared the IQB
sf first-grade pupils with high and low sociometric status.
Eh: high status pupils had a median IQ of 113 and the
,;lnn status pupils had a median IQ of 97. Another study
I Benney (1955, pp. 481— —495) produced essentially the ‘
{fhesults among second— —grade pupils. In this study,=
rem with high sociometric status had a.range tin Iaurmem

  

15

Mutual Choices

Intelligence also enters into mutual relationships
among school children. Those children who choose each
other on a sociometric test tend to be more alike in intelli-
gence than the children who do not choose each other.

Bonney, Potashin, and Wood (1946, pp. 21-47; 1946,
pp. 48-70; 1961) all reported this tendency, based on
I studies of mutual choices among elementary school pupils.
I These studies show that the extent to which intelligence
influences sociometric choices depends upon the level of
intelligence of the chooser as well as that of the chosen.
This is brought out clearly in a study by Barbe (1954,
pp. 60—62) who analyzed the choice process of 244 elementary
1 school children with IQs ranging from 65 to 140. His results

indicated that, although there was a general tendency to

   
 
   
  
    
  
  
  
  

choose children of higher intelligence as friends, the slow-

 

I

{ learning children tended to choose pupils of below average

‘ intelligence, whereas the "bright” pupils tended to choose
pupils of above average intelligence. 'Approximately 62

per cent of the slow-learning children chose mutual friends
from the below average group. In contrast, 80 per cent

‘4' (of the "bright” children chose mutual friends with above

-” raverage intelligence.

h‘-1 Personal-Social Adjustment and Sociometric Besults
The sociometric test is used as a direct measure of

geial adjustment. An individual who is highly chosen
at;

 

   
 
  
  

16

on a sociometric test is considered to be well accepted by
his peers and, therefore, to have good social adjustment.
In contrast, an individual who receives few or no choices
on a sociometric test is considered to have low acceptance
among his peers and, therefore, to have poor social adjust—
ment.

Since individuals with high sociometric status are
generally better adjusted socially than those with low
sociometric status, they also might logically be expected
to have better personal adjustment. Their high status
should provide more opportunity for satisfying their
psychological needs for security, social approval, and
self—respect, resulting in greater personal satisfaction and
freedom from tension.

The extent to which the sociometric test provides a
more general indication of peer acceptance or nonacceptance,
can be evaluated in terms of the relationship between socio-
metric results and other measures of social and personal
adjustment. These measures can be divided into two groups:
(1) those showing how an individual is perceived by others;

and (2) those showing how an individual perceives himself.

How An Individual is Perceived by Others

 

 

Peer evaluation.—-This can be determined by a "guess
Vflao" test which requires individuals to identify those

group members who best fit each of a series of behavior

 

17

  
 

descriptions. The number of mentions an individual receives
on each of the behavior descriptions serves as a measure of
‘17 ‘his acceptance among his peers. Variations in specific ‘w
f. characteristics make it impossible to equate the results

L--_ from one grade level to another, but some similarity in

‘ descriptive characteristics will be noted in the following
i l' ‘.
I: studies.
‘|‘ 1
4‘ . Bonney (1943, pp. 449-472) reported significant dif-

ir ferences between fourth—grade pupils with high and low I ‘4
' sociometric status on a number of behavior characteristics.
Pupils with high sociometric status were found to be signif-
icantly superior on both personal and social behavior de-
" scriptions. They were characterized most frequently by
. atheir peers as being tidy, good—looking, happy, friendly,
‘infiand cheerful. In their social relations they were de— ‘ ' I“lfi

geribed as being enthuSiastic daring, active in recitatiens, w '-5's

 

embibiting leadership in groups. Thus, the pupils who

l?undentribute to effective social interactibn,x3ggg sihnfi
.1 Mien and ice (1943,.pp- 321,319) qqmmqu;fi ‘_
":toimnney'saat the eigenvmm may

 

I

  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  

 

18

characterized more frequently as being good-looking,

popular, happy, friendly, cheerful, and enthusiastic. In

addition, they were noted to enjoy jokes and to initiate

games and other activities more frequently than pupils

with low sociometric status. Using twenty-one class-

rooms at the sixth and seventh-grade levels, Laughlin ‘ I
(1954) correlated sociometric results with the behavior

descriptions of peers and found the same behavior charac-

teristics related to high sociometric status.

Gronlund and Anderson (1957, pp. 329-338) compared
the characteristics of socially accepted, socially re-
jected, and socially neglected pupils in a junior high
school population. There were 20 pupils in each category,
out of a total population of 158. When these three groups
were compared, on the basis of responses to a ”guess who"
form, important differences were noted. The accepted pupils
were generally characterized as possessing socially de-
‘sirable behavior characteristics similar to those reported
in the above studies. Specific characteristics such as
good looks, tidiness, friendliness, likeableness, enthusi-
asm, cheerfulness, initiative, and sense of humor stood high

on the list. In contrast, the socially rejected pupils

4;. were not only overlooked on these positive characteristics,
'"hut they were also frequently described as possessing the

aEPOsite attributes. They were characterized by their peers

being not good—looking, untidy, not likeable, restless,

 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

l9

and talkative. The socially neglected pupils tended to
be overlooked, on the ”guess who" form, receiving rel-
atively few mentions on either positive or negative
characteristics. The few mentions they did receive in—
dicated that they were quiet and ngt talkative. Appar—
ently they were truly socially neglected by their peers.

Adult ratings.---Studies using ratings of social ad-
justment by adults are difficult to equate, since different
procedures were used in different studies and the aspects
of social adjustment rated were not uniform from one study
to another. In general, however, the studies are in sub-
stantial agreement concerning the relationship between the
sociometric status of individuals‘ and adults' ratings
of their peer acceptance.

Olson (1949) compared students from 10 elementary
school classrooms by their sociometric standings and de-
scriptions of their behavior written by their teachers.
Those children receiving the largest number of choices were
described most frequently as being dependable, well ad-
justed, friendly, quiet, and good natured; while those re-
ceiving the fewest choices were described as being shy,

bossy, sulky, conduct problems, ill, or new to class.

AAlthough there was some overlapping in the descriptions of

pupils in the two groups, the characterizations of pupils
with high and low sociometricstatus clearly indicated a

difference in social adjustment.

 

20

I In an intensive study of five pupils with high socio-
. metric status and five pupils with low sociometric status,
I at the elementary school level, Bonney (1947) obtained re-
sults somewhat similar to those reported by Olson. In

) general, the highly chosen pupils were characterized by
greater conformity and group identification, greater

) emotional stability and control, more social aggressiveness
greater dependability, and more frequent behavior indi—

cating attitudes of friendliness, cooperativeness, and good

I

4 will toward others.

4 Northway (1944, pp. 10—25) made an intensive clinical
1 study of the behavior of 20 fifth and sixth—grade children

who were least often chosen on a sociometric test. On the

   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

I‘ basis of their behavior patterns, she classified them into

 

three distinct groups. One group was described as being

. -listless, with no inner drive or interest in their environ-
ment. They appeared to merely exist and exerted little or
no effort toward social adjustment. Another group was por—
trayed as being quiet and retiring. They had individual
interests but showed little or no interest in social inter-
action. The third group was depicted as being noisy, boast-
; ;,ful, arrogant, rebellious, and delinquent in classroom ac-
{g-tivities. They appeared to be aggressively striving for

’E.
.i‘l
‘;
4

    

¢§¢ertance by peers, but they used socially ineffective

21

  
 

ggw An Individual Perceives Himself

.“w Self-report techniques.--Evidence concerning per-

sonal and social adjustment has frequently been obtained

from the pupils themselves, through the use of adjustment

questionnaires, problem check lists, and self—ratings.

:1 These self—report techniques reflect how the pupil feels

‘1 about himself and the problems of adjustment he faces.
The relationship between sociometric results and the re-

.5 sults of self—report techniques provides an indication of

how a pupil's feelings toward himself compare with the

feelings of others toward him.

n : Grossman and Wrighter (1948, pp. 346-355) reported

.that sixth-grade pupils who were highly chosen on a socio-

    
    
  

'metric test had significantly higher adjustment scores
en the California Test of Personality than thoSe pupils who
‘-“3re rejected on the sociometric test.

Using the same adjustment questionnaire, Scandrette

In a more detailed

     

's with low sociometric status.

 

22

Two rather extensive investigations compared the
mental health characteristics of pupils with high and low ‘
sociometric status. In both studies the mental health
characteristics were determined by the pupils' responses
to Thorpe, Clark, and Tiegs' adjustment questionnaire, en-V ‘
titled Mental Health Analysis. Bedoian (1953, pp. 366-371)
reported that pupils with high sociometric status had
significantly higher mental health scores than pupils with
' low sociometric status, in 21 of the 22 sixth-grade c1ass~
rooms included in the study. Similar findings were re-
ported by Baron (1949, pp. 306-310; 1951, pp. 32-42), for
pupils in eleven fifth and sixth-grade classrooms. He
noted that the high status pupils tended to feel more
self—confident, more physically adequate, more secure in
their school relationships, and gave indications of
greater emotional stability than low status pupils.
r": I Kuhlen and Bretsch (1947, pp. 122-132) compared the
nE‘gfirsonal problems felt by pupils with high and low socio-

They requested approximately 700 ninth-

       

9' trio status.
f: pupils to check the items of the Mooney Problem.

~;hList which bothered them never, sometimes, orkbdten.p¥ :'

 

 

23

low status pupils revealed concern with social skills,
unhappiness, lack of status, family problems, and dislike
of school.

In a study of 696 ninth—grade pupils, Bretsch (1952,
pp. 449-504) compared the self—ratings of pupils with
high and low sociometric status on eight different social
skills. High status pupils rated themselves higher on the
social skills than did the low status pupils. This
finding seems to indicate that high status pupils are more
confident of their ability to perform social skills.

Projective techniques.--Projective techniques have
been commonly used to measure adjustment. The unique fea-
ture of projective techniques is that they present unstruc-
tured and ambiguous situations to the individual, and he

is permitted to respond in terms of his own perception of

the situations. Since the situations are ambiguous, he

5 . ejects his own feelings and interpretations in his re-

onses. There are relatively few studies comparing socio-
5t” H
, ic results with these measures of adjustment.

oNorthway and Wigdor (1947, pp. 186— —l99) compared '.

~i F~. ‘I'Up stat
The low status 9 M?
'1; at 9.22118 Mk1. ‘nw swimmer
te control their;,

 

 

 

24

151-167) reported similar results among college students.

A comparison of the sociometrically high and sociometrically
low students, on the basis of their responses to the
Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception Test, indicated

that students with low status showed trends toward greater

anxiety and deviate patterns of adjustment.

Summary
These studies show that intelligence is an impor-

tant factor in sociometric choosing. The prestige factor
of high intelligence seems to attract attention of peers
and thus places the gifted individual in a favorable posi-
tion to be chosen on a sociometric test. The results
indicate that, as a group, gifted students are distinctly
superior in terms of social acceptance by their peers; high
intelligence is closely related to high sociometric status,
’ although some gifted pupils are not well accepted by their
peers; and students tend to choose as mutual companions

see who are similar to themselves in intelligence.

 

Sociometric results have shown substantial agreement
”Lather measures of social and personal adjustment.
.peer evaluations and adults‘ ratings indicate merel.
story adjustment on the part of pupils Mith§hi ;»i
5'e status. Clinical and follaw~gg»ef‘ law

that pupils w1th.1ew seeiemetri

" ”J.
, efi r
‘ , ;“q:f‘,
-53.- ._ L.
'vi—‘w.

25

less satisfactory adjustments to their peers and to their
school environment than do pupils with high sociometric
status.

High and low status pupils tend to view themselves
quite differently on projective and nonprojective tech-
niques. Pupils in the low status group tend to feel inse-
cure, discriminated against, inadequate physically and
socially, and show signs of emotional instability. They
also compare themselves unfavorably with others. In con-
trast, the responses of high status pupils generally reflect
feelings of security, self-confidence, and other evidences

of good personal and social adjustment.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES OF ANALYSIS

This study was designed and directed toward securing
information as to peer acceptance of gifted students and
their perceived problems of personal and social adjustment
at the junior high school level. ,

After analyzing the problems to be studied and re-
viewing the related research, attention was directed as to
what research procedures should be used.

It was necessary to formulate the hypotheses to be
tested for such a study at the junior high SleOl level,
secure information about the parent population involved,
select the sample population to be used, determine the
type of instrumentation for gathering the data, and decide

upon the particular methodology and procedures to be used

in collating and recording the data.

\

—:d

I

Hypotheses Test

(

 

The first hypothesis of this study concerns the
relationship of the intellectual ability continuum to the
social acceptance continuum. There is evidence that the
prestige factor of intelligence seems to attract attention
of peers and thus places the gifted individual in a favor—

able position to be chosen on a sociometric test.

2/

The greater the junior high school stu-

dent's intellectual capacity, the more likely

he is to be socially accepted by his peer group.

A second hypothesis concerns itself with the verti-
cal direction of students' social preferences. There is
evidence that intelligence enters into mutual relationships
among school children. Those students who choose each
other on a sociometric test tend to be more alike in intelli-
gence than the students who do not choose each other.

Those junior high school students involved

in mutual choices, show greatest social prefer-

ence for individuals with mental ability equal

to or higher than their own.

In formulating the third hypothesis, it was realized
that the sociometric status scores of individuals can be
interpreted most accurately when both the social and the
personal factors perceived to be in Operation by the
individuals involved are identified.

There is a set of problems commonly

perceived by both gifted and nongifted junior
high school social isolates.

P'\(~.11-1’j+ . my".
‘_ L‘ .. -~. ul .‘_ .1

 

Parent POpulation

 

The parent population in this study consisted of all
2,733 seventh and eighth—grade students of the five junior
high schools of Livonia, Michigan during the 1962—63
school year.

This total of 2,733 students included l,&la seventh—

graders (70M boys and 710 girls) in M7 classes and 1,319

28

eighth graders {685 boys and 63“r girls) in 45 classes at
the five schools. The classes averaged 30 students. A
class list was obtained from each homeroom teacher for each
of the 92 classes involved.

All 2,733 students were given the California Test of
Mental Maturity and the sociometric test.

The Livonia public school system has no policy con-
cerning grouping by ability at the Junior high school
level. Grouping procedures differ from one building to
the next, and thus gifted children are scattered

erratically throughout the parent pOpulation.

Sample POpulation

 

The 2,733 students participating in the first phase
of this study were divided into four groups by the scores
they received on the sociometric and psychometric tests.
According to selective criteria used in this study, 14
students were categorized as gifted isolates, 216 as non—
gifted isolates, 177 as gifted nonisolates, and 2,326 as
nongifted nonisolates.

Less than a week before the testing for the second
phase of the study was to take place, it was decided by
Livonia school's central office that permission should be
obtained in writing from the parents of each child who was
to participate. Therefore, the parents were asked if their

children might participate in a research study evaluating

29

social adjustment of junior high school students. Dates
had already been scheduled by the principal of each building
for the administration of the adjustment inventories.

In preparing for the testing involved, it was found
that one of the 14 gifted isolates located had moved out
of district since the first phase of the study was com-
pleted. Since the gifted isolate group now numbered only
13 students, the parents of each student were phoned as
a follow—up to permission slips being sent home, saying only
that their child was one of only 13 students of one of the
subgroups of the study, and that it would be greatly appre-
ciated if 100 per cent of the students in this group could
participate in order to not distort the results of the
study. One hundred per cent approval was received for this
group, thus insuring a complete cross section of the
gifted isolates' perceived problems.

In selecting both nonisolate groups, it seemed im-
perative that, in order to show the full effect of accep—
tance versus nonacceptance, the comparison be between iso-
late or low status and high status students. ”Shifts in
sociometric status are relatively rare at the extreme
sociometric status positions. This would tend to indi—

cate that the high and low sociometric status positions
are more stable than those in the average sociometric

categories and thus can be used with greater confidence”

(Gronlund, 1959, p. 131).

30

There were 65 high status students included in the
177 gifted nonisolates located in the first phase of the
study. Permission slips were sent to the parents of those
high status students still residing in the district. By
the testing days scheduled by the principals, 28 of these
had been returned, thus establishing the gifted nonisolate
group to be tested.

There were 688 high status students included in the
2,326 nongifted nonisolates. Sixty-eight high status stu—
dents were randomly selected (every tenth student). Per-
mission slips were sent to the parents of those high
status students still residing in the district. By the
testing days scheduled, 31 had been returned, thus estab-
lishing the nongifted nonisolate group to be tested.

Seventy—two of the 216 nongifted isolates located
were randomly selected (every third student), and per—
mission slips were sent to the parents of those students
still residing in the district. By the testing days
scheduled, 46 had been returned, thus establishing the
nongifted isolate group to be tested.

In summary, the sample population to be tested
totaled 118 students: gifted isolate, l3; nongifted
isolate, 46; gifted nonisolate, 28; and nongifted non—
isolate, 31. All these students were given the three ad-

justment inventories.

31

Methods of Gathering the Data

 

The instruments used to gather the data for this
study were the California Test of Mental Maturity, Vineland
Social Maturity Scale, Mooney Problem Check List, Rohde
Sentence Completion Test, and a sociometric test. The
first four are standardized tests where validity and relia—
bility have been established. The sociometric test used
is not standardized but is of the type previously validated

in similar situations.

California Test of Mental Maturity

 

The California Test of Mental Maturity was selected
as the group screening instrument to locate the gifted
students for this study because of its rather high corre—
lation with accepted individual tests of mental ability.

The test was administered by the counseling staff in
each of the five junior high schools. The fact that these
counselors were already familiar with this test and had ad—
ministered it repeatedly, insured the necessary reliability
of administration. The answer sheets were collected
and sent to the publisher for machine scoring, thus insuring
scoring accuracy. The scores were returned to the writer
on class section lists for district—wide tabulation.

The chief features of this test are ”its analysis
into language and nonlanguage abilities and into five

factors: memory, spatial relationships, logical reasoning,

32

numerical reasoning, and vocabulary. Reliabilities, in one—
grade ranges, vary from .89 to .97 for whole forms. There
is a correlation of .88 with the Stanford Binet Test"
(Sullivan, Clark, & Tiegs, 1947, p. 156).

Altus (1955, pp. 143-144) drew the comparison that
the California Test of Mental Maturity has the desirable
feature of offering both language and nonlanguage IQ scores
similar to the verbal and performance IQ scores on the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. In her article
comparing the CTMM and WISC, she gives the following evalu-
ation:

WISC - Full Scale - Mean 84.5, SD 17.4
CTMM - Total - Mean 8M.8, SD 17.u

She found ”an intercorrelation of .77 between the
WISC full scale IQs and the CTMM total IQs," and concluded
that "the WISC and CTMM are markedly comparable as to
group assessment and roughly comparable as to individual
scores and major breakdown into verbal and nonverbal

abilities.”

Sociometric Test

 

 

A sociometric test of the type originated by Moreno
(1934) was administered to all seventh and eighth-grade
classes by their homeroom teachers. The test consisted of
three criteria with three choices each. An allowance of
three to five choices is usually sufficient to reveal the

relative position of an individual in the group. As

33

summarized by Jennings (1950, p. 19), "the individuals who
attract the greater portion of the choices on the basis of

a small choice allowance, continue still to profit dispro-
portionately under the larger choice allowance, and the num-
ber of individuals unchosen under the first condition is not
substantially reduced under the second condition.”

The writer attempted to select criteria referring to
different kinds of social situations occurring in the junior
high school which offer opportunity for interaction in
groups of various sizes. Care was taken that the choices
would be made on a friendship basis rather than a working
companion basis so that the popularity of the gifted could
be evaluated apart from the possibility of their being
cultivated as potential academic helpers.

Directions were printed at the head of the socio-
metric test and read aloud by the teacher as the students
read them silently. The class packets of completed test
forms were then returned to the writer for tabulation. A
copy of the sociometric test form used in this study may
be seen in Appendix A.

”The sociometric test, itself, is not a test in the
sense that the term is commonly used, but rather a tech—
nique” (Gronlund, 1959, p. l). ”Sociometric nominations
have generally proved to be one of the most dependable of
rating techniques. When checked against a variety of

practical criteria dependent upon interpersonal relations,

34

such ratings have been found to have good predictive validity"
(Lindzey & Borgatta, 195A).

Gronlund (1959, p. 129) compared the results of
sociometric studies made among adolescents and found that
sociometric status scores are fairly stable, even over a
period of almost two years.

”These findings are understandable when we consider
some of the features of sociometry. First, the number of
raters is large, including all group members. Second, an
individual's peers are often in a particularly favorable
position to observe his typical behavior. They may thus
be better judges of certain interpersonal traits than
teachers, supervisors, and other outside observers. Third,
and probably most important, is the fact that the opinions
of group members, right or wrong, influence their actions
and hence partly determine the nature of the individual‘s
subsequent interactions with the group. Other comparable
groups may be expected to react toward the individual in a
similar fashion. Sociometric ratings may thus be said to
have content validity in the same sense as worksamples"

(Anastasi, 1961, p. 622).

Adjustment Inventories

 

A battery of adjustment inventories was selected to
yield the broadest possible picture of an individual's per—

ceived life problems. From this battery, the writer has

attempted to determine how the members of the gifted and
nongifted, isolate and nonisolate groups perceive their
environment, their positions in it, and the role they see
important people, such as parents and teachers, playing in
their lives. In order to draw comparisons and contrasts of
the groups being studied, it was necessary for all instru—
ments included to yield quantitative results.

This battery of adjustment inventories was adminis-
tered, by the writer, to 59 members of the isolate group
(13 gifted and M6 nongifted students) and to 59 members of
the nonisolate group (28 gifted and 31 nongifted students)
with the assistance of several counselors as proctors.

Adjustment-testing instruments may be grouped into
two major categories. One, the inventories and rating scales,
presents to the subject, or to an informant, a broad,
structured stimulus situation, e.g., questions to be answered,
problem check lists, or trait names to be rated, and the
responses are quantitative. Ratings on this type of instru—
ment can be made by the individual for his own traits, or
they may be rated by other people who know him. Two of the
inventories used in this battery, the Vineland Social Matur—
ity Scale and the Mooney Problem Check List, fall into this
first category.

In tests in the second category, the subject is pre-
sented with an informal, ambiguous, nonstructured stimulus,

the responses to which will be influenced, if not entirely

36

controlled, by his personality dynamics. The third inven—
tory used in this battery, the Rohde Sentence Completion Test,
falls into this second category.

The three adjustment inventories used in this study
and the procedures for administering and scoring them are
described below.

Vineland Social Maturity Scale.—-The Vineland Social
Maturity Scale, designed by E. A. Doll (19u7, pp. 1—2), ”pro-
vides a definite outline of detailed performances in respect
to which students show a progressive capacity for looking
after themselves and for participating in those activities
which lead toward ultimate independence as adults. The
items of the Scale are arranged in order of increasing aver—
age difficulty, and represent progressive maturation in
self—help, self—direction, locomotion, occupation, communi—
cation and social relations.”

Only items 75 through 101 were used. It seemed im-
portant to not include those early items indicating a
degree of dependence as to insult the adolescent personality
and yet to begin early enough in the sequence of items to
insure identification of the most socially immature members
of the group. Items beyond 101 pertain to individuals who
are fulltime employed.

”Under favorable conditions the Scale may be admin—
istered with the subject of the examination acting as his

own informant. Results obtained in this way tend to be

37

slightly higher on the average, but are in some cases

lower, than those obtained from independent informants.
Often the subject is a better informant than someone else”
(Doll, 1947, p. 11). In this study each student acted as
his own informant. The counselors for each junior high
school who assisted as proctors also served as judges of the
authenticity of the responses made by students from that
building.

An individual may be ranked in one of five ways on
each item on the Vineland Scale, yielding O, .5, or 1 point
of raw score. The categories are as follows: items done
regularly with neither artificial incentive nor undue urging
(1); items done occasionally, in transitional or emergent
state (.5); items not done at all or only rarely or under
extreme pressure (0); items which could be done if subject
were allowed (1); items the subject has no opportunity to
do, (1) if within range of continuous point scores, (O) if
within range of continuous zero scores, and (.5) if within
intermediate range. Two half-credits were counted as one
full point of score.

Mooney Problem Check List.-—Mooney (1950, p. 4)
develOped the Problem Check Lists to help students express
their personal problems in areas known to be important in
the adjustment of adolescents. The Problem Check List used
in this study was ”the junior high school form containing

seven problem areas: health and physical development; school;

38

home and family; money, work, the future; boy and girl re—
lations; relations with people in general; and self—centered
concerns.’1

”The procedure of administration is simple. All di-
rections needed are on the cover page. Students read
through the list and mark the problems which are of concern
to them" (Mooney, 1950, p. 3).

The problems marked on each list were counted for each
problem area and totaled.

Rohde Sentence Completion Test.-—In the Sentence

 

Completion Test developed by Rohde (1957, pp. 96-47), only
the opening words are provided, the subject being required
to write the ending. "Included in this test are 18 objects:
mother, father, friends, God, religion, opposite sex, same
sex, home, work, teachers, laws, et cetera, around which
emotional and social adjustment and adaptation revolve and
with which foci of conflict are associated.” A study of

”cathections,”

or the acceptance or rejection of these ob-
jects, was used in this study.

”In the administration of this test, directions at
the top of the page are read aloud. It is suggested to the
group that whatever responses the individual cares to make
will be entirely acceptable, and the examinees write their
responses” (Rohde, 1957, p. 62). The entire 65 item

folder was administered since the 18 cathected objects were

scattered randomly throughout the 65 items. This helped

39

to secureresponses on all cathected objects and to insure
a greater depth of projectivity in the responses on these
objects.

Those objects which were accepted, or for which an
attachment was expressed, were classified and scored under
the heading of positive cathection. Objects for which dis—
like or revulsion was expressed, were classified and scored
under negative cathections. If neither acceptance nor re—
jection was indicated, it was classified and scored as neu-

tral.

Methods of Collating and Recording the Data

 

Several aspects of this research study made it either
impossible or impractical to utilize electronic data proc-
essing equipment. It therefore became logical to utilize
a number of tables in a step by step collation of the data.
These tables were not only the most simplified manner of
collating the data, but samples of them in the appendices
should serve to show the reader the logic involved in the
methods of analysis. The particular methodology and pro-
cedures used to collate and record the data are described

in the following paragraphs.

§§ychometric Data

 

The IQs used in this study were all total IQs obtained
from results of the California Test of Mental Maturity. The

names on each of the 92 class lists were put in alphabetical

40

order (girls, followed by boys), and the CTMM total score
was entered beside each name.

Psychometric categories.—-The mental ability groups

 

are defined in Chapter I, page 6 and are operationally de-
fined here as follows: highly gifted, IQs of 150 and up;
gifted, IQs of 130 through 149; rapid learner, IQs of 115
through 129; average mental ability, IQs of 85 through 114;
slow learner, IQs of 70 through 84; and educable retarded,
IQs of 50 through 69.

These psychometric groupings or categories have been
created by educators through the years for the purpose of
homogeneous grouping by ability in an effort to improve in-
Struction through individualization. The IQ limits placed
on these categories are arbitrarily set by this writer and
draw their antecedents from research related to psychometric
instruments and special education programs.

The scores of 85 and 115 are the breaking points of
validity of the group paper and pencil tests of mental abil-
ity. The scores of 50 and 150 are the breaking points of
validity of the Stanford Revision of the Binet. The score
of 130 was set by educators of gifted children when they
suggested that a child have a mental age of 1.3 times his
chronological age in order to be considered a gifted child.
The score of 70 was set by educators of the mentally re-

tarded as the standard below which social maladjustments

41

and emotional disturbances resulting from frustration and
lack of acceptance would off-balance the academic gains were

the child placed in the regular classroom.

Sociometric Data

 

When a sociometric test has been administered to a
classroom group, the resulting data will include the list
of choices each pupil has made on each sociometric criterion.

The 92 class packets of completed sociometric tests
were returned to the writer from the homeroom teachers. The
tests from each class were put in alphabetical order (girls,
followed by boys) and checked with the original class lists
to make certain each student in the room returned the socio-
metric test.

The completed test packets were filed according to
their class number and as to which junior high school the
students attended. These packets were set aside until the
matrix tables were constructed and the data could be record-
ed on them.

Matrix tables.-—A modified version of the matrix

 

table or graphic plotting, originally constructed by

Jennings (1950) in her study of leadership, was used to

meet the specific needs of this study. A separate matrix
table was constructed for each of the 92 classes on each of
the three criterion used in the sociometric test, for a total
of 276 tables. The three matrix tables for one class are

in Appendix B.

42

Each class packet of the sociometric tests was con—
sidered separately, and each criterion was on a separate
table, making three tables for each class. The girls' names
(first name and last initial) were written down the left of
the table in alphabetical order, followed by the boys'
names. The students were numbered consecutively from tOp
to bottom and across the top margin of the table.

The heavy line drawn both vertically and horizontally
between the list of girls and the list of boys divided
the matrix table into four parts and made it easier to re-
cord choices. The diagonal line drawn from the upper left—
hand corner to the lower right—hand corner served as a
guide in identifying mutual choices.

At the left of the names, vertical columns were used
for summarizing choices given, and at the bottom of the
matrix table the rows were used for summarizing information
on choices received.

The sociometric test results were recorded by placing
the choices made by each individual in the prOper column
opposite the chooser's name. The columns were then totaled
and the number of choices received by each student was re—
corded.

The sociometric test results were recorded by plac—
ing the choices made by each individual in the prOper

column opposite the chooser‘s name. The columns

43

were then totaled and the number of choices received by each
student was recorded.

The mutual choices were identified by starting at
the diagonal line in the upper left—hand corner and going
down column one to determine if any of the students whom
person number one chose also chose him, et cetera. The
mutual choices were circled on each matrix table and totaled
for each individual. The complete tabulation of the socio-
metric test data was recorded in the matrix tables.

Sociometric categories.—-The sociometric categories

 

used in this study are defined in Chapter I, page 5 and

are operationally defined here as follows: star, 15 choices
and up; above average, 12 through 14 choices; average, 7
through 11 choices; below average, 4 through 6 choices;
neglectee, 1 through 3 choices; and isolate, O choices
received.

The method of classifying the students into the
sociometric categories given here is based on Bronfenbren—
ner‘s (1945) fixed frame of reference. ”This reference indi-
cates the critical sociometric status scores for varying
numbers of choices and sociometric criteria. The upper and
lower limits presented in this reference are actually limits
of statistical significance at the .O2 and .03 level. Re—
ceiving as few choices as the value indicated in the lower

limit, or as many choices as the values indicated in the

44

upper limit, would be expected less than two, or three,
times out of a hundred by chance alone.

The teacher can be fairly confident that pupils
classified as neglectees and isolates (lower limit) and stars
(upper limit) have been placed in the proper socio-
metric category. The values for the lower and upper limits
may be applied to any group which contains no fewer than
ten persons and no more than fifty persons.

Thus, the frame of reference remains fixed for
groups of varying size, and the number of students in dif-
ferent groups can be compared directly even though the size
of the groups is different. However, the criteria used and
the number of choices allotted must remain the same for all
classroom groups, and the classroom groups must contain be—

tween ten and fifty pupils” (Bronfenbrenner, 1945).

Psychometric and Sociometric Categorization of Data

 

Inasmuch as the basic hypothesis of this study was
the comparison of the intellectual ability continuum and
the social acceptance c6ntinuum, it seemed most logical to
establish grids, compartmentalizing the various sets of
data into the psychometric and sociometric categories in as
many ways as possible. The summary tables, the mutual
choice tables, and the frequency tables convert the raw data
into collated categories from which the comparative grids

have been constructed.

45

Summary tables.--Summary tables were compiled, one

 

for each of the 92 classes. Each table lists the students
as they appeared on the matrix tables, their IQs with the
resulting psychometric categories, the number of choices
received on each sociometric criterion, and total number of
choices with the resulting sociometric categories. The
summary table for one class is in Appendix C. The compara-
tive data on each student as shown on the summary tables
made it possible to construct two frequency tables to be
described later.

Mutual choice tables.--Along the base of each matrix

 

table is a column of totals of mutual choices. Mutual
choice tables were constructed, one for each of the 92
classes, and students involved in mutual choices were
listed by their matrix table numbers. The mutual choices
were counted and recorded on the mutual choice tables

along with both students’ matrix table numbers, IQs,
psychometric category assignment, total choices received,
and sociometric category assignment. A mutual choice table
for one class is shown in Appendix D.

Frequency tables.--By using the data from the sum-

 

mary tables, it was possible to count the number of students
who fell at each IQ score into each particular socio—
metric category. A frequency distribution of this data is

recorded in Appendix E.

46

It was also possible to count the number of students
who fell at each sociometric choice number and into each
particular psychometric category. A frequency distribution

of this data is recorded in Appendix F.

Adjustment Inventory Data

 

The three completed adjustment inventory forms for
each of the 118 students were scored. The scored forms were
divided in the following three ways for comparative item
analyses.

For the first consideration the forms were divided
into two groups, isolate versus nonisolate. For a com-
parison all forms were then separated into two groups,
gifted versus nongifted. Finally, all forms were sorted
into four groups; gifted isolate, nongifted isolate,
gifted nonisolate, and nongifted nonisolate.

Since all three inventories yielded quantitative re—
sults, the results could be tabulated and recorded for
each defined group. The frequency with which individuals
responded on various items facilitated the compilation
of lists of commonly perceived problems for each of the

defined groups.

Data Analysis

 

The analysis of data in Chapter IV shall consist of
a narrative presentation interspersed with tables to provide

as neny views of the data as possible. The narration

47

eritunerates the more descriptive statistics from the tables
t:c> add clarity and emphasis.

In the analysis of the data from the second phase of
'triea study, under adjustment inventories, the formula for
cocxnputing the standard error of the difference between two
ssaanle percentages was applied to the comparative percent-
eagxes for the subgroups and only those items showing a
ggrweater difference than might be expected to occur by

:saxnpling error have been mentioned.

 

Op1’p2 = '11—— + "N—

The critical ratio, t, was also calculated for these
ifitenns, and where there was sufficient difference between
tile: respective percentages to be significant at the .01
:Le\/el, the items were listed as showing a significant differ-

ernze between the subgroups.

p -p
t=—l____2_
Cpl—p2

These formulas were applied as recommended by Smith

(1958, pp. 61-63).

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The data gathered in this study have been presented
in comparative tables designed to give the reader alternate
views of the data, tabulated under both psychometric and
sociometric categories. These tables are accompanied by a
narrative presentation to focus attention on the more sig—
nificant descriptive statistics that are the bases of the
conclusions and implications presented in Chapter V.

For the broadest possible view of the psychometric
and sociometric data yielded by the first phase of this
study, it is necessary to refer to Appendices E and F
which include the initial frequency distributions under

both psychometric and sociometric categories.

Psychometric Data

 

The psychometric data compiled in the frequency
table in Appendix F have been summarized in Table l to
show the number and per cent of the total group which fell
in each psychometric category.

It may be noted that 56.6 per cent of the total
group tested were included in the average IQ range, and

that 31.5 per cent scored in the rapid learner group as

48

49

compared to 4.5 per cent in the slow learner group. There
were .4 per cent in the educable mentally retarded range
as contrasted to 7 per cent in the gifted range.

TABLE l.-—Number and per cent of students
in each psychometric category.

 

 

 

 

Psychometric CTMM Number of Per Cent of
Category IQ Students Students
Highly Gifted l5O - Up 1 .O4
Gifted 13o - 149 190 6.95
Rapid Learner 115 - 129 862 31.54
Average 85 — 114 1547 56.61
Slow Learner 7O - 84 122 4.46
Educable 5o — 69 11 .40
Totals 2733 100.00

 

Sociometric Data

 

The sociometric data compiled in the frequency table
in Appendix E have been summarized in Table 2 to show the
number and per cent of the total group which fell in each
sociometric category.

It may be seen here that 29 per cent of the total
group are included in the average sociometric range, and
that 11 per cent ranked in the above—average category as
contrasted to 19 per cent in the below-average category.

There were 16 per cent in the neglectee category and 8 per

50

cent in the isolate group as compared to 16 per cent in the

star category.

TABLE 2.--Number and per cent of students
in each sociometric category.

 

 

 

Sociometric SEEESZS Number of Per Cent of
Category Received Students Students
Star 15 — Up 447 16.40
Above Average 12 — 14 306 11.20
Average 7 - 11 796 29.12
Below Average 4 - 6 513 18.77
Neglectee 1 - 3 441 16.12
Isolate o 230 8.39
Totals 2733 100.00

 

Psychometric and Sociometric
Categorization of Data

 

 

The comparison of the intellectual ability continuum
and the social acceptance continuum is enhanced by tables
showing alternate views of the data, first under psycho—
metric categories, then under sociometric categories. These
tables have been summarized in as many ways as possible to

lend added emphasis.

Decile Distributions

 

In order to give a definitive view of the resulting

distribution of cases along the intellectual ability

51

continuum, the rank order of the 2,733 students shown in
the frequency table in Appendix E was divided into deciles,
and a mean number of choices was computed for each decile.
This decile distribution is shown in Table 3.

The apparent overlap of the categories within Table 3
and Table 4 resulted from the fixed ten per cent in each
decile category. There are, therefore, individuals with the

same scores placed in different deciles.

TABLE 3.--Psychometric decile distribution
with mean number of choices.

 

 

CTMM Mean Number
Decile IQ Range Choices
First 127—153 9
Second 122—127 9
Third 118—122 10
Fourth 114—118 9
Fifth 110—114 8
Sixth 107—110 8
Seventh 102-107 9
Eighth 98—102 8
Ninth 91- 98 7
Tenth 60- 91 7

 

It may be noted that the fifth and six deciles each
have a mean number of 8 choices, and that the fourth and
seventh deciles each have a mean number of 9 choices.
However, the third decile has a mean number of 10 choices
as contrasted to a mean number of 8 choices for the eighth
decile. The first and second deciles have means of 9
choices contrasted to means of 7 choices for the ninth and

tenth deciles.

52

To give a more definitive view of the resulting dis-
tribution of cases along the social acceptance continuum,
the rank order of the 2,733 students shown in the frequency
table in Appendix F was divided into deciles and a mean IQ
was computed for each decile. This decile distribution is
shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4.-—Sociometric decile distribution
with mean IQS.

 

Range in Number

 

Decile of Choices Mean IQ
First 17-41 . 112
Second 13-17 111
Third 11-13 112
Fourth 9-11 110
Fifth 8- 9 110
Sixth 6— 8 109
Seventh 4— 6 108
Eighth 3- 4 110
Ninth 1— 3 108
Tenth O— 1 105

 

The mean IQs for all ten deciles fall in the upper
half of the average range of mentality with seven IQ points
difference between the mean IQ for the first decile and the

mean IQ for the tenth decile. Except for the mean IQs of

the third and eighth deciles, there is an upward progression

in mean IQs from the tenth to the first decile.

Comparting the Data

 

To give a more detailed picture of the data, two
tables, with comparable compartments, were compiled to more
precisely compare the psychometric and sociometric data.
Table 5 shows the number and the per cent of students of
each psychometric category as they ranked under the socio—
metric categories.

Of the average IQ group, 15.1 per cent ranked as
stars whereas 18.4 per cent of the gifted and 19.5 per cent
of the rapid learners ranked as stars. Of the average IQ
group 11.0 per cent fell in the above average sociometric
category whereas 10.7 per cent of the rapid learners and
15.8 per cent of the gifted group fell into this category.

Looking at the below average IQ groups, it will be

J

noted that 15.6 per cent of the slow learners and 54.5 per
cent of the retarded group rank as isolates as compared
with 9.2 per cent of the average IQ group, 5.5 per cent of
the rapid learners, and 7.4 per cent of the gifted.

Table 6 shows the number and the per cent of students
of each sociometric category as they ranked under the psy—
chometric categories.

Of the star group, 7.9 per cent of the stars were
gifted; whereas, 5.9 per cent of the average sociometric

group and 6.0 per cent of the isolate group were gifted.

54

 

 

 

mmsm omm as: mam oos oom as: nachos
oo-om
sooH sm.om so ss.o sm.os sa.o ss.o ooosooom
as o o a m H a oaooosom
asuos
soos so.ms so.oa so.sm so.mm ss.oa ss.o possess
mma as ma mm om ma os soan
sooa sm.o sm.ss sm.os sm.om so.aa sa.ma assumo
sass mas oom mom sms oss mmm omssosa
omaumaa
soos sm.m ss.as so.ss sm.mm ss.os sm.os pontoon
moo mo ems oms oom mo mos oaosm
sooa so.s so.ss sm.os ss.om so.ms so.os ooa-oms
oos as mm am so om mm ooosao
oo-oma
sooa so so so sooa so so oooeao
a o o o a o o sasmam
ossooe o m.m.a o.m.o sa.oa oa.ma.ma oo-ma noasowooso
ouMHOmH mmpooamoz owmmm>< .m.m.s mwmsm>< scum assume
zoamm owmpm>¢ m>on¢ logommm

mmfisowoumo oonpoEOfioom

 

.nossommpmo

OHmeEosoow woos: sumo oahmeonozmd mo economecmmLO|l.m mqm<e

55

 

 

 

 

mmsm HH mmH samH mom 00H H nHoooe
sooH so.m sm.m sm.mo sm.om so.o so 0
omm o mH maH we aH o oooHonH
sooH so sH.a sm.oo sH.mm sm.s so m-H
Ho: 0 mH com amH mm o ooooonoz
seas so. ss.o sa.os sa.aa so.o so asmmmsa
mHm H mm mom onH Hm o soHom
sooH sm. so.m sm.am sm.mm sm.m sH. -HH-s
was m on ems own so H cmsso><
Q\ Q\ o 0\ . 0 .WO 0\ o o\ . o\ JHIWH
BOOH sow som 3 Km cl. \oH Om pm m \60 ommkosfis
mom H mH osH do Om o o>oo<
sooH so. am.m sH.mm so.sm 2d.s so o:-mH
so: H oH mmm moH mm 0 seem
do-om aw-os aHH-mm omH-mHH oaH-omH o:-omH
manpoe ooogmpom accused ommgo>< Locsoofl oopmHU powwow moagomopmo
oHnsosom son oaosm sHsmam dashes
uOHoom

moflcomopmo ofispoeosoamm

 

 

.moosomopmo

oesooEozoamd Loos: spec casmeosoom mo coopsmocnwsOuu.m mam<e

56

Within the star group, 37.6 per cent were rapid
learners compared to 35.2 per cent of the average socio—
metric group and 20.9 per cent of the iSolate group.

Also in the star group, 52.1 per cent were of average
IQ compared to 54.9 per cent of the average sociometric
group and 62.2 per cent of the isolate group.

Of the star group, 2.2 per cent ranked as slow
learners; whereas, 3.6 per cent of the average sociometric
(group and 8.3 per cent of the isolate group were slow
learners.

Comparing Tables 5 and 6, it may be seen that while
18.4 per cent of the gifted are stars in Table 5, 7.9 per
cent of the stars fall in the gifted category in Table 6.
Furthermore, 54.5 per cent of the retarded are isolates in
Table 5 and 2.6 per cent of the isolates in Table 6 are
retarded.

Table 7 gives the most comprehensive view of the
full scope of the data from phase one of the study. The
sociometric and psychometric categories were placed in
columns and rows, creating a grid to compart the data, and
giving numbers and percentages of the total 2,733 cases.
The columns and rows each show total cases and percentages

relative to the grand total.

Psychometric and Sociometric Means

 

It seemed important that, in addition to the various

comprehensive analyses of the data, there should be a

 

 

 

soo.ooH som.o smH.oH sss.oH an.om soa.HH soa.oH mHsoos
mmsm 0mm Has mHm was com sea
. oo-om
soa. sHm. so see. sso. sao. eoo. ooosooom
HH 6 o H m H H oHososom
. a -os
sos.a sac. sac. ssa.a soo.a sos. ssm. samssaa
mmH mH mH mm on mH oH eoHo
: c
sHo.om smm.m ems.m sHm.oH som.mH emm.o emm.m aHH-mm
Squ qu wwm mom em: 03H mmm mmmso><
\ . mmH-nHH
sen.Hm sus.H smn.a soa.n sam.oH eom.m. soH.o tocsMoa
new we :mH omH own no moH oHosm
smm.o sHm. sHm.H emH.H ems H eoH.H smm.H maa-omH
omH aH mm Hm s: m mm ooocHo
db: a.
see. so so so sac. so so e.smsw
H o o o H o o sHsmHm
o m.m.H o.m.a HH.oH aH.mH.mH op-mH
mHmpoe opoHomH moooonoz mmmgo>< “mamas mmdsm>< Loom mmspommpoo
onom ommgo>¢ o>op< oflgpoe
.Jl sogommm

 

mosgowopmo osppoanoow

 

 

.spdo ostmEosoom ocm oHLpoEozoamo esp so coapmeHmpsmEpLooEoon-.S mqm<e

58

summarization of the data by the psychometric and socio-
metric categories. The most appropriate comparative figures
seem to be mean IQs for the total group included under each
sociometric category and a mean number of choices awarded
for the total group under each psychometric category. These
comparative means may be seen in Tables 8 and 9.

The mean CTMM scores of the students ranking in each
of the sociometric categories were computed, and Table 8
was constructed comparing them to the mean CTMM score for
the entire group of 2,733 students.

In Table 8 there is a progressively higher mean IQ
for the sociometric categories, moving up the social accep-
tance continuum, with the exception of the neglectee category.
It should be noted that the mean IQ for the neglectee group
is the same as the mean IQ for the entire group; whereas,
the mean IQ for the below average group is lower than the
mean IQ for the neglectee group.

The mean number of choices awarded the students
ranking in each of the psychometric categories was computed,
and Table 9 was constructed comparing them to the mean
number of choices for the entire group of 2,733 students.

In Table 9 there is a progressively higher mean number
of choices for the psychometric categories, moving up the
intellectual ability continuum from the educable retarded
through the average IQ group, with the same mean number of
choices for the average psychometric category as for the

entire group.

59

TABLE 8.~—Psychometric means for sociometric categories.

 

 

Sociometric Categories

 

 

 

Above Below

Star Average Average Average Neglectee Isolate

l5-Up 12-14 7—11 4—6 1—3 0
Psycho—
metric 112 111 110 108 109 104
Means IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
Total
Mean 2733 Students 109
IQ

 

TABLE 9.--Sociometric means for psychometric categories.

 

Psychometric Categories

 

Highly Rapid Slow Educable
Gifted Gifted Learner Average Learner Retarded
150—Up 130-149 115—129 85—114 70—84 50—69

 

Socio-
metric 9 9 9 8 6 4

Means Choices Choices Choices Choices Choices Choices

 

Total
Mean 2733 Students 8
Choices

 

60

For each of the three above—average IQ categories,
the mean number of choices awarded is the same and is higher
than both the mean number of choices awarded to the average
IQ group and the mean number of choices for the entire

group.

Mutual Choice Data

 

A mutual choice is indicated when two individuals
choose each other on the same sociometric criterion. The
pattern and sc0pe of mutual choosing serve as an additional,
more intensive, index of the extent to which each pupil is
developing satisfying social relationships and with whom.

In order to provide for maximum comparison of the
mutual choice data with earlier tabulation of total choices
received, tables have been constructed compiling the data
from the 92 mutual choice tables and alternating, first

under psychometric and then under sociometric categories.

Distribution of Mutual Choices

 

In Table 10 the psychometric categories are used to
form both the columns and the rows, creating a grid that
comparts the choices according to the psychometric cate—
gories linked by the mutual choice pairs. Each compartment
contains the total number of mutual choices resulting from
the selections on all three criteria and the resulting per-

centage of the total 9,596 mutual choices.

61

TABLE lC.-—Fsychometric distribution of mutual choices.

 

 

Psychometric Highly Rapid Slow Educable

Categories Gifted Gifted Learner Average Learner Retarded
Highly 0

Gifted

Gifted 4 128

.04% 1.34%

Rapid 0 718 1568

Learner 7.48% 16.34%

Average 0 334 2544 3656

3.48% 26.52% 38.09%
Slow 0 6 j 16 530 54

Learner .06% .16% 5.52% .57”

Educable 0 0 O 34‘ 4 O
Retarded .36% .04%

 

The educable group, consisting of 11 students or .4
per cent of the entire 2,733 studied, received 19 mutual
choices or .2 per cent of 9,596 mutual choices. The slow
learners, mfide up of 122 students or 4.46 per cent of the
total group studied, received 332 mutual choices or 3.46 per
cent of all mutual choices.

The intellectually average group, including 1,547
students or 56.61 per cent of the total group studied, re—
ceived 5,377 mutual choices or 56.03 per cent of all mutual
choices. The rapid learners, consisting of 862 students or
31.54 per cent of the total population studied, received

3,207 mutual choices or 33.42 per cent of all mutual choices.

62

The gifted group, involving 190 students or 6.95 per
cent of the total, received 659 mutual choices or 5.87 per
cent of all mutual choices. The highly gifted student,
making up .04 per cent of the total group studied, received
2 mutual choices or .02 per cent of all mutual choices.

Of all the mutual choices awarded by those with
above—average mentality, 62.5 per cent were awarded to
others with above—average mentality; 37.2 per cent were
given to peers with average mental ability; and .3 per
cent were given to individuals with below—average mental
ability.

Of all the mutual choices awarded by those with
below—average mentality, 21.4 per cent were awarded to other
individuals with below—average mentality as compared to 78.6
per cent given to individuals with average or above—average
mentality.

In Table 11 the sociometric categories are used to
form both the columns and the rows, creating a grid that
comparts the choices according to the sociometric categories
linked by the mutual choice pairs.

Each compartment contains the total number of mutual
choices resulting from the selections on all three criteria
and the resulting percentage of the total 9,596 mutual
choices.

The star group, including 447 students or 16.4 per
cent of the entire 2,733 studied, received 2,740 mutual

choices or 28.57 per cent of 9,596 mutual choices.

63

TABLE ll.-—Sociometric distribution of mutual choices.

 

 

Sociometric Above Below
Categories Star Average Average Average Neglectee
Star 1140
11.88%
Above 980 402
Average 10.24% 4.19%
1684 1114 1344
Average 17.54% 11.60% 14.00%
Below 404 374 970 334
Average 4.22% 3.90% 10.10% 3.48%
“ 132 96 296 238 88
Neglectee 1.38% 1.00% 3.08% 2.48% .91%

 

The above-average sociometric group, consisting of
306 students or 11.20 per cent of the entire group,
received 1,684 mutual choices or 17.56 per cent of all
mutual choices.

The average sociometric group, including 796 students
or 29.12 per cent of the total group, received 3,376 mutual
choices or 35.16 per cent of all mutual choices.

The below—average group, consisting of 513 students
or 18.77 per cent of the entire group, received 1,327 mutual
choices or 13.83 per cent of all mutual choices.

The neglectees, consisting of 441 students or 16 12
per cent of the total group, received 469 mutual choices or

4.88 per cent of all mutual choices.

64

The isolate group, involving 230 students or 8.39 per
cent of the group studied, by definition is the group that
gave choices but received none, and thus they were not
involved in mutual choices.

Of all the mutual choices awarded, 66 per cent were
given to individuals of the above-average, average, and
below-average sociometric groups; 29 per cent were awarded
to members of the star group; and 5 per cent were given to

members of the neglectee group.

Patterning of Mutual Choices

 

Table 12 was designed to show the vertical direction
of choosing for each psychometric group. The analysis of
this table is concerned with the within, above, and below—
group division of choices.

This table shows that the two mutual choices awarded
by the one highly gifted student were given to the gifted.

Of all the mutual choices awarded by the gifted,
19.4 per cent were within-group choices of other gifted
students; .3 per cent were above-group choices given to the
one highly gifted student; and 80.3 per cent were below—
group choices, 54.5 per cent given to rapid learners, 25.3
per cent given to those with average ability, and .5 per
cent given to slow learners.

Considering all mutual choices awarded by rapid
learners, 48.9 per cent were wittufrgroup choices of other

rapid learners; 11.2 per cent were above-group choices of

65

TABLE 12.--Psychometric patterning of mutual choices.

%

 

Chooser Chosen Number Per Cent
Highly Highly Gifted 0 o
- Gifted Gifted 2 100
Rapid Learner 0 0
Average 0 0
Slow Learner 0 0
Educable 0 0
TOTALS 2 100
Gifted Highly Gifted 2 .3
Gifted 128 19.4
Rapid Learner 359 54.5
Average 167 25-3
Slow Learner 3 .5
Educable 0 0
TOTALS 659 100.0
Rapid Highly Gifted 0 0
Learner Gifted 359 ll.2
Rapid Learner 1568 48.9
Average 1272 39.7
Slow Learner 8 .2
Educable .0 0
TOTALS 3207 100.0
Average Highly Gifted 0 0
Gifted 167 3.1
Rapid Learner 1272 23.7
Average 3656 68.0
Slow Learner 265 4.9
Educable l7 .3
TOTALS 5377 100.0
Slow Highly Gifted 0 0
Learner Gifted 3 -9
Rapid Learner 8 2.4
Average 265 79-8
Slow Learner 54 16.3
Educable 2 .6
TOTALS 332 100.0
Educable Highly Gifted 0 0
Gifted 0 0
Rapid Learner 0 0
Average 17 89-5
Slow Learner 2 10.5
Educable 0 0

TOTALS 19 100.0

66

the gifted; and 39.9 per cent were below—group choices,
39.7 per cent given to the average, and .2 per cent given
to slow learners.

Among the mutual ghoices given by the intellectually
average group, 68 per cent were withinegroup choices given
to other average individuals. The average ability group
made 26.8 per cent above—group choices, giving 23.7 per
cent to rapid learners and 3.1 per cent to the gifted. Of
the 5.2 per cent below—group choices made by the average
group, u.9 per cent were given to the slow learners and .3
per cent to the educable.

Of all mutual choices awarded by the slow learning
group, 83.1 per cent were above-group choices. These in-
cluded 79.8 per cent given to those of average mental
ability, 2.4 per cent to the rapid learners, and .9 per
cent to the gifted. Slow learners made l6.3 per cent
within—group choices with other slow learners, and .6 per
cent of their choices were below—group choices given to
the educable.

All the mutual choices awarded by the educable re-
tarded were given to members of the slow learning group or
to those with average mental ability, showing 100 per cent
above—group choosing for the educable.

Table 13 was designed to show the vertical direction
of choosing for each sociometric group. The analysis of
this table is concerned with the within, above, and below-

group division of choices.

TABLE 13.-—Sociometric patterning of mutual choices.

 

 

Chooser Chosen Number Per Cent
Star Star 1140 41.6
Above AVerage 490 17.9
Average 842 30.7
Below Average 202 7.4
Neglectee 66 2.4
TOTALS 2740 100.0
Above Star 490 29.1
Average Above Average 402 23-8
Average 557 33-1
Below Average 187 11.1
Neglectee 48 2.9
TOTALS 1684 100.0
Average Star 842 24.9
Above Average 557 16.5
Average 1344 39-8
Below Average 485 14.4
Neglectee 148 4.4
TOTALS 3376 100.0
Below Star 202 15.2
Average Above Average 187 14.1
Average 485 35-5
Below Average 334 25.2
Neglectee 119 9.0
TOTALS 1327 100.0
Neglectee Star 66 14.1
Above Average 48 10.2
Average 148 31.5
Below Average 119 25.4
Neglectee 88 18.8
TOTALS 469 100.0

 

f)\
(I)

Of all the mutual choices awarded by stars, 41.6 per
cent were within-group choices awarded to other stars;

58.4 per cent were below—group choices, 56 per cent awarded
to the three average sociometric groups, and 2.4 per cent
given to the neglectee group.

Considering all 6,387 choices awarded by the three
average sociometric groups, 24 per cent were above—group
choices awarded to members of the star group; 5 per cent
were below-group choices awarded to the neglectee group;
and 71 per cent may be considered as within—group choices
given to other members of the three average sociometric
groups.

Including all mutual choices awarded by the ngelectee
group, 18.8 per cent were withinegroup choices with other
neglectees; 81.2 per cent were above-group choices, 67.1
per cent awarded to the three average sociometric groups,

and 14.1 per cent given to the star group.

Comparative Involvement in Mutual Choosing

 

Tables 14 and 15 summarize the extent to which the
members of the various psychometric and sociometric groups
were involved in social interaction in their homeroom
groups.

The row of totals across the bottom of each table
show that the entire 2,733 students had an opportunity for

24,597 mutual choices. The total of column three indicates

that 9,51; mutual vhoi es were made, or 3:

"/

KL)
Ha
U

possible total.
1n chle 14, the per cent of involvement column at

gnt shows that :he gifted and intellectually average

H.

the 1"
groups achieved 39 per cent or average involvement in mutual
choosing. The rapid learners, however, achieved 41 per cent
involvement, showing somewhat above-average interaction.
The slow learning group scored 30 per cent involvement or
below—average interaction.

The highly gifted individual scored 22 per cent
involvement, and the eleven members of the educable
retarded group scored 19 per cent or considerably below-
average interaction.

In Table 15, the per cent of involvement column at
the right shows that the members of the star group achieved

68 per cent involvement in mutual choosing or an exceed-

5.).

ingly'ttgyi level of interaction.

The above-average sociometric group achieved 61 per
cent involvement or a high level of interaction. The
average sa‘i metric group achieved 47 per cent involve~
meyf hn'-n is still a high level of interaction. The below—
average sociometric group, however, achieved 29 per cent
involvement as compared to the over—all average of 39 per
cent or a low level of interaction.

The neglectee group achieved 12 per cent involvement

irirmlhlal choosing (M‘ENi exceedingly ltwv have] of lDIEFHQllCMu

70

TABLE lu.--Comparative involvement of the psychometric cate—
gories in mutual choosing.

 

 

>Tota1 Actual Per Cent
Psycho- Number Possible Number of
metric of Mutual Mutual Involve—
Categories Students Choices Choices ment
Highly
Gifted l 9 2 22
Gifted 190 1,710 659. 39
Rapid
Learner 862 7,758 3,207 Ml
Average 1,547 13,923 5,377 -‘39
Slow
Learner.c 122 1’098 33% 3O
Educable}
Retarded ll 99 19 19
TOTALS 2,733. '24,597 9,596 39

 

TABLE 15.-—Comparative involvement of the sociometric cate—

gories in mutual choosing.

 

 

Total Actual Per Cent
50010- Number Possible Number of
metric of Mutual Mutual Involve—
Categories Students Choices Choices ment
Star 447 4,023 2,740 68
Above
Average 306 2,754 1,68“ 61
Average 796 7,16“ 3,376 H7
Below
Average 513 “3617 1,327 29
Neglectee 441 3,969 A69 12
Isolate 230 2,070 0 0
TOTALS 2,733 2u,597 9,596 39

 

71

The isolate group, those who received no choices, had no
mutual choices and thus might be construed to have little
or no interaction with their peers in their classroom

groups.

Adjustment Inventory Data

 

The second phase of the study consisted of the admin—
istration of the three adjustment inventories to a total
group of 118 students from the 2,733 students participating
in the first phase of the study.

Three separate tabulations were made for each of the
three adjustment inventories; first, for the isolate versus
nonisolate groups; second, for the gifted versus nongifted
groups; and finally for four groups: gifted isolates, non—
gifted isolates, gifted nonisolates, and nongifted non—
isolates. These three separate tabulations were made in an
effort to compile a set of problems commonly perceived by
these groups.

The groups involved in each tabulation were compared
by the percentage of involvement of the members of each

group on each item of the three adjustment inventories.

Locating Perceived Problems of Isolates
and Nonisolates

 

 

Separation of the 118 students into isolate and non—

isolate groups yielded the following data:

72

The isolate group consisted of 3M boys and 25 girls
with chronological ages from 13.7 through 16.5 and CTMM
IQs of 60 through 141.

The non isolate group consisted of 33 boys and 26
girls with chronological ages from 13.7 through 15.9 and
CTMM le of 92 through 149.

Vineland Social Maturity Scale.-—In order to present
the relative differences in social competence of isolates
versus nonisolates as measured by the 27 Vineland items
used, Table 16 was constructed showing item number, item,
and per cent of greatest possible total for each of the 27
items.

The differences between the percentage ratings of the
isolate group and the nonisolate group were not suffi-
ciently different on any of the twenty-seven items to be of
statistical significance. However, there was a greater dif-
ference than might be accounted for by sampling error on
seven of the twenty—seven items, These items, therefore,
are of value in testing the third hypothesis of this study.

These seven items are listed below according to the
greatest difference between the percentage ratings of the
isolate and nonisolate groups.

The greatest difference was shown on item 75,_cares
for self at table, which included the final table prepara—
tion of various food items for one's own consumption such

as baked potato, boiled eggs, cutting meat, etc. The

73

TABLE l6.-- Differences between isolate and nonisolate groups
on 27 items of the Vineland social maturity scale.

 

Per cent of
Greatest'Possible Total

 

 

59 59
Number Item Isolates Nonisolates
75 Cares for self at table 78 61
76 Makes minor purchases 79 79
77 Goes about home town freely 76 74
78 Writes occasional short
letters 57 54
79 Makes telephone calls 75 89
80 Does small remunerative .
work 79 75
81 Answers ad; purchases by mail 42 35
82 Does simple creative work 64 64
83 Is left to care for self or
others 84 84
84 Enjoys books, newspapers,
magazines 79 79
85 Plays difficult games 70 82
86 Exercises complete care of
dress 86 91
87 Buys own clothing accessories 64 69
88 'Engages in group activities 65 78
89 Performs responsible routine
chores 88 81
9O Communicates by letter 35 35
91 Follows current events 61 65
92 Goes to nearby places alone 64 61
93 Goes out unsupervised
daytime 68 68
94 Has own spending money 81 86
95 Buys all own clothing 44 58
96 Goes to distant points alone 41 54
97 Looks after own health 82 86
98 Has a job or continues
schooling 100 100
99 Goes out nights unrestricted 47 53
100 Controls own major expenditures 59 75

101 Assumes personal responsibility 75 81

 

74

isolate group exceeded the nonisolate group by 78 to 61
per cent on this item.

Controls own major expenditures, item 100, included

 

making major purchases from allowances or earnings with
only general advice of what to buy. The nonisolate group
surpassed the isolate group by 75 to 59 per cent on this
item.

Makes telephone calls, item 79, involved looking up

 

phone numbers and making local phone calls for practical
purposes. The nonisolate group excelled by 89 to 75 per
cent on this item.

Buys all own clothing, item 95, involved selection

 

and purchase of all major clothing items, either with money
earned, from an allowance, or on credit account. The non—
isolate group surpassed the isolate group by 58 to 44 per
cent on this item.

Engages in group activities, item 88, included

 

participation in the following: athletic teams, clubs,
social or literary organizations, dances, parties, trips,
and outdoor sports. The nonisolate group excelled by 78
to 65 per cent on this item.

Goes to distant points alone, item 96, consisted of

 

planning itinerary, making reservations, and meeting any
emergencies that arise. The nonisolate group surpassed the

isolate group by 54 to 41 per cent on this item.

Plays difficult games, item 85, included playing

 

relatively complex or skilled games and Sports such as
baseball, basketball, tennis, pool, or card games, and
understanding rules and methods of scoring. The nonisolate
group excelled by 82 to 70 per cent on this item.

~The nonisolate group achieved greater social compe-
tence on six of the seven items listed above. Of the six,
two items, 95 and 100, were from the Self Sufficiency area
of social competence; two items, 85 and 88, were from the
Social Participation area; one item, 79, was from the Com-
munication area; one item, 96, was from the Locomotion
area.

The only one of the seven items which ranked isolates
higher than nonisolates was item 75 from the Self Suffi—
ciency area. On the twenty remaining items the differences
between the percentage ratings of the isolate and nonisolate
groups were so small as to be totally depreciated by the
statistical allowance for sampling error.

Mooney Problem Check List.——In order to present the

 

differences in perceived problems of the isolate and non—
isolate groups as indicated by the Mooney Problem Check
List, Table 17 has been constructed showing item number,
item name under the seven problem areas, and the percentage
of the isolate and nonisolate groups who identified them—

selves with each problem.

76

TABZFZ 17.—-lllffexnn.cen befinyren 1:3913t1: and run.is“L<

A
of tne Mooney problem cheek list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pe‘“ C"it ildfa(ifléj Fr'iblcwn
Item ~ —“”_‘
'Number Item Under Problem Area Isolate Kshisclate
Health, Physical Deve opment
2 Don't get enough sleep 36 49
3 Have trouble with my teeth 27 13
40 Not good-looking 31 19
73 OVerweight 37 27
178 Not being as strong as some
other kids 22 12
School
6 Getting low grades in school 29 i5
7 Afraid of tests 34 15
9 Don't like to study 54 39
10 Not interested in books 17 39
41 Afraid of failing in school work 29 14
43 Trouble with Spelling or grammar 25 15
78 Can't keep my mind on my studies 56 44
79 Worried about grades 41 31
115 Teachers not practicing what
they preach 19 31
147 Trouble with oral reports 44 20
150 Afraid to speak up in class 37 22
Home and Family
15 Never having any fun with mother
or dad 29 14
85 Wanting things my parents won't
give me 25 ‘3
Money, Work, the Future
53 Wanting to buy more of my own things 34 3
55 T06 little Spending money 34 34
124 Wanting to know more about college 29 no
192 Not knowing what I really want 9 24
195 Wondering what becomes of people
when they die 19 3)
Boy, Girl, Relations
92 So often not allowed to go out
at night 34 24
196 Learning how to dance 5 12
27 Bashful 29 12
28 Being left out of things 34 2O
29 Never chosen as a leader 37 7
61 Being teased 32 19
63 Feelings too easily hurt 31 17
98 Being picked on 25 7
100 People finding fault with me 31 17
166 Getting into arguments 17 32
Self-Centered Concerns
31 Being nervous 41 31
34 Being afraid of making mistakes 46 29
67 Trying to stop a bad habit 25 41
69 Giving in to temptations 15 31
105 Sometimes wishing I'd never been born 32 20
136 Being careless 12 25
171 Feeling ashamed of something I've done 17 31
172 Being punished for something I
didn't do 25 12

77

Of the total 210 items on the check list, only 41 are
involved here as the differences between the percentage
ratings of these groups on 169 items were so small as to
be totally depreciated by the statistical allowance for
sampling error.

Two items showed a sufficient difference in percent—
age between the isolate and nonisolate groups to be of
statistical significance. These were items 147, trouble

with oral reports, under the problem area School and 29,

 

never chosen as a leader, under the problem area Relations

 

to People in General. Each item was mentioned more fre-
quently by the isolates.

On thirty—nine items, there was a greater difference
between the percentages of the isolate and nonisolate
groups than might be accounted for by sampling error. On
twenty-eight of these items, more of the isolates identified
themselves with the problem; whereas, on eleven of the
thirty-nine, more of the nonisolates identified themselves
with the problem.

Under the first problem area, Health and Physical
Development, there was a difference in percentage between
the isolate and nonisolate groups on five items. The iso—

lates marked four of the five more frequently: have trouble

 

 

with my teeth, notggood—looking, overweight, and not being

 

as strong as some other kids. The nonisolates marked one

 

more frequently: don't get enough sleep.

 

78

Within the second problem area, School, there was a
difference in percentage between the two groups on ten items.
The isolates marked eight of the ten more frequently:

getting low grades in school, afraid of tests, don't like

 

 

to study, afraid of failing in school work, trouble with

 

spelling or grammar, can't keep my mind on my studies,

 

worried about grades, and afraid to speak up in class.

 

 

The nonisolates marked two of the ten more frequently: got

interested in books and teachers not practicing what they

 

 

preach.

In the third problem area, Home and Family, there was
a difference in percentage between the two groups on two
items. In both cases the isolates marked the item more fre—

quently: never having any fun with mother or dad and

 

wanting things my parents won‘t give me.

 

4.

'Under the fourth problem area, Money, Work and the
Future, there was a difference in percentage on five items.
The isolates marked two of the five items more frequently:

wanting to buy more of my own things and too little spending

 

 

money. The nonisolates marked: wanting to know more about

college, not knowing what I really want, and wondering what

 

 

becomes of people when they die.

 

Within the fifth problem area, Boy and Girl Relations,
there was a difference in percentage between the two groups
on two items. In both cases the isolates marked the items

more frequently: learning how to dance and so often not

 

 

allowed to go out atfinight.

79

In the sixth problem area, Relations to People in
General, there was a difference in percentage on seven
items. The isolates marked six of the items more frequently:

bashful, being left out of things, being teased, feelings

 

 

too easily hurt, being picked on, and peOple finding fault

 

 

with me. The nonisolates marked one item more frequently:

getting into arguments.

 

Under the seventh problem area, Self-Centered Con-

cerns, there was a difference in percentage on eight items.

 

.The isolates marked four items more frequently: being ner-

vous, being afraid of making mistakes, sometimes wishing

 

 

I'd never been born, and being punished for something I

 

 

didn't do. The nonisolates marked four items more fre-

 

quently: trying to stop a bad habit, giving in to temp-

 

tations, being careless, and feeling ashamed of something

 

 

I've done.

 

Rohde Sentence Completion Method.--In order to pre-

I

sent the material from both variables evaluated by the

 

Rohde's method for the isolate and nonisolate groups, Table
18 has been constructed listing the 18 objects included,
with three columns showing the percentages of each group
giving positive, neutral, or negative cathection of each
object.

The per cent of negative and positive responses for
a given group will show, not only whether it is to be con—

sidered that members of such a group are likely to have

80

TABLE l8.—-Cathections of junior high school isolates and
nonisolates.

 

 

 

 

 

Per cent Isolate Per cent Nonisolate

ObJECt Posi- Neu— Nega- Posi- Neu- Nega-

tive tral tive tive tral tive
BOYS 39 37 24 46 37 17
Children 51 2O 29 51 24 25
Family 44 44 12 66 31 3
Father 53 j 31 17 61 2O 19
Fighting 36 10 54 32 O 68
Friends 75 9 17 81 9 10
Girls 32 31 37 32 36 32
God 81 19 O 83 14 3
Iiome 32 19 49 42 19 31
Laws 64 7 29 76 l2 12
Money 54 14 32 54 7 3C
IWother 63 25 12 63 20 17
ENBOple 35 36 25 53 3it 1“
f{Sligion 7E 19 7 73 19 9
Scflioolwork 44 17 39 61 2 37
iSUicide 19 2+ 58 IO 14 76
“Teachers 64 9 27 73 12 15
Work. 61 7 32 58 O 42

81

problems relative to the object in question, but the dis-
parity between the percentages will also indicate the
extent of the problem.

Of the total 18 objects included there was no suffi-
cient difference in the percentage of positive cathections
between the isolate and nonisolate groups to be considered
statistically significant. However, on five objects, there
was a greater difference between the percentage of the posi-
tive cathections of the isolate and nonisolate groups than
might be accounted for by sampling error. On all of these
objects the isolate group showed less acceptance of the
object than did the nonisolate group.

On the object, Family, the nonisolate group showed
66 pmm‘cent acceptance and 3 per cent rejection, as com-
Pared.to 44 per cent of the isolate group showing acceptance
and 12 per cent showing rejection.

For the object item, figmg, the nonisolate group
Qiowed 42 per cent acceptance and 39 per cent rejection,

33 Clompared to 32 per cent of the isolate group showing
a'CCthance and 49 per cent rejection.

Concerning the object relating to Léflég the non-
isolate group showed 76 per cent acceptance and 12 per cent
r'e.l°8<:tion, as compared to 64 per cent of the isolate group
ShOWing acceptance and 29 per cent rejection.

For the object, People, the nonisolate group showed

E:
43 Der*cent acceptance and 14 per cent rejection, as com-

82

pared to 39 per cent of the isolate group showing acceptance
and 25 per cent rejection.

On the object pertaining to Schoolwork, the nonisolate
grmmp showed 61 per cent acceptance and 37 per cent re-
jection, as compared to 44 per cent of the isolate group
showing acceptance and 39 per cent rejection.

In addition, there were a total of seven objects for
which there was a difference between the percentage of nega-
tive cathections for the isolate and nonisolate groups.

Three of these, Home, Laws, and People, are listed above

 

in the discussion of positive cathections. The others not
given there are Fighting, Suicide, Teachers, and W235.

Regarding the object, Fighting, the nonisolate group
showed 68 per cent rejection and 32 per cent acceptance,
as compared to 54 per cent of the isolate group showing re-
Jection and 36 per cent acceptance.

For the object relating to Suicide, the nonisolate
group showed 76 per cent rejection and 10 per cent accep-
tance, as compared to 58 per cent of the isolate group
ShCWwing rejection and 19 per cent acceptance.

Concerning the object, Teachers, the isolate group

 

ShO‘Wed27 per cent rejection and 64 per cent acceptance,
as Chompared to 15 per cent of the nonisolate group showing
I’eJEECtion and 73 Per cent acceptance.

In reference to the object, prk, the nonisolate

EKVNAD showed 42 per cent rejection and 58 per cent

83

acceptance, as compared to 32 per cent of the isolate group
showing rejection and 61 per cent acceptance.

For five of the objects there was a difference be-
tween the percentages of neutral cathections for the isolate
and nonisolate groups. On all five objects the isolate

.‘

group showed the greatest percentage of neutrality. Included

 

here are the objects: Family, Father, Fighting, Schoolwork,
and Suicide.

The nonisolate group showed the greatest acceptance
of the objects: Family, Home, Laws, People, and Schoolwork.
This group showed greatest rejection of the objects:
Fighting, Suicide, and prk.

The isolate group showed greatest rejection of the

objects: Home, Laws, PeOple, and Teachers.

 

 

 

ngating Perceived Problems of the Gifted and Nongifted

Separation of the 118 students into gifted and non—
Sifted groups yielded the following data:

The gifted group consisted of 21 boys and 20 girls
with chronological ages from 13.7 through 16.0 and CTMM
198 of 130 through 149.

The nongifted group consisted of 46 boys and 31
girls with chronological ages from 13.7 through 16.5 and
CTWMA IQs of 60 through 128.

Vineland Social Maturity Scale.--In order to present
13“? relative differences in social competence of the gifted

VerTMis the nongifted as measured by the 27 Vineland items

8M

used, Table 19 was constructed showing item number, item,
and per cent of greatest possible total for each of the 27
items.

The differences between the percentage ratings of the
gifted group and the nongifted group were not sufficiently
different on any of the 27 items to be of statistical
significance. However, there was a greater difference than
might be accounted for by sampling error on twelve of the
twenty—seven items. These items, therefore, are of value
in testing the third hypothesis of this study.

These twelve items are listed below according to the
greatest difference between the percentage ratings of the
gifted and nongifted groups.

The greatest difference was shown on item 82, goes
figmple creative work, which included making useful
articles, doing repair work, cooking, baking, sewing,
gardening, writing simple stories or poems, producing
Painting or drawings. The gifted group excelled by 7M to
58 per'cent on this item.

Goes to distant points alone, item 96, consisted of

 

plarniing itinerary, making reservations and meeting any
amergencies which arise. The gifted group surpassed the
nongifted group by 57 to #2 per cent on this item.

Goes out unsupervised daytime, item 93, involved
EQINE away from home without supervision, being responsible

for’movements, and revealing discreet behavior. The

85

TABLE l9.--Differences between gifted and nongifted groups
on 27 items of the Vineland social maturity scale.

 

Per cent of
Greatest Possible Total

 

 

41 77
Number Item Gifted Nongifted
75 Cares for self at table 71 69
76 Makes minor purchases 82 75
77 Goes about home town freely 79 73
78 Writes occasional short
letters 51 58
79 Makes telephone calls 84 81
80 Does small remunerative
work 81 75
81 Answers ads; purchases by
mail 45 34
82 Does simple creative work 74 58
83 Is left to care for self or
others 85 83
84 Enjoys books, newspapers,
magazines 87 76
85 Plays difficult games 76 77
86 Exercises complete care of
dress 90 87
87 Buys own clothing accessories 70 65
88 Engages in group activities 76 7O
89 Performs responsible routine
chores. 85 84
9O Communicates by letter 34 35
91 Follows current events 72 59
92 Goes to nearby places alone 71 58
93 Goes out unsupervised
daytime 77 63
94 Has own spending money 89 8O
95 Buys all own clothing 57 47
96 Goes to distant points alone 57 42
97 Looks after own health 93 79
98 Has a job or continues
schooling 100 100
99 Goes out nights unrestricted. 54 49
100 Controls own major expendi-
tures 73 53
101 Assumes personal responsi-
bility 87 73

 

gifted group surpassed the nongifted group by 77 to 63
per cent on this item.

Looks after own health, item 97, consisted of safe-

 

guarding health with regard to rules of hygiene, contagious
or infectious diseases, illnesses and accidents. The gifted
group exceeded the nongifted by 93 to 79 per cent on this
item.

Assumes personal responsibility, item 101, involved

 

directing own social affairs, being considerate of the wel-
fare of others, exercising discretion in personal activities.
The gifted group excelled by 87 to 73 per cent on this
item.

Follows current events, item 91, included being able

 

to discuss general news and sports events and following
these with some continuity. The gifted group surpassed the
nongifted by 72 to 59 per cent on this item.

Goes to nearby places alone, item 92, involved going

 

outside the limits of the home town into areas that are rel—
atively unfamiliar and being personally responsible for

own arrangements. The gifted exceeded the nongifted by 71
to 58 per cent on this item.

Answers ads; purchases by mail, item 81, involved

 

responding to magazine, radio, television advertising by
mailing coupons, requesting samples, sending for literature,
and ordering from catalogs. The gifted group exceeded the

nongifted group by 45 to 34 per cent on this item.

87

Enjoys books, newspapers, magazines, item 84, con—

 

sisted of reading for practical information or personal en-
joyment. The gifted group excelled by 87 to 76 per cent
on this item.

Buys all own clothing, item 95, involved selection

 

and purchase of all major clothing items, either with
money earned, from an allowance, or on a credit account.
The gifted group surpassed the nongifted group by 57 to
47 per cent on this item.

Controls own major expenditures, item 100, included

 

exercising discretion in providing for major expenses from
allowances or earnings with only general advice from others.
The gifted group surpassed the nongifted group by 73 to 63
per cent on this item.

Has own spending money, item 94, consisted of using

 

allowance or earnings with reasonable discretion for personal
needs. The gifted group excelled by 89 to 80 per cent on
this item.

The gifted ranked higher than the nongifted on all
twelve of these items. Six items, 93, 94, 95, 97, 100, and
101, were from the Self—Direction area; two items, 92 and
96, were from the Locomotion area; three items, 81, 84, and
91, were from the Communication area; and one item, 82,

was from the Occupational Activities area.

88

On the fifteen remaining items the differences
between the percentage ratings of the gifted and nongifted
groups were so small as to be totally depreciated by the
statistical allowance for sampling error.

Mooney Problem Check List.-—In order to present the

 

differences in perceived problems of the gifted and non-
gifted groups as indicated by the Mooney Problem Check List,
Table 20 has been constructed showing item number, item
name under the seven problem areas, and the percentage of
the gifted and nongifted groups who identified themselves
with each problem.

Of the total 210 items on the check list, only 33
are involved here as the differences between the percentage
ratings of these groups on 177 items were so small as to
be totally depreciated by the statistical allowance for
sampling error.

Three items showed a sufficient difference in per—

D .
\D

ntage betwecn the gifted and nongifted groups to be of

C .

(

statistical significance. These items were afraid of tests,

 

trouble with spelling or grammar, and trouble with writing.

 

 

These items are all under the problem area School and men—
tioned more frequently by the nongifted.

On thirty items, there was a greater difference be—
tween the percentages of the gifted and nongifted groups
than might be accounted for by sampling error. On ten of

these items, more of the gifted identified themselves with

89

TABLE 20.--Differences between the gifted and nongifted groups on 33 items
of the Mooney problem check list.

_-a———_.. " ' - ‘ ' " E"'_'_"‘

 

Per Cent Marking Problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item
Number Item Under Problem Area Gifted Nongifted
Health, Physical Development
2 Don't get enough sleep 51 38
3 Have trouble with my teeth 10 _ 2
40 Not good-looking 32 21
73 Overweight 2O 39
School
6 Getting low grades in school 12 , 2
7 Afraid of tests 7 3“
10 Not interested in books 12 2
42 Trouble with arithmetic 22 4Q
43 Trouble with spelling or grammar 2 30
45 Trouble with writing 7 89
78 Can't keep my mind on my studies 42 55
79 Worried about grades 24 42
147 Trouble with oral reports 22 38
150 Afraid to speak up in class 22 33
184 Not interested in certain subjects 37 “9
Home and Family
15 Never having any fun with
mother or dad 15 25
50 Parents not understanding me 24 34
118 Parents not trusting me 34 21
119 Parents old~fashioned in their ideas 42 ' 2b
153 Not telling parents everything 22 34
Money, Work, the Future
18 Having no regular allowance 10 87
192 Nof knowing what I really want 10 2C
195 Wondering what becomes of peOple
when they die 17 27
Boy, Girl, Relations
21 Not allowed to use the family car 15 29
92 So often not allowed to go out
at night 22 33
People in General
27 Bashful 12 25
3O Wishing people liked me better 44 33
96 Wanting a more pleasing personality 51 39
134 Missing someone very much 22 34
Self-Centered Concerns
69 Giving in to temptations 34 17
136 Being careless _ 27 14
138 Forgetting things 44 29

139- Being lazy 34 20

 

90

the problem; whereas, on twenty of the thirty, more of the
nongifted identified themselves with the problem.

Under the first problem area, Health and Physical
Development, there was a difference in percentage between
the gifted and nongifted groups on four items. The gifted

marked two of the four more frequently: don't get enough

 

sleep and not good-looking. The nongifted marked two more

 

frequently: have trouble with my teeth and overweight.

 

 

Within the second problem area, School, there was a
difference in percentage between the two groups on eight
items. The nongifted marked all eight items more frequently:

getting low grades in school, not interested in books,

 

trouble with arithmetic, can‘t keep mygmind on my studies,

 

 

worried about grades, trouble with oral reports, afraid to

 

 

speak up in class, and not interested in certain subjects.

 

 

1n the third problem area, Home and Family, there was
a difference in percentage between the two groups on five
items. The gifted marked two items more frequently:

parents not trusting me and parents old-fashioned in their

 

 

ideas. The nongifted marked three items more frequently:

 

never having anypfun with mother or dad, parents not under-

 

 

standing me, and not telling parents everything.

 

 

Under the fourth problem area, Money, Work and the
Future, there was a difference in percentage on three items.

The nongifted marked all three more frequently: having no

 

91

regular allowance, not knowing what I really want, and won—

 

dering what becomes of people when they die.

 

Within the fifth problem area, Boy and Girl Relations,
there was a difference in percentage between the two groups
on two items. The nongifted marked each more frequently:

not allowed to use the family car and so often not allowed

 

 

to go out at night.

 

In the sixth problem area, Relations to People in
General, there was a difference in percentage on four items.

The gifted marked two items more frequently: wishing people

 

liked me better and wanting a more pleasing personality.

 

 

The nongifted marked two items more frequently: bashful

and missing someone very much.

 

Under the seventh problem area, Self—Centered Con-
cerns, there was a difference in percentage on four items.
The gifted marked all four items more frequently: giving

in to temptations, being careless, forgetting things, and

 

 

being lazy.

 

Rohde Sentence Completion Method.--In order to pre-

 

sent the material from both variables evaluated by the
Rohde's method for the gifted and nongifted groups, Table
21 was constructed listing the 18 objects included, with
three columns showing the percentages of each group giving

positive, neutral, or negative cathection of each object.

92

TABLE 2l.--Cathections of junior high school gifted and

 

 

 

 

 

nongifted.
Per cent Gifted Per cent Nongifted
ObJGCt Posi- Neu— Nega- Posi- Neu- Nega-
tive tral tive tive tral tive

Boys 42 39 2O 43 36 21
Children 46 29 24 53 18 29
Family 71 24 5 47 44 9
Father 56 29 15 57 23 2O
Fighting 22 10 68 4O 3 57
Friends 71 15 15 82 5 13
Girls 32 34 34 33 33 35
God 83 15 2 82 17 1
Home 42 27 32 5 14 51
Laws 71 10 2O 7O 9 21
Money 56 12 32 53 9 38
Mother 56 24 2O 66 22 12
People 49 34 ' 17 44 35 21
Religion 76 17 7 73 2o 8
Schoolwork 56 5 39 51 12 38
Suicide 10 15 76 17 21 62
Teachers 61 17 22 73 ‘7 21

Work 54 2 44 62 4 34

93

Of the total 18 objects included, there was only one,
Family, where there was a sufficient difference in the per—
centage of positive cathections between the gifted and now—
gifted groups to be considered statistically significant.
Of the gifted group, 71 per cent showed acceptance for the
object, Family, with 24 per cent neutral, and 5 per cent
showing rejection, as compared to 47 per cent of the non-
gifted group showing acceptance, 44 per cent neutral, and
9 per cent showing rejection.

However, on four objects, there was a greater dif-
ference between the percentage of the positive cathections
of the gifted and nongifted groups than might be accounted
for by sampling error. On all of these objects the non-
gifted group showed greater acceptance of the object than
did the gifted group.

On the object relative to Fighting, the nongifted

 

group showed 40 per cent acceptance and 57 per cent rejec-
tion, as compared to 22 per cent of the gifted group showing
acceptance and 68 per cent rejection.

For the object, Friends, the nongifted group showed
82 per cent acceptance and 13 per cent rejection, as com-
pared to 71 per cent of the gifted group showing acceptance
and 15 per cent rejection.

Concerning the object, Mother, the nongifted group
showed 66 per cent acceptance and 12 per cent rejection,
as compared to 56 per cent of the gifted group showing

acceptance and 20 per cent rejection.

94

Pertaining to the object, Teachers, the nongifted
group showed 73 per cent acceptance and 21 per cent re-
jection, as compared to 61 per cent of the gifted group
showing acceptance and 22 per cent rejection.

In addition, there were a total of four objects for
which there was a difference between the percentage of
negative cathections for the gifted and nongifted groups.
One of these, Fighting, is listed above in the discussion
of positive cathections. The others not given there are

Home, Suicide, and Work.

 

Regarding the object item, Hpme, the nongifted group
showed 51 per cent rejection and 35 per cent acceptance,
as compared to 32 per cent of the gifted group showing re-
jection and 42 per cent acceptance.

For the object, Suicide, the gifted group showed 76
per cent rejection and 10 per cent acceptance, as com-
pared to 62 per cent of the nongifted group showing re-
jection and 17 per cent acceptance.

In regard to the object, prk, the gifted group
showed 44 per cent rejection and 54 per cent acceptance,
as compared to 34 per cent of the nongifted group showing
rejection and 62 per cent acceptance.

For five of the objects, there was a difference be-
tween the percentages of neutral cathections for the gifted
anulriongifted groups. On one of these the nongifted

group showed a greater percentage of neutrality. This was

the object, Family. The gifted group showed a greater per-

centage of neutrality on the objects: Children, Friends,

 

Home, and Teachers.

 

The nongifted group showed the greatest acceptance

of the objects: Fighting, Friends, Mother, and Teachers.

 

 

This group showed the greatest rejection of the object:
Home. The gifted group showed the greatest acceptance of
the object: Family. This group showed the greatest rejec-

tion of the objects: Fighting, Suicide, and Work.

 

Locating Perceived Problems of the
Two Isolate Groups and the Two Gifted Groups

 

Separation of the 118 students into gifted isolates,
nongifted isolates, gifted nonisolates, and nongifted non—
isolates yielded the following data:

The gifted isolate group consisted of 5 girls and 8
boys with chronological ages from 13.7 through 16.0 with
a mean CA of 14.3 and CTMM IQs of 130 through 141 with a
mean IQ of 134.

The nongifted isolate group consisted of 20 girls
and 26 boys with chronological ages from 13.7 through
16.5 with a mean CA of 14.4 and CTMM IQ's of 60 through 128
with a mean IQ of 107.

The gifted nonisolate group consisted of 15 girls
and 13 boys with chronological ages from 13.8 through
15.4 with a mean CA of 14.4 and CTMM IQs of 130 through

149 with a mean IQ of 136.

96

The nongifted nonisolate group consisted of 11 girls
and 20 boys with chronological ages from 13.7 through 15.9
with a mean CA of 14.7 and CTMM IQs of 92 through 127 with
a mean IQ of 112.

Vineland Social Maturity Scale.--In order to present

 

the relative differences in social competence among the four
basic subgroups as measured by the 27 Vineland items used,
Table 22 was constructed showing item number, item, and per
cent of greatest possible total for each of the four basic
subgroups on all 27 items.

Tables 16 and 22 were used to compare the sets of
perceived problems for the total isolate group and the two
isolate subgroups, gifted isolates and nongifted isolates.
Table 23 has been constructed to show those problems per-
ceived by the total isolate group, those perceived by the
gifted isolates, and those perceived by the nongifted iso-
lates.

Comparing gifted isolates and nongifted isolates to
all isolates, there are problems that both subgroups have
in common, problems that other isolates have which gifted
isolates do not have, and problems which nongifted isolates
that other isolates do not have.

The differences between the percentage ratings of the
Siftuad isolate group and the nongifted isolate group were
“0t sufficiently different on any of the 27 items to be of

statistical significance. However, there was a greater

 

97

mm mm m» mm apHHHnHmCOQmmu Hmcomsmd mdfidmm¢ Hoa

 

an om ow mm mohapaucmdxm LOnmS :30 machucoo QOH
mm mm s: om umpoaspmmpc: magmas pzo meow mm
OOH ooa ooa ooa wsHHoonom moscflpeoo so now a new mm
5» mm om . mm spasm: :30 sound mxooa so
am as me an ocean mpcaoa assumes op mooc mm
we we a: mm msfiepoao ago Has mssm mm
>5 mm mm up accoe wcfivcodm cso mm: am
mm mu mm mm maduamn vmma>pmasmcs use meow mm
mm as mw mm macaw mmomHa manned on meow mm
om ms mm mm mucm>m ucmnpso mzoaaom am
am mm om Hm soupoa so mopmowcseEoo om
ms mm hm mm monoso meauson mandmcoamms mapomnom mm
as mm , mm mm _ mmfiua>duom macaw CH mommwcm mm
mm ms mm mm moanommmoom mcfinuoao :30 mmsm em
.mm mm mm mm mmmnu mo memo mpmadeoo mmmfiopmxm mm
am am me me moeow pasofiucflo mamas mm
mu mm we mm mmcaumwws .mnmdmamzmc .mxoon whencm aw
mm mm 2m mm mnmnuo no mamm new menu on puma mH mm
mm mu am up xso: m>Hummmo mHQSHm moon mm
mm m: mm om . Hams,mn mommnonSQ mmuw msmzmc¢ Hm
mm cm as aw xsoz m>HpmnmCSEmn Hanan moon om
mm mm as .mo mHHmo osoeooaop moss: as
mm mm Hm m: mumppma unonm anneammooo moves: we
mm ow up up . mammnm :30» neon psonm meow we
mm mm as aw mommnonsa.pocfle mmxmz we
mm mm up Hm mans» um mach pom mmsmo mu
mumaomflcoz mumaomacoz muwHOmH mumHomH EmpH nonezz
oopsamcoz cognac oopmawcoz cognac sopH

 

fiance manflmmom pmopmmpw no name 9mm

 

.madom hufisspws
Hmfioom vcmHmcH> on» no named am so mdzopwnsm snow one wcosm mmocmmcmufinrr.mm mqm<s

98

TABLE 23.-—Vineland items isolates perceive as problems.

 

 

Per cent of Greatest Possible Total

 

Area
and All Gifted Nongifted Non-
Number Isolates Isolates Isolates isolates

 

Self—Direction

95 iii 35 ii 58
100 22 .28 2.9. 75
101 75 85 72 81
Communication
78 57 4 2 61 54
79 Z5 65_ 11 89
Social
Participation
85 lg 64 1g 82
88 g; 6g 66 78
Locomotion
96 .3; §Z_ £5_ 54
Occupational
Activities
82 64 77 61 64

 

difference than might be accounted for by sampling error on
three of the twenty—seven items. One of these items, 78,
helps to locate a problem of gifted isolates, and two items,
82 and 101, help to locate problems of nongifted isolates.

On the twenty-four remaining items the differences
between the percentage ratings of the gifted isolates and
nongifted isolates were so small as to be totally depreciated

by the statistical allowance for sampling error.

99

Therefore, those Vineland items which may be helpful
in locating problems of junior high school isolates are
listed below under the appropriate areas of social competence.

All Isolates:

Self Direction

 

Buys all own clothing
Controls own major expenditures

Socialization

 

Plays difficult games
Engages in group activities

Communication

 

Makes telephone calls

Locomotion

 

Goes to distant points alone
Nongifted Isolates only:

Self Direction

 

Assumes personal responsibility

Occupational Activities

 

Does simple creative work
Gifted Isolates only:

Communication

 

Writes occasional short letters

Tables 19 and 22 were used to compare the sets of
perceived problems for the total gifted group and the two
gifted subgroups, isolate gifted and nonisolate gifted.

Table 24 has been constructed to show those problems per-

lOO

ceived by the total gifted group, those perceived by the
isolate gifted, and those perceived by the nonisolate
gifted.

Comparing isolate gifted and nonisolate gifted to
all gifted, there were no problems that the two subgroups
had in common. On only one of the twenty—seven items was
there a sufficient difference between the percentage
ratings of the isolate gifted and the nonisolate gifted to
be of statistical significance. This was item 96 and was
a greater problem for the isolate gifted. However, there
was a greater difference than might be accounted for by
sampling error on eight other items. Seven of these items,
79, 85, 87, 88, 94, and 100, help to locate problems of the
isolate gifted and one item, 75, helped to locate a problem
of the nonisolate gifted.

On the eighteen remaining items the differences
between the percentage ratings of the isolate gifted and
nonisolate gifted were so small as to be totally depreciated
by the statistical allowance for sampling error.

Therefore, those Vineland items which may be helpful
in locating problems of junior high school gifted are
listed below under the appropriate areas of social com-

petence.

101

TABLE 24.—-Vineland items gifted perceive as problems.

 

Per cent of Greatest Possible Total

 

 

Area
and All Isolate Nonisolate Non-
Number Gifted Gifted Gifted Gifted
Self Help
75 71 81 @6 69
Self Direction
87 7o 28 75 65
94 89 11, 95 80
95 57 ‘35 68 47
100 73 is 80 63‘
Communication
79 84 65 93 81
Locomotion
96 57 21 7l 42
Social
Participation
85 76 65, 80 77
88 76 6_2_ 82 70

All Gifted: no items
Isolate Gifted only:

Self Direction

 

Has own spending money

Buys own clothing accessories
Buys all own clothing

Controls own major expenditures

 

Plays difficult games
Engages in group activities

Communication

 

Makes telephone calls

Locomotion

 

Goes to distant points alone
Nonisolate Gifted only:

Self Help

 

Cares for self at table

Mooney Probiem Check List.-—In order to present the

 

differences in perceived problems among the four basic sub—
groups as meas red by the Mooney Problem Check List, Table
25 was constructed showing item number, item name under the
seven problem areas, and the percentage of the four basic
subgroups who identified themselves with each problem.

Tables-17 and 25 were used to compare the sets of
perceived problems for the total isolate group and the two
isolate subgroups, gifted isolates and nongifted isolates.
Table 26 has been constructed to show those problems per-
ceived by the total isolate group, those perceived by the
gifted isolates, and those perceived by the nongifted
isolates.

Comparing gifted isolates and nongifted isolates to
all isolates, there are problems that both groups have in

common, problems that other isolates perceive which gifted

1(13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mH . Hm mm o: mpcmCmq me 6:8 05 Cmozpmn wCOHCHQo no CmmHo wwH
mm mm mm mH wCHszsm>m mpcmsma wCHHHmp poz .mmH
mm Hm mm Hm 650: pm mEoHCOCC CHMCCmo mmsomHu 0p oHnmCs omH
mm mm mm :m mmmUH CHmCu CH umCOHmewucHo mpCmam mHH
mm mm NH am we wCHpmspp uOC mpCmme wHH
mH mH mH Hm mpCoCmd as an CoNHOHpHAo wCHmm oHH
0H N am Hm we m>Hw p.Coz mquCmq he meHCu wCHCsz mm
mH HH mm Hm 65 mo Code 00» wCHuomaxm muCoLCm 2m
mm mm mm mm vs wCHprumCoCCC uoc mqusmm om
mm 3 mm am can no CmCuoE Csz Csm 5C8 wCH>mC nm>mz mH
>HHEmm CCC med:
mm mm m: .Hm mpoonnsm CHmquo CH umumopopCH uoz :wH
mm om w: mm . mommmHo HHCQ HmH
em mH am Hm mmoHo :H o: xooom oo oHoCC< omH
0H 5 NH Hm zCoEmE Loom 02H
mm mm mm mH muCOdmC sto Csz chsoue ezH
mm mm mm m Lamond mos» pans wCHoHpomLa no: owCommB mHH
om mm om o: Cocommp m Csz wcon wCprom uoz aHH
m: om m: mm mommeo CH mmmHumos Home cmpmo om MHH
m: :H mm o: mmpmsw psonm pmHsCoz on
m: mm mm on mmHvzpw as CO UCHE as ammx u.Cmo we
m: o: m: we zczpm CH oEHu cmCOCm wCHpcmdm poz me
mm 5 mm m wCHpHC3 Cqu mHCCOCB m:
mm 0 cm m CmEEme Co wCHHHQO Csz oHnsoee m:
mm Hm H: mm OHCmECpHCm Cqu manope m:
mH a mm mm xsozHoozom CH wCHHHmm Co pHmCC< H:
mm mH mm o mxoon CH pmumoCmpCH uoz OH
mm mm om me mesum on oxHH u_Coo m
mm s H: a mono» Co onsCa s
0H :H mm m Hoocom CH wmpmsw 30H wCHuuoo w
HOOCum
OH :H om Hm mUHx Congo meow mm wcoppm mm wCHmp uoz we.
mm HH HH om homo as Cqu mHCCOCB mzH
mm Hm m: mH quH63Co>o ms
mH HH mm m Capo» me Cqu mHnsosu m>m: m
m: cm Om am ammHm cwsocm new u.Com m
acoEQoHo>oQ Haunhcm .CuHmo:
mpmHOchoz oumHomHCoz mumHomH muwHOmH mmp< EmHnosm CmpC: EmpH Canasz
oooCchoz socho oopechoz sounds sopH
EmHCOCm wCHwaE QCOCo mo pcmo Com
. pwwa xuifio 53H.,_..\,.Lu ....... .. .._ 1:- F, . .m wk :7. uJJQLwDSm LSOM m3.» wCOEm mwocmkmhhfifllv.mm Mdmxfiw

lC)4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MH HH mm mm on u.coHo H wcanoaom sou omnoHcsa mcHom msH
om mm pH mH ocoo o>.H mcanoaon Co coeonms mcHHoom HHH
OH mm mm mm zuaH wCHum OMH
Om am pm mw wCHadunumaa smH
OH mm HH mH unoHoAao MCHom mmH
mm mH mm Hm econ coon so>oc u.H mcHnon noeroaom mOH
OH mm mm O oOCouHMCoouuHon wCquaH 30H
mH mm om m mCHaLAoz mOH
OH m: mH mH mCoHpmquop 0» CH wCH>HO mm
mm me am Hm anos can a noun o» wcHsus em
mm mm m: am mmxwumHE wCmeE no CHaAhm wCHom am
mm mm m: Hm mCo>CvC wCHum Hm
mChwocoo voumucoonuHom
mm mm mm mH Chonnsum wCHmm OOH
mm mm em mm Congo» as mchoa moH
mm mm om O mqusswhm OuCH wCHpqu OOH
mm OH Om Hm Cons zCo> oC0~E0m wCHmmHz :MH
mH 3H em we me nqu pHsmC wcHocHC oHaoom 00H
OH : 2m Hm . Co meoHC wCHom Om
mm mm H: mm zuHHmCOmuoq wCHmmoHQ whoa m wCHquz mm
MH Hm om Hm puss AHHmmm oo» meHHoom mo
OH Hm mm mm uaonm ommep wCHmm mm
mm HH om am comma» wCHmm Ho
om am am am Coupon 65 ooxHH «Haooq wcHanz om
OH 3 mm O: CovmmH a ma Comono Lm>mz mm
mH Hm mm mm owchu so ago pcoH wcHom mm
MH HH mm mH HCOCnCm um
Hmsocmo CH oHaomm
mm HH AH Hm goo oanoooo on» pzooo nose oou mcchHCe maH
MH HH mm mm mocmc 0» so: wCHCCwmq OOH
om HH HH Hm somouo cm 0» Connor: mcHoHooo meH
mm Hm em mm uanC um pso ow 0» ooonHm so: coueo om mm
s wH AH Hm moHusoq on om ou.oocono «HupHH 069 mm
ON OH om O Cmo mHHemu on» on: on umonHm uoz Hm
mcoHuoHom HCHo .som
mm mm :m O 6H8 zone can: oHaomd no acacoon chz wCHCoCCoz mOH
mm mm mm Om uoHLLwE pow hw>o HH.H uH wCHhmncoz now
mm. Hm em mm ace: sHHmmC H was: wCHzocx no:
N: om mm ms oonHoo “some ones 30:: o“ mcfiucmz mmH
mm. mm s . a. Haas $3:on 0H :2
OH a , a uuHH cos mm
mm. HH mm NH mace ”noon umHCCoz aHHemm 0H
s. x mH

 

 

 

41" ‘1‘!

mocmzoaam awaswmh o: mCH>m=

 

 

.ot tip .xLoz .Hmcoz

 

 

 

 

105

TABLE 26.--Mooney check list items isolates perceive as
problems

 

 

Per cent of Group Marking Problem
Area Number

 

All Gifted Nongi fted Non-
Isolates Isolates Isolates Isolates

 

Health, Physical

Development 3 27 33 12
73 37 43 27
143 39 20
178 22 31 2O 12
Home, Family 15 29 39 29 1“
5O 32 5 29
116 31 19
118 39 29
119 54 31
153 29 33 14
186 46 20
School 6 29 35 15
7 34 41 15
9 54 69 5O 39
41 29 39 26 14
42 41 31
43 25 3O 15
76 62 47
78 56 59 44
114 46 27
147 44 52 20
149 31 12
Money, Work,
The Future 18 25 3O 17
19 31 12
192 37 24
Boy, Girl
Relations 23 31 12
92 34 37 24
165 31 19
196 25 39 22 12
198 31 25
People in
Genered. 27 29 33 12
29 37 46 35 7
30 54 32
61 32 54 19
62 39 20
100 31 46 17
Self Centered
Concerns 31 41 83 31
34 46 54 43 29
139 39 24

172 25 39 22 12

isolates do not, and p otlems which nongifted isolates pg:
ceive that other isolates do not.

There are eight items of the Mooney which assist us
in locating perceived problems of isolates. Those items

are listed below.

Health and Physical Development

 

Not being as strong as other kids
School

Don't like to study
Afraid of failing in school work

Home and Family
Never having any fun with mother or dad
ikp'PVTilEitl Relati'wns

Learning how to dance

Relations to People in General

 

Never chosen as a leader

Self-Centered Concerns

 

Being afraid of making mistakes

Being punished for something I didn‘t do

Twenty-three items of the Mooney help to locate the
Perceived problems of nongifted isolates.

Health and Physical Development

 

Have trouble with my teeth
Overweight
Not being as strong as some other kids

School

Getting low grades in school
.Afraid of tests

107

Don‘t like to study

Afraid of failing in school work
Trouble with arithmetic

Trouble with spelling or grammar
Can't keep my mind on my studies
Trouble with oral reports

Home and Family

 

Never having any fun with mother or dad
Parents not understanding me
Not telling parents everything

Money, Work, the Future

 

Having no regular allowance
Not knowing what I really want

Boy and Girl Relations

 

So often not allowed to go out at night
Learning how to dance

Relations to People in General

 

Bashful
Never chosen as a leader

Self-Centered Concerns

 

Being nervous

Being afraid of making mistakes

Being punished for something I didn't do
Twenty-five items help to locate perceived problems

of gifted isolates.

Health and Physical DevelOpment

 

Trouble with my eyes
Not being as strong as some other kids

School

Don't like to study

Afraid of failing in school work

Not spending enough time in study
Not getting along with a teacher

Poor memory

108

Home and Family

 

Never having any fun with mother or dad
Being criticized by my parents

Parents not trusting me

Parents old-fashioned in their ideas

Clash of opinions between me and my parents

Money43Work, the Future
Family worried about money
Boy and Girl Relations
Too little chance to go to parties
Deciding whether to go steady
Learning how to dance
Thinking too much about the opposite sex

Relations to PeOple in General

Never chosen as a leader
Wishing people liked me better
Being teased

Being talked about

People finding fault with me

Self-Centered Concerns

 

Being afraid of making mistakes

Being lazy

Being punished for something I didn't do

Tables 19 and 25 were used to locate and compare the
sets of perceived problems for the total gifted group and
the two gifted subgroups, isolate gifted and nonisolate
gifted. Table 27 has been constructed to show thoserprob-
lems perceived by the gifted group, those perceived by
the isolate gifted, and those perceived by the nonisolate
gifted.

Comparing isolate gifted and nonisolate gifted to
all gifted, there are problems that both groups have in

109

TABLE 27.--Mooney check list items the gifted perceive as
problems.

 

Per cent of Group Marking Problem

 

Area Number All Isolate Nonisolate Non-
Gifted Gifted Gifted Gifted

 

Health, Physical

Development 143 39 18
178 31 16

Home, Family 15 39 25
85 31 18
116 31 17
119 42 54 26
186 46 21

School 9 69 46
41 39 23
76 62 48
114 46 29
115 39 22
149 31 17

Money, Work,

The Future 19 31 14
124 50 35

Boy, Girl

Relations 23 31 13
165 31 21
196 39 18

People in

General 28 39 27
29 46 25
3o 44 54 33
61 54 26
62 39 23
96 51 57 39
98 31 18
100 46 23
166 39 22

Self-Centered

Concerns 34 54 35
67 43 3O
69 34 43 17
104 36 22
136 27 32 14

172 39 18

110

common, problems that other gifted students perceive which
isolate gifted do not, and problems which nonisolate gifted
perceive that other gifted do not.

Below are five items of the Mooney which appear to
assist us in locating perceived problems of all gifted
students. However, it will be noted that these same items
appear in either the isolate gifted or the nonisolate gifted
listing but not in both.

Home and Family
Parents old-fashioned in their ideas
Relations to People in General

Wishing people liked me better
Wanting a more pleasing personality

Self-Centered Concerns
Being careless
Giving in to temptations
Eight items help to locate perceived problems of

nonisolate gifted.

Teachers not practicing what they preach

Money, Work, the Future
Wanting to know more about college

Relations to People in General

Wanting a more pleasing personality
Getting into arguments

ill

Self—Centered Concerns

 

Being careless
Giving in to temptations

2+

Eight items help o locate perceived problems of
rlonisolate gifted.

Sphool

 

Teachers not practicing what they preach

Money, Work, the Future

 

Wanting to know more about college

Relations to People in General

Wanting a more pleasing personality
Getting into arguments

Self-Centered Concerns

 

Trying to stop a bad habit

Giving in to temptations

Lacking self-confidence

Being careless

Twerdgy—fiama itenns help: to jhdcaime pens eivwal prmflylems
Cl? -isolaie gifted.

Health and Physical Development
Trouble wi n my eyes

t
Not being as strong as some other kids

Rohde Sentence Completion Method.-—Ih order to pre-

 

serit; the material from both variables evaluated by the
:ROijéi's method, Table 28 was constructed listing the 18
Otheflts included, with three columns showing the percentages

Of eachof the four subgroups, giving positive, neutral, or

n , . . .
eggtive cathection of each object.

TABLE 28.—-Cathections

 

 

112

students.

 

 

among the four subgroups

of junior his?

 

 

 

 

 

Object Positive Neutral Negative Positive Neutral Negative
Per Cent Gifted Isolate Per Cent Nongifted isolate
BOYS 39 31 31 39 39 33
Children 5U 8 39 50 EU ?0
Family 5U 31 15 U1 U8 11
Father U6 31 23 5U 3O 15
Fighting 15 31 5U U1 U 5U
Friends 62 15 23 78 7 15
Girls 39 15 U6 30 J) 35
God 138 O O 76 SU 0
Home 5U 31 15 86 15 53
Laws 62 O 39 65 9 is
Money 5U 15 31 5U 13 33
Mother 62 23 15 6;; 26 11
PeOple 39 39 23 39 35 35
Religion 85 15 0 72 20 9
Schoolwork 5U 8 39 U1 9O 59
Suicide 8 8 85 22 28 50
Teachers 69 8 23 63 9 28
Work 69 8 23 59 7 35
Per Cent Gifted Nonisolate Der Cen longifted Nonisolate
Boys U3 U3 1U U8 2 19
Children 143 39 18 53 10 33
Family 79 21 0 Sr 39 7
f’ather 61 29 11 61 3 so
1*ighting 25 O 75 39 O 61
E9riends 75 1U 11 87 3 10
Girls 29 U3 29 36 33 36
()0d 75 21 U 90 7 3
rhyme 36 25 39 U8 13 39
[Jaws 75 1U 11 77 10 13
5'1 Oney 57 11 3:? 52 3 :42.
MOther 5a 25 21 71 16 13
Peeople 5U 32 1U 52 36 13
5<Eligion 71 ‘ 18 ll 7U 19 7
§5Ckioolwork 57 U 39 65 O 36
Stzicide ll 18 71 10 10 81
Teachers 57 21 21 87 3 10
a 0 Pk I46 0 5 U 68 0 59

 

 

 

m
J)

and
“.1.

{TP- 1... ‘1
.L.d LJJe

(objects for the total isolate group and the

were used

to compar

(I)

g3roups, gifted isolates and nongifted isolates.

fkollowing list gives

Eicceptance, neutrality,

g roup s .

Isolate Group:

Nongifted
Isolate Group:

Gifted
Isolate Group:

the cathected
two isolate sub-
The

those objects showing the greatest

and rejection by these three

Greatest
Acceptance

 

Work
Suicide
Fighting

Friends
Suicide
Fighting

Schoolwork
Fa mi 1}]
Work

(had
Religion
Home

Greatest
Neutrality

Greatest
Rejection

 

 

Father
Family
Schoolwork
Fighting
Suicide

Schoolwork
Family

God
Suicide
Fighting
Children
Girls

Home

Home

Laws
People
Schoolwork
Teachers

Work
Home

1'—

Boys
Girls
Children
La W S
Suicide

A
J

llU

Tables a1 and 98 were used to compare the cathected

(objects for the total gifted group and the two gifted sub—

ggroups, isolate gifted and nonisolate gifted.

The

.following list gives tlose objects showing the greatest

aacceptance, neutrality,

Egroupso

lifted Group:

Isolate
Gifted Group:

Nonisolated
Gifted Group:

and rejection by these three

Greatest

Acceptance

 

Family
Home

Work

God
Religion
Children
Teachers
Home

Family
Friends
Laws
PeOple
Father

Greatest

Neutrality

Greatest
Rejection

 

 

Children
Friends
Home
Teachers

Family
Fighting

God

Boys
Laws
Suicide
Children
Girls
Teachers

Friends
Mother
Teachers
Suicide
Work

Family
Friends
Boys
Girls
Laws
Father
Suicide

Work
RellfllOf
Fighting
Home

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CCNCLUSIOJS, AND APPLICATIONS

Summary
The purpose of the first of these two interrelated

research studies was to evaluate the peer acceptance of

the gifted in comparison to the nongifted in the junior
high school: The purposes of the second study were: (1)
to identify those perceived problems of personal and social
adjustment held in common by all isolates as well as those
peculiar to each subgroup, nongifted isolates and gifted
isolates; and, (2) to identify those perceived problems
held in common by all gifted students as well as those
peculiar to each subgroup, isolate gifted and nonisolate
gifted.

The hypotheses formulated were:

I, The greater the junior high school student‘s
intellectual capacity, the more likely he is to be socially
accepted by his peer group.

ll. Those junior high school students involved in
mutual choices, show greatest social preference for individ-
uals with mental ability equal to or higher than their own,

Ill: There is a set of problems commonly perceived by

both gifted and nongifted junior high school social isolates

116

Participating in the first study were 2,733 students
(1389 boys and l3a4 girls) in grades seven and eight of five
junior high schools. Included in the second study were 118
of these same students (67 boys and 51 girls) as eighth and
ninth graders. These students all resided in Livonia,
Michigan, a large residential suburb of Detroit with higher
than average mean educational attainment and socio-economic
level.

The California Test of Mental Maturity was admin—
istered, and the 2,733 students were classified by their
resulting total ll’s into six psychometric categories, rang-
ing from highly gifted through educable retarded. A socio—
metric device was administered employing three acceptance-
oriented questions, each calling for three choices. The
students were classified by the total number of choices
received into six sociometric categories ranging from
star through isolate.

The psychometric and sociometric taxonomies were
used to create a grid to compart the total group into thirty—
six subgroups for comparison of their relative sizes pro-
portionate to the total group. To facilitate the second

study, the students were then divided into four research

D

Categories: gifted isolate, nongifted isolate, gifted non-
isolate, and nongifted nonisolate.
In the second study, in order to show the full effect

Of acceptance versus nonacceptance, the members of each of

117

the nonisolate groups were ranked by total number of choices
received, assigned random numbers, and random selection
began with those who received greatest acceptance and in-
cluded only high status students. Regarding the selection
of the two isolate research groups, all available gifted
isolates were used since there were only thirteen, but the
members of the nongifted isolate group were assigned random
numbers and a random selection was made.

Three inventories, Vineland Social Maturity Scale,
Mooney Problem Check List, and Rohde Sentence Completion
Method were administered to the four research groups:
gifted isolate, nongifted isolate, gifted nonisolate, and
nongifted nonisolate, to identify those perceived problems
held in common by all isolates, as well as those peculiar
to each isolate subgroup; and, to identify those perceived
problems held in common by all gifted, as well as those

peculiar to each gifted subgroup.

Conclusions

 

Withirltflns limitations Cu“1flxis study, time following
conclusions may be drawn:

1. Hypothesis I, as stated, must be rejected since
the gifted did not receive greater acceptance as a group
than did the rapid learners; however, it should be noted
that the entire psychometric distribution was Skewed upward,

and that the psychometric group test used was not suffi-

llB

ciently discriminating at either the upper or lower extremes
to locate numbers of students yielding percentages com-
parable to predicted percentages already established in the
literature,

2. The Junior high school student with above-
average mental ability is more likely to attain greater
social acceptance among his peers than the individual of
average mental ability; and conversely, the student with
less than average mental ability is less likely to attain
extensive social acceptance among his peers than the indi-
vidual of average mental ability,

3, The junior high school student with greater than
average social acceptance among his peers is more likely
to be an individual with above-average mental ability than
the student with average social acceptance; and conversely,
the student with less than average social acceptance
among his peers is less likely to be an individual with
above—average mental ability,

A. Hypothesis If, as stated, must be rejected since
the gifted and rapid learners did not choose primarily from
within their own group and above; however, it should be
noted that this effect does Operate with the average and
below-average groups, and that with the use of an individual
intelligence test and an improved fixed frame of reference,
this effect might also then be found to operate among the

above-average groups.

119

5. Individuals of above-average mental ability make
more mutual choices with other individuals of above-
average mental ability.

6. Individuals with average and above—average mental
ability are more involved in within—group mutual choosing;
whereas, those individuals with below-average mental ability
are more involved in above—group mutual choosing with those
of greater ability.

7. Students with above—average mental ability are
involved in both a greater scope and a greater depth of
mutual choice interaction with their peers.

8. Individuals of average sociometric status, in-
volved in mutual choosing, tend to choose other individuals
with average sociometric status.

9. The vast majority of social neglectees, involved
in mutual choosing, choose to interact with individuals of
greater social acceptance.

10. Individuals with Star sociometric status are
involved much more often in mutual interaction friendships
than thmse individuals with average sociometric status.

ll. Hypothesis ilI, as stated, must be accepted.

(D

Thar: is -t o it perceived problems common to all

(LI

m

C‘.
p;

t")
‘ D
in
HQ
:1

junior high school social isolates. These problems are as
follows:
Not being as strong as some other kids

Don't like to study

 

120

Afraiti<1f failing irisxflndol work

Never having any fun with mother or dad

Learning how to dance

Never chosen as a leader

Being afraid of making mistakes

Being punished for something I didn’t do

12. In addition to those perceived problems held in
common by all isolates, gifted isolates share a set of 23
additional problems, and nongifted isolates share a dis-
similar set of 19 additional problems.

13. There are no perceived problems held in common
by all gifted junior high school students.

la. There is a set of 40 perceived problems held in
common by the isolate gifted and a totally dissimilar set

of 13 problems held in common by the nonisolate gifted.

Implications and Applications

The following implications and applications do not
evolve entirely from the data obtained through the present
investigation. They include personal observations and
Opinions formulated by the writer over a period of years
while fulfilling a number of different rules within the
framework of the public schools: elementary teacher, special
education teacher, visiting teacher, school counselor and
administrator; also as a critic teacher and college of

education faculty member.

 

121

l. Hypothesis I may be re-presented here as an
implication. The greater the junior high school student’s
intellectual capacity, the more likely he is to be socially
accepted by his peer group.

If an individual test of mental ability were employed
with the same population, the entire distribution would
have been skewed downward in comparison with the present
resulting distribution and would have shown a greater peak
at the mean and a smooth decline at the upper extreme, re-
sulting in fewer rapid learners and more highly gifted
students.

2. Social competence as measured by peer acceptance
is a characteristic distributed normally among the popu-
lation and is related to intelligence.

3. The cases falling into the three sociometric
categories labeled above-average, average, and below-
average in this study, should all be considered average
since there should be approximately two-thirds of all cases
within the average range of the distribution for any charac-
teristic which is distributed normally among the population.
These categories might be re-labeled high—average, average,
and low—average.

u. Hypothesis II may be re-presented here as an

implication. Those junior high school students involved

122

in mutual choices, show greatest social preference for
individuals with mental ability equal to or higher than
their own.

If an individual rather than a group intelligence
test were used, the known differences in results yielded
by the more refined instrument would cause sufficient re-
assignment of students from one psychometric group to
another to alter the percentages in favor of the hypothesis.

5. Greater involvement in mutual interaction is
productive in gaining peer acceptance among junior high
school students.

6. Those problems commonly perceived by isolates
all seem to relate to self—defeating attitudes on the part
of the isolate and apparently are unrelated to differences
of intellectual ability.

7. Nongifted isolates seem to perceive themselves
as having more problems related to academic pursuits;
whereas, gifted isolates seem to perceive themselves as
having more problems related to adjusting to other indi—
viduals of various ages.

8. Even the nonisolate gifted junior high school
students perceive themselves as not being perfectly ad—
justed and seem to express a willingness to accept advice
and direction to facilitate improvement in their social

acceptance.

 

123

Applications

 

General Education

 

Eventually, teacher training institutions will fully
recognize the importance of the sociology of education, and
the resulting psychological ramifications, and begin to pre-
pare educators to understand and work with this total situa—
tion. Perhaps educators will then be trained to administer
and interpret sociometric devices and effectively use the
resulting information gained. When this occurs, it will
then be valuable to do annual or perhaps even periodic
school-wide sociometric inventories and record the results
in the cumulative records for the many obvious uses.
However, until practitioners are trained, particularly to
interpret the findings and their meanings, this practice

could produce more problems than it might help solve.

Special Education

 

l. A group intelligence test, such as the CTMM, is
sufficiently valid for the differentiation of the above-
average, average, and below-average psychometric groups when
comparative peer acceptance is to be evaluated. However,
where it is necessary to differentiate either between
several above-average groups or several below-average groups,
or both, an individual intelligence test will need to be
employed because of the limitations of validity of the group

test at both the upper and lower extremes.

 

l2u

2. Individuals of greater than average ability
have been shown to have greater interaction with each
other and more interaction with their own group than with
the average group. If we are interested in fully preparing
as many of these individuals as possible as leaders of the
future, we must locate them as early as possible and provide
for in-group interaction and instruction at their level of
achievement.

3. Since our democratic socity is faced with an
ever expanding need for leadership personnel, we must be
constantly on the watch for individuals with latent leader—
ship potential. Because of the correlation of superior
mental ability and superior social adjustment, and because
it has been shown that the gifted are able to attain
social skills more easily, we must then turn to the problem
of early identification of the maladjusted gifted. Because
of their leadership potential, we must make every effort
to assist every gifted student to accomplish social accept-
ance, and thus perhaps ensure his success in his bid for
leadership.

4. The frustrations which evolve from an individual‘s
awareness of his lack of achievement are indirectly respon-
sible for the additional handicap of further loss of social
acceptability. This is an additional reason for the public
schools to provide sufficient numbers of teachers trained

in remedial techniques, rooms, and schedule patterns to

125

facilitate small group and individual tutorial instruction,
to insure each child‘s opportunity to deveIOp to his fullest

potential.

Guidance and Counseling

 

1. Because the intellectually superior usually
seem to acquire socially desirable traits of personality
with greater ease, counseling should be highly effective
in assisting those few gifted individuals with low accep—
tance to attain the level of acceptance more often accorded
to those of their ability level.

2. The analysis of the positions held by isolates
and neglectees within their respective classroom constella-
tions, which may be gained through sociometry in the class—
room, will greatly aid the understanding of the crux of the
students‘ social problems and facilitate planning for the
students' prepared re-entrance into competitive interaction.

3. Those individuals with the intellectual potential
for a higher level of social acceptance than they are pres-
ently accorded by their peers should be encouraged by
their counselors to interact more frequently both with other
individuals of superior ability and, more important, with
those individuals already accorded sufficient acceptance
to be considered as stars or ”socially talented”.

A. Because social isolation or neglect may be
SDecific-not general, localized-not wide spread, and

instantaneous rather than prolonged, there should be pre-

 

126

caution, particularly with cases with students of above-
average ability, that records of suchaatypical adjustment
be at least annually screened by the teachers or counselors
who gathered this material, with particular scrutiny as to
whether it continues to represent the current pattern of
.the student's adjustment. Where materials are obsolete in
comparison to improved adjustment, they should, in many
cases, be destroyed in order to prevent devaluative labeling.
5. If the counselor can help the isolate overcome
his feelings of inadequacy, he will become more self—assured
and thus more self—assertive, more effective in his
academic pursuits, and perhaps more accepted by his peers.
6. Those problems commonly perceived by nonisolate
gifted junior high school students indicate that they would
be willing to accept counseling, and therefore might well
benefit from it. This further substantiates the concept

that the counseling program should reach all students.

Egpcational Sociometry

The fact that there should be approximately two-
thirds of all cases within the average range of the distri-
bUtion for any characteristic which is distributed nor-
mally among the population indicates that the three cate-
gOries labeled above-average, average, and below-average

in the fixed frame of reference used in this study should

all be considered as average and the upper and lower of

127

these be entitled high and low average. Further, there
should be a category included between the star and high—
average groups which might be entitled "socially talented"
as contrasted to the ”socially neglected" at the opposite
end of the range. These changes would allow for the cre-
ation of a theoretical normal distribution of social
competence with which actual distributions of social accep-
tance might be compared.

Below is a revised fixed frame of reference, devised
by the writer, and a theoretical normal distribution using
the actual percentages for each sociometric choice as

shown in the frequency table in Appendix F.

Category Choices Per cent
Isolate O 8.A
Neglectee 1, 2 9.6
Low Average 3, A, 5 18.1
Average 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 31.3 -65.6
High Average 11,12,13, 14 16.2
Socially Talented 15,16,17, 18 8.7
Star 19 -Up 7.7

100.0

It should be borne in mind that this frame of refer-
ence is based on, and designed for, a sociometric device
including three criteria with three choices each, used with

Classes of twenty-five to thirty-five students.

128

Recommendations for Further Research

 

The following recommendations may assist in formu-
lating hypotheses and purposes or perhaps suggest procedures
for future research.

1. A longitudinal study should be made following a
group of isolates and/or neglectees, with particular atten—
tion to those of above-average ability, from grade level to
grade level, with and without counseling, to determine
whether their lack of acceptance prevails or whether ‘
counseling can be an effective force toward their attaining
greater peer acceptance.

2. Where a broad sociometric study has been done
including all students of a given grade or grades in a
fair-sized school district, insuring an accurate cross—
section, a secondary study should be made analyzing the
choices awarded by gifted isolates, in an effort to more
specifically determine the position of these students in
their respective classroom constellations.

3. A study should be made evaluating the depth of
mutual interaction friendships comparing the friendships of
gifted students with those of students of average ability,
utilizing a sociometric device including three or more
criteria with three or more choices each, and recording which
Pairs of students chose each other once, twice, or three

OP more times.

129

A. A research study should be made evaluating the
social acceptability of a group of underachievers, before
remedial instruction, with follow-up evaluation of their
social acceptability upon their attainment of grade—level

achievement.

REFERENCES

Altus, Grace T. Relationships between verbal and non-
verbal parts of the CTMM and WISC. J. consult.
Psychol., 1955, 19, 143-144.

 

Anastasi, Anne. Psychological testing. (2nd ed.) New
York: Macmillan, 1961.

Barbe, W. B. Peer relationships of children of different
intelligence levels. Sch? & Soc., 1954, 80, 60—62.

Baron, D. Mental health characteristics and classroom
social status. Education, 1949, 69, 306-310.

 

Baron, D. Personal-social characteristics and classroom
social status: a sociometric study of fifth and
sixth grade girls. Sociometry, 1951, 14, 32-42.

 

Bedoian, V. H. Mental health analysis of socially over-
accepted, socially under-accepted, overage and under-
age pupils in the sixth grade. J. educ. Psychol.,
1953. 44, 366-371.

 

Bonney, M. E. Personality traits of socially successful
and socially unsuccessful children. J. educ. Psychol

 

1943, 34: 449—472.

Bonney, M. E. A sociometric study of the relationship of
some factors to mutual friendships on the elementary,
secondary, and college levels. Sociometry, 1946, 9,
21—47.

 

Bonney, M. E. Popular and unpopular children, a socio-
metric study. Sociomet. Monogr., 1947, No. 9.

 

Bonney, M. E. Social behavior differences between second
grade children of high and low sociometric status.
J. educ. Res., 1955, 48, 481-495.

Bonney, M. E., & Powell, J. Differences in social behavior
between sociometrically high and sociometrically
low children. J. educ. Res., 1953, 46, 481-495.

 

BPEtsch, H. S. Social skills and activities of socially
accepted and unaccepted adolescents. J. educ.
Psychol., 1952, 43, 449-504.

130

° 3

131

Bronfenbrenner, U. The measurement of sociometric status,
structure, and development. Sociomet. Monogr., 1945,

No. 6.

Doll, E. A. Vineland social maturity scale: manual of
directions. Minneapolis: Educational Test Bureau,
Educational Publishers, 1947.

 

Dunlap, J. M. The education of children with high mental
ability. In W. Cruickshank & G. 0. Johnson (Eds.),
Education of exceptional children and youth. Engle—
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1958. pp. 147-188.

Gallagher, J. J. Peer acceptance of highly gifted children
in elementary school. Elem. Sch. J., 1958, 58, 465-
470. (a)

Gallagher, J. J. Social status of children related to in-
telligence, propinquity, and social perception.
Elem. Sch. J., 1958, 58, 225—231. (b)

 

Gallagher, J. J., & Crowder, Thora. The adjustment of
gifted children in the regular classroom. Except.
Childo, 1957. 23. 306-319. 353-363, 396-398.

Grace, H. A., & Booth, Nancy L. Is the gifted child a
social isolate? Peabody J. Educ., 1958, 35, 195—196.

Gronlund, N. E. Sociometry in the classroom. New York:
Harper, 1959.

Gronlund, N. E., & Anderson, L. Personality characteristics
of socially accepted, socially neglected, and socially
rejected junior high school pupils. Educ. Admin. &

Supervis., 1957, 43, 329—338.

Grossman, B., & Wrighter, J. The relationship between
selection-rejection and intelligence, social status,
and personality amongst sixth grade children.
Sociometry, 1948, 11, 346—355.

 

Jennings, Helen H. Leadership and isolation. (2nd ed.)
New York: Longmans, Green, 1950.

Kerstetter, Leona. A sociometric study of the classroom
roles of a group of highly gifted children. Un—
published doctoral dissertation, New York Univer.,

1952.

Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

132

Kuhlen, R. G., & Bretsch, H. S. Sociometric status and
personal problems of adolescents. Sociometry, 1947,
10, 122-132.

 

Kuhlen, R. G., & Lee, B. J. Personality characteristics
and social acceptability in adolescence. J. educ.

Psychol., 1943, 34, 321-340.

Laughlin, F. The peer status of sixth and seventh grade
children. New York: Teachers Coll., Columbia Univer.,
Bureau of Publications, 1954.

Lindzey, G., & Borgatta, E. E. Sociometric measurement.
In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology.
Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

 

Mann, H. How real are the friendships of gifted and typical
children in a program of partial segregation?
Except. Child., 1957, 23, 199-201.

 

Martyn, K. A. Social acceptance of gifted children. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer.,

1957.

Mill, C. R. Personality patterns of sociometrically selected
and sociometrically rejected male college students.
Sociometry, 1953, 16, 151-167.

 

Miller, R. V. Social status and sociometric differences
among mentally superior, mentally typical, and men—
tally retarded children. Except. Child., 1956, 23,
114-119.

 

Mooney, R. L., & Gordon, L. V. The Mooney problem check
lists: manual of directions. New York: Psychological
Corporation, 1950.

 

Moreno, J. L. Who shall survive? Washington: Nervous &
Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1934.

 

Northway, M. L. Outsiders: a study of the personality
patterns of children least acceptable to their age-
mates. Sociometry, 1944, 7, lO-25.

 

Northway, M. L., Wigdor, B. T. Rorschach patterns related
to the sociometric status of school children.
Sociometry, 1947, 10, 186—199.

 

Olson, W. C. Child development. Boston: Heath, 1949.

 

Potashin, R. A sociometric study of childrens' friend—
ships. Sociometry, 1946, 9, 48-70.

 

133

Rohde, Amanda R. Th entence completion method. New York:

Ronald Press,

|—’ (D
\O
U1 m
N

Scandrette, O. C. School through the eyes of the under-
chosen. Clear. House, 1952, 27, 35-37.

 

Scandrette, O. C. Classroom choice status related to scores
on components of the California test of personality.
J. educ. Res., 1953, 46, 291-296.

 

Smith, G. M. A simplified guide to statistics for psy-
chology and education. New York: Rinehart, 1958.

 

Sullivan, E. T., Clark, W. W., & Tiegs, E. W. California
test of mental maturity. J. consult. Psychol., 1947,
11, 156.

Wood, D. W. The effect of intelligence upon peer group ad-
justment. Unpublished paper, 1961.

APPENDICES

134

APPENDIX A

SOCIOMETRIC TEST FORM

135

 

SOCIOMETRIC FORM

Name Date

 

Grade Section School

 

 

 

We are all interested in making our school experi-
ences more pleasant for everyone for the remainder of the
year. Now that we all know each other so well you can help
me do this by writing the names of some of your classmates
in the blanks below. You may choose anyone in our room you
wish, including any students who may be absent. Give the
first name and the initial of the last name of each choice.
You should make three choices for each question. You may
choose the same student in more than one group if you wish.
Your choices will not be seen by your classmates.

Which three of your classmates would you now most like to
sit near?

1. 2. 3.

 

 

 

If our class were to be divided into four groups for a field
trip, which three classmates would you most like in your
group?

1. 2. 3.

 

 

 

Which three classmates would you like to assist you in
selecting a group of sixteen students to arrange a grade-
1eve1 party?

1. 2. 3.

 

 

136

APPENDIX B

MATRIX TABLES

137

138

“JO
b—«x
O<D
;$r4
C>o
9§N\
U\r+
F‘C
p10
;¢~\
Q;F{
FiH
mtu
c>o

O<D
F-N

§JFT‘
F'O
\OH
GIN
N‘V
4¢cu
C>O
:fWN
GIN
"\N
C>O
"\N
~O¢fi
“IN
"\N

a mooaono HmSuaz
x oo>amomm mooaono

 

 

>4
at

N

X E
E

x
>1
B:

X
M Y X
X

>/
E
>

>‘B
y
I

A I
I
K

>1

k

 

a d!

.> Hfiwm

.w Adana eaowwm
.w mmHhmno

.w Hawwmzm

.m mQEwH

.m hnommhc

.m Hawmmsm

.x :maa

.m H<

.x naaoacam
.m mwSoae
Amway nmflovcwm
.m ooflhm

.m hccmc

.m co>¢am
Aachv nonpp<

om

0d:

 

€18
HNMJMONCC O‘OHNM-ITWIOF—COO‘OHNMJLAO be O‘CHNMJU‘

N
>iE
8

a a M

FiF‘F‘H'4 HrdrflrdrinJfllQ:QlfilfllfliQJQIQJ"\WHWfofi

 

.aN cczaauww
.9 hedge

.m sHku

.w cacaoo
.o popmmpaz
.7 mauOuOH>
.2 wCHmnom:
.h ammocaa
.: mw>amw

.m gamma

.m sauna

Jm QCHAoSQwo
.o memahwnu
.a commSm

.< oocmpmcoo

 

C.{.C.$.C.C.7u?v2u79?.7UPVPVPV7VI_I T.T.

CAWIC»

 

.LHUIOAUILnVrDhWCL7uTLnuAVCv}.OI

TIII..LTL
.D+W,t_d.L.U/0 QTL.9£§.H.C§6.L

 

camz

 

13¢“fnffifflfflffifflffifl\fl\fl\fl\fl\fl\fl‘F\W\F\N\N\F\”\V\W\W\N\V\W\W\W\W\M

mooacno

 

C m m o S u

m a a a d a

 

m coauotw

N 66593
Hoonow Exam Leigh cmsufiflg.

1439

OJH
«\H
hwu
o<3
nJc
OJH
9pm
«3N
r40
oc:
«\N
r40
'r‘H
"\H
cc:
cc?
-b«v

IAN
HO
IAN
NO
NW
NW

Pit-i

4i“!

Hun
HH
CH3
xocn
In
;¢«\
"ha

a mooaono gasps:
x oo>dooom mooaono

 

 

x
>4><E><><
><

><BI><><

>’.

NNNNNCUNMM MM

\anl nw::

.> HSmm

.w Aflcmv uaopm;
.m mwapwno

.m Hawmwsm

.m moEwh

.m hpommgc

.m Haouwsm

.3 cwad

.m H<

.m naaoocmm

.m masons

.m Amway naaoucmm
.m oosum

.m ancma

.m smpwum

.a “coma aszawa

 

t“.

E

>1
E:

V E

a
a x x
an

E5!

HNM:U\\CF\Q/ cm: H mmjmor-cocro Hm MdmONw (3‘0 HN mam

rzpnrdrirlrapardnlnsm

Hr-‘I

 

.u Gamaapms
.9 thLB

.m adamm

.m mascou
.0 umpmmLm:
.7 mfigcp0H>
.2 mcwmpooo
.h mmwucwu
.m mfipasw

.r maawo

.m mspmx

an mcfipmgp¢o
.U odoapmno
.m Copmnm
moCmumcoo

-v~«\«\«\«\w\«1«\«\«\«\«\w\«\w\"\fl\fl\"\"\".F\Fun

f'" r‘“\ (

MMrV\ r~fi:w

a“:

 

(LC... (c

[HFWICC

CtCt(.8 pochva.d d_d 8 6 I.L.L.L
.C.Lhu,ouH.anc»n1:c.c.L 0,6nunanv

 

I I_L.L.L l

 

Enrtat .).,.

|I

V

”4.111. 95hr?» 8T...

 

asap noowono

 

.FM c o m o n o m

H H a s n

 

m ccfiuomw w compo

Hoogom swam neacsb cmEuHS;

140

MO

(“0-4
mm

00
Int-1

NH

Sch

gira
r¢c>
PIC)
r1r¢
“If!
(v.4
o o
c>c>
c>c>
uan

\OM
HO
(EH
NO
Pic-i
.d-M
00
NH
NH
NW
00
1‘“!
NH
0‘0]
:0

a noowono Haausfi
x uo>38m $398

 

 

>1

77>."

XX

K

K

N

MKS

I
‘

»:>

I
\

81>

>1

11a swan

.> Hamm
gamma oHoaam
.m moapano
.m Hammmsm
.m mosmh

.m maowmpo
.m Hammmsm
.& cmH<
.x H¢

.m naaoucam
.m maSoce
Amouv naaoucmm
.m oosum

.m acumc

.m so>ouw

AGOHV pdzupc

.m

.m

.<

 

>1

 

I
‘

M x

E:
x><>

r—

>1
x
a

x x V

HNMJmOD-CDOOHCUMJWOFQO‘OHNMJMOFfiO‘O HNMJ‘UW

r—IHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMM

 

.N cn>aaunall

.9 scape
.m saamm
.m mascou
.c pmgmwpmx
.: mflpcpofiw
.2 «Campomc
.h mmmvcfia
.a mH>Hmm
.m mapmo
.m Assam
mewptnpmo
u mamapmsu
.m cathw
oucmuwCoo

0C)

.¢

"HfirfiWN"\W\"\N\W\W\F\N\Nvfir1(flWN”\W\F\“\Fufltfiffiffifl\fl\fl\fifl"M“

 

{Cert
Shlrl

 

€€£a7uaaaaaa_datttt
7»T.O/OIU.LnVrDfiWrtLCILAUIDHUILAV

.LT.T.I I I
rfihuCCZ I 070.3.Ln7rDhWCCPVT.

 

Oadz

nooaono

 

 

.HiJu
rr

: o m o z o m

H H o z a

 

m :ofipomm

a .s..a
Hoocom nmfim noficsw caspfic;

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY TABLE

141

142

SUMMARY TABLE

 

 

Jr. High Scho

 

01

Grade 7 Section. 5

 

 

 

Matrix CTMM Sociometric Total
Table Name Total P* Criteria Choices S**
Number IQ C I II III Received C
1 Constance A. 102 A 3 3 4 10 A
2 Sharon B. 104 A 2 4 9 15 S
3 Charlene c. 106 A 6 5 2 13 AA
4 Catherine D. 111 A 3 6 7 16 S
5 Kathy E. 88 A O O O O I
6 Carla H. 80 SL 3 1 2 6 BA
7 Sylvia H. 108 A 2 5 2 9 A
8 Lindsay J. 127 RL 4 4 2 10 A
9 Georgina M. 94 A O l 0 1 N
10 Victoria N. 115 RL 4 2 4 10 A
11 Margaret 0. 97 A 2 2 1 5 BA
12 Connie S. 113 A 2 2 2 6 BA
13 Sally S. 132 G 6 5 8 19 S
14 Trudy T. 112 A l l 1 3 N
15 Marilynn Z. 115 RL 7 5 6 18 S
16 Arthur A. 112 A 7 7 5 19 s
17 Steven B. 123 RL 0 O O O I
18 Daniel E. 115 RL 0 O O O I
19 Bruce E. 100 A 2 3 O 5 BA
20 Randolph H. 117 RL 1 1 2 4 BA
21 Thomas H. 107 A 2 1 2 5 BA
22 Randolph K. 109 A 4 3 1 8 A
23 Al K. 113 A 1 O l 2 N
24 Alan K. 118 RL 1 l l 3 N
25 Russell P. 100 A 5 6 u 15 s
26 Gregory P. 122 RL 12 l2 12 36 S
27 James R. 100 A O 2 2 4 BA
28 Russell 8. 98 A 4 2 5 11 A
29 Charles S. 109 A O O O O I
30 Harold S. 115 RL 7 7 5 19 S
31 Paul V. 114 A 2 3 3 8 A
32 Hugh w. 104 A 3 2 3 8 A
* Psychometric Category ** Sociometric Category
HG Highly Gifted S Star
G Gifted AA Above Average
RL Rapid Learner A Average
A Average BA Below Average
SL Slow Learner N Neglectee
E Educable I Isolate

APPENDIX D

MUTUAL CHOICE TABLE

143

..v~.~v./\.T u.~...&~.v-r~ .~<...~..:\<

1AA

 

 

 

 

.HH.H < - < w -w a - < moa-:ofi mm-mm
HHH.HH am - a a -w a - a ooH-eHH sm-am
HHH.HH.H m - m mm-ma am - am mma-mHH mm-om

.H m - m malma a - am ooH-mHH mm-om
HHH.HH.H m - m ma-ma a - gm maalmaa ma-om

.HH.H am - a m -HH < u a soa-mm Hm-mm

.HH.H an - m m -mm < - am ooH-mmH ma-mm
HHH.HH.H m - m ma-mm a - am mHH-mmH ma-mm
HHH.HH m - m mfl-ma a - < HHH-ooH :-mm

.HH m l m mH-mH < - a :oH-QOH m-mm
HHH.HH.H am - < a -m am - a sHH-moa om-mm

.H <m - a m -w a - a ooa-moa ma-mm
HHH a - m oH-mH am - am mHH-mHH oa-ma
HHH.HH.H a - m oa-wa am - am ama-maa m-mH

.HH.H <m - m 6 -ma am - am ow -mHH m-ma

.HH.H << - m ma-ma a - am moa-mHH m-mH
HHH.HH.H a - m 6H-mH am - e mHH-mmH oa-mH

.HH 2 - m H -ma a - 0 am -mma m-mH

.H a - <m 6H-m am - < smH-mHH m-mH
.H a - <m ofl-m < - a moa-mfla H-mH
HHH.HH.H am u <m w -m am - a ow -sm 6-HH

.HH.H a - am 6H-m a - a moH-am H-HH
HHH.HH.H << - a ma-oa a - am moa-maa m-oa

.HH.H << - a mH-oH a - am moa-sma m-w

.HH.H m - < 6H-m < - a Haa-woa a-w
HHH.HH.H m - < ma-m a - a eoa-moH m-s
HHH.HH.H m - m ma-©a a - < eoa-HHH m-:

ambasz moflpowmpmo nm>flmomm mmofloco moflpowmpmo mGH manESZ
Sofipmpflho OHmeEOHoOW .HmQESZ HmpOB owflpwEOSOKAmm HmpOB mHQmE
2296 xapemz
m searemm s 66666 Hoocem swam

 

mqmde MOHomo Q<DBDE

APPENDIX E

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS

BY CTMM TOTAL SCALE IQ SCORES

145

146

(\Jr—{MLfl

H

Lfl

,.._4

r—{N (\J m
) LI\-:I‘

I—i[\-L(\\r—{ [\

rx

r—iCUr—iLflr-i
if UNQ‘NKO
L(\\O-Zf<1’\0

(Ev

(\Jr—i
(\JC‘JCU—j
r—i—ZIOJ
(\JCU 3N
r—{OWO’Wr—im
(“Ur—{0‘1

m

r—1
r—lr—MMOJ
r-{
Hm

r—ir—i

elaraod
H

H

oma
Hma
mm

mmfi
qma

mmfl
mMH
mma
mMH
@mfi

03H
HJH
mad
32H

maa
mea

sea
93H

mmH_

 

mpcmcsu
LoQESZ
Hmeoe

m mpmHOmH oopomamoz mwmno>< mmmtm>< mmmpo>< 666m
zoaom o>op<

 

mmflpomopmo QHmeEoHoom

0H

mamom
Hmeoe

 

 

mmmoom 0H md<©m Q<HOB SEED xm mBZMQDEm m0 ZOHHDQHmHmHQ MOEMD6mmm

147

 

 

OO :H w OH mH s OHH
mm m NH OH wH NH mH HHH
ma w mH OH mm HH mH mHH
am 0 NH H mm m w MHH
so m w mH 3H 0H mH HHH
mm m mH oH sm A Hm mHH
3s 2 OH MH mm HH OH mHH
mm H MH mH mm m mH NHH
ms N MH HH :m s :H wHH
HA m m 0H om s mm mHH
on m w OH Om OH mm OmH
mm H w mH OH m m HmH
HQ 2 MH OH OH m OH mmH
m m m H mm a w mmH
m: s 3H mH m m qu
a: O m 6H HH O O mmH
o: m m m m a m OmH
m: H m m NH m a smH
mm m m m mH m : me
H: m mH mH H m OmH
mpCOOSHm mpmHomH ooHomeoz owmgo>< mwmpo>< owmnm>< mem OH
popesz onmm o>on< mHmom
Hmuoe Hmpoe

mmHLommumO OHLHOEoHoom

 

 

 

 

UOSCHHCOOIIM XHQZMmm<

148

 

 

OH O m a O O O OO
OH O O O a H O OO
Om H O O O O a O
OO O O a O O O OO
mm a O O O O OO
mm O O O O H O OO
:O O O 3 O O O HO
:O O a O O O O OO
3 O O OH i O O OO
O: H OH OH OH O O HO
O: O O O OH O O OO
OO O O O O a O OO
O: O O OH OH 3 3 NO
HO O O HH OH O O OO
OO 2 OH OH OH O OH OO
OO O HH OH OH O OH OOH
OO O O OH OH O O HOH
HO O OH O OH O OH mOH
:O O HH HH mm a HH OOH
ON H OH OH HO OH HH OOH
OO 2 O O :H O HH OOH
OO O OH OH mm O O OOH
OO O OH OH OO O OH OOH
ON OH O OO OO O NH OOH
O O H Hm OO O O. OOH
mpcmcspm OOOHOOH OOOOmHOOz OOOLO>< OOOLO>< OOOLO>< LOHO OH
LOQEOZ onOm O>on< OHOOm
Hmpoe HOOOB

OOHLQOOHOO OHmeEoHOom

 

 

 

OOOCHHCOOIIm XHQZWOO<

149

 

OOOO

CUP—IN

mow—4

KOCJJ-fi'r—l \OCU-ZI'J‘r—i

OH
OH
3H
OH
3m

OOO

mm r-{r—i

(\lr—i

(UH—T

H3O OHO OOO

MHHN

,_{
.II‘
HJF—if—i

MMQ'J'CU
O\L(\-:I"—:TL(\
SCH-3010}

OOO as: mHeOOH
OO
OO
H HO

OO
H OO

(\Jr—i
rHrAH
(I)
N

OCH—{H
mmH
O
CO

 

OOCOOOOO
LOOEOZ
Hmpoe

OOOHoOH

OOOOOHOOZ OOOLO>< OOOLO><
onOm

OOOLO>< LOHO OH
O>on< OHOOO

 

OOHLQOOOOO OHLOOEoHooO

HOHOB

 

 

 

OOSCHHCOOulm XHQZMOO<

APPENDIX F

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS

BY TOTAL NUMBER OF CHOICES RECEIVED

150

151

Hoar—{HMO} HLflfflq U\L(\O\CD\O

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
Om
Hm
mm
Om
am
Om
Om
Om
Om
Om
OO
HO
mO
H OO
2O
OO
H OO
NO
OO
OO
O:
H H:

H
H(flr4 .:

Hrnc3:-

madam::

:J\e4 U\Lr\

HAOJmcm
cu11\e4.—+Cu:1\cu:: cu #—

,._.|
.H
odwuoradno:rU\OwH:rdi
HrHr4
HlH

HHHPemHqummmmmm.q-L\
r-{n—i
v—l

 

macmOaOO
LOQEOZ

Hares

OOOLOOOO LOCLOOH OOOLO>< LOCLOOH OOHOHO OOHHHO OOOHoQO
memoscm SOHO OHQOO OHSOHO OHLHOE
:oHOom

 

mmHhoOOHOO OHLHOEozomOO LOOEOZ

 

 

 

 

OO>HOOOO OOOHOOO mo mmmzaz H<HOH Om OeszOHO mo zOHHOmHmaOHO HOZOOOOOO

152

 

 

 

OOOO HH OOH OqOH OOO OOH H OHOHoO

OOO O OH OqH O: OH O

OOH O HO O: HH H

OOH O OO OO O O

OOH O OOH O OH O

OOH O HOH OH OH O

OH OH OO O: O O

OOH H OH HOH OO OH O

HOH H O OO OO O O

OOH H O OO O O O

OOH O OO OO OH H O

OOH O OO O: OH OH

OOH O OO OO HH HH

OHH : OO OO O OH

OO O O: OO OH OH

OO H a O: OO O :H
OHCOOSOO OOOLOOOO LOCLOOH OOOLO>< LOCLOOH OOOOHO OOHOHO OOOHQOO
LOQEOZ OHQOOOOm onO OHOOO OHanm OHLHOE

HOOOE :oHOoO

OOHLoOOHOO OHLOOEogohOO prejz

 

lll’.‘II|I

 

OOOCHHCOOIum XHQZMOO<

"llllllllllllllll“